Jordan Peterson

[ooo]

"Rethinking an idea of revolution capable of interrupting the disastrous course of things is to purge it of every apocalyptic element it has contained up to now."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Committee

the revolution right now

[Bertrand]

not to mention the recreation of a limited model that purports itself to describe humanity, but throws out all it doesn't understand at the onset, is like just laundering the definition of AI. its not a real AI, its simply described as such because the model its based on discarded everything that was incapable of being modeled at the time the model was constructed. but its precisely in that content that what makes people uniquely human. so the model is reproduced but it lacks all meaning because its just a Frankenstein. as far as I can tell something like faster than light travel is much more feasible than "strong AI", since "strong AI" is just a word game. it draws on people like dennett and take for granted hes "explained consciousness" when he's really explained it away, and excluded from consideration precisely the elements that give it its unique complexity. its like taking the idea that what we don't understand cannot be understood and therefore isn't real, then recreating an AI based on what we do understand and calling it complete because it accurately instantiates the model, but the mode is lacking in the first place, so the whole thing becomes a kind of sleight of hand

it also totally takes for granted that ability to leverage force is somehow the measuring stick by which we determine superiority, so like robots that shoot well are like superior to humans when its like they're not even subhuman because the entire paradigm cuts out the fact that what gives a being its ability to rise above is its capacity to evolve value judgements. this idea that robots are going to have it within them to do that based on a nested program of spatial superiority via force is so obtuse its insane. its like there's literally nothing for these robots to do except conquer space and thats precisely how people envision them, its like what a product of limited minds all around. this is precisely why even if they managed to make killer robots the killer robots would always lose on a long enough timeline because they lack all imagination. its like people cant even comprehend what imagination is and assume that "taking over" means they wrest control over the imagination. its almost like it takes for granted a subservient and compliant alpha quadra as part of the a priori spoils of war. its a psychological presupposition that is built into their worldview extended out to what is going to happen with robots

[timber]

Embark on a visionary journey through the fragmented unconscious of the West, and with courage face the Shadow. From Shadow into Light.

[Singu]

as far as I can tell something like faster than light travel is much more feasible than "strong AI", since "strong AI" is just a word game.

Well you must not know physics, because faster-than-light travel is forbidden by the laws of physics, while the programming of a "strong AI" is not forbidden by the laws of physics. Namely, the universality of computation, according to the Turing principle, states that any acts of physical objects that obey the laws of physics (such as the firing of the neurons in the brain), can be emulated in any amount of arbitrary fine detail by a program on a computer, provided that it has been given enough time and memory.

I guess Steven Pinker put it this way:

Thomas Hobbes's pithy equation "Reasoning is but reckoning" is one of the great ideas in human history. The notion that rationality can be accomplished by the physical process of calculation was vindicated in the 20th century by Turing's thesis that simple machines are capable of implementing any computable function and by models from D. O. Hebb, McCullough and Pitts, and their scientific heirs showing that networks of simplified neurons could achieve comparable feats. The cognitive feats of the brain can be explained in physical terms: to put it crudely (and critics notwithstanding), we can say that beliefs are a kind of information, thinking a kind of computation, and motivation a kind of feedback and control.

This is a great idea for two reasons. First, it completes a naturalistic understanding of the universe, exorcising occult souls, spirits, and ghosts in the machine. Just as Darwin made it possible for a thoughtful observer of the natural world to do without creationism, Turing and others made it possible for a thoughtful observer of the cognitive world to do without spiritualism.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are...l-intelligence

[Bertrand]

that's precisely my point.. light is set up as a limitation of the model that can't be transgressed, but it belies the fact that reality is something more than the model and therefore there exists the potential to transcend it. whereas AI does the opposite which sets the bar with the model and them claims victory as if it can achieve it by satisfying the model but the model is something less than reality too

[Singu]

So something that's forbidden by the laws of physics is more feasible than something that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, ok. We're saying that it's already possible.

The programming of a "strong AI" is not forbidden by the laws of physics. In fact Alan Turing went as far as saying that anything that happens in the human brain can be written, and hence you have the infamous "Turing test" (which I think is an inadequate test). And since the CPU in your computer is basically founded on the Turing principle, a program on a computer can emulate virtually anything. If you don't think it's possible, then perhaps you should stop using your computer, since it is founded on and depends on the Turing principle.

