-
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
No really he's probably right.
After all what Peterson says is usually so vague that you can pick and choose whatever you want to just disagree with.
Peterson is on psychologist probation or something, because he has problems respecting patient boundaries. I could not be less surprised.
Lol
He even manages to be incompetent at a job he's not even doing anymore.
Maybe Peterson should follow his own advice about standing up straight and communicating clearly.
OP
OP
Peterson fans in the comments believe this is some coordinated effort by the left lol.
Golly! Checking up on my activities eh?
Truth be told, I'm reluctant to get involved in these sorts of discussion. This parish doesn't have a lot of time for disagreement and I run the risk of being banned for arguing in 'bad faith' (as far as I can tell this is catch all term used to squash dissent) or accused of being a supporter of the fur trade worthy of chemical castration.
Anyway, that said, I'll bite. I was expecting you to post that video. I've watched it before (found it quite dull) and Peterson is wholly unconvincing. It's a nice edit of the clip as well, removing it from the broader context of the discussion. The overall conversation went something along the lines of:
a) Women and Men have not been working together for a great amount of time (in the grand scheme of things)
b) Would we condone a woman wearing incredibly skimpy outfits in a professional environment (no, and he then goes on to suggest that's why men wear suits) The interviewer concedes this point.
c) Therefore, what about make up? What's the point of make up? The interviewer at this point feigns a sort of comical disbelief, as if the very idea of a lady wearing make up to make herself attractive is outrageous.
d) Then yes, as linked, he answers 'yes' to the question that ladies would be 'somewhat' hypocritical in their complaints. I feel the 'somewhat' should not be overlooked. That it is contributory, rather than causal.
So what do I think? Not much really. I roll when eyes when social scientists make broad claims like 'you use blusher to recreate 'the rouged cheeks of sexual activity''. Sure, cheeks turn red when your grouting the bath too. Do I think that make up is a concern? Not in a million light years. The only people that do are adherents of some of the more charming Abrahamic faiths.
But I didn't watch the complete interview and think it was a neanderthal attempting to justify or excuse harassment. He even says that people should make 'sexual displays'. He's just saying that that *is* what is taking place. When women and men share an environment, the very basic undercurrent of all those interactions is sexual. Was I wholly convinced? Not really. But nor was I convinced by the phony shock of the interviewer.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/
This is the kind of shit I mean when I say he might not be alt-right but he is a gateway.
This is him condemning right wing anti-Semitism and Jewish conspiracy theories.... using race science and race IQ... his main source being research co-written by a white nationalist and a guy who believes homosexuality is a germ/infection
Here is a debunking of the idea:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1eed/b19bcf7c059a4b10a9ed8c58027d9ed22bae.pdf
And while obviously bias against Peterson the discourse in these two subreddits handle the issues with what Peterson is doing here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapH...jordan_peterson_blogs_on_the_socalled_jewish/
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/86lb0h/jbp_on_the_socalled_jewish_question/
On Harpending on of the authors cited by Peterson:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/henry-harpending
This is what I mean by gateway.
This is the kind of shit I mean when I say he might not be alt-right but he is a gateway.
This is him condemning right wing anti-Semitism and Jewish conspiracy theories.... using race science and race IQ... his main source being research co-written by a white nationalist and a guy who believes homosexuality is a germ/infection
Here is a debunking of the idea:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1eed/b19bcf7c059a4b10a9ed8c58027d9ed22bae.pdf
And while obviously bias against Peterson the discourse in these two subreddits handle the issues with what Peterson is doing here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapH...jordan_peterson_blogs_on_the_socalled_jewish/
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/86lb0h/jbp_on_the_socalled_jewish_question/
On Harpending on of the authors cited by Peterson:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/henry-harpending
This is what I mean by gateway.
I don't care how well spoken he is, the moment i sniffed his bias and his intentions i immediately turned off and changed the video the first time i got exposed to one of his videos, is that bad? is he worth of attention and for me to dig more?.
Oh great, he has a connection to Gregory Clark too. Truly the finest scholars of our age.
Absolutely!I think we can all agree that everyone should watch The Lobster by Yorgos Lanthimos.
not surprised. Motherfucker can't even perform what he's supposed to be actually qualified for, and dumb defenders here want me to listen the shit he says about shit he has no understanding off?
Institutional bias/discrimination doesn't exist according to JP, so please stop doing it in regards to this forum. Clean your room before you criticize the world around you, bucko!
No...the interviewer was raising the eyebrow because he didn't understand what make up had to do with the issue of sexual harassment.
So here's a question for you (and any other Peterson-curious people in this thread): what kind of situation exists where harassing women would be completely acceptable?
