The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Der Eisbär]

You are treating the lipstick thing like it's a ridiculous idea, while it is a pretty established theory in evolutionary psychology. There must be a reason why men all over the world find the red lipstic most attractive. It is either rooted in our biology or it independetly developed by cultural transmission on the whole planet. What sounds more plausible?

All explanations arising from evolutionary biology are bigoted, hateful, and wrong. HAHAHAH you phallogocentric biological determinist!!! All human behavior is independent of biology!!!

 

[21 Savage]

You are treating the lipstick thing like it's a ridiculous idea

no what i treat as ridiculous are the following assertions made by doctor Jordan "i say things like weaponized autism" Peterson (as well as his seeming ignorance of the fact that most women either dont wear red lipstick to work or wear a different colour):

1) they are trying to look like they are sexually aroused (most aren't)
2) women who wear makeup and get sexually harassed are hypocrites (agreed actually, burqas should be mandatory for all women)
3) we dont know if men and women can work together (yes we do, they can)
4) male/female relations are at an all-time low because of the workplace (source?)
5) we dont know the rules (yes we do)

There must be a reason why men all over the world find the red lipstic most attractive.

source?

It is either rooted in our biology or it independetly developed by cultural transmission on the whole planet.

no, it doesnt have to be either or - literally everything in human society is partially due to our biology.

and men have worn makeup for thousands of years my guy, its absolutely not just a "muh biology" thing bruh, go ahead try to deny the cultural differences in what is thought of as beauty

 

[RubberGuard5]

no what i treat as ridiculous are the following assertions made by doctor Jordan "i say things like weaponized autism" Peterson (as well as his seeming ignorance of the fact that most women either dont wear red lipstick to work or wear a different colour):

1) they are trying to look like they are sexually aroused (most aren't)
2) women who wear makeup and get sexually harassed are hypocrites (agreed actually, burqas should be mandatory for all women)
3) we dont know if men and women can work together (yes we do, they can)
4) male/female relations are at an all-time low because of the workplace (source?)
5) we dont know the rules (yes we do)


source?

no, it doesnt have to be either or - literally everything in human society is partially due to our biology.

and men have worn makeup for thousands of years my guy, its absolutely not just a "muh biology" thing bruh, go ahead try to deny the cultural differences in what is thought of as beauty

You have a weird writting style.

I don't think he believes women have the intention of looking aroused. This is one of those proximal and ultimate explanation cases i mentioned in an earlier post. Women practice these rituals because they enjoy them, they are intrinsically satisfying. This is the proximal explanation. The ultimate one, why this trait exists, is that it helps in sexual selection. Simply, women withous these genes were selected less, so their genes were essentially eliminated.

I also disagree with his "hypocrites" conclusion, but I can see his reasoning. If you practice a ritual that mimics sexual arousal, don't complain about sexual attention. But to be hypocretes, every single women would need to know what effect the red lipstic produces, which they don't.

I think he raised a question whether men and women can work together without sexual harrasment happening. He is a guy who likes to think about stuff, some of his question will be silly. That's ok, humans have silly ideas sometimes. We shouldn't act like it somehow discredits them completely.

The rest we need more info on what he means.

I don't have the link to the study, I read about it a couple of times but don't remember where.

It doesn't have to be either or. But in psychology, when we find an universal occurence, we tipically conclude its root is in biology, because it unlikely that said occurence independently develops everywhere. This doesn't negate cultural differences exist.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I've believed this for a little while. It's been very important to the appeal of liberalism over the past 20 years that they have a monopoly or overwhelming preponderance of intelligence. "If you are smart, you agree with us. If you are a dumb, tractor-riding racist, you belong with the conservatives." This simply isn't true, as there are some really smart people on both sides of the political aisle. However, at the grassroots level, this hasn't been part of the discussion. It's been all about suggesting that they are smart and reasonable while everyone else is backwards and stupid. This kind of arrogance is ultimately one of the things that disgusted me about the left, so I bailed. For what it's worth, I think a lot of their prevailing economic theories and foreign policy platforms are ultimately based around short-term gains and appeasement/relief efforts, but they never really get to the point where there's actual reform. A lot of smoke and mirrors, if you ask me.