[Bertrand]

yes that's my point

[falsehope]

[xerx]

So, this just happened:

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

I'll reserve judgement on the veracity of these statements until clarification from JP.
If they're true, then calling Jordan Peterson an advocate for absolute freedom of expression begins to look sarcastic.

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil. He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

^ because redistributing wealth would never stabilise society and lead to lower crime rates. /sarc


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html

[Bertrand]

preventing hordes of single men from violence is necessary for the stability of society. all this guy did was juxtopose a bunch of quotes that makes it sound like peterson wants to enslave women for the good of society, when all peterson is saying is that the development of monogomy was out of the societal need to control young men. its a weird way to twist what he's saying because what he's actually saying is that men were on the receiving end of control, not necessarily in control. peterson is saying monogomy developed as a pragmatic solution to the problem of violent men with nothing to lose, because when 1 man had 100 women, the other 99 essentially could gamble big with their lives and either die and essentially lose nothing or win big in order to become the 1/100 man, and this lead to a turbulent society. he really doesn't even touch the issue of women, although later in the article they make it sound like he came up with the idea that chaos was associated with the feminine, when all jordan does is point out that its only been associated that way as a matter of the collective unconscious for all of history. they make it sound like he's endorsing it, when he's simply facing facts. furthermore a large part of jordan's philosophy is that chaos is a necessary part of progress and the feminine is "fertile" in that sense, which makes sense because that's what femininity is. it is not a loaded term, but the article goes out of its way to re-insert political bias and make it sound like jordan is on the wrong side of the progressive agenda, when jordan's philosophy is actually psychological in its essence and outside petty political maneuvering. the fact that men like him is used to suggest that he's artificially pandering to them in some kind of quid pro quo, but they have the causal timeline backward. Jordan explored these ideas and then presented them and men happened to respond to them. If you listen to Jordan he talks about how surprised he was at that fact because psychology is mostly women. he certainly didn't set out with that in mind. this entire article paints him as some kind of politician making every move calculated to rise to power and in doing so is simply projecting their own way of thinking onto him. if they understood peterson and didn't just get assigned to write articles about him imposing their own point of view, they'd realize he stands for the position that would like to explode that paradigm of petty control. it turns out whoever the writer is can't get past guilt by association though, which is too bad (not to mention implicitly sexist/racist) because the progressive agenda really needs people like peterson, and there's a subset of them convinced he's their enemy. if you can get past the fact that white men like peterson, it turns out hes actually politically liberal, just not marxist, people assume that makes him some kind of nazi but it just goes to show how stunted their thinking is

[xerx]

The point is that he's vociferously opposed to equality of outcome in every other respect.

[Bertrand]

yeah so? equality of outcome as necessary feature for the founding of civilization doesn't put you on the hook for every slogan that falls under that banner in the future. Im sure he'd be for equity of outcome again if civilization itself depended on it. the point is people want to make it the go to solution instead of the last resort, and he says there's reasons thats bad. also your one liners signifying nothing are the central problem with political discourse in this day and age, because they attempt to cut off critical thought right at the threshold of your stupid agenda when that is precisely where its needed most. do you think of yourself as on the side of good? of course you do

[xerx]

Two things:

1. Forced sexual etiquette is orders of magnitude worse more authoritarian than forced pronoun etiquette (which btw he lied about or misrepresented).
2. Sex redistribution is 100% unadulterated equality of outcome, whereas wealth redistribution (i.e. progressive taxation) is not. The rich pay higher taxes because they benefit more from government infrastructure.

Like I said though, I'll wait for clarification from JP.

[Bertrand]

that is a really dumb comparison and just shows you don't understand JP at all: "JP is about forced sexual etiquette" <-- pure projection, if you want to spend your time fighting this shadow its not JP you're dealing with anymore. you say youll wait for clarification as if he needs to account to you, this is just illusory pretension. the answer is already available right now if you'd just take the time to research the issues instead of living in an ideological echo chamber. but whatever keep posting JP content, I'll continue to address it and people can decide for themselves what to believe

