The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[Bald1]

That big mole only apeals to Ronda fans, while mimicking a slender, elegant neck isn't questionable, while the method of doing so is strange. It's like Japanese foot binding in a way. Some dudes are into feet, so the idea got taken to extremes.

But yeah, point taken - an idea can be taken to such extremes as to be unrecognizable from its origins.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Dafuq is this thread about again?

 

[IDL]

Dafuq is this thread about again?

Lipstick collectives

 

[Hog-train]

My view is that it is absolutely proven that the principle of trickle down economics devoid of gov't taint (crony capitalism) is absolutely proven to work as large investments in corporations by various investors has shown enormous benefits down stream and on an ongoing basis. there is in FACT a strong trickle down benefit across the economy.

My view is that tax cuts to the rich and deregulation hasn't shown to "trickle down" - at all - to everyday individuals. I'm going by the dictionary definition of trickle down economics.

That has nothing (zero) to do with your definition of it - which you just made up. They're 2 completely different things.

So I don't know why you keep talking about it. No one is disagreeing with you that investments by corporations will stimulate the economy.

 

[FIMN]

Donald trumps reaction was nothing more than a reaction to the extremist identity politics of the left. The left literally got him elected with their radicalism and it's push back

Yet your only example is something on the campaign trail. Odd.

 

[tonni]

That big mole only apeals to Ronda fans, while mimicking a slender, elegant neck isn't questionable, while the method of doing so is strange. It's like Japanese foot binding in a way. Some dudes are into feet, so the idea got taken to extremes.

But yeah, point taken - an idea can be taken to such extremes as to be unrecognizable from its origins.

In many African countries, being chubby/fat is the way to go for women. There used to be times in Europe where a large women was the epitome of beauty. Western beauty standards are by no means "default".

 

[PubliusVentidius]

In many African countries, being chubby/fat is the way to go for women. There used to be times in Europe where a large women was the epitome of beauty. Western beauty standards are by no means "default".

Let's go back to the good old classical times:

 

[tonni]

Let's go back to the good old classical times:

I'm not commenting on the merit or attractiveness to me personally of those standards. Although that statue looks fine.

 

[Bald1]

In many African countries, being chubby/fat is the way to go for women. There used to be times in Europe where a large women was the epitome of beauty. Western beauty standards are by no means "default".

Facial symmetry, hip to waist ratio are universally quite similar across places and cultures.

 

[emax]

That big mole only apeals to Ronda fans, while mimicking a slender, elegant neck isn't questionable, while the method of doing so is strange. It's like Japanese foot binding in a way. Some dudes are into feet, so the idea got taken to extremes.

But yeah, point taken - an idea can be taken to such extremes as to be unrecognizable from its origins.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your first paragraph but I get it now: you have no idea what trait openness is. You think he means "openness" as in the laymen version of the word. Get learned nerd, that's not what it means.

Those 'random college kids' are just parroting what they are being trained to think by their adopted ideology. That adopted ideology is much larger and more pervasive being pushed institutionally. Basically they are just a symptom, and a tip of the ice berg.

The ideology in question divides people into race, gender, and sexuality explicitly.

Racial identity groups, Feminist groups, LGBT groups, etc are pushed by the far left as basically tribal groups which are based on collective identity.

Donald trumps reaction was nothing more than a reaction to the extremist identity politics of the left. The left literally got him elected with their radicalism and it's push back

You still think that me not remembering your exact wording proves that you were right? Collectivism still isn’t important in America. But go ahead and think that you’ve won. We all need to believe in something.

I like Jordan Peterson, he's brilliant and exceptional in a lot of ways. What I appreciate most is his discussion about the dangers of radical ideology.

One of my critiques though, is that he tends to open an idea, then multi-threads the discussion into 15 other ideas and stories, then 25 minutes later he returns to the original point and by then I'm wandering into my own thoughts. Makes me feel like I have ADD lol.

Personally I like very concentrated information without filler. His new book had way too much filler for my liking.

Also I'm skeptical about some of his religious interpretations.

Overall, he's a solid guy. I almost always enjoy listening to him.

Ya I can see you right about him.

When Jordan talks about trickle down economics he is not talking about the politicized crony capitalism model. He is referring to what in referring to above and he is right just as I'm right.

The problem is, as you say the buzzwords now define the discussion for many and they are reacting to those Buzz words even if that is not what Jordan or I are expressing.

So if Jordan or myself says having people amass wealth is good for all as the benefits trickle down to others, a media'bot will instantly react saying that is reticle trickle down economics and it does not work. We then point out it does work with examples like the PayPal Mafia and they segway to crony capitalism. And I'm certainly not going to argue government interjecting themselves in is good and we can see the results. You take a concept that works like capitalism, add government and you get this monster called crony capitalism.

