Remember that one show Big Love on HBO? And remember how polygamy almost always means that one man has many wives and not the other way around?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Here's a rundown of the first "random" passage he quotes from Maps and Meaning (random my ass): Peterson is trying to connect moral system to conflict. He points out that repeated heroic (good) action can't create a unifying moral code for the whole world to live under because it's essentially always a negotiation between competing moral systems/civilizations, each with their own description of what a heroic action might be in a given situation. This conflict often results in wars which can upend/destroy certain systems or combine them together. He further describes the psychological working of moral codes, in that they need to allow the present reactions to be justified and rationalized by the possible future repercussions rather than letting only the present consequences decide the value. And even if you have your own desires and moral code in place, you still need to be able to continually reorganize it due to the need to interact with others who have a different system or an evolving system.
Now, this is my summary of that paragraph with having literally no knowledge about what chapter it's from, the surrounding meaning, the surrounding context. If I had those as well I could give an even clearer interpretation of what the overall point is - here he seems to be mostly wanting to describe the function of moral system on a personal, communal and global scale in relation to conflict.
His second passage is about how law is mostly a positive influence but that you shouldn't be an absolutist. It's pretty damn straightforward.
Those are literally the only two quotes pulled from the book. Are these passages meaningful? Well, they are descriptive, and he's mostly spending time outlining the edges of ideas he uses later. The passages make sense. They play into larger claims. Not sure how much more meaning you need from random paragraphs pulled out from a 600 page philosophy text.
No, I said it was unfair to pull so little out of a 600 page book thinking that's going to count as a legitimate critique (i.e. cherry picking). I would claim as much for any attempted criticism of any other philosophy book using this garbage 2-paragraph-whine-session method of argumentation.
I don't know either, because this critic has blurred all his criticism into one messy conglomeration pulling various quotes out from decades of material. For this point in particular let's assume the context is M&M - I found many of the ideas there not banal. As I've said I found many of his connections between ancient myths and evolutionary psychology something I've never heard before. Not sure what else I would have to say to refute this "banal" claim. Here is one of his lectures that truly fascinated me with the connections he made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY
For that particular passage "intrapsychic spirits" - intrapsychic just means internal thought. Spirits can be considered a synonym for the "decider" in your brain - also referencing the use of "spirit" as something untamed or wild, that is controlled through things like law. It's a way of characterizing a person's choices (he calls this "potentialities"), and in this context how the law helps directing a person's "potentialities" (decisions).
"allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death" i.e. law allows creative/courageous action (directly referenced in the same sentence, described now as "spiritual water" for beauty's sake) to take place within a chaotic world (valley of the shadow of death is an Old Testament phrase referencing the chaos/suffering of life). Again this is my understanding of a paragraph pulled from a 600 page philosophy book. With more context I could give a fuller explanation.
You're exactly right - it isn't a book report. It's completely ineffectual as a criticism against Peterson's philosophical work on myth and evolutionary psychology because it's literally just two pulled paragraphs.
Here is a breakdown by a lawyer of the problems with the bill that Peterson was protesting and how it could result in legal consequences: https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/
A lawyer said:
Last edited:
Peterson literally lied about the contents of C-16, so anyone who is trying to argue about what C16 is "designed" to do based on Peterson's words are already arguing on flawed grounds.
C16 is literally adding language that expands the definition of hate speech and hate crimes.
Oh no, how will society continue to function!?
Peterson took an unknown bill, was the first to trot a narrative that stuck because nobody knew what C16 was until some dipshit with a following of angry young men made a fuss over literally nothing.
C16 is literally adding language that expands the definition of hate speech and hate crimes.
Oh no, how will society continue to function!?
Peterson took an unknown bill, was the first to trot a narrative that stuck because nobody knew what C16 was until some dipshit with a following of angry young men made a fuss over literally nothing.
If anyone wants to see the running tally of people arrested because of C-16, take a look:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArrestedCanadaBillC16/
I warn you, it's bloody well not pretty, and that's no joke!
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArrestedCanadaBillC16/
I warn you, it's bloody well not pretty, and that's no joke!
Seriously, stop posting that legal analysis by that guy. I think he might have a dog in this fight...
https://twitter.com/litigationguy?lang=en
And just because he's a lawyer doesn't mean he's isn't full of it.
https://twitter.com/litigationguy?lang=en
And just because he's a lawyer doesn't mean he's isn't full of it.
Goddamn that's a good analogy.
