Jordan Peterson

[Singu]

I don't doubt that monogamy might be a good thing, and it might also reduce male violence. But saying that monogamy is good because it reduces male violence is just a really bad justification. It also seems to focus too much on the male side - when perhaps the biggest case for monogamy was to abolish polygyny, which was a big step in increasing women's rights and reducing forced marriages, etc. It also seems to ignore the victims of male violence, particularly the female victims, it also ignores the issues of domestic violence.

All in all, saying "monogamy will solve all or most of the problems of male violence! So let's enforce it!" is just a really lazy argument. It just goes to show that Peterson doesn't exactly think deeply of these issues, and perhaps that he is only coming up with some simplistic religious or magical solutions.

[squark]

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.

Idk. Violent crime in the US was highest in the mid 80s to mid 90s and it still hasn't climbed back up to that rate. There's several theories on why this happened this way, but I don't think monogamy had anything to do with it?

[ashlesha]

I was remembering some study I had seen on social media showing married men are less violent. I went looking for it and found this which provides both an answer to my question about "high status males" (whatever that means) and the general question about what he really meant (in very broad strokes that I don't find all that satisfying).

[ashlesha]

He seems to have a habit of presenting data that supports a certain worldview in a manner which only suggests an ethic in favor of that worldview and then equivocating and implying people are hysterical and assumptive for inferring that he has any opinions at all. I'm not sure how much to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: I just realized I basically just rephrased what @xerx already said. Whatever

[Adam Strange]

I just read an article by a person who said they knew Peterson before he got married, and the person said that Peterson was entirely the kind of person who definitely would "save himself" for marriage. So what you might be seeing in his "well-considered" views is simply the normal justifications that people seek for doing what they want to do anyway.

Cherry-picking data, selective reasoning, etc., all characteristics of the animal mind. It actually takes some hard, rational work to analyze data. If Peterson's popular right now, it's because he, like Trump, is telling some people exactly what they want to hear, regardless of any facts about the matter.

Here is some more data about violence levels in the past few decades and across several other countries: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ndup-for-2018/

Hard to see how monogamy can affect the levels of lead in gasoline or in paint.

[squark]

I was remembering some study I had seen on social media showing married men are less violent. I went looking for it and found this which provides both an answer to my question about "high status males" (whatever that means) and the general question about what he really meant (in very broad strokes that I don't find all that satisfying).

Idk, I think it could as easily be inferred that as men become less violent that they prefer monogamy more. . . in other words, it's just an idea and the data by no means prove it accurate, as there are several other explanations that could be drawn from the same data. Testosterone levels, brain development (men tend to be less violent as they age) and even lead and other toxins in the environment (for example the peak of violence in the US was a time period when there were still high residual levels of lead in the environment from leaded gasolines and paint etc. which diminished with time) could all explain violence levels to a greater degree than the monogamy hypothesis does. I'm pro-monogamy myself, but I don't see the data actually supporting this viewpoint the way he claims it does.

[Singu]

Blaming all social woes on "degradation of morality and traditional values" seems to be a popular way of distracting people from the real issues, and putting the blame on simplistic answers. It's just an ideological or a religious solution to the problem.

If people are becoming less violent, then it's simply a matter of knowing how to become less violent and knowing the causes of what makes people violent.

[ooo]

Here is some more data about violence levels in the past few decades and across several other countries: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ndup-for-2018/

Hard to see how monogamy can affect the levels of lead in gasoline or in paint.

so those statistics show that in the last 30 years criminality rates decreased exponentially, that young people are less criminal than they used to be, and that middle-old aged people instead commit the same, if not more crimes... so what about the marriage rates?



this is from https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

there's been less and less married women in the US in the last 30 years, this means less and less married men, and criminality decreased.

but maybe Peterson talks of something else...

[Adam Strange]

so those statistics show that in the last 30 years criminality rates decreased exponentially, that young people are less criminal than they used to be, and that middle-old aged people instead commit the same, if not more crimes... so what about the marriage rates?



this is from https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

there's been less and less married women in the US in the last 30 years, this means less and less married men, and criminality decreased.

but maybe Peterson talks of something else...

And maybe Peterson is a fucking moron.