[timber]

preventing hordes of single men from violence is necessary for the stability of society. all this guy did was juxtopose a bunch of quotes that makes it sound like peterson wants to enslave women for the good of society, when all peterson is saying is that the development of monogomy was out of the societal need to control young men. its a weird way to twist what he's saying because what he's actually saying is that men were on the receiving end of control, not necessarily in control. peterson is saying monogomy developed as a pragmatic solution to the problem of violent men with nothing to lose, because when 1 man had 100 women, the other 99 essentially could gamble big with their lives and either die and essentially lose nothing or win big in order to become the 1/100 man, and this lead to a turbulent society. he really doesn't even touch the issue of women, although later in the article they make it sound like he came up with the idea that chaos was associated with the feminine, when all jordan does is point out that its only been associated that way as a matter of the collective unconscious for all of history. they make it sound like he's endorsing it, when he's simply facing facts. furthermore a large part of jordan's philosophy is that chaos is a necessary part of progress and the feminine is "fertile" in that sense, which makes sense because that's what femininity is. it is not a loaded term, but the article goes out of its way to re-insert political bias and make it sound like jordan is on the wrong side of the progressive agenda, when jordan's philosophy is actually psychological in its essence and outside petty political maneuvering. the fact that men like him is used to suggest that he's artificially pandering to them in some kind of quid pro quo, but they have the causal timeline backward. Jordan explored these ideas and then presented them and men happened to respond to them. If you listen to Jordan he talks about how surprised he was at that fact because psychology is mostly women. he certainly didn't set out with that in mind. this entire article paints him as some kind of politician making every move calculated to rise to power and in doing so is simply projecting their own way of thinking onto him. if they understood peterson and didn't just get assigned to write articles about him imposing their own point of view, they'd realize he stands for the position that would like to explode that paradigm of petty control. it turns out whoever the writer is can't get past guilt by association though, which is too bad (not to mention implicitly sexist/racist) because the progressive agenda really needs people like peterson, and there's a subset of them convinced he's their enemy. if you can get past the fact that white men like peterson, it turns out hes actually politically liberal, just not marxist, people assume that makes him some kind of nazi but it just goes to show how stunted their thinking is

Yeah basically Petterson is saying “ya we get it.. now what?.. where is this headed here? Here is what we know so far and this is the best we can possibly come up with so stop whining and start dealing with it” Its like he is so amalgamated feminism into the narrative that he sounds like he is coming from a place of retrograde when actually its just ahead of the curve.

[Singu]

lol Jordan Peterson is appealing to the incels... and of course Bertrand comes to his rescue.

[xerx]

that is a really dumb comparison and just shows you don't understand JP at all: "JP is about forced sexual etiquette" <-- pure projection, if you want to spend your time fighting this shadow its not JP you're dealing with anymore. you say youll wait for clarification as if he needs to account to you, this is just illusory pretension. the answer is already available right now if you'd just take the time to research the issues instead of living in an ideological echo chamber. but whatever keep posting JP content, I'll continue to address it and people can decide for themselves what to believe

forcing people to be monogamous is an authoritarian measure. whether or not you think it's morally correct or necessary, you have to admit that it's at least on the same level as forcing people to use pronouns they don't like.

if the answer is so obvious, why not tell me.

[Bertrand]

nah, figure it out on your own

[woofwoofl]

can't even compare Jordan Peterson as a really lame white-and-proud-but-not version of Al Sharpton for stunted obsolete quasi-dudebros -- Al doesn't deserve that shit; I tried, and I still feel really gross, like I hit "delete" before posting but I still need a shower

and to think the sub-tartarean depths of the manosphere goes down countless light-years further still, like one could die and be reborn a million times before passing Stefan Molyneux on the way down, screaming blood-foam into the abyss, and still be well in the top half

[Singu]

Jordan Peterson will pay dearly for encouraging and empowering all the alt-rights and the incels, after he has done creating a new generation of embittered young (and old) men wrecking havoc in the social and political arena. He will no longer be able to control this movement, and he will eventually come to regret it, because these people will eventually end up destroying all the things that he had hoped to achieve.

We're barely in the foothills of the mountains of madness that the internet and social media are unleashing into our political process. If you think petty demagogues like Jordan Peterson are good at milking cash from the crowd, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Because he was just the beginning – and his ideology of the white male victim is rapidly spiralling into something that even he can no longer control.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8354346.html

[niffer]

funniest page on the forum ever lol

[Singu]

[Singu]

LOL the parallels between Jordan Peterson and Bertrand are just too funny... He really speaks like Bertrand, and Bertrand speaks like him.