Last edited:
Does sounding like Kermit on the verge of crying constitute as well spoken?
Peterson asks him directly 'why do women wear make up?' He giggles and says 'I have no....they just might like to put it on'. As if it's the same as putting on a pair of socks. He avoids answering. He then sits silently and doesn't challenge the idea that high heels are used to accentuate a women's legs.
None.
I don't think he was unaware why women wear make up. I feel like he was just trying to figure out what the connection between that and discussion of sexual harassment was.
Good to hear. So then can you explain why JP brought that up in a discussion about sexual harassment, and then called women hypocrites who complained about it?
It hasn't been used here as far as I can tell
I actually watched the full interview and I don't think the extra context makes it better.
So you disagree with Peterson regarding women being hypocrites?
I never said it was a neanderthal attempting to justify or excuse harassment. I think it's dumb to call women who wear makeup to be hypocrites if they also don't want to be sexually harassed.
I don't see how anyone can view the interviewer's reaction to be phony. People wear makeup for reasons other than sexuality, you know. Sometimes it is a requirement for either getting a job or keeping it. The "somewhat" doesn't matter because makeup isn't a reason why women are sexually harassed. Calling women hypocrites carries the implication that makeup is a contributing factor to sexual harassment. Excelsiorlef posted a great collection of stories and studies showing that what women wear have no bearing whether or not they are sexually harassed. Women in hijabs were sexually harassed. Makeup and dress is not a factor. Even if it was, which I want to stress that is isn't, even if it was a factor, it doesn't give anyone the right to sexually harass someone. This assertion is placing the blame on how women behave and not on the men who commit these acts. Of course, he makes this claim, that makeup contributes to sexual harassment, but doesn't back it up in any way just like how he claims relationships between men and women have deteriorated in the last forty years and doesn't back that up either or even provide examples so we know what the hell he is talking about.
And Peterson is again wrong about the very basic undercurrent of interactions between men and women is sexual. I interact with women daily and most of them have no sexual undercurrent to them at all. He says this so does this mean that he wants to have sex with his female coworkers or patients?
Y'all ever heard of a cargo cult? That's what JP and his fans are doing but with rhetoric and debate instead of airfields and coconut headphones. Zero substance, only the skeleton of a position to point to whenever they're asked to justify their "position".
Besides the significant complications things like societal influence and actual harassment statistics pose for the narrative, not even the base logic of the hypocrisy claim stands up. Even if a woman dresses and puts on make-up in a deliberate attempt to be as sexually attractive as possible, then goes to a club looking to hook up with someone, that doesn't make her a hypocrite for not wanting to be sexually harassed. Hypocrisy would be if that individual woman was sexually harassing other people. It's not "somewhat hypocritical" to oppose burglary but also leave your windows unlocked. It's bog-standard victim blaming.
I may have been wrong. I decided to take a gander at the longer VICE interview and Peterson did in fact specify what he meant when he said that the relationships between men and women have deteriorated. He was talking about sexual harassment. I'm looking at the EEOC stats and it looks like the amount of sexual harassment claims have fallen a bit since 1997.
I have never heard about this person until this thread. I feel so disconnected from the world of big names in ideas.
Get out while you can.
Yeah but they'd be zero if women just stayed home ;)
This is probably why he labels chaos feminine. To him, women entering the workplace caused a lot of changes that he possibly views as chaotic.
Thinking about it, I'm honestly pissed h3h3 has had him on their podcast twice, given their reach and the likely age of their viewerbase. Their exposing their ypung viewers to a backwards charlatan with very little pushback on their part.
You act like h3h3 isn't annoyingly opportunistic regarding voices in new media as a whole for years. Between this and the false reporting they fell for and whatnot, they absolutely have fallen into that "outspoken centrist" category. Gotta defend the Youtube buddies and elevate inaccurate portrayals of WSJ reporting, right?
Edit: Oh good there's literally a picture
Ethan KleinVerified account @h3h3productions
Replying to @stevelaprade @jordanbpeterson
Man that was absolutely #brutal. But seriously he's a truly excellent guy, we didn't even discuss politics, he has a lot of wisdom, give it a shot and see if you don't like something in there. Regardless wish ya the best, god bless thanks for reading
Fuck him and fuck them.
Last edited:
Institutional discrimination is real. But a much bigger problem which may be a subtype of discrimination, is nepotism. I would say that even the benefits you get from good networking are a form of pseudonepotism. And one of the reasons why the elite with all the high level networking they establish early on for their offspring remain in power generation after generation concentrating wealth.
I've seen people excel at their jobs for years, being the best even in entire regions with excellent social skills, never to be promoted while friends and family of the bosses are given the promotions. People come up with solutions that save the company or make the company millions, while someone with little work experience but family or friend connections gets the raise. Part of human nature to favor kin and friends.