I always find it odd that people say they bail on the left because of other leftists. If you are on the left it should be because your principles align with those of the left and you support more or less similar policy initiatives. People being assholes in pushing for the policies you believe in shouldn't change your mind about the underlying principles and policies.

I know of a few obnoxious leftists and that doesn't really make me think they're completely wrong and I should leave the left or whatever. Its especially weird in the case of the likes of Dave Rubin who claim to be of the left but then switch over for this weird reason and then become a huge shill for the right while trying to pretend to be centrist.

 

[Bald1]

no what i treat as ridiculous are the following assertions made by doctor Jordan "i say things like weaponized autism" Peterson (as well as his seeming ignorance of the fact that most women either dont wear red lipstick to work or wear a different colour):

1) they are trying to look like they are sexually aroused (most aren't)
2) women who wear makeup and get sexually harassed are hypocrites (agreed actually, burqas should be mandatory for all women)
3) we dont know if men and women can work together (yes we do, they can)
4) male/female relations are at an all-time low because of the workplace (source?)
5) we dont know the rules (yes we do)


source?

no, it doesnt have to be either or - literally everything in human society is partially due to our biology.

and men have worn makeup for thousands of years my guy, its absolutely not just a "muh biology" thing bruh, go ahead try to deny the cultural differences in what is thought of as beauty

Tell me of these cultural differences in beauty standards.

 

[sub_thug]

I always find it odd that people say they bail on the left because of other leftists. If you are on the left it should be because your principles align with those of the left and you support more or less similar policy initiatives. People being assholes in pushing for the policies you believe in shouldn't change your mind about the underlying principles and policies.

I know of a few obnoxious leftists and that doesn't really make me think they're completely wrong and I should leave the left or whatever. Its especially weird in the case of the likes of Dave Rubin who claim to be of the left but then switch over for this weird reason and then become a huge shill for the right while trying to pretend to be centrist.

I’ve found that, in my younger years, the message of love, creating equality in opportunities (via social engineering), compassion for their fellow man, etc. are the guiding principles of liberalism. Conservativism was supposed to be the rich assholes organizing the people who were too stupid to know better into voting against themselves, right? When I realized that the love they talked about was nothing more than an empty promise, that many of the policies were about resentment moreso than about helping people attain a better life, and that they honestly weren’t as good for people as what less government actually delivers, then I found myself going in another direction. Unfortunately, those of us who actually like less government are without a champion, so we wait quietly for now.

 

[IDL]

no what i treat as ridiculous are the following assertions made by doctor Jordan "i say things like weaponized autism" Peterson (as well as his seeming ignorance of the fact that most women either dont wear red lipstick to work or wear a different colour):

1) they are trying to look like they are sexually aroused (most aren't)

I doubt he thinks the average women knows the underlying psychology in terms of mimicking sexual arousal. The average women does know about making themselves look sexually attractive though.

I also think he is well aware that there are different colors of lipstick (obviously). He made a point about red lipstick specifically.

It appears as though the point he was making was in the context of male and female sexual dynamics in the work place.

2) women who wear makeup and get sexually harassed are hypocrites (agreed actually, burqas should be mandatory for all women)

The context appears to be in regards to putting on sexual displays in the work force, so the idea I think is that if someone wants to put on sexual displays while at the same time expecting there not to be harassment in the work place, then that is hypocritical.

I'm not sure if I'd call that hypocritical per say, but it's certainly mixed signals. It depends on what 'harassment' means though. Is it 'unwanted sexual attention'?

3) we dont know if men and women can work together (yes we do, they can)

In what way? In terms of expectations of men and women and sexual dynamics in the work place? The context is missing from the edited video.

