Jordan Peterson Thread.

[LinekersLegs]

So his big idea is...promote marriage?


There is still quite a lot of devil in the details of “social convention favouring stable pair bonding” that he breezily skips past.

Also I can’t quite wrap my head around the inconsistency in “very large anthropological/psych literature indicating that monogamy makes men less violent” combined with his belief thatnmodern society means lots more males are suffering from lack of monogamous partners with this chart

Lots of moving parts of course (imo a big one has been lead exposure from cars) but surely if Peterson’s theory is correct there shouldn’t be such a dramatic drop in violent crime over the past few decades?

 

[ilikecheese]

Decent debate about political correctness that derails a bit. Peterson was pretty jumbled tbh, on the defence from the pro-PC team, but Fry was absolutely great

I watched this Prev and I want my 2 hours back!

For me JP was the weak link in this 'debate'. Lost his temper.

 

[Prevenger17]

I watched this Prev and I want my 2 hours back!

For me JP was the weak link in this 'debate'. Lost his temper.

I don't know, the other two were very poor aswell imo. Fry the only one to come out of that looking good

 

[verreauxi]

So his big idea is...promote marriage?


There is still quite a lot of devil in the details of “social convention favouring stable pair bonding” that he breezily skips past.

Also I can’t quite wrap my head around the inconsistency in “very large anthropological/psych literature indicating that monogamy makes men less violent” combined with his belief thatnmodern society means lots more males are suffering from lack of monogamous partners with this chart View attachment 46460

Lots of moving parts of course (imo a big one has been lead exposure from cars) but surely if Peterson’s theory is correct there shouldn’t be such a dramatic drop in violent crime over the past few decades?

Very typical Peterson. Say one thing, then immediately pull back and say you meant something else. This is getting very old!

To quote the Current Affairs article again: "The multiplicity of possible interpretations is very important. It makes it almost impossible to beat Peterson in an argument, because every time one attempts to force him to defend a proposition, he can insist he means something else."

 

[LinekersLegs]

Very typical Peterson. Say one thing, then immediately pull back and say you meant something else. This is getting very old!

And for a man who’s rule #10 is “be precise in your speech” he doesn’t half whinge when being imprecise in his speech causes confusion or others to question what he means.

 

[verreauxi]

So his big idea is...promote marriage?


There is still quite a lot of devil in the details of “social convention favouring stable pair bonding” that he breezily skips past.

Also I can’t quite wrap my head around the inconsistency in “very large anthropological/psych literature indicating that monogamy makes men less violent” combined with his belief thatnmodern society means lots more males are suffering from lack of monogamous partners with this chart View attachment 46460

Lots of moving parts of course (imo a big one has been lead exposure from cars) but surely if Peterson’s theory is correct there shouldn’t be such a dramatic drop in violent crime over the past few decades?

I'm not aware of the literature directly linking monogamy to less violence (but I'll dig into it). There are, of course, many studies saying that men are healthier in relationships, but this isn't new. And there are also studies that suggest that single men are more prone to violence than men in relationships, but there are too many cofactors to disentangle this argument: violence rates among men go down with age while marriage rates go up, violence rates among men go down if they have children, violence rates go down as wealth/status (which are often correlated with age) increases, etc.
He is so conveniently ignoring other cultural factors that produce violence it is truly reckless. But when you produce a figure in an academic text such as below, and produce it without a hint of irony or sarcasm, well...then it kinda follows that he's not really going to be concerned with details and facts...or reality for that matter.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I'm not aware of the literature directly linking monogamy to less violence (but I'll dig into it). There are, of course, many studies saying that men are healthier in relationships, but this isn't new. And there are also studies that suggest that single men are more prone to violence than men in relationships, but there are too many cofactors to disentangle this argument: violence rates among men go down with age while marriage rates go up, violence rates among men go down if they have children, violence rates go down as wealth/status (which are often correlated with age) increases, etc.
He is so conveniently ignoring other cultural factors that produce violence it is truly reckless. But when you produce a figure in an academic text such as below, and produce it without a hint of irony or sarcasm, well...then it kinda follows that he's not really going to be concerned with details and facts...or reality for that matter.

l
I’d be interested in what you find out. I followed the link to the abstract he cited and given he seems to concentrate on the dangers posed by incels was a bit flummoxed when it seemed to state they were less violent than guys who were getting sex just not monogamous sex - far too deep for me to follow on a Sunday morning!