They think it makes them look better. Might be the only reason for some to do so. It need not have anything to do with wanting to attract others.
But it's like a guy that wants lots of money and resources but says he wants no partner. Some seeking and workings towards greater wealth may even be and desire to remain celibate. The search for resources might be carried out simply focusing on the resources themselves with no other goal in mind.
Or say sex, many want it but don't want babies. Lots of people want sex and use contraceptives or even sterilize themselves.
Humans can seek and want things for the sake of the things themselves with no care for the evolutionary reasons for those tendencies to seek or do said things built into their minds.
But even the desire to want to stay alive has evolutionary reasons for being there. And in the end most human endeavors, even the arts and sciences, in one way or another serve for the perpetuation of the genetic line.
Sorry but ^ this is a little reaching
Many aspects of human behavior are not genetically predetermined or coupled to reproduction as much anymore. Contributing to the arts and sciences doesn't usually result in more children. There isn't really an evolutionary mechanism for that. Unless you know something I don't
Many aspects of human behavior are not genetically predetermined or coupled to reproduction as much anymore. Contributing to the arts and sciences doesn't usually result in more children. There isn't really an evolutionary mechanism for that. Unless you know something I don't
I've just heard of him through this thread. My initial impressions are that he's just some hack who likes to preach vague platitudes to teenage white boys over the Internet who, in turn, get to feel smart because they're able to parse what he's telling them despite his verboseness. His views on women seem fuelled by his own probable lack of success on that front. He seems very bitter about something there. This all helps speak to his base of course.
You understand that if Peterson actually used precise language, this would not be something you bank on to give him a point in his favor, right?
Nah because somewhat is still more than not at all, which is the correct answer so.
But somewhat is his pas de un he does to get people like you to hyper focus on meaningless distraction words in order to deny what he's actually saying.
There is a hypothesis that artistic expression was a display of intellectual ability showcasing fitness.
Yes of course but the amount of time artists have been around and being sexually selected for isn't long enough to have established trends in the genes afaik.
Our brains evolved to have incredible plasticity and adaptability. They are not 1:1 products of genes with no variability between people and no changes because of the environment. "Makeup" is not a concept within our genes. "Makeup" is an invention. The widespread use of makeup is very much a result of socially expected behaviors that developed in society, not the mindless pushing of our genes.
It's self evident when you consider that the type and the results of makeup are so different in the western world now than it was a century ago!
Looking accross cultures also show a wide range of the what each culture finds appropriate and how to achieve makeup's goal.
That there is anything "genetic" about makeup and people's reaction to makeup is a laughable when societal norm of what is attractive vary in time and location.
I disagree with Peterson with the "somewhat hypocritical" point.
I do agree, however, that the primary function of make-up is to look better. This can be done for a variety of reasons and sex appeal is one of then.
So I can see the reasoning, I just don't agree with Petersons conclusion that there is hypocrisy involved.
That said, if anyone thinks Peterson is endorsing harassment here, that's quite a stretch.
I do agree, however, that the primary function of make-up is to look better. This can be done for a variety of reasons and sex appeal is one of then.
So I can see the reasoning, I just don't agree with Petersons conclusion that there is hypocrisy involved.
That said, if anyone thinks Peterson is endorsing harassment here, that's quite a stretch.
Peterson says it is a sexual display. I don't think he's outright endorsing sexual harassment, but he dances around blaming women for sexual harassment. The hypocrite comment is an example of that. Bringing up not wearing make up as a rule is another one. He even said make up contributes to sexual harassment.
Genes code for a foundation, upon that further is built.
For example fear, a person might escape in a car, or a plane, or a bicycle. But the core of running away and looking for safety is underneath that flexible behavior that adapts to new circumstances.
Beauty may change to a degree, but there are limits, and beauty and youth will be sought.
Attempts at reproduction at later ages, will prove impossible past menopause, and nearing menopause the possibility of complications in birth increases. Thus a tendency to look for youth will develop to ensure that offspring can be conceived, and that their health will not be put at risk needlessly.
Take makeup say whitening the skin in the past and other cultures. The workers were more tanned from working the fields the elite had pale skin. Pale skin was a sign of wealth, and resources, a symbol of things that display fitness and showcase the ability to protect and provide as well as social status.
When most low status individuals spent most time indoors, tanning which displayed free time to go to the beach in leisure, became the new symbol of status.
Likewise clothing changes by the rich are adopted by the poor and the rich seek new fashion to distance themselves and display their status.
Creativity and humor, and culture are not just modern. Since time immemorial rudimentary language and even jewels have been in use as have dances and jokes.
Last edited:
- Status