[squark]

He seems to have a habit of presenting data that supports a certain worldview in a manner which only suggests an ethic in favor of that worldview and then equivocating and implying people are hysterical and assumptive for inferring that he has any opinions at all. I'm not sure how much to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: I just realized I basically just rephrased what @xerx already said. Whatever

I don't hold it against him. When it comes to psychology and philosophy there's a lot I could learn from him, but when it comes to biology and accurately using data and statistics, I see him as somewhat childish in this regard. I don't think it's purposeful, he may just not know any better. He's a very smart guy, yes, but when I started seeing these things happen so often from someone who I thought should know better it's when I started revisiting the ideas that people brought up re. him being NF. I don't think it's just "ignoring Te" I think it's an analytic lack . . . because yes, Ti leads will sometimes cherry-pick data too, and can emotionally defend half-cocked ideas too at times, but he shouldn't still be doing that at the rate he does for his age/experience/knowledge level. He should be able to look at the actual data and re-evaluate when he's calm, not blinded by an argument or impassioned speech and correct his understanding, but he doesn't.

[ooo]

it's kind of sad, his work had much potential, the book I've read about myths and meanings was good, in the line of Jung's thoughts... but it's all the propaganda around his persona, this need to profess something for the sake of talking, of being seen, heard, like he became this popular opinionist who has to comment on everything, and his ideas became the sad caricature for his egoic tendencies... it would be cool if all of this stimulated people to think, like if they were accompanied through the ideas presented, in a sort of discovery through the passages, that make one say "yes this good!" of the result. not different from what philosophy usually does. but here it's like the Campbell's can, we all want a piece because there's the cute label on it, not because of what it contains. it's kind of sad to see so many people need to buy ideas in can now too. so new millennium anyway..

[Singu]

I don't hold it against him. When it comes to psychology and philosophy there's a lot I could learn from him, but when it comes to biology and accurately using data and statistics, I see him as somewhat childish in this regard. I don't think it's purposeful, he may just not know any better. He's a very smart guy, yes, but when I started seeing these things happen so often from someone who I thought should know better it's when I started revisiting the ideas that people brought up re. him being NF. I don't think it's just "ignoring Te" I think it's an analytic lack . . . because yes, Ti leads will sometimes cherry-pick data too, and can emotionally defend half-cocked ideas too at times, but he shouldn't still be doing that at the rate he does for his age/experience/knowledge level. He should be able to look at the actual data and re-evaluate when he's calm, not blinded by an argument or impassioned speech and correct his understanding, but he doesn't.

Well I'm looking at all the past analysis, and even if you could have typed him "correctly", who could have predicted any of this? And if you say that he has troubles with data and analysis and hence he's an "F" type, then you'd only know that in hindsight (I would argue that it's because he's a clinical psychologist, and hence unlike with the more "scientific" psychologists, they don't deal with much statistical data or analysis). You couldn't have predicted that he would turn out in this way.

So all of this type analysis only says that he is acting in that way in that moment, and so he's type X, and therefore he will always be acting in this way. But that's not actually what happened or what was correctly predicted.

[Adam Strange]

Predictions get better with better data and better hypotheses. Sometimes you just have to wait to get more data.

[Singu]

Predictions get better with better data and better hypotheses. Sometimes you just have to wait to get more data.

Well, we'd have to know what a "type" is. A type is just another way of saying that the personality is stable, and things will stay the same over time. So more and more data just means finding more stuff that will stay the same, within the person.

So some people have typed him LIE or Gamma before, and did he show any "stereotypical" traits of those types in the future? Such as say, making a lot of money. He did make a lot of money through donations, and through selling his book. But it's not as if he made any kind of a "business model" as such.

Or some people typed him Ti, but only to have that rejected by the fact that he's not so good with data and analysis. But did anyone who typed him an F type, correctly predicted that he would be bad at those things? Or who could have possibly predicted that he would be saying odd things, such as we should be more like the patriarchal lobsters?

So I think there's just a kind of ridiculousness with this whole thing, with people once being enamored by him and saying "I like him! I want him to be close to my type, or in my quadra!", and then suddenly when people realize that he's saying some stupid things, now people are saying "I don't want him in my quadra or I don't want him to be my type". It's just a really petty kind of tribalism.

[Adam Strange]

Yes, Socionics is not entirely an empirical science, and people are not entirely predictable. But I do think that it is possible to form some pretty good conclusions from sparse data. Often, those conclusions are wrong, but the wrong conclusions can be corrected with more information and the right conclusions can be useful right now.

This is definitely the viewpoint of someone who evolved from creatures which had to make snap decisions based on hints of information. But you run what you brung.

[Raver]

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.