I'd say though, that at least, as distasteful as they are, horoscopes are typically not racist or misogynistic. xD
This is ridiculous. You're blaming (or pointing-and-laughing at) "the left" for failing to convince people not to fall for Peterson's BS? That'd be like blaming rational people because gullible people fall for horoscopes. It makes zero sense.
And whatever happened to.... *drumroll* personal responsibility?
Yep.
This is comically dumb. "Postmodernists see power everywhere therefore they only care about amassing power for themselves." It's like saying Marx was obsessed with capital accumulation therefore he's really an early version of Gordon Gekko. It's the type of thing the edgy kid who didn't actually do the reading confidently blurts out in class, leaving the bemused teacher searching for a way to let them down gently whilst their peers giggle.
For those who think that all this criticism of Peterson's attacks on straw postmodern cultural neo-Marxism is just the knee-jerk defense of a naked emperor, consider this. Chomsky has very little positive to say of post-modernism. His opinion of Peterson (and Sam Harris): "they merit little attention." You would no doubt find similar views if you sought them out from prominent Marxists, who also have their issues with post-modernism (who'd have thought that a philosophy based around a grand narrative would have tensions with a philosophy that rejects them?). It's not that these are uncomfortably accurate critiques, they're "not even wrong". They can't even be debated in any noteworthy sense, because before you could even get to the substance of the arguments you'd have to explain who what when where why and how (multiple times over), then wait for a reformulated response that addresses an actual theory/theorist.
Funny that a lot of peterson's "appeal" seems to be based on his use of phrases and notions that key into themes people on the alt right value. Things they find "virtuous". It's almost as if he's using coded language to "signal" to his fans or something...some sort of...virtue signaling...
No because the idea that good ideas automatically beat out bad ones in debate is a just world fallacy.
I think outside of Peterson's gross and outdated views, his self-help stuff is interesting. The Left focuses on self-care, while he's all about self-improvement. The distinction is emblematic of the value differences of both sides, and I think injecting a bit of the bootstrap, self-help attitude in Leftist politics would be beneficial depending on how it's done.
Following this thread is pretty funny. Again and again, page after page it's either moving goalposts while 'interpreting' for him or just plain ole 'Wow his self help is wonderful'.
Edit: I like reading the responses to them though. It feels good when I see people cut through bullshit. It really does.
Oh hey, I remember this being a thing. Was it some kind of Kung-fu Panda-esque bit of insight in the end? Or maybe just a plain old pyramid scheme? From the way it was being marketed, I wouldn't be surprised either way!
There's no need to be snarky, I have other things to do at midnight on a work day. Moreover I just don't see the point of all this? You want to dispute an offhand argument by Peterson that it's possible that makeup at work makes sexual harassment more likely?
Like, ok, let's focus only on that tangential point and disregard literally everything else including the main arguments. And let's say that he's wrong to stipulate that based on this article. So now he's a hack and a fraud? The same study you just linked would validate his initial claim that makeup increases the sexuality of workplace which what he wanted to say. So he's right too, very much so!
Also a gender perception gap where a woman wears a revealing dress to feel pretty and valued and not invite sexuality is perplexing as statement in this research. Of course nobody dresses to invite sexual harassment or be raped but if opposite sex perceives you as more sexually desirable which is stated as outcome for male - then that's what you're doing, you're becoming more sexually desirable de facto (not inviting rape)! You're making yourself more sexually desirable which potentially leads to your intent of dominance and higher status and respect and feeling pretty in our society that is hypersexualised. I mean what's the difference really? The fact that you rationalise it in a different way doesn't hide the fact that at the core it's all about our society valuing sexuality and you can't dissociate prettiness of a woman from sexual desirability at a basic level, unless you really want to start lying to yourself. However you can say is that men shouldn't reasonably act in modern society, based on a number of social norms and constructs and morality, on any of it which is precisely the point, because one last time nobody is against makeup, nobody is against high heels or pretty dresses.
JP's argument that make up is essentially a thing women do because they want to sexually attract men, which is a biological determinism argument wrapped as "choice" is probably his easiest falter to examine. I mean first makeup was not always the sole domain of women: http://www.byrdie.com/history-makeup-gender Make up is for women is a social product, and it is probably the biggest way visual pop culture (movies, TV, Music Videos, Magazines, etc...) as influenced society, women wear make up because society is literally programmed to view women without makeup (and trust me even tmost attempts at the no make up look in visual media is make up) as basically the equivalent of say men wearing sweats and looking frumpy, or a totally unkept beard. Essentially make up should be understood as not a women's expression of sexual flirtation but an unspoken dress code, lips stick is less come hither habillement and more no different then a lawyer wearing a suit. So it really is a huge failure of argument to present make up as something women choose to do as much as it is an expectation of society, a society that will judge you as looking less put together, lazier, tired, etc... if you don't wear it, similar to how we'd judge a male lawyer wearing sweats to court for example.
