Peterson, Priestcraft, Profits and the Paranormal

[malkie]

Thanks, PG - I was completely unaware of the arrangement between Houdini and his wife.

[Nolan]

I think the academic study of esotericism is important, because it influenced/influences art, fiction, psychology (Jung), and even science (Newton was very interested in alchemy). It also reveals how humans have grappled with questions of meaning, existence, and the divine outside mainstream religious or scientific frameworks. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with being an adherent of an esoteric tradition, as long as you aren't hurting anyone or yourself. And can't non believers of Mormonism still recognize it as an esoteric tradition informed by former esoteric traditions (Hermeticism, Kabbalah, etc.)

Maybe that's off topic.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the academic study of esotericism is important, because it influenced/influences art, fiction, psychology (Jung), and even science (Newton was very interested in alchemy). It also reveals how humans have grappled with questions of meaning, existence, and the divine outside mainstream religious or scientific frameworks. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with being an adherent of an esoteric tradition, as long as you aren't hurting anyone or yourself. And can't non believers of Mormonism still recognize it as an esoteric tradition informed by former esoteric traditions (Hermeticism, Kabbalah, etc.)

Maybe that's off topic.

Oh, Mormon esotericism is alive and well:

https://www.themormontarot.com/

The tarot deck is really something.

- Doc

[Physics Guy]

I reckon people can do most things that aren’t hurting anyone. I once met a guy who was an actual member of the Theosophical Society. He had his membership certificate framed on a wall. It was like meeting a WW1 veteran. He was a harmless old guy who also had a cool model train layout.

There are all kinds of beliefs and practices that are unscientific but can nevertheless be harmless or even useful. Things that get classed—or even class themselves—as esoteric, though, are by definition things that make you pay, in some way, to get in. You have to earn your way into the inner circle, with payments in time or money or whatever that are in addition to the effort of just understanding the ideas themselves, before you can get the whole story. There’s a paywall. That’s the concrete meaning of “esoteric”: it’s the opposite of exoteric, which is public. The more earning your way in there is to do, the more esoteric the thing is.

That means that being into any “esoteric tradition” has an opportunity cost. There are a lot of better things you could learn with the time and effort. So that is hurting the adherent, just in a way that’s hard to notice, because it’s a loss of what could have been.

Furthermore I think that esoterism is correlated with uselessness, because useful knowledge doesn’t need to rely on mystery sandwiches and sunk cost fallacies to attract and retain interest. So an esoteric adherent is also harming others, albeit in a subtle way, by not being as helpful as they could have been if they had learned more useful stuff.

People are allowed to relax. You’re not a bad person for not spending every waking moment learning useful skills. But to me being into esoteric traditions is a bit like smoking or drinking too much. It’s an unwise indulgence that takes more than it gives, just in ways you don’t see, and you’d be better off quitting.

[Nolan]

I reckon people can do most things that aren’t hurting anyone. I once met a guy who was an actual member of the Theosophical Society. He had his membership certificate framed on a wall. It was like meeting a WW1 veteran. He was a harmless old guy who also had a cool model train layout.

There are all kinds of beliefs and practices that are unscientific but can nevertheless be harmless or even useful. Things that get classed—or even class themselves—as esoteric, though, are by definition things that make you pay, in some way, to get in. You have to earn your way into the inner circle, with payments in time or money or whatever that are in addition to the effort of just understanding the ideas themselves, before you can get the whole story. There’s a paywall. That’s the concrete meaning of “esoteric”: it’s the opposite of exoteric, which is public. The more earning your way in there is to do, the more esoteric the thing is.

That means that being into any “esoteric tradition” has an opportunity cost. There are a lot of better things you could learn with the time and effort. So that is hurting the adherent, just in a way that’s hard to notice, because it’s a loss of what could have been.

Furthermore I think that esoterism is correlated with uselessness, because useful knowledge doesn’t need to rely on mystery sandwiches and sunk cost fallacies to attract and retain interest. So an esoteric adherent is also harming others, albeit in a subtle way, by not being as helpful as they could have been if they had learned more useful stuff.

People are allowed to relax. You’re not a bad person for not spending every waking moment learning useful skills. But to me being into esoteric traditions is a bit like smoking or drinking too much. It’s an unwise indulgence that takes more than it gives, just in ways you don’t see, and you’d be better off quitting.

Disclaimer: I’m not into esotericism, I’m just interested in why some people are.