Personally, I think legalized prostitution is better for reducing male violence than monogamy. What better way to get incels to lose their sexual frustration that may possibly result in violence than prostitution? It is not catering to them either, but rather preventative measures among a host of other reasons to legalize prostitution.

Monogamy should be encouraged for other reasons because it is better for raising children and society. Anyways, I think JBP makes good points most of the time, but it is irritating to see that some people are discrediting him because he made one point that is possibly erroneous. It is basically putting him at an impossible standard that he will eventually break.

[Raver]

1) Those out of control people have bigger problems than simply getting laid. You forget about all the serial killers that prayed on prostitutes.
2) Legalized prostitution is bad for society because you are codifying in law (ST) that that is an acceptable form of work.

I know the problem stems further for these men than simply not having sex and that legal prostitution won't completely solve the problem.

However, it will help alleviate it and reduce the amount of violence IMO. The goal is improvement of the situation rather than complete eradication of the issue.

[wasp]

Monogamy should be encouraged for other reasons because it is better for raising children and society. Anyways, I think JBP makes good points most of the time, but it is irritating to see that some people are discrediting him because he made one point that is possibly erroneous. It is basically putting him at an impossible standard that he will eventually break.

I mostly agree with this part because I wasn't entirely sure if the first part was serious, since I'm iffy on prostitution for several reasons. it's unfair how aggressively he's being misunderstood in order to drive along the narratives of people who may have felt personally "victimized" by him in the past, which isn't in reference to this forum so much as it is the previous controversy surrounding JP and gender-neutral pronouns since I feel like that might've been the catalyst behind recent controversies, along with his growing popularity, which was bound to inspire more controversy by sheer virtue of the media running a fine-toothed comb through JP's words and actions, as if by not being unanimously agreeable, he's somehow made the switch over from a generally well-meaning individual to someone who isn't even remotely worthy of being granted the benefit of the doubt a la society's collective inclination toward demonizing anybody who steps out of line, even if only slightly. it's an example of black-and-white thinking which is very rarely a healthy practice.

I don't think I need to agree with every idea he brings forward in order to respect his intellectual integrity as an individual, which could be extended to this exchange right here. it assumes that I somehow have the monopoly on correct opinions since my metric for measuring the correctness of others' opinions is my own opinions. I'm curious how fellow forumites would feel if the content they posted online was analyzed in a similarly unforgiving manner.

[ashlesha]

I have a friend who is confused because I introduced JP to him like, "this guy is great, you should check him out" and now I routinely criticize things he says lol. But I enjoy engaging with his ideas in the first place because I find them worthy of engaging with. Its stimulating to have exposure to someone you respect and frequently disagree with. Anybody publicly talking about controversial topics is going to be surrounded by blockheads on all sides. But I do sort of suspect that JP knows who is paying his bills. I wouldn't fault him for that.

[Raver]

I mostly agree with this part because I wasn't entirely sure if the first part was serious, since I'm iffy on prostitution for several reasons. it's unfair how aggressively he's being misunderstood in order to drive along the narratives of people who may have felt personally "victimized" by him in the past, which isn't in reference to this forum so much as it is the previous controversy surrounding JP and gender-neutral pronouns since I feel like that might've been the catalyst behind recent controversies, along with his growing popularity, which was bound to inspire more controversy by sheer virtue of the media running a fine-toothed comb through JP's words and actions, as if by not being unanimously agreeable, he's somehow made the switch over from a generally well-meaning individual to someone who isn't even remotely worthy of being granted the benefit of the doubt a la society's collective inclination toward demonizing anybody who steps out of line, even if only slightly. it's an example of black-and-white thinking which is very rarely a healthy practice.

I don't think I need to agree with every idea he brings forward in order to respect his intellectual integrity as an individual, which could be extended to this exchange right here. it assumes that I somehow have the monopoly on correct opinions since my metric for measuring the correctness of others' opinions is my own opinions. I'm curious how fellow forumites would feel if the content they posted online was analyzed in a similarly unforgiving manner.

Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The issue is that people have put him on this pedestal making him the next Jesus of political issues. Then when he makes a few missteps, the vultures pounce on him and make him look like he is some sort of demon or fool since the expectations for him were set so high.

The reality is he is an intelligent and knowledgeable professor that has mostly good ideas and is usually spot on with most things, but is prone to making a few mistakes like most would in his situation. Perhaps, the best way to look at him is to take his ideas with a grain of salt and not throw the baby out of the bathwater either.

[Singu]

What are the examples of "good points" that Jordan Peterson makes?