4) male/female relations are at an all-time low because of the workplace (source?)

In what way? The context is missing from the edited video.

5) we dont know the rules (yes we do)

It appears as though the context was 'rules when it comes to sexual harassment' and behaviors and expectations around sexual dynamics.
If there are still issues being sorted out and expectations changing in the context of political activism and social engineering I don't think we do know yet. Things are in a state of flux.

It's almost pointless getting into these things in terms of what he's saying without the context in which the discussion is taking place. Maybe if the full video becomes available there will be a little less guessing in terms of coming up with critiques. As it was it looks like Vice was editing the video to try to create more controversy than there would be in a full video, so maybe we'll see.

 

[Hog-train]

I've already conceded I'm not referring too the popularized and political use of the words created or popularized in the Reagan era

Popularized and politicized definition? WTF are you talking about? That is the definition it has always been.

You're just attaching a different meaning to it. I'm not politicizing it.That is literally what trickle down economics refers to (aka supply side economics.)

If you want me to be more clear, I mean supply side economics. I don't believe it works and have yet to see evidence that it does.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Popularized and politicized definition? WTF are you talking about? That is the definition it has always been.

You're just attaching a different meaning to it. I'm not politicizing it.That is literally what trickle down economics refers to (aka supply side economics.)

If you want me to be more clear, I mean supply side economics. I don't believe it works and have yet to see evidence that it does.

I quoted a reference to the history of the term but in the end I don't really care. Again I have said from the start I am not referring to the crony capitalism version so we can agree to disagree on the words if you want but what we are not doing is disagreeing with regards to crony capitalism which is what you are referring to and what I agree does not work.

Now if you are saying there are no proven benefits in countries where big industry is developed and companies like Apple, Microsoft, PayPal and so many others flourish and create that tickle down effect we can argue that if you want.

You only need look at America with industry and a places where no industry exists and ask if there is no trickle down effect from the wealthy (Investors) created new companies and jobs ot the middle and lower class?

 

[Hog-train]

Now if you are saying there are no proven benefits in countries where big industry is developed and companies like Apple, Microsoft, PayPal and so many others flourish and create that tickle down effect we can argue that if you want.

You only need look at America with industry and a places where no industry exists and ask if there is no trickle down effect from the wealthy (Investors) created new companies and jobs ot the middle and lower class?

Of course countries where big industries develop, there are positive ripple effects throughout the economy. No one is arguing that. And that is an obvious conclusion.

What you haven't shown is that deregulation and tax cuts have attributed to positive effects that "trickles down" to the normal everyday individual. That's what trickle down economics refers to and always has referred to.

Anyway who cares - that is a irrelevant tangent from this thread.

My original point is that I think Shapiro is dishonest and uses his intellect and debating skills for wrong causes. His debating style is also more of that "gotcha" style where he is just trying to win.

Peterson is a breath of fresh air in comparison and also truly believes in what he says. I don't like it when they are compared - because they are not the same, nor are they on the same side on many issues.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

You are treating the lipstick thing like it's a ridiculous idea, while it is a pretty established theory in evolutionary psychology. There must be a reason why men all over the world find the red lipstic most attractive. It is either rooted in our biology or it independetly developed by cultural transmission on the whole planet. What sounds more plausible?

He might actually be right in this case. The proximal psychological motivation for woman to wear lipstick in the workplace is not necessarily to attract men.

Peterson here seems to be making the classic evopsych mistake of speaking about the ultimate cause as if it were the proximal cause. In other words he's confusing the immediate reasons for the behaviour (habit, prettiness, professionalism, or what have you) with the reasons for the reasons (lipstick wearing probably became habit etc. because of sexual competition).