Suppose that someone is interested in esotericism, researches it, truly believes [esoteric practice] will be useful in their lives. The “cost” they pay is the time spent learning its rituals, artifacts, beliefs, and practices. This person does not know ex ante that maybe their life will be better if they spend that time learning physics, right? There isn’t a way to know that.

[Chap]

Suppose that someone is interested in esotericism, researches it, truly believes [esoteric practice] will be useful in their lives. The “cost” they pay is the time spent learning its rituals, artifacts, beliefs, and practices. This person does not know ex ante that maybe their life will be better if they spend that time learning physics, right? There isn’t a way to know that.

There is no way for people to be certain that the study of physics will be more rewarding than the study of 'esoteric practices' seen as something that might be 'useful in their lives'. Certainty is very rarely, if ever, obtainable in decisions about human life choices.

But given a little time spent looking into the huge benefits that clearly can and frequently are gained by people who study physics or any other modern science, and comparing those with the very dubious evidence base suggesting that 'esoteric practices' offer anything beneficial to those who devote their lives to studying them, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the study of physics is much more likely to benefit a person than the study of 'esoteric practices'.

[Nolan]

There is no way for people to be certain that the study of physics will be more rewarding than the study of 'esoteric practices' seen as something that might be 'useful in their lives'. Certainty is very rarely, if ever, obtainable in decisions about human life choices.

But given a little time spent looking into the huge benefits that clearly can and frequently are gained by people who study physics or any other modern science, and comparing those with the very dubious evidence base suggesting that 'esoteric practices' offer anything beneficial to those who devote their lives to studying them, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the study of physics is much more likely to benefit a person than the study of 'esoteric practices'.

I agree with that. Things are rarely certain. But if we take a figure like Jung, who meshed psychology with Western esoteric traditions, it is difficult to say that Jung was not successful or that his time would've been better spent in the pursuit of pure psychology or medicine.

And likewise, the topic of this thread--Peterson--isn't doing any harm by believing in remote viewing, is he?

[I Have Questions]

There is no way for people to be certain that the study of physics will be more rewarding than the study of 'esoteric practices' seen as something that might be 'useful in their lives'. Certainty is very rarely, if ever, obtainable in decisions about human life choices.

But given a little time spent looking into the huge benefits that clearly can and frequently are gained by people who study physics or any other modern science, and comparing those with the very dubious evidence base suggesting that 'esoteric practices' offer anything beneficial to those who devote their lives to studying them, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the study of physics is much more likely to benefit a person than the study of 'esoteric practices'.

I agree with that. Things are rarely certain. But if we take a figure like Jung, who meshed psychology with Western esoteric traditions, it is difficult to say that Jung was not successful or that his time would've been better spent in the pursuit of pure psychology or medicine.

And likewise, the topic of this thread--Peterson--isn't doing any harm by believing in remote viewing, is he?

Well, potentially he is. His audience is pretty gullible, and the remote viewing practitioner that he’s promoting and endorsing, Paul H Smith, sells remote viewing (quackery) courses for thousands of dollars. There’s the potential for a sort of affinity fraud with this. Peterson has yet to declare to his audience whether or not he has personally paid for and participated in those remote viewing courses, and what the outcome was.

[Nolan]

Well, potentially he is. His audience is pretty gullible, and the remote viewing practitioner that he’s promoting and endorsing, Paul H Smith, sells remote viewing (quackery) courses for thousands of dollars. There’s the potential for a sort of affinity fraud with this. Peterson has yet to declare to his audience whether or not he has personally paid for and participated in those remote viewing courses, and what the outcome was.

What makes you think his audience is gullible? Because they are LDS? I don't agree that all Mormons are gullible if that's what you're getting at.

Edit: I barely have any idea who you're talking about, so please take that not as a challenge, but as a curious question.

[I Have Questions]

Well, potentially he is. His audience is pretty gullible, and the remote viewing practitioner that he’s promoting and endorsing, Paul H Smith, sells remote viewing (quackery) courses for thousands of dollars. There’s the potential for a sort of affinity fraud with this. Peterson has yet to declare to his audience whether or not he has personally paid for and participated in those remote viewing courses, and what the outcome was.

What makes you think his audience is gullible? Because they are LDS? I don't agree that all Mormons are gullible if that's what you're getting at.

Edit: I barely have any idea who you're talking about, so please take that not as a challenge, but as a curious question.

Peterson runs a blog called Sic et Non, he has a number of people posting comments on a regular basis. Those comments suggest to me that he has an audience within which are gullible and susceptible people.