Personally, I think legalized prostitution is better for reducing male violence than monogamy. What better way to get incels to lose their sexual frustration that may possibly result in violence than prostitution? It is not catering to them either, but rather preventative measures among a host of other reasons to legalize prostitution.

Are you kidding me? Why should the prostitutes have to deal with those violent and frustrated incels? Prostitutes are people too, normal people in fact, just like you and me. It's not like as if we just can use those prostitutes as a tool to reduce male violence and let them be used as punching bags for the sexually frustrated and violent men.

First and foremost, the prostitutes are doing it for the money, and they're not doing it for the noble cause of supposedly reducing male violence in a society, and they don't care to, or want to.

Monogamy should be encouraged for other reasons because it is better for raising children and society. Anyways, I think JBP makes good points most of the time, but it is irritating to see that some people are discrediting him because he made one point that is possibly erroneous. It is basically putting him at an impossible standard that he will eventually break.

I think monogamy can be potentially good for the individuals, and if they wanted, then they can follow monogamy. But that would be a free choice for the individual to make, nothing is enforced. I think making monogamy as a means to an end to reduce undesirable X in a society is creepy.

[ashlesha]

Are you kidding me? Why should the prostitutes have to deal with those violent and frustrated incels? Prostitutes are people too, normal people in fact, just like you and me. It's not like as if we just can use those prostitutes as a tool to reduce male violence and let them be used as punching bags for the sexually frustrated and violent men.

I agree, and also sex itself isn't really the basis of Peterson's argument, which is that men in monogamous pair bonds are less violent, not men who just get laid.

[Raver]

What are the examples of "good points" that Jordan Peterson make?

I think he does a good job of showing how the left has been perverted by authoritarian leftist principles that is detrimental to progressives achieving their goals. He is a self proclaimed classical liberal so he is like a critic within the left calling them out on their foibles. This is very much needed if the left wants to attract rather than alienate people on the fence.

I think monogamy can be potentially good for the individuals, and if they wanted, then they can follow monogamy. But that would be a free choice for the individual to make, nothing is enforced. I think making monogamy as a means to an end to reduce undesirable X in a society is creepy.

That is pretty much what he said though. That people and society should strive for monogamy because it is better for society and children, but he did not mean it by actually forcing people to be monogomous. He could of worded it better though because I think he meant societally enforced monogamy rather than government enforced, which are two vastly different things.

[ashlesha]

I think he does a good job of showing how the left has been perverted by authoritarian leftist principles that is detrimental to progressives achieving their goals. He is a self proclaimed classical liberal so he is like a critic within the left calling them out on their foibles. This is very much needed if the left wants to attract rather than alienate people on the fence.

I don't really disagree with this and I think his presumably nonideological stance gives him a broader appeal, but classical liberals want limited government and are pretty different from leftists.

That is pretty much what he said though. That people and society should strive for monogamy because it is better for society and children, but he did not mean it by actually forcing people to be monogomous. He could of worded it better though because I think he meant societally enforced monogamy rather than government enforced, which are two vastly different things.

What he said is very different from what @Singu said in that he proposed monogamy as a means to an end and not just for the benefit of the individual.

What I want to know and haven't seen is in what way he would envision the social enforcement of monogamy because I think it's already valued. Recent times have seen more financial and sexual freedom for women and less stigma related to being single, and i think these things contribute to a lower marriage rate but I wouldn't favor a change in those conditions.

[Bertrand]

the thing you need to realize is when he says "high status males" he's not making some red pill argument formulated in a basement, he's basing it off of rising/falling serotonin levels observable in all organisms since lobsters (which are genetically archaic which is why they're used as an example).. the bottom line is people are critiquing what they really don't understand, which isn't a problem but they're carrying it over into character judgements which is really silly. also you have people that respond solely as if this is a bandwagon--looking at Adam Strange. this thread hurts my faith in humanity. its basically mob mentality justifying a violent reaction rooted in ignorance and patting itself on the back for doing so

i know the first thing people will say is something like "oh you're just defending your boyfriend" but thats so shallow. Id defend anyone I thought was in the situation peterson is in here, which is to say threatened by group think and ignorance

[xerx]

so... if involuntary celibacy makes men resort to destructive violence, what is men's association with the "order" archetype all about?

My first feelings towards Peterson was that this was a silly man attempting to use spirituality-laden metaphysics to describe reified, empirical phenomena. I'm not bothered now by Peterson's incessant use of flowery, metaphorical language, so much as by their selective usage to mask a political agenda.

