Don't really have an opinion on the guy myself, only saw a few short videos on subjects I don't even recall, but gotta say he is good at getting attention from all sides it seems.
Remember when sharing and caring were seen as a good thing?I have seen the face of Cultural Marxism and it is indeed Snuffleupagus
Don't really have an opinion on the guy myself, only saw a few short videos on subjects I don't even recall, but gotta say he is good at getting attention from all sides it seems.
You're right, Peterson was wrong on C-16. Had to keep rereading it looking back and forth between the articles linked, but it's clear the hate law change only affects the narrow scope of hate crimes, and the Human Rights code only matters if an action was taken against a transperson in addition to being purposefully misgendered, making it an arguably discriminatory action.
What confused me was the language in the OHRC. OHRC seems go (much) further than the federal law, at least with it's language. Even though the case cited with the police follows the standards found in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Ontario version seems to explicitly go further than that in it's statement:
While it's true The OHRC haven't gone down this path yet, it makes me wonder why they haven't changed this language if it's unnecessary (and unconstitutional) to begin with, and it being the primarily driver for this whole mess of hyperventilation from Peterson and his fans (as it's literally reference in all the pro-Peterson arguments, along with a Q&A quote from the Justice Dept site saying OHRC helps them develop transpolicy positions, thus giving Peterson an "in" to project OHRC fears onto C-16/Justice Dept.... somehow). It should be a relatively simple thing to clear up by adding a few words up front: "(Taking a course of action against a transperson while) refusing to refer to (them) by their chosen name etc....."
This Jordan peterson craze won't last until the end of the year, he seems unhinged as fuck. I genuinely don't think he's coping well with his popularity.
peterson uses the existence of hierarchical behavior in lobsters to "prove" that gender dominance in human society is a biological imperative (seriously)
thus it's become something of a jokey term for his marks
Also Petterson ran from being interviewed on the issue... much like he runs from debating actual Marxists
FTR, from what I've seen in practice, a "left libertarian" is someone who talks about how sad they are about social issues such as racism and sexism, but when pressed on how we should solve them, the answer is that they will solve themselves if we ignore them and women and minorities just tried harder. It's people who unironically suggest the free market fix for inequality. It's a political ideology for young men who want to feel progressive, but don't want to feel inconvenienced. "Sucks for you, but I got mine, so...".
Being left-anything doesn't really jive with small government philosophy though. At the end of the day, we still need legislation and protections for all sorts of social and economic progressivism. IMO being left-leaning and libertarian are diametrically opposed philosophies.Uh, that sounds like a regular libertarian.
Left libertarians, from my experience at least, are people who are what right-wingers typically think of democrats. Both socially and economically left-leaning.
Do humans have that some brain function?Think for yourself instead of taking this weird reduction at face value.
Peterson uses the lobster as an example to illustrate how ancient dominance hierarchies are. He tells about how the lobster has a brain function that tracks status and releases serotonin accordingly and uses it as a gateway to his first self-help rule: stand up straight with your shoulders back.
It's utterly harmless stuff.
Think for yourself instead of taking this weird reduction at face value.
Peterson uses the lobster as an example to illustrate how ancient dominance hierarchies are. He tells about how the lobster has a brain function that tracks status and releases serotonin accordingly and uses it as a gateway to his first self-help rule: stand up straight with your shoulders back.
It's utterly harmless stuff.
Why is he choosing crustaceans and not something more similar to us like other apes?
Think for yourself instead of taking this weird reduction at face value.
It's like one step away from The Bell Curve. Hierarchies exist between individuals, but how does that explain the inequality between social groups? It literally doesn't. Even if it did, why shouldn't we try to achieve social justice? It's a bunch of bullshit meant to maintain structural inequalities and give the dominant groups a reason not to do shit and to admonish anyone who does.Because he's picking something that suits his biological determinism, the state of the world, and the state of power is natural. It's reverse argumentation.... He came up the answer and found the thing that "proved it"
The lobster is literally his counter-argument to people talking about white privilege and patriarchy and what not. Which is just another feather in the cap of JP is very very very funny until you remember he's taken seriously.
It completely fits into Peterson's over arching advice that no one should try and change society (because it's changing hierarchies that are ordained by nature), it's part and parcel with his hyper individualistic belief structure.
Hierarchies have been proven to be evolutionarily success for many species to thrive and so the concept shouldn't be dismissed out of hand due to unjust inequalities that attempt to justify themselves through a hierarchy system. You can make the case for evolving towards a hierarchy that's free of unjust inequalities (i.e. merit based, free of systemic discrimination/bias, equal opportunity, but still maintaining power structures of leadership).
However I agree that Peterson seems to be using this concept primarily to praise naturalistic gender roles, and seems to think that those naturalistic roles are beneficial to the general psychology (and thus, life) of that particular gender.... which is dumb. We have no reason to think naturalistic psychological traits produce a satisfactory outcome in today's far-removed-from-natural-evolution society, nor do we know the extent to which social norms are propping up/exaggerating those traits making it unclear if they're independently beneficial/equitable. These traits don't play the same beneficial roles they used to back when humanity was mostly tribal, and in many cases end up conflicting with the attempt at equality within a clearly biased capitalistic system. He even admits as much when he says he counsels women on how to be "more aggressive" to get raises, because their naturalistic traits apparently aren't beneficial toward making money, which is clearly an inequality problem.
So he admits naturalistic traits fail for women in capitalistic markets, but says they should rely on them anyway for peace of mind. Makes very little sense.
The mechanisms for lobster social interactions are not evolutionarily conserved beyond the release of serotonin... Where the social function is certainly not conserved (Because serotonin responses in lobsters and humans evolved independently, which should be obvious when you consider the enormously different behavioral responses different animals have to serotonin).Think for yourself instead of taking this weird reduction at face value.