“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”

It’s a hard one.

“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”

But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html

[Bertrand]

you flatterer

[Singu]

you flatterer

I'm glad you relate with a charlatan cult leader.

[xerx]

Jordan Peterson issued a clarification on his earlier statement about enforced monogamy. He was referring to "socially-enforced" monogamy, as opposed to any kind of political solution, which was obvious from the start given his fiery denunciation of state involvement in general.

So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

He's careful to word it so that it's technically neither an appeal or an endorsement, just a logical conclusion based on the application of empirical science.

> Optimistic case: it would be enforced through gentle encouragement.
> Pessimistic case: it would be enforced through intimidation & slut shaming.

He often does this to avoid being pinned down into a normative position while trying to seem like an apolitical observer. One might instead wonder at the direction of Peterson's rhetoric if, for the noble cause of social harmony, the usage of politically correct pronouns was effected by the same types of social pressures.

[Bertrand]

are you saying you wish peterson came out with more explicit moral recommendations for you instead of simply describing logical relationships

[niffer]

are you engaging in projection

[Singu]

He often does this to avoid being pinned down into a normative position while trying to seem like an apolitical observer. One might instead wonder at the direction of Peterson's rhetoric if, for the noble cause of social harmony, the usage of politically correct pronouns was effected by the same types of social pressures.

Justifications of something for the sake of "social harmony" never seems like a good idea, and you can give unlimited justifications for pretty much any existing or hypothetical social trends. I think it's a typical rhetoric of authoritarians who want to keep things the same (as in, don't rock the boat).

So he's saying: "Monogamy is good, because it decreases male violence!" - but this is obviously backwards and it seems like he just wants to justify monogamy with "data" (I would think this is more correlation, not causation. For instance the causation isn't that marriages cause people to become more wealthy; it's that poor people can't get married. So perhaps that it may not be that monogamous relationships lead to less violence, but people who are violent don't stay monogamous). I don't necessarily disagree that monogamy might be a good thing, but he has to be able to come up with a better moral argument than that.

I mean really? Let's just educate men to not be violent and throw a tantrum (or worse, go on a shooting spree) instead, if they can't get a woman because they're too repulsive. What they need is more emotional intelligence to regulate their own emotions. Why does he not think that this is probably more of a cognitive/psychological issue, that perhaps the reason why they act this way, is because they think that they have a right to having women or right to have sex? Otherwise they wouldn't be feeling so indignant, embittered and victimized.

And what about all the violence that goes on inside of monogamous relationships? And what about all the other male violence, despite the fact that we already do live in largely culturally monogamous societies? These issues can't be solved by "enforcing monogamy" alone.

[Raver]

JBP did not mean enforced monogamy in the way the NYT article portrayed it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpe...88964719464449

Being a well known political vigilante sucks:



I guess it's easier to crucify him and brand him a heretic because he made a mistake in his wording. Instead of trying to figure out what he actually meant to say.

[Singu]

JBP did not mean enforced monogamy in the way the NYT article portrayed it:

I guess it's easier to crucify him and brand him a heretic because he made mistake in his wording. Instead of trying to figure out what he actually meant to say.

Even if we go by what he "really" meant, it would still make us feel uncomfortable, because he's trying to use monogamy as a justification to reduce male violence. It's like trying to justify prostitution, because supposedly it reduces rape and other male violence. In that way, you can justify pretty much anything in the name of reducing male violence, and hence it's nothing more than a cheap rhetoric. But it's really just catering to the violent men who are the cause of violence in the first place.

[Bertrand]

you can justify almost anything in the name of reducing male violence, including teaching males to be less violent... the point is there was a historical development and he's simply describing it. you're acting like he's advocating when he's explicitly not advocating. at this point if you're going to just transform what he's saying at will why even bother with trying to play it straight, just say JP rapes kids and move on

[Singu]

you can justify almost anything in the name of reducing male violence, including teaching males to be less violent... the point is there was a historical development and he's simply describing it. you're acting like he's advocating when he's explicitly not advocating. at this point if you're going to just transform what he's saying at will why even bother with trying to play it straight, just say JP rapes kids and move on

Yes, and that's exactly why it's so asinine and dishonest. Are we in monogamous relationships, not because we love the person and want to be in one and generally it's good and fair and just, but we just want to reduce male violence? I don't think many people will be convinced by that kind of an argument, and hence people call out on Jordan Peterson. It's basically Plato's "noble lie".