[Bertrand]

all your questions would be answered if you actually just researched peterson, and by this I don't mean reading hit pieces but watching his maps of meaning and personality and its transformations series. watch the ones from like 2015 if you think he has a political agenda, or better yet his harvard series from the 90s. you continually just assume bad things about him and then interpret everything in accordance with that, its like you need science in the way singu is always ranting about because you're the poster child for finding whatever it is you're looking for

[Raver]

I don't really disagree with this and I think his presumably nonideological stance gives him a broader appeal, but classical liberals want limited government and are pretty different from leftists.

Yeah, I suppose classical liberals can be interpreted as left leaning libertarians. They are very different from left leaning authoritarians.

Your average leftist is likely in between these two camps. His whole M.O. appears to be that the left is generally moving too close to the authoritarian side of the left and needs to be dialed back closer to classical liberalism.

I agree with him on that and that is largely because my political views coincide closer to classical liberalism or left leaning libertarianism than what is seen as liberalism today.

What he said is very different from what @Singu said in that he proposed monogamy as a means to an end and not just for the benefit of the individual.

What I want to know and haven't seen is in what way he would envision the social enforcement of monogamy because I think it's already valued. Recent times have seen more financial and sexual freedom for women and less stigma related to being single, and i think these things contribute to a lower marriage rate but I wouldn't favor a change in those conditions.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I get the impression that he wants things to go back more on how they used to be in the past in regards to marriage. So "monogamy enforcement" is more based on social pressure for people to get married because society and relatives expect it rather than enforcement by law. I am not saying I necessarily agree with that, but that is how I intepreted it.

[ashlesha]

the thing you need to realize is when he says "high status males" he's not making some red pill argument formulated in a basement, he's basing it off of rising/falling serotonin levels observable in all organisms since lobsters (which are genetically archaic which is why they're used as an example).. the bottom line is people are critiquing what they really don't understand, which isn't a problem but they're carrying it over into character judgements which is really silly. also you have people that respond solely as if this is a bandwagon--looking at Adam Strange. this thread hurts my faith in humanity. its basically mob mentality justifying a violent reaction rooted in ignorance and patting itself on the back for doing so

i know the first thing people will say is something like "oh you're just defending your boyfriend" but thats so shallow. Id defend anyone I thought was in the situation peterson is in here, which is to say threatened by group think and ignorance

I'm glad there's some kind of measurability for what "high status" means but I'm still unconvinced that sexual competition is really so intense - the paper he cites discusses polygynous societies and we don't live in one. Polygamous and even open relationships are somewhat rare and monogamy is still the norm, unless I'm living under a rock. Its possible that my visceral distaste towards the idea is preventing me from seeing the reality of the situation, but I dunno, I see regular dudes and ugly dudes and unwealthy dudes paired off all the time?

He didn't say women should be forced to marry violent and undesirable men, lol, but there was a surface impression that he did, especially in the way the nyt article was written, so I think its not too hard to emphasize with an instinctual self-protective outcry, even if it's based on misunderstanding. Especially given recent events, it's an emotionally charged topic for valid reasons. The unfortunate thing is that people will stick to their guns about what he "really meant" even after the smoke clears.

[Singu]

the thing you need to realize is when he says "high status males" he's not making some red pill argument formulated in a basement, he's basing it off of rising/falling serotonin levels observable in all organisms since lobsters (which are genetically archaic which is why they're used as an example)..

And people like you and Peterson who are easily impressed by words like "serotonin" and "observable" need a lesson in science and biology.

It turns out that serotonin has a complete different effect on humans than on lobsters, and quite obviously, they're rather very different creatures and not a valid comparison:

The same neurotransmitter can have contrasting effects in different organisms. While lower levels of serotonin are associated with decreased levels of aggression in vertebrates like the lobster, the opposite is true in humans. This happens because low levels of serotonin in the brain make communication between the amygdala and the frontal lobes weaker, making it more difficult to control emotional responses to anger.

So not only does it seem unlikely that low levels of serotonin would make humans settle in at the bottom of a hierarchy, it goes to show that lobsters and humans are just not a great comparison.

https://theconversation.com/psycholo...-do-they-90489

This is also highly ironic, and Peterson is making the error of a naturalistic fallacy, that anything that is natural is good, and we should be more like the lobsters. The irony is that monogamy that he's advocating is highly unnatural, as humans don't have a biological basis for monogamy.

the bottom line is people are critiquing what they really don't understand

Oh, I think people understand it perfectly well, they understand that this whole lobster thing is silly, and they're picking up on the idea that Peterson is a guy that's just talking a bunch of nonsense wrapped around in pseudoscience.