http://www.comedycentral.com.au/inside-amy-schumer/videos/girl-you-dont-need-makeup
And if this doesn't work: http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/k...me-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/xu0piq
Schumer exposes it right here. People say oh women don't need makeup but when you're literally programmed by society by pop culture that only really shows you women wearing make up, you inherently form a bias against women with no make up (because good makeup does in fact make you look morel lively, more put together, it is a visually appealing thing). If society wasn't overwhelmingly dominated by images of women in make up the sight of women out of makeup wouldn't be jarring (and for example tabloid images of celebs without makeup wouldn't be so lucrative). If society hadn't diverged from men also wearing makeup we would see the exact same expectations put on men too.
This is why JB is wrong when he reduces make up down to simply a women signaling sexuality, make up is a societal expectation, for better or worse (and I argue worse) women wear make up in the work place not to express sexual interest but to project a level of professionalism, it's a tie, a suit, not a bikini.
JP is committing the classic dance that many MRA and MRA lite people do: Judging women for participating in, frankly patriarchal, societal beauty standards, and condemning them for it. It is especially fun coming from JP because if men were expected to wear makeup to look professional, that would 100% a major focus of advice from him, because a major focus of his is advising men on how to present themselves to succeed in a capitalist society. Women wear makeup because it is on some level a base requirement for them to succeed in a capitalist society, they are seen as less professional without it, the same way men are seen as less professional with unkempt facial hair and sweats.
Ultimately of course this is a product of Peterson's hyper focus on the individual. He doesn't examine why women make up beyond the hyper individualistic assumption of: a woman wants a man, because Peterson is not very interested in how society influences anyone (especially how society in influences women, well really Peterson isn't all that interested in women except in how they relate to men... hence why he thinks Frozen is propganda but loves Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast as art for example). So to him make up can't be like a suit (because his professionalism standards are entirely derived from what is expected of men) so it must be an act of flirtation.
http://www.comedycentral.com.au/inside-amy-schumer/videos/girl-you-dont-need-makeup
And if this doesn't work: http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/k...me-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/xu0piq
Schumer exposes it right here. People say oh women don't need makeup but when you're literally programmed by society by pop culture that only really shows you women wearing make up, you inherently form a bias against women with no make up (because good makeup does in fact make you look morel lively, more put together, it is a visually appealing thing). If society wasn't overwhelmingly dominated by images of women in make up the sight of women out of makeup wouldn't be jarring (and for example tabloid images of celebs without makeup wouldn't be so lucrative). If society hadn't diverged from men also wearing makeup we would see the exact same expectations put on men too.
This is why JB is wrong when he reduces make up down to simply a women signaling sexuality, make up is a societal expectation, for better or worse (and I argue worse) women wear make up in the work place not to express sexual interest but to project a level of professionalism, it's a tie, a suit, not a bikini.
JP is committing the classic dance that many MRA and MRA lite people do: Judging women for participating in, frankly patriarchal, societal beauty standards, and condemning them for it. It is especially fun coming from JP because if men were expected to wear makeup to look professional, that would 100% a major focus of advice from him, because a major focus of his is advising men on how to present themselves to succeed in a capitalist society. Women wear makeup because it is on some level a base requirement for them to succeed in a capitalist society, they are seen as less professional without it, the same way men are seen as less professional with unkempt facial hair and sweats.
Ultimately of course this is a product of Peterson's hyper focus on the individual. He doesn't examine why women make up beyond the hyper individualistic assumption of: a woman wants a man, because Peterson is not very interested in how society influences anyone (especially how society in influences women, well really Peterson isn't all that interested in women except in how they relate to men... hence why he thinks Frozen is propganda but loves Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast as art for example). So to him make up can't be like a suit (because his professionalism standards are entirely derived from what is expected of men) so it must be an act of flirtation.
Last edited:
Very well said.
I'm still waiting to hear what Peterson was "really" trying to say about woman wearing make up to become sexually desirable. If it wasn't to make a connection to sexual harassment, then what the hell was his point?
Thanks for writing up a concise refutation of Peterson's idiocy.
Ahhh <click> I was wondering why lots of alt-right wing nonsense comments recently were banging on about post modernism and marxists. Trickle down drivel.
