Well, he's had debates with Harris on the nature of truth.
You could have a discussion with him on his observance of young men seeing no road or path to follow. A debate on return to tradition versus finding a new path or just e debate on how we got to this point.
However, the topics they choose to debate him on are not topics that they'll win. It often seems that they have never heard the arguments before and have no response to them. You can't keep putting up people to debate him who say there's no such thing as biological sex.
Yeah but Peterson and Harris both share that callous "biology supersedes all" mentality that doesn't always gel with me.
Also, Peterson has a lot of other opinions and theories besides the whole biological sex angle.
I know I'm not smart enough to dispute anything he says, they guy REALLY knows his shit. But, the things he talks about are still his interpretation of the data he researched.
Do they though? It is very easy to overemphasise the biological component of human nature when pushing back against a view that biology is completely irrelevant. I suspect if you questioned Peterson on it, he would give a more nuanced answer.
I mean, full disclosure, I'm not super familiar with Harris. I've seen him on TYT a few times, heard him on Rogan's podcast here and there. But even though he makes some salient points, its hard to align my views with his when he falls back on "Well this is how humans are. They find a religion that teaches them to be sick people and they continue being sick people" . I'm not really educated in psychology or Anthropology, but I know a good handful of muslims, and they're all pretty wonderful people who don't hate women or gays or jews.
So Its hard for me to bite sweeping generalities based on Lobsters when what I see in my day to day is different.
But who knows, I could be wrong.
Which is why I want to see both sides of the issue.
Even Cenk, who was a lawyer and should have some sort of gift of gab, gets flustered when talking to Harris and loses all credibility.
They all believe in nature and nurture, biological and environmental factors. You just have to be very persuasive and loud with the science end of the discussion because the social part of the discussion is so overexposed. At this point, I think the average person goes into those discussions assuming the social factors are paramount when that's not the case. It may be that social factors have been a control mechanism versus biological factors that have been around for thousands of years.
That's the point of the lobster example, that hierarchies aren't a social invention. They exist at a deep level. I was watching a TV series on Monkey World and two different monkey species had hierarchies established within their groups. When they introduced a new male to the spider monkeys, the females eventually pushed the older male out and let the new male into the dominant position. It's a pattern that shows up across nature. He uses lobsters because of their response to anti-depressants and the chemical similarity between us and lobsters
The tough questions come from the comforts of modernity. Does lack of survival needs change what is best for human happiness and functionality?
As for the religious stuff, I think that gets over simplified in the media. Harris posits a lot of thought experiments that people take int he worst possible manner. . You need to employ a certain level of intellectual and emotional maturity when joining that sort of discussion. You can't fly off at the first scary thought.
What is more potentially controversial is Harris not believing in free will. That certainly sets him apart from a Shapiro and Peterson, who have argued with him over such things. I don't understand how you function as a society without free will myself, because if you remove free will as a believed concept then you really cannot have any sense of accountability. You can't blame, punish or separate anyone for their actions if they have no choice in the matter.