[Bertrand]

he's not even saying we need to "enforce" monogamy, he's just saying if you're wondering what its worth its worth what it accomplishes. he's saying if you erode that you need to replace it with something to offset the detriment that is going to fall back into place once the band aid is removed, if you actually care at all. that's all he saying, that social engineering is like tinkering with things they dont understand and there are massive consequences at stake. he's saying you can "teach men not to be violent" and would absolutely be in favor of that, but its presumptuous to just think you're going to go in and radically rejigger everything based on a 10th grade understanding of the issues. hes saying projects like the communist one are rooted in this kind of hubris and its all compassion and good intentions until the gulags get going. he's saying its not enough to want to protect trans people in their capacity of recipients of pronoun usage hes saying they exist in a dual capacity as citizens of a society and if you unravel that society by legitimating methods that have downstream effects on the fabric itself, that whatever benefit they gain is more than offset by what was done to derive it. in other words, peterson would say something like its out of concern for trans people that I don't advocate compelled speech, because they lose out too in the long run from that policy. its like people don't understand that we can respect trans people without resorting to authoritarian methods, and even a trans person who is not authoritarian would agree with that (which by the way peterson has received much support from--there are videos were he has transgender people defend him, etc). anyway in the final analysis peterson didnt come out against trans people because hes been a secret bigot this whole time, its because trans people were used as a flag to push through authoritarianism, and that has been his overt issue his entire life (the fact that authoritarianism slips in covertly has always been his point in trying to understand how WW2 could happen). that people want to ride in on behalf of trans people is history repeating itself but with the names changed, that is his entire message. its not that you have to throw out the trans people, its you have to respect them for what they really are and not as a slogan to push through the same tired authoritarian methods

also Singu you linked a random hit piece without any real science, all it says is "aha! peterson is wrong because serotonin actually works the opposite of how he says!" without realizing thats not how he says it works anyway [1]. more "wrong by definition" assertions without connection to facts. in this case not that this article is the facts, but capturing what peterson is saying in the first place, its like you just imagined his position and talk about that. what always ends up happening is an incestuous network of haters develops where they try to launder the opinion through citing eachother, in essence manufacting facts about peterson but never having just done any real research, its a collective delusion rooted in ignorance--too high on its own self righteousness to bother verifying its own connection with reality and what the person is really saying. in essence all your talk is empty chatter without substance masquerading as "science" because you've appropriated the terminology and associated yourself with people who identify themselves as scientists. appropriating the label of science is used as leverage but there's never really any science coming from you. its like the emperor has no clothes, its just continual loudmouthery that can easily be debunked but its the lifelong gish galop that seems to prevail simply because no one cares enough to waste their lives only to counterbalance your continual utterance of untruths and social maneuvering. its like fine, you want to be king of adam strange and xerx? go right ahead, that's a fun little group that makes perfect sense to me. I feel bad for lungs if shes tricked by you though

in other words a lot of this pro trans stuff and denigration of peterson is people wanting to cling to their feel good narratives that over simplify the situation and make them vulnerable to tyrants who pander to this way of thinking. peterson is more pro trans than the authoritarians who purport themselves to act on their behalf but because peterson isn't waving the trans flag and is instead waving the anti authoritarian flag people don't see how it could be. they're like "well clearly these people must have trans people's best interests at heart--thats what theyre saying after all??!" -- as if such a thing never happened before where on behalf of x group policy that was literally bad for everyone got pushed through. there's something incredibly naive to think its as simple as just making people be nice and thats the solution to everything as if that hadn't been tried a thousand times before, a kind of radical forgetfulness which is itself cause for far more suffering than whatever it relieves via willful blindness. i think people can even legitimately disagree with peterson but its clear the people here don't even understand what theyr'e disagreeing with

[1] he's saying what spins out as the experience of dominance is linked to the physical structures in the brain, whether the relationship to actual serotonin in the brain is inverse between lobsters and humans is irrelevant. this is just low dimensional thinking, the point is different systems can have evolved to be calibrated differently in the particulars but that they were evolved as a process of working out behavior is the operative principle. I know you don't understand this and think anything less than absolute identity between sertonin in lobsters and humans makes peterson's claims innacurate, but its like saying unless cars and planes burn fuel at the exact same rate they're not both automobilies with the purpose of locomotion and that no such system of "locomotion" exists in principle, when its like all you need to do is look outside your window to see that it does

[Singu]

also Singu you linked a random hit piece without any real science, all it says is "aha! peterson is wrong because serotonin actually works the opposite of how he says!" without realizing thats not how he says it works anyway

Yeah, so why don't you talk about this "real science" or what he "really meant", and not something dumb about serotonin in lobsters.