Haha sorry I just submitted a paper on aerodynamic modelling of drones so I still have that stuff in my mind
Thank you for writing this. Reading this thread and people talking about women's "choice" and reasons to wear make-up was a bit of a trip, since make-up is required for women if you want to look at all professional. Especially the parts about how expected it is in society - literally a minute ago I was watching a TV commercial for some product to help remove make-up that had the actors in it "wiping" the make-up oh so easily off their faces... except in the after photos they still clearly had make-up on! Even in ads where they're selling you a product about removing make-up they can't let women go without. There's no need to go looking for studies or guess/make up reasons why women wear it. The answer is all around, you just have to look. Or better yet, listen to women who actually speak about it. People like Peterson just have zero interest in listening, and can only look at the world in how it relates to them.
Btw it's also telling that outside of his two books, a majority of Peterson's work is currently verbal. It is so much easier to dodge and obfuscate verbally. It also is what enables the whole "linking to a 2 hour video as the totality of one's argument" phenomenon to occur, with written academic you are forced to, or well better expected to, provided quotes, provide arguments, with a verbal superstar like Peterson that force/expectation isn't there. It's also why counteracting him is difficult, with written work you are expected to be a bit more concise, with verbal work critics are forced to engage with several talks over several hours and hours to properly ascertain what his argument is before they can rebut it, and there being so much content also creates the appearance that someone who speaks so much must have something ground breaking to say. It also means there's some level of expectation for critics to meet him on his chosen medium, hence the whole debate me bro and "Peterson owns lib in debate" phenomenon, this phenomenon is especially directed at other YouTubers who analyze Peterson in their own videos.
That actually is where Peterson is smart, not really in his ideas, which again are generally banal status quo argument presented as enigmatic new discoveries, but in his linguistic prowess, he is absolutely adept at speaking, for example I feel I have done a pretty good job examining and rebutting his core ideologies, but in a verbal debate? He'd probably absolutely destroy me because I am not as adept a public speaker as he is, my strength is thoughtful written analysis not off the cuff verbal retorts. It is easier to wade through his rhetorical and literal devices when we translate his talking into text and can parse through it. You can't do that in a verbal confrontation, Peterson doesn't win on the strength of superior ideas, he wins on the strength of strong verbal skills and an obscene level of confidence. Which goes back to how much of a fallacy the idea that the best ideas win out in public debate is.
That actually is where Peterson is smart, not really in his ideas, which again are generally banal status quo argument presented as enigmatic new discoveries, but in his linguistic prowess, he is absolutely adept at speaking, for example I feel I have done a pretty good job examining and rebutting his core ideologies, but in a verbal debate? He'd probably absolutely destroy me because I am not as adept a public speaker as he is, my strength is thoughtful written analysis not off the cuff verbal retorts. It is easier to wade through his rhetorical and literal devices when we translate his talking into text and can parse through it. You can't do that in a verbal confrontation, Peterson doesn't win on the strength of superior ideas, he wins on the strength of strong verbal skills and an obscene level of confidence. Which goes back to how much of a fallacy the idea that the best ideas win out in public debate is.
...
Who thought that was a good idea?
I mean the Witcher games were immature but that's fucked up.
It was basically "wish it, want it, do it" levels of nonsense and unearned profundity
I have it. It's not full yet, but I've spent the last day compiling the leftists that love liberal JP:
If I'm missing someone let me know.
Here's a critique of Maps of Meaning by a philosopher and cognitive scientist. In otherwords, a critique by someone qualified to talk about this stuff, unlike Peterson:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning
The guy has his lectures on youtube and has written two books. The C16 bill amounts to what, 0.5% of his output?
Here's the Canadian bar association on the C16 bill, how's that for a reference.
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16
The Supreme Court have very clearly stated that speech, no matter how awful, isn't grounds to be considered discrimination.
Your just wrong about C16 and so is Jordan. Some random lawyer with a word press account who attends conservative Christian events and has connections with Jordan isn't evidence. I could give you a million liberal lawyer blog posts saying the opposite, but could you give me a respected body of lawyers against the bill?
But literally he got famous for opposing C-16. he still goes around talking about how he opposes C-16.
He wrote his first book freaking 19 years ago but only got famous in late 2016 for his shit on C-16.
Literally he first speaks out against C-16 in around Sept 2016, and you can see the spike then he testifies against in in May 2017 and you can see another spike
Nothing perplexing about any of this unless you handle women with a different pair of gloves than men. People have to wear "something" to work. And if it isn't "pretty" or at least baseline appealing you're gonna get treated as an eyesore. Some women wear "pretty" things for other people to see, some don't. The way you find out is to talk to them, not making "universal" assumptions about stuff you cannot know.