Have to admit I love the term The Dragon of Chaos - not a clue what it means mind you but always been a bit partial to dragons from reading Anne McCaffrey as a kid

 

[Prevenger17]

I'm not aware of the literature directly linking monogamy to less violence (but I'll dig into it). There are, of course, many studies saying that men are healthier in relationships, but this isn't new. And there are also studies that suggest that single men are more prone to violence than men in relationships, but there are too many cofactors to disentangle this argument: violence rates among men go down with age while marriage rates go up, violence rates among men go down if they have children, violence rates go down as wealth/status (which are often correlated with age) increases, etc.
He is so conveniently ignoring other cultural factors that produce violence it is truly reckless. But when you produce a figure in an academic text such as below, and produce it without a hint of irony or sarcasm, well...then it kinda follows that he's not really going to be concerned with details and facts...or reality for that matter.

Where might I find one of these Dragons of Chaos?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Where might I find one of these Dragons of Chaos?

In the swamps with the witches?

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Where might I find one of these Dragons of Chaos?

In the swamps with the witches?

Rhyl.

 

[Steve0]

I'm not aware of the literature directly linking monogamy to less violence (but I'll dig into it). There are, of course, many studies saying that men are healthier in relationships, but this isn't new. And there are also studies that suggest that single men are more prone to violence than men in relationships, but there are too many cofactors to disentangle this argument: violence rates among men go down with age while marriage rates go up, violence rates among men go down if they have children, violence rates go down as wealth/status (which are often correlated with age) increases, etc.
He is so conveniently ignoring other cultural factors that produce violence it is truly reckless. But when you produce a figure in an academic text such as below, and produce it without a hint of irony or sarcasm, well...then it kinda follows that he's not really going to be concerned with details and facts...or reality for that matter.

Seen that diagram before but I've genuinely just lolled out loud at it. Gets dafter the more I look at it.

It could only have been produced by a complete barmpot.

 

[Rook]

I'm not aware of the literature directly linking monogamy to less violence (but I'll dig into it). There are, of course, many studies saying that men are healthier in relationships, but this isn't new. And there are also studies that suggest that single men are more prone to violence than men in relationships, but there are too many cofactors to disentangle this argument: violence rates among men go down with age while marriage rates go up, violence rates among men go down if they have children, violence rates go down as wealth/status (which are often correlated with age) increases, etc.
He is so conveniently ignoring other cultural factors that produce violence it is truly reckless. But when you produce a figure in an academic text such as below, and produce it without a hint of irony or sarcasm, well...then it kinda follows that he's not really going to be concerned with details and facts...or reality for that matter.

You can make a good buck by reassuring truly repugnant ---holes that its everyone else that's the problem, its truly a growth market. However in order to stay relevant you have to keep upping your nonsense game.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

I'd love to go for a pint with Stephen Fry

The man is charm personified

That's my main take away from that debate

 

[mezzrow]

This strikes me as a distillation of what repels those who are repelled by JBP, and is simultaneously what attracts others. If you understand the context and history of what is being said, it becomes very very clear. On this forum, I may be alone in my perspective.

On Friday night at the Warner theater I saw a man who knows what he has is fragile, a stroke of lightning that can't be bottled and won't come twice. He's trying to make what he can of it while he has it. Yes, there's the entrepreneurial spirit animating Peterson Inc., with his tour and books and Patreon and "self authoring" suite and plans for an online university and more. But the real Peterson phenomenon is either a martyrdom or some Great Awakening.

Peterson behaves, speaks, stands, like a man who sees death coming and accepts it. Maybe it will, in some form; maybe things are as bad, the enemy as powerful, he as likely to fall as he seems to fear. Or maybe Peterson will be Charles Finney for a Third Great Awakening. America is a great burned-over district, ripe for some kind of religious revival, and Peterson's self-help anti-ideology is a religious proposition. Finney's Second was less orthodox than the First of Edwards and Whitefield. A Peterson Third would be a poetic and Darwinian syncretism, a perfectionist liberalism.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/feature-jordan-peterson-live-at-the-warner-theater/

 

[longers]