Peterson uses the lobster as an example to illustrate how ancient dominance hierarchies are. He tells about how the lobster has a brain function that tracks status and releases serotonin accordingly and uses it as a gateway to his first self-help rule: stand up straight with your shoulders back.
It's utterly harmless stuff.
Why is he choosing crustaceans and not something more similar to us like other apes?
And do humans have the same brain functions as lobsters?
Oh I don't think hierarchies are all unnatural, I was just rejecting his lobster argument for the exact reason you are, his usage of it to argue that our societal status quo on gender hierarchies and roles are natural and thus right.
Sounds like a quote from a Call of Duty load screen.The great advice from JBP:
"Stand up straight with your shoulders back and resist the postmodern neomarxists who will destroy Western Civilization"
He's not saying it's right, he's saying it probes that hierarchies of competence are ancient and not socially constructed human inventions.
Later on in the book he even describes the natural fallacy, so "natural = good" is not Petersons worldview.
Think for yourself instead of taking this weird reduction at face value.
Peterson uses the lobster as an example to illustrate how ancient dominance hierarchies are. He tells about how the lobster has a brain function that tracks status and releases serotonin accordingly and uses it as a gateway to his first self-help rule: stand up straight with your shoulders back.
It's utterly harmless stuff.
Except it's abundantly clear he does think the old age status quo of men and women is good.
Again you have to take this lobster thing within the greater context of the totality of his arguments and implications.
Those are at least often quoted from actual intellectuals, though.
I see it more in the overal context of: not everything can be answered by social constructivism. Don't deny nature.
Yes, he does think the status quo is good. But the way I see it: that's pragmatic.
He's been tweeting a lot about Humanprogress.org with it's statistics on how the current system of Capitalism has been mostly a force for good in reducing for example, poverty. He's in the camp of Steven Pinker.
Petersons argument on that front is: we are doing the best we have ever done. Radical change to that must be viewes with utmost skepticism. He's an anti-Utopian thinker.
Well, Peterson claims that the status tracking/serotonin is true for humans too at least. I don't know if he is correct on that one, but it would be really easy for his opponents to tear him down on that if it was not so..
I'm open to being wrong though.
From just some light reading, more serotonin in lobsters makes them more aggressive, but it's not true for humans. Less serotonin can make humans more moody. And he talks about apes later on in the chapter? For a supposed intellectual, picking a crustacean that is very far removed from human evolution as his go-to example is not very smart.
No, later on in the book with a different topic. The lobster is basically picked to get inspiration from (victorious lobsters walk straight, losers slouch). And he points out a few simillarities between the human and lobster brain. At no point does he say: therefore lobsterbrain = human brain or that kind of shit.
But I think this is becoming a bit fruitless. I like discussion about Petersons views and I think we can continue to do so because I admit I have been a bit too charmed by this man's passion.
But I would like to ask everyone contributing to stick to literal Peterson quotes and stuff, not "this is what he's actually saying" presented as an actual quote or accurate summary.
well did he ever say if he agrees dads should have that option too?women must be able to choose a career if they desire so, but it's also fine if they desire to be a mother first.
What?
So we can't put his quotes into the greater context of what he has said and written in the past because it makes him look like how he actually is?
We can't talk about how when he says "women have a 50% great chance of success" that it obviously has greater implications to what message he is trying to bring forward? How he constantly attacks women on topics while trying to bring forward "self help" for young men?
For real, give me a break.
well did he ever say if he agrees dads should have that option too?
The first view isn't controversial at all unless you believe there's some broad conspiracy of radical feminists ostracizing women for having children.So his views on traditional roles for men and women boil down to: women must be able to choose a career if they desire so, but it's also fine if they desire to be a mother first. Currently, society seems to shifted too much to the former as desirable.
FTR, from what I've seen in practice, a "left libertarian" is someone who talks about how sad they are about social issues such as racism and sexism, but when pressed on how we should solve them, the answer is that they will solve themselves if we ignore them and women and minorities just tried harder. It's people who unironically suggest the free market fix for inequality. It's a political ideology for young men who want to feel progressive, but don't want to feel inconvenienced. "Sucks for you, but I got mine, so..."
So yeah, easy to see why those who identify themselves as such would follow Peterson. It's your number one source for self-proclaimed leftists who bitch and moan about SJWs.
The first view isn't controversial at all unless you believe there's some broad conspiracy of radical feminists ostracizing women for having children.
I don't know how Peterson hopes to address falling birthrates in the West as he seems to oppose (nonwhite) immigration and, I assume, would also oppose public policies aimed at helping women who choose to have kids. If his position is that he can convince women back into assuming strict gender roles, then he doesn't seem to be having much success considering the makeup of his audience.
I see it more in the overal context of: not everything can be answered by social constructivism. Don't deny nature.
Yes, he does think the status quo is good. But the way I see it: that's pragmatic.
So his views on traditional roles for men and women boil down to: women must be able to choose a career if they desire so, but it's also fine if they desire to be a mother first. Currently, society seems to shifted too much to the former as desirable.
No, later on in the book with a different topic. The lobster is basically picked to get inspiration from (victorious lobsters walk straight, losers slouch).
What similarities did he mention?And he points out a few simillarities between the human and lobster brain.
Yeah but why lobsters are valid and not bonobos?The lobster is basically picked to get inspiration from (victorious lobsters walk straight, losers slouch). And he points out a few simillarities between the human and lobster brain.
He is absolutely incorrect on that one:Well, Peterson claims that the status tracking/serotonin is true for humans too at least. I don't know if he is correct on that one, but it would be really easy for his opponents to tear him down on that if it was not so..
I'm open to being wrong though.