How to navigate academia in the present day– viewpoint diversity 101
In a recent VIP-Q&A after one of your talks, I got to ask you a question regarding graduate school applications, and how you would respond to a request for a “diversity statement” if you were applying in this day and age. You gave a contemplative response, and it was great to have a quick back and forth with you; but I wanted to push back a bit more and see how you would feel about it a month later. Your response to my question was essentially that I should not falsify myself in order to fit in to a program or mentor. That I should “write the thing, see how you feel, and maybe apply to 20 schools instead of six.” This is all great advice, and of course I should not falsify myself. However, it does seem that academia is shooting itself in the foot by putting forth these ideological litmus tests, ensuring that their 80-ish percent left-ish skew will increase to total hegemony. Now, I am not saying that I should outright lie about how I feel, dropping a bunch of DEI buzzwords to show that I am a good-thinking liberal. But given that classical liberals are almost entirely unrepresented in the social sciences, to what degree should I “keep my head down” in my 10 year pursuit of a Ph.D? I can imagine that leading to censoring myself when looking for a faculty position, acquiring tenure, etc. You mentioned that it just might not be a good career choice, and fair enough– but it kills me to see the social sciences only asking a small subset of the questions that they should be asking; because they are actually not a diverse subset of the population (no real-world experience). So I guess my question was a proxy for a more general question, which is: I haven’t given up on the institutions yet, and think I could affect positive change from within given my exceptionally unique background. I contemplated it for a decade, and I’m here now. How would you act if you were in my shoes? What do you think about pursuing the "viewpoint diversity" line of argument?
Synchronicity
Hello Dr. Peterson. I recently attended your lecture in Chicago and eventhough I've watched every YouTube video of yours that I came across, seeing you live was even more enlightening. I especially liked when you spoke about the causality of missed opportunities and the idea that the conscience is a real entity. To me it sounded like you were speaking about Synchronicity. I feel as though you are reticent about using the term. Is this the case and if so then why? Lastly, thank you for having the courage to pick up the Mantle and be the voice of truth for our generation.
spark of divinity and the collectivist steelman
Hi Dr. JBP, I strongly agree that the only way to push back against tribalism is to emphasize the individual as paramount over the group. I've been trying to undermine that position and I'd like to know what you think. Could putting the individual as paramount over the group, when take to the extreme, lead to a selfish, indifferent and narcissistic society?
What is the appropriate way to maintain your aim?
I'm trying to work this out... Personal Context I'm a conceptual thinker who struggles with being disciplined to define the appropriate steps to move forward. The simple solution would be to shrink my goal to something more manageable, but any attempts to do so seem to minimize the ideal in a way that isn't inspiring. At worst feels compromising. Speculation on the landscape of the ideal through the lens of religion In order for religious stories to be incorruptible or un-disprovable they are required to be written at an abstract enough level or low enough resolution to maintain their purity across time. I'm okay with this, and think it’s a blessing. It means there isn't a more detailed structure to follow, we aren't called by the ideal to become automatons. When we attempt to automatize it we inevitably fall into a sort of legalism akin to what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for being. There is a beauty in this freedom. Pop culture reference, the song, The Beauty of Gray, by Live. Rules I once had the epiphany that rules are only required until we no longer need them. You brought detail to this when you talked about the hero being subject to rules until he mastered them, and once mastered, the rules served him. A good pop culture reference to this would be what the Oracle tells Neo in The Matrix. "In the beginning a man was born inside, and given the power to change anything." The implication or my interpretation was that once Neo transcends this iteration of the matrix he would be given this authority. He would be able to change the rules. A rephrasing of the question The title of this question, phrased differently, would be, "How does one create structure that maintains its aim at the ideal in a self-sustaining way?" Structure in this context could either be at the individual level of self-disciplines or collective at the level of institutions. The weakness of institutions being their susceptibility of abdicating responsibility through the division of responsibility and divvying it up to individuals. There's a loss of responsibility when it is severed that manifests itself externally as ignorance. Many interpret this ignorance as intentional and call it corruption. In some cases true, but keeping this theoretical, and only one step more concrete than the low resolution guidance the ideal provides, we're still speaking more idealistically than concretely. An example would be more distracting than revelatory. One more stab at the religious life cycle for clarity Religious institutions tend to go through a life cycle where they are pure inspiration of the original text. Then over time they become more dogmatic and unable to express the purity of the original inspiration. They deaden. Then someone comes along and repeals the dogma, you speak of burning it off like deadwood. Is this inevitable or can measures be taken to actively burn off the deadwood - actively prune? How would you define these rules for pruning, so they don't become dogmatic or whatever the other extreme would be? An old origin expose on the above ideas (I wrote this almost 7 years ago to the day) We start with something pure, an idea. Something that inspires the soul, and motivates persevering action like that of a ripple across water. As the ripple collides and replicates, the limitless well that is recognized in our hearts of the affirmation received tantalizes our dreams. Consideration is replaced by action, as no harm could come from such hope. This must be sustained! And so the construct forms, and begins to fill. As it becomes full, its edges are identified and disappointment ensues. How could something so eternal have limits? Disappointment is replaced by doubt. What have we compromised? What mistake did we make? Is the mistake thinking we can capture it? The ideal is something to be in relation with, not contained and used? --- I realize I'm all over the place with this. Having wrestled with it for years now, I don't know how to pose the question better.