What in the actual hell do you mean by "intent of dominance"? Also support your claim that society is "hypersexualized". Compared to what? And more sexually desirable to whom? Women wear makeup for many reasons I'm sure, some of them to look good/professional for potential clients or customers. Not necessarily "for" their coworkers to be attracted to. You've already begun with flawed assumptions in your premise. I'd like you to demonstrate how you know why women wear makeup at work. Gimme the receipts.
Another assumption. I've met people against makeup and high heels and pretty dresses. Some men and some women. You don't know what you're talking about. You have no basis for any of it. You're just making generalizations about how you think women's heads work. Just like Peterson.
Last edited:
Just read the fucking bill, guys. You don't need a lawyer to interpret this one. C-16 is literally a page long and contains about two sentences of substantive text.
If it's still not clear, Peterson is completely wrong about what this legislation does. It has nothing to do with free speech at all, really; it has the effect of putting an employee fired for being trans on the same level as an employee fired for being black. It deals with the categories of what one might call overt discrimination by employers.
LOL
this seems so out of the left field - but i get the memes in this thread now
I thoroughly enjoy his self improvement advice.
His words are more empowering than any councilor I've dealt with.
His words are more empowering than any councilor I've dealt with.
If you need expanation why our society is hypersexualised when we have a thread on gaming against oversexualization of women in videogames which happens all the time, when sex and inuendos are all we see in media, in ads, when large % of Internet traffic is pornography, when Google automatically beautifies your face when you upload pictures to remove imperfections - I think you're just trolling at this point.
I recommend The Scarlet Letter to those who think we're somehow living in a "hyper sexualized" society to the point of societal regression and who want to view a society that rejected such "sexualization".
Because the end result of "reducing sexualization" is always the targeting of women (See Peterson blaming women because they have the gaul to wear makeup in the workplace or culture that enforces modesty ) and never the targeting of men for their role in sexualizing women in the first place.
Just like everything, it all falls back to the core concept Peterson can't stop talking about.
Women are the cause of young men struggling in society.
Because the end result of "reducing sexualization" is always the targeting of women (See Peterson blaming women because they have the gaul to wear makeup in the workplace or culture that enforces modesty ) and never the targeting of men for their role in sexualizing women in the first place.
Just like everything, it all falls back to the core concept Peterson can't stop talking about.
Women are the cause of young men struggling in society.
So makeup can lead to intent of dominance. What the fuck does that mean?
Wait... is Ursus actually Jordan Peterson?
If Peterson had said that men shouldn't be creepy fucks, he wouldn't be getting dragged, but the first thing that comes to his mind about rules is makeup. It's extremely telling.
Wait... is Ursus actually Jordan Peterson?
If Peterson had said that men shouldn't be creepy fucks, he wouldn't be getting dragged, but the first thing that comes to his mind about rules is makeup. It's extremely telling.
I'm asking what is your benchmark for "non-hypersexualized" world? Puritan times? Native Americans? Pre colonial Europe? Pre colonial Polynesia? All wildly different standards of sexualization, nudity, and makeup/face paint wearing. You're not quantifying anything you're spouting on about. Just asserting it. Give me something quantifiable
Just to clarify, I do not think that we live in a hypersexualised society "to the point of societal regression". I stated that we live in hypersexualised society. Such society, in my view, is the one that promotes or encourages use of sex and sexual imagery/attributes to the point of it becoming the perceived norm or people becoming decensitized to such things. That's all.
l do not agree that targeting women is a solution to anything, I never said we need to desexualize society in general unless we find harmful patterns (e.g. there's evidence that something like porn abuse leads to a number of illnesses which we probably should address) and I do not agree that women are a problem for young men.
On the contrary I think theres a lot of room for constructive and better dialogue and society that comes with the inclusion of women in the discourse. The inability of young men to deal with women empowerment is troubling.
How come my OT got locked and I get slapped for liking JP's wonderful and insightful musings on Disney cartoons but diehard fans for his lighter writings get 1000 posts in 24 hours dang it why is my room so filthy.
Also that rant on twitter was amazing, don't harass JPs friends or you get the claw.
Also that rant on twitter was amazing, don't harass JPs friends or you get the claw.
But I never said there was non-hypersexualised world...
How about you prove the world is not hypersexualised?
Exactly. And many of those who champion him as their intellectual savior seem to prefer engaging with his videos over any text (even Peterson's own books!), which conveniently reduces everything to YouTube discourse.
- Status