Just yet another barrage of meaningless wall of text to hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

[xerx]

The Bonobo is a type of promiscuous Chimpanzee in which females will routinely have casual sex with males to temper their aggressive tendencies. It is a matriarchal society where females form groups to collectively overpower dominant alpha-males. The society is egalitarian. Females are effectively single mothers. Look here for the animal analogue of a "Feminist slut culture".

Here's the kicker: The Bonobo is our closest animal relative. We're closer to each other than either species is to lobsters.

If JP is allowed to abuse pop-evopsych to draw sweeping conclusions about our innate conservative tendencies, I can make more logical abuse of it to draw attention to our inalienable SJW natures.


Frans de Waal is a Primatologist & an expert on Bonobos.

[squark]

Well I'm looking at all the past analysis, and even if you could have typed him "correctly", who could have predicted any of this? And if you say that he has troubles with data and analysis and hence he's an "F" type, then you'd only know that in hindsight (I would argue that it's because he's a clinical psychologist, and hence unlike with the more "scientific" psychologists, they don't deal with much statistical data or analysis). You couldn't have predicted that he would turn out in this way.

So all of this type analysis only says that he is acting in that way in that moment, and so he's type X, and therefore he will always be acting in this way. But that's not actually what happened or what was correctly predicted.

Eh? I haven't changed my personal opinion of him. I still respect him and think he has a lot of good things to say. Typing means jack-shit to me, but as this is a typing thread, I thought the particular kinds of mistakes he makes (and the kinds he does not make) might be interesting to look at via socionics type. It doesn't mean anything or prove anything nor does it make the value he has provided any less in any way imo. I was never a worshipper or sycophant though, so I feel no need to defend him when he does make errors.

[Bertrand]

Eh? I haven't changed my personal opinion of him. I still respect him and think he has a lot of good things to say. Typing means jack-shit to me, but as this is a typing thread, I thought the particular kinds of mistakes he makes (and the kinds he does not make) might be interesting to look at via socionics type. It doesn't mean anything or prove anything nor does it make the value he has provided any less in any way imo. I was never a worshipper or sycophant though, so I feel no need to defend him when he does make errors.

im always amused by the need to reassure oneself and others that you're nobody's bitch. its like oh my God maybe people think my arguments arise out of personal loyalty to a person. its like well, if you can just assess them for what they are it really doesn't matter what they arise out of. they either fail or succeed on their merits. this resorting to calculating where peoples loyalties lie is just a cheap proxy for actual thinking. if someone is legitimately biased it will express itself in the logic. I could be peterson's butler and it wouldn't change anything. in any case everyone has biases so its a false assumption to look for them and not at the logic anyway since you can find them, with everyone. everyone is enmeshed in a web of biases, what this entire thread stands for is you have people living in the flow of personal bias trying to pass themselves off as objective and sort out scientific disputes via this kind of social calculation, but at the same time desperately using those same methods to try and present themselves as "scientific" i.e.: not doing that. this whole thing is a mess of people who can't think trying to pass themselves off as thinking by way of using the language of thinking without any of the actual substance. what underlies it is this pure social calculus. its whats so ironic about singu and his ilk, its like they can't see how silly they're being, and yet at the same time they're dangerous because if enough people agree they can simply force their agenda through despite it never having been reasonable at any point in time. its what happens when Venezuela kicks everyone out of the professional sphere and then is surprised when no one knows how to run anything

when peterson is talking about how fucked up and pernicious entire segments of the academy have become because of exactly this farce hes talking about people like xerx and singu who drape themselves in the language of objectivity but lack any semblance of it. he's saying you follow these peoples leadership at your own peril

[ooo]

I think JBP makes good points most of the time, but it is irritating to see that some people are discrediting him because he made one point that is possibly erroneous. It is basically putting him at an impossible standard that he will eventually break.