Peterson is more about addressing the culture war that involves critical thinking vs propaganda and emotional appeal. I believe his passion is for people to make personal and political decisions based on all the evidence without someone tweaking it, especially concerning race and gender.

He's exposing the political and tactical games used to cause confusion and push people and society off foundational principles. He exposes how they use these tactics and publicity displays how to expose and counter them in real time while millions watch.
This infuriates people who for years have bin operating in duplicity when someone turns on the lights.
I said quite awhile ago that Peterson was going to become a big target and some in the wr that seemed interested would turn against him. No one has to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to see that coming and it's only just begun.
He will become subject to the some of the worst acidic vitriol and slander that we've seen. Same old deceptive games but ramped up to a feverish pitch. Truth will prevail in the long run.

So to bring this back to the issue of Dr Peterson and why he's so polarizing, is because of the fundamental issues with social conditions in the modern era. And while I know that both sideisms is an argument that has been done and redone to death, this is in more ways than one a bipartisan issue. The election that turned a game show swimsuit model contest host into the President of the United States of America represents the epitome of the type of mindset that mas made him so invigorating to some and so horrific to others. Trump and Clinton's fanbases were flocking to see the candidate of choice tell them how they were going to be a savior. The Republicans/conservatives were unable or unwilling to find a genuinely knowleadgable and respectable candidate to preach their brand of limited gov't, individualist based politics and ended up choosing the worst possible group of people imaginable to preach this message: Trump, the Devos family, Bannon and others who would be societal bottom feeders without connections they had from sheer luck. As for Democrats and Progessives, they chose possibly the least likable and least relatable presidential candidate in decades and assumed everything would work itself out. And for truly low level critics such as Sam Seder thinking somehow this is only tied to Republican dominance (and if you're still thinking in those terms in 2018 you're beyond amateurish in your analysis) we should remember Dr Peterson's rise to prominence began in 2016 back when media outlets were still overwhelmingly calling a Clinton presidency a forgone conclusion.

I myself went through a phase where I thought Dr Peterson could say no wrong and took any criticism of him as a personal insult. I have now gone to a point where I can recognize that he is, like the rest of us, thoroughly imperfect and has done and will end up doing and saying things that are irresponsible, reckless, careless and too easy to misinterpret. His observations on traditional marriage values and, yes, women in the workplace are a few examples. But as a whole he is the antithesis to every political and social movement that looks to find convenient sources of anger and revel in feeling victimized by those sources. That's why he often stays out of political topics altogether. Many of his main points are has hard hitting as ever even when his flaws and imperfections and objectional opinions are brought to the forefront.

Another particularly important aspect about Dr Peterson is that he is drastically different from famous personalities who are looking for attention and admiration. He has pointed out that the fame and publicity he has gotten is in some ways decidedly unsettling because it's largely due to the decay among families, kids being raised with subpar values and substandard mental and emotional health of too many people in general. If intellectuals are rock stars, Dr Peterson is their Johnny Rotten or even Kurt Cobain. The idea of getting attention for his views, so many of which really should be common sense, are indicative of fundamental issues that need fixing beyond politics or economics.

His philosophy is about enhancing the quality of your life regardless of the opportunities you have due your circumstances at birth, abilities and handicapps and whatever gov't is controlling your country. So it clearly goes against anyone with a worldview that says an apocalypse is coming if their candidates of choice don't win elections. It goes against a worldview that says your life isn't where it needs to be cause the 1 % aren't paying enough taxes or paying too much taxes or the military is too large or small or your country's healthcare isn't expansive or free enough. And it goes directly against the strain of right wing viewpoints which insist that if things aren't going your way it's because of immigrants from Latin America or Asia or blacks or GLBTs getting more basic rights - his objections to pronoun use are not rooted in any issue about basic rights - or because America is different now vs the 1950s. Those who are actually understanding the core of a lot of his messages will be way more likely to leave white identity victim politics behind entirely in a sort of real life version of American History X. They're not gonna be protesting about how life would be better if only all the black, brown and yellow people would just leave or disappear from their communities. Social progressives, even if they are incensed by his gender and family viewpoints, should at the very least be appreciative of this. The basic premise is fixing yourself before focusing on what governments or "the rich" - and Westerners who make above minimum wage can certainly count as "the rich" to someone - or communities of a different color/ethnicity are doing. Focus on your own issues before worrying about saving the world as so many delusional narcissists claim they can do.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[Der Eisbär]

Yet your only example is something on the campaign trail. Odd.