[Bertrand]

but he's not saying that, so they're calling out a strawman. they're just fighting with their own illusions. you can be in a monogomous relationship and it still be true love and so forth. he's just saying people weren't permitted, at least not without difficulty, to marry other people by society. you could actually love tons of additional people and cheat on your wife, or in your heart (Jesus points this out). I think the trouble is people mis-identify the structure of marriage with love itself when in fact they run independently

[Singu]

but he's not saying that, so they're calling out a strawman. they're just fighting with their own illusions. you can be in a monogomous relationship and it still be true love and so forth. he's just saying people weren't permitted, at least not without difficulty, to marry other people by society. you could actually love tons of additional people and cheat on your wife, or in your heart (Jesus points this out). I think the trouble is people mis-identify the structure of marriage with love itself when in fact they run independently

He is saying that we should culturally enforce monogamy, because it would reduce male violence.

Ironically, this is the entire problem with "political correctness", because that kind of enforcement would open the door to all sorts of conspiracy theories, because people would "find out" that monogamy was just a pretense and hypocrisy and so forth, and the "real" aim was to reduce male violence, and that this information was "kept hidden" from them.

All in all, there are much better arguments for monogamy than saying "it reduces male violence". He should find those arguments instead.

[xerx]

are you saying you wish peterson came out with more explicit moral recommendations for you instead of simply describing logical relationships

he dives into fiery polemics instead of simply describing logical relationships when it comes to other types of outcome equalisation. that's the point. maybe he should be telling these murderous incels to go clean their rooms instead.

[Bertrand]

he's not making an argument for monogamy he's explaining its origin in terms of its usefulness. if it seems like an argument you're just acknowledging the merit of the course of action adopted by the people of the past

as for his "fiery polemics" you're acting as if you can't do both, as if its all or nothing and then you go on to say its somehow unfair for him to at different times do one or the either, when its precisely his ability to weave in logically sound concepts with ethical conclusions; its like, no there's no ethical foul move here, that's what makes him great. its funny you perceive this as bad but it comes across as sour grapes more than anything

its weird that you're trying to lump him in with murderous incels (in the sense of somehow being guilty for their misdeeds, poorly defined, being unattractive I guess) because if you were familiar with his material you'd realize how silly that is. not only that, but he tells everyone to clean their room? that is a basic premise, built into his thinking, that people who like him like him for and on which everything else is predicated. this is vaguely reminiscent of Jesus being accused of consorting with prostitutes and tax collectors. the man is a clinical psychologist. it makes sense he appeals to the mentally unwell, its his job to try and help them. I have the sense that if he didn't appeal to "incels" it would be the same argument except faulting him for that instead

this is going to be my last post directly responding to either of you in this thread, although I will continue to debunk copypaste articles from sufficiently newsworthy sources, because I feel like you two can generate an endless amount of waste and I don't want to spend my time like some kind of sewage system

[ooo]

why monogamous tho, why not poly? poly seems better to get rid of frustration but not sure, someone tell peterson pls

[Singu]

he's not making an argument for monogamy he's explaining its origin in terms of its usefulness. if it seems like an argument you're just acknowledging the merit of the course of action adopted by the people of the past

Wrong, he is clearly making a case for monogamy, because it reduces or "solves" the problem of male violence:

all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues

Apparently, he thinks regulating abortion is also a way to face "primary task"?

anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncatego...rced-monogamy/

He is saying that monogamy is a "means" to attaining the end of reducing male violence.

You'd be really insulting people's intelligence, if you continue to insist what Peterson "really" meant or whatever.

why monogamous tho, why not poly? poly seems better to get rid of frustration but not sure, someone tell peterson pls

Because monogamy reduces male violence, according to Peterson.

[ashlesha]

Is there actual data demonstrating that the reason the lower and middle classes are seeing a decline in marriage is because women are busy fucking high status dudes? Isn't that just redpill theorizing? I wish I had seen a direct quote from him instead of paraphrasing from the person who wrote the nyt hit piece. It left a bad taste in my mouth in any case. Looking at the lives of people before 1960 I'm not convinced the decrease in violence in married males includes violence inside the home and that it's not just that women act as buffers for intra male violence - I need to look closer at the research but also a lot of that flies under the radar.