Jordan Peterson Thread.

[JimmyJeffers]

Only on average, and it depends on what type of strength you are talking about. There is actually a lot of overlap for certain strength-based activities, such as distance running, carrying heavy-loads, and walking. Men, on average, do have higher grip-strength and upper body strength.



No, not exactly. On average, men hunt and women gather, but in some hunter-gatherer societies there is far less gendered roles for these two activities, so one can't draw up tidy little dichotomies. Futher, some types of hunting doesn't involve or rely on men's strength; in fact in more than a few hunting-gathering societies men hunt large game not because they are strong, but more likely because successful hunters are viewed as more prestigious and can acquire more resources (and females) by being viewed as a successful hunter. Studies have suggested that hunter-gatherer men would actually obtain more animal protein if they hunt/trapped small game (something that doesn't require strength), but they don't do this; instead, they pursue risky animal prey for status reasons. Certainly, from what I understand, strength plays a role in some types of hunting, but I don't think hunting was the evolutionary reason for sexual dimorphism in body strength.



I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "bigger & stronger" will lead to an instinctive "responsibility for bigger & stronger work"



Again, these "instincts" you refer to depend critically on our ancestral social/mating system, and it is unclear how territorial/competitive our ancestors were, so it is unclear exactly how territorial/competitive present-day humans are supposed to be. If anything, several psychological studies suggest humans will rapidly readjust their in-group/out-group competitive mentality in the face of a larger threat (A hates B, but A and B unite against common enemy C), indicating that these are not hard-wired and fixed instincts, but flexible psychological "programs" that are capable of responding to external stimuli. And one of the largest external stimuli out there is culture. If you grow up watching/experiencing violence (a cultural phenomenon), you will end up being violent. Same goes for non-violence and its influence on your demeanor. Compare, for example, the !Kung versus the Yanomamo. The former is quite egalitarian, passive, and monogamous, the latter is quite fierce and polygynous.



Women tend to want to have children more than men, on average. But I'm not sure this has much to do with women impelling themselves to working less hard than men, which is what you wrote. That seems a rather harsh and unsupportable judgment on women's work ethic, particularly when there are so many other real obstacles in their way such as sexual harassment, to name one. Raising kids while holding down a job in a culture that is predominantly male-oriented is another.

Also, women (and females throughout the animal kingdom) are highly competitive, just not competitive in a way that a right-leaning man such as yourself might see them.



It is a common and false dichotomy to talk about "biology ends and social/culture begins" They interact, and as I said before, our brains are not hardwired with fixed instincts, but are wired up by evolution to be capable of adapting/adjusting to external phenomena. We don't have an hard-wired and adapted brain; we have a brain capable of adapting.



I'm not aware of masses of students with aimless social-studies degrees not getting on in the workplace...where is this idea coming from?

Careful. People are sick of experts mate.

 

[dholliday]

They were until insufferable right-wing bellends like Youtube personality Sargon of Gonads started declaring themselves to be on the Left. Just so people know how dishonest this Sargon character (real name Carl Benjamin) is, here's a recent picture he posted... Yes, he's such a great Leftist.

Interesting development in that the British contingent of The New Middle, IDW, Neo-Libertarians or however we might label this loose group are seeking UKIP membership. Milo Y, Douglas Murray also.

Sargon, Milo & Murray have big followers online: they (along with the US contingent) have re-ignited political debate among the youth, who were previously so disinterested.

Now if they all manage to get into UKIP they'll quickly become figureheads...there's a lot of debate at the moment as to whether this could translate into more vote share for the party, and what they should stand for once Brexit has gone through.

Potentially interesting times for political observers.

My vote would still go a Corbyn-led Labour myself, as I believe he'll have the best socially-cohesive policies (domestic & foreign). But I can imagine a YoutubeCelebrity-led UKIP campaign will be factinating to behold, and I'll likely find myself agreeing with at least half of what Sargon, Murray & Milo are spouting. And they won't speak in that dry safe political manner of seasoned politicians, either.

Only on average, and it depends on what type of strength you are talking about. There is actually a lot of overlap for certain strength-based activities, such as distance running, carrying heavy-loads, and walking. Men, on average, do have higher grip-strength and upper body strength.



No, not exactly. On average, men hunt and women gather, but in some hunter-gatherer societies there is far less gendered roles for these two activities, so one can't draw up tidy little dichotomies. Futher, some types of hunting doesn't involve or rely on men's strength; in fact in more than a few hunting-gathering societies men hunt large game not because they are strong, but more likely because successful hunters are viewed as more prestigious and can acquire more resources (and females) by being viewed as a successful hunter. Studies have suggested that hunter-gatherer men would actually obtain more animal protein if they hunt/trapped small game (something that doesn't require strength), but they don't do this; instead, they pursue risky animal prey for status reasons. Certainly, from what I understand, strength plays a role in some types of hunting, but I don't think hunting was the evolutionary reason for sexual dimorphism in body strength.