What?? There are countless examples of liberal identity politics pre election, during the election, and post election

 

[MiniCraque]

While laughing diabolically? Probably not. Is it however a subconscious motivator; it seems plausible to me, but I actually prefer to defer to experts.

Men's dress in the workplace is typically very conservative. In a professional environment men typically only show their face and hands uncovered. Even rolled up sleeves is often considered inappropriate.

Women are rewarded more for their attractiveness, that's why they spend so much of their lifetime in the bathroom as compared to men. They also know that they can receive benefits from it (i.e. favored threatment despite beauty not being a requirement of the job). In other words, it allows for a prejudice to work in their favor. Do they laugh diabolically wearing uncomfortable shoes in the work place? Probably not. But let's not kid ourselves that the motivation goes beyond I just want to be pretty.

"Too look pretty" isn't a perfect, all-emcompassing reasoning, but it's short, sweet, and proves another point: we probably shouldn't be overthinking petty shit like women's makeup.

But if we want to be more thorough, that's easy: in the workplace, your presentation plays a very very big part in how people treat you and how you can advance your career. If a woman wakes up, barely washes her face and goes straight to work, people are going to look down on her. That's just a fact. Not just men, women also (in fact women are often more judgemental about this kind of stuff).

So yeah, women (and men) shape their appearence according to how they want to be viewed and treated by everyone around them.

And I'll keep saying anyone seriously believing that "stimulating sexual arousal" is more than 1% (and that's generous) of the reason why a woman might wear makeup is a neanderthal that took those Wikipedia articles on evolutionary behavioral science a little bit too seriously and is starting to sound like a creep, specially if it's to justify certain behaviors. Again, lipstick is just one small part of makeup and at the workplace it is often not even red. Starting a conversation about sexual misconduct at the workplace and bringing up red lipstick simulating sexual arousal is monumentally stupid and a pointless tangent.

For the record, I like some of Peterson's work, even if at this point he has become so incredibly overrated.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

"Too look pretty" isn't a perfect, all-emcompassing reasoning, but it's short, sweet, and proves another point: we probably shouldn't be overthinking petty shit like women's makeup.

But if we want to be more thorough, that's easy: in the workplace, your presentation plays a very very big part in how people treat you and how you can advance your career. If a woman wakes up, barely washes her face and goes straight to work, people are going to look down on her. That's just a fact. Not just men, women also (in fact women are often more judgemental about this kind of stuff).

So yeah, women (and men) shape their appearence according to how they want to be viewed and treated by everyone around them.

And I'll keep saying anyone seriously believing that "stimulating sexual arousal" is more than 1% (and that's generous) of the reason why a woman might wear makeup is a neanderthal that took those Wikipedia articles on evolutionary behavioral science a little bit too seriously and is starting to sound like a creep, specially if it's to justify certain behaviors. Again, lipstick is just one small part of makeup and at the workplace it is often not even red. Starting a conversation about sexual misconduct at the workplace and bringing up red lipstick simulating sexual arousal is monumentally stupid and a pointless tangent.

For the record, I like some of Peterson's work, even if at this point he has become so incredibly overrated.

I don't think people are over-thinking petty shit. It was the first time I have ever heard JP mention makeup - the people who are totally overthinking this are petty critics of JP, because this seems to be like .00000000001% of a thing I've heard him talk about -- looks like it's just critics desperately looking to latch onto something. And yes, presentation plays a part in life, and it's nice to be clean and well groomed, nobody is disagreeing. But while men's standard issue is a conservative suit which covers everything but hands and face (really, just like 5% more clothing and you're in a burqa lol), it's not quite the same, there is some nuance here.

 

[MiniCraque]

I don't think people are over-thinking petty shit. It was the first time I have ever heard JP mention makeup - the people who are totally overthinking this are petty critics of JP, because this seems to be like .00000000001% of a thing I've heard him talk about -- looks like it's just critics desperately looking to latch onto something. And yes, presentation plays a part in life, and it's nice to be clean and well groomed, nobody is disagreeing. But while men's standard issue is a conservative suit which covers everything but hands and face (really, just like 5% more clothing and you're in a burqa lol), it's not quite the same, there is some nuance here.

Dunno what you're talking about here. A clip was shown in which Peterson said something that was, quite frankly, retarded. Like, the kind of thing you'd hear from the creep who works in the IT department. You see, Jenna from HR had this white belt over her black dress today. The color contrast is supposed to enhance her hip to waist ratio and maker her look more fertile as a female. Painted eyelids make her eyes look brighter, almost dilated. That and pink lipstick make her look sexually aroused. She smells nice too, probably some kind of pheromone perfume. I'm totally on to her intentions. The kind of thing to which most reasonable people would respond "what in name of fuck are you on about dude". Even the interviewer had this befuddled look.