Some of his points are good, but what's his job? Peterson is a psychology professor, what he produces should be as accurate as such levels require. One thing is that you go to your psychologist and he tells you a nice story to help make you see your condition differently; another thing is promoting seemingly academic knowledge filled with incorrect info. Ok, psychology is a not a branch of the sciences, unlike psychiatry, but if you are to explain a whatever theme, at least you should study the details of what you're saying, even if you don't have a degree in medicine or statistics. It's ok if Peterson wants to talk about anything, free speech, he can do that, but so can people point out the fallacies too, and wonder why does Peterson talk so much of anything? And what would this benefit exactly? yt views? (anyway I don't see how a liberalist, critic of Marxism, in conflict with various minorities and universities, is leftist)

@wasp
There's a difference between us and Peterson, this is an unknown forum with 100 unknown members (<3), JP is a professor and world "celebrity". People look up to him, he became a public figure (not sure in which order). We can share our ideas in here, and that won't stop the normal risk of a democratic rejection, yet we're no professional or anything, we don't preach truths from experienced positions, and things in here should be in the fashion of an exchange, nothing to do with the sort of authority that JP should naturally withhold. This JP that makes yt ranting videos and preaches the wor(l)d is what clashes with my expectations. I don't like to see someone in his position to be such a kind of celebrity, it takes away part of his authority. Add the inaccuracies to this. I see it not too differently from what Trump looks like with his daily tweets, redundancy or something. Like the junk produced should have a filter. And I thought of Trump again when I read about the monogamic solution proposed by P to reduce violence, "arming the teachers to protect the schools", irony. What measures are these? It's nonsense. It's okay if they want to say whatever they want but this will mean they must be ready to face the consequences of what they say. It's telling that in this case the consequences are all in their favour, so apparently we all feed on this stupid trivia nonsense... I'm somewhat scared that JP is actually filling some kind of political agenda, criticism could be the best weapon we have.

[xerx]

im always amused by the need to reassure oneself and others that you're nobody's bitch. its like oh my God maybe people think my arguments arise out of personal loyalty to a person. its like well, if you can just assess them for what they are it really doesn't matter what they arise out of. they either fail or succeed on their merits. this resorting to calculating where peoples loyalties lie is just a cheap proxy for actual thinking. if someone is legitimately biased it will express itself in the logic. I could be peterson's butler and it wouldn't change anything. in any case everyone has biases so its a false assumption to look for them and not at the logic anyway since you can find them, with everyone. everyone is enmeshed in a web of biases, what this entire thread stands for is you have people living in the flow of personal bias trying to pass themselves off as objective and sort out scientific disputes via this kind of social calculation, but at the same time desperately using those same methods to try and present themselves as "scientific" i.e.: not doing that. this whole thing is a mess of people who can't think trying to pass themselves off as thinking by way of using the language of thinking without any of the actual substance. what underlies it is this pure social calculus. its whats so ironic about singu and his ilk, its like they can't see how silly they're being, and yet at the same time they're dangerous because if enough people agree they can simply force their agenda through despite it never having been reasonable at any point in time. its what happens when Venezuela kicks everyone out of the professional sphere and then is surprised when no one knows how to run anything

when peterson is talking about how fucked up and pernicious entire segments of the academy have become because of exactly this farce hes talking about people like xerx and singu who drape themselves in the language of objectivity but lack any semblance of it. he's saying you follow these peoples leadership at your own peril

When JP is as active in denouncing the pernicious conservative bias of economics departments & business schools, I will take him seriously as an apolitical critic of academia.

[Bertrand]

classic perfect is the enemy of good thinking

you might as well just say you take no one's thinking (and therefore no thinking) seriously, which is true

[xerx]

everyone is enmeshed in a web of biases, what this entire thread stands for is you have people living in the flow of personal bias trying to pass themselves off as objective and sort out scientific disputes

^ This is JP's schtick.

The Bonobo is a type of promiscuous Chimpanzee in which females will routinely have casual sex with males to temper their aggressive tendencies. It is a matriarchal society where females form groups to collectively overpower dominant alpha-males. The society is egalitarian. Females are effectively single mothers. Look here for the animal analogue of a "Feminist slut culture".

Here's the kicker: The Bonobo is our closest animal relative. We're closer to each other than either species is to lobsters.

If JP is allowed to abuse pop-evopsych to draw sweeping conclusions about our innate conservative tendencies, I can make more logical abuse of it to draw attention to our inalienable SJW natures.

[Bertrand]

if what appears to me to be a non sequitur because of my own incompetence shows up it means I can bring in my own actual non sequiturs! yeah this is how discourse goes to absolute shit, congratulations I don't want to talk with you ever