I'm sure he knows the difference, he's just working within so many paradigms that the language gets mixed up.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I’ve found that, in my younger years, the message of love, creating equality in opportunities (via social engineering), compassion for their fellow man, etc. are the guiding principles of liberalism. Conservativism was supposed to be the rich assholes organizing the people who were too stupid to know better into voting against themselves, right? When I realized that the love they talked about was nothing more than an empty promise, that many of the policies were about resentment moreso than about helping people attain a better life, and that they honestly weren’t as good for people as what less government actually delivers, then I found myself going in another direction. Unfortunately, those of us who actually like less government are without a champion, so we wait quietly for now.

I guess I see it now. If you subscribed to such a misguided and surface level form of leftism its not hard to see why you''d leave it behind.

 

[Der Eisbär]

I always find it odd that people say they bail on the left because of other leftists. If you are on the left it should be because your principles align with those of the left and you support more or less similar policy initiatives. People being assholes in pushing for the policies you believe in shouldn't change your mind about the underlying principles and policies.

I know of a few obnoxious leftists and that doesn't really make me think they're completely wrong and I should leave the left or whatever. Its especially weird in the case of the likes of Dave Rubin who claim to be of the left but then switch over for this weird reason and then become a huge shill for the right while trying to pretend to be centrist.

Dave Rubin a "shill for the right" ahahahaha. Ok pal.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Dave Rubin a "shill for the right" ahahahaha. Ok pal.

That's pretty clearly what he is now. Most of his guests are right wingers and he never ever challenges them and just gives them a soap box to vent their views. That's fine, he's entitled to do that, but its a bit disingenuous for him to then claim he's a liberal.

 

[Der Eisbär]

That's pretty clearly what he is now. Most of his guests are right wingers and he never ever challenges them and just gives them a soap box to vent their views. That's fine, he's entitled to do that, but its a bit disingenuous for him to then claim he's a liberal.

I think using the dichotomic language of the american political landscape and painting people into these automatic boxes of left/right is problematic and is too simplistic. Rubin himself doesnt align right politically. If anything he's left-libertarian/anarchistic. Sargon isn't a right winger. Jordan Peterson wouldn't qualify as a traditional "right winger". He's pro social programs and pro environmentalism. So yeah. Putting people in these boxes is ridiculous.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think using the dichotomic language of the american political landscape and painting people into these automatic boxes of left/right is problematic and is too simplistic. Rubin himself doesnt align right politically. If anything he's left-libertarian/anarchistic. Sargon isn't a right winger. Jordan Peterson wouldn't qualify as a traditional "right winger". He's pro social programs and pro environmentalism. So yeah. Putting people in these boxes is ridiculous.

So what you're saying is they're each special little snowflakes? Haha, okay...

Anyway, Rubin's taken, and might still be taking, money from American conservative political organizations like Learn Liberty(which has been funded by Charles Koch) so I think its fair to use the " dichotomic language of the american political landscape "...

I know Sargon says he's not a right winger but that doesn't seem to stop him from constantly throwing red meat to the right with his videos. Either way he's some fucking nerd in his bedroom, even lower than Dave Rubin since he has a lower production value despite being around longer. Too much kek, not enough Koch money.

 

[tonni]

Tell me of these cultural differences in beauty standards.

 

[Hog-train]

That's pretty clearly what he is now. Most of his guests are right wingers and he never ever challenges them and just gives them a soap box to vent their views. That's fine, he's entitled to do that, but its a bit disingenuous for him to then claim he's a liberal.

Jordan Peterson is not alt right if you actually listen to what he says.

However, many alt right sites and personalities have attached themselves to him - even though Peterson would not agree with a lot of their stances.

 

[FIMN]

 

[FIMN]

Jordan Peterson is not alt right if you actually listen to what he says.

However, many alt right sites and personalities have attached themselves to him - even though Peterson would not agree with a lot of their stances.

Random interjection - has he explained why he thinks his anti identity politics rhetoric has gathered steam with the right and not the left, outside of specific subject matter which he is known to tackle?