Now, I'm not judging his work on the basis of this statement. Doesn't really change my opinion of his "clean your room" material: it's fine, definitely not the best nor the first at this kind of inspirational work. I like his thoughts on politics and religion, even as an atheist.

Still, that clip was bad. Really, really bad.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Dunno what you're talking about here. A clip was shown in which Peterson said something that was, quite frankly, retarded. Like, the kind of thing you'd hear from the creep who works in the IT department. You see, Jenna from HR had this white belt over her black dress today. The color contrast is supposed to enhance her hip to waist ratio and maker her look more fertile as a female. Painted eyelids make her eyes look brighter, almost dilated. That and pink lipstick make her look sexually aroused. She smells nice too, probably some kind of pheromone perfume. I'm totally on to her intentions. The kind of thing to which most reasonable people would respond "what in name of fuck are you on about dude". Even the interviewer had this befuddled look.

Now, I'm not judging his work on the basis of this statement. Doesn't really change my opinion of his "clean your room" material: it's fine, definitely not the best nor the first at this kind of inspirational work. I like his thoughts on politics and religion, even as an atheist.

Still, that clip was bad. Really, really bad.

Kind of case in point. Wouldn't be surprised if all he was doing was quoting some academic study. So bad, so retarded, guy's a creep, even the interviewer was confused lol. JP has been doing interviews what seems like is non-stop and this is a big deal, especially in a hacked up interview slice? Sorry, it's a nothingburger.

 

[HOLA]

Dafuq is this thread about again?

A guy who gives extremely generic and commonplace self-help advice to disenfranchised and angry young men. It's revolutionary to them, because they have nothing to compare him to. They've never heard of Joseph Campbell, I guess.

He got in on the YouTube personality game by arguing against a law designed to protect trans people from discrimination, and parlayed that into a career creating some postmodern androgynous communist boogeyman, or some shit, that is out to control the minds of Americans. This is extra useful for the credulous right-wingers looking for meaning in their lives which he abuses.

For $100 a month you can get put on a queue to talk to him on Skype, or you can shell out $20 to take a simplistic personality test he offers in the meantime. Don't forget to donate to his Patreon, where he pulls in like $75,000 a month to make YouTube videos. Oh, also he'll sell you a piece of rug for $2,000.

 

[HOLA]

"Too look pretty" isn't a perfect, all-emcompassing reasoning, but it's short, sweet, and proves another point: we probably shouldn't be overthinking petty shit like women's makeup.

But if we want to be more thorough, that's easy: in the workplace, your presentation plays a very very big part in how people treat you and how you can advance your career. If a woman wakes up, barely washes her face and goes straight to work, people are going to look down on her. That's just a fact. Not just men, women also (in fact women are often more judgemental about this kind of stuff).

So yeah, women (and men) shape their appearence according to how they want to be viewed and treated by everyone around them.

The fact you have to explain that is amazing. Why did Jordan Peterson slick back his hair plugs for the interview? Why was he wearing a suit jacket to accentuate his shoulders? I'm sorry Jordan, but I guess you'll have to be raped now.

And I'll keep saying anyone seriously believing that "stimulating sexual arousal" is more than 1% (and that's generous) of the reason why a woman might wear makeup is a neanderthal that took those Wikipedia articles on evolutionary behavioral science a little bit too seriously and is starting to sound like a creep, specially if it's to justify certain behaviors. Again, lipstick is just one small part of makeup and at the workplace it is often not even red. Starting a conversation about sexual misconduct at the workplace and bringing up red lipstick simulating sexual arousal is monumentally stupid and a pointless tangent.

For the record, I like some of Peterson's work, even if at this point he has become so incredibly overrated.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bamboozled]

A guy who gives extremely generic and commonplace self-help advice to disenfranchised and angry young men. It's revolutionary to them, because they have nothing to compare him to. They've never heard of Joseph Campbell, I guess.

He got in on the YouTube personality game by arguing against a law designed to protect trans people from discrimination, and parlayed that into a career creating some postmodern androgynous communist boogeyman, or some shit, that is out to control the minds of Americans. This is extra useful for the credulous right-wingers looking for meaning in their lives which he abuses.

For $100 a month you can get put on a queue to talk to him on Skype, or you can shell out $20 to take a simplistic personality test he offers in the meantime. Don't forget to donate to his Patreon, where he pulls in like $75,000 a month to make YouTube videos. Oh, also he'll sell you a piece of rug for $2,000.

Thank you for completely missing the point on virtually everything he has stated. I know not to read your posts. I really appreciate it.