I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "bigger & stronger" will lead to an instinctive "responsibility for bigger & stronger work"



Again, these "instincts" you refer to depend critically on our ancestral social/mating system, and it is unclear how territorial/competitive our ancestors were, so it is unclear exactly how territorial/competitive present-day humans are supposed to be. If anything, several psychological studies suggest humans will rapidly readjust their in-group/out-group competitive mentality in the face of a larger threat (A hates B, but A and B unite against common enemy C), indicating that these are not hard-wired and fixed instincts, but flexible psychological "programs" that are capable of responding to external stimuli. And one of the largest external stimuli out there is culture. If you grow up watching/experiencing violence (a cultural phenomenon), you will end up being violent. Same goes for non-violence and its influence on your demeanor. Compare, for example, the !Kung versus the Yanomamo. The former is quite egalitarian, passive, and monogamous, the latter is quite fierce and polygynous.



Women tend to want to have children more than men, on average. But I'm not sure this has much to do with women impelling themselves to working less hard than men, which is what you wrote. That seems a rather harsh and unsupportable judgment on women's work ethic, particularly when there are so many other real obstacles in their way such as sexual harassment, to name one. Raising kids while holding down a job in a culture that is predominantly male-oriented is another.

Also, women (and females throughout the animal kingdom) are highly competitive, just not competitive in a way that a right-leaning man such as yourself might see them.



It is a common and false dichotomy to talk about "biology ends and social/culture begins" They interact, and as I said before, our brains are not hardwired with fixed instincts, but are wired up by evolution to be capable of adapting/adjusting to external phenomena. We don't have an hard-wired and adapted brain; we have a brain capable of adapting.



I'm not aware of masses of students with aimless social-studies degrees not getting on in the workplace...where is this idea coming from?

Great detailed reply. I enjoyed reading it even if I do have rebuttals, tho' I think we might just leave it at the agree-to-disagree stage. The most pressing however is that I'm not right-leaning. I've always been more liberal/left but still quite close to the centre, traditionally-grounded if you like (think an Orwell or Greer). I've also always had a thing for bringing two clashing views together to see if a new view comes out of it.

Plus as we've often discussed there is a known push to the hard left from the mainstream, which may make a centre-left person appear more right-leaning than he actually is, depending on what's being discussed.

As I stated above my UK political support goes to Corbyn's Labour, even if UKIP manage to re-invent themselves as the IDW-party. I'm against many typical right-leaning positions.


I was curious so just did the political compass test and turned out more left-leaning than expected, thought it may fit better as its own thread...see if more heads are interested in trying it out:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.104382/

One theme-relevant question:

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. I disagree, People are free to do whatever they like (within law) with their lives. I didn't strongly disagree as the caveat is many women feel (and want) this to be their first duty. They're impelled to, biologically.

I suppose a right-leaning person (or JP himself) would click differently.

 

[verreauxi]

Great detailed reply. I enjoyed reading it even if I do have rebuttals, tho' I think we might just leave it at the agree-to-disagree stage. The most pressing however is that I'm not right-leaning. I've always been more liberal/left but still quite close to the centre, traditionally-grounded if you like (think an Orwell or Greer). I've also always had a thing for bringing two clashing views together to see if a new view comes out of it.

Plus as we've often discussed there is a known push to the hard left from the mainstream, which may make a centre-left person appear more right-leaning than he actually is, depending on what's being discussed.

As I stated above my UK political support goes to Corbyn's Labour, even if UKIP manage to re-invent themselves as the IDW-party. I'm against many typical right-leaning positions.


I was curious so just did the political compass test and turned out more left-leaning than expected, thought it may fit better as its own thread...see if more heads are interested in trying it out:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.104382/

One theme-relevant question:

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. I disagree, People are free to do whatever they like (within law) with their lives. I didn't strongly disagree as the caveat is many women feel (and want) this to be their first duty. They're impelled to, biologically.

I suppose a right-leaning person (or JP himself) would click differently.

I didn't mean to mis-attribute your political persuasion; I thought you had identified as conservative in some prior thread, but I must have confused you with someone else.

Here's me:

 

[Aqui1a]

 

[devogue]

They were until insufferable right-wing bellends like Youtube personality Sargon of Gonads started declaring themselves to be on the Left. Just so people know how dishonest this Sargon character (real name Carl Benjamin) is, here's a recent picture he posted... Yes, he's such a great Leftist.

Akkad is an utter mug

 

[dholliday]

Honestly don't understand the point of posting other comments from other online-communities without any context.

Don't you have your own opinion, mate? What is it you want to say? Just curious as you only seem to post comments critical of the man, it's like you want your thinking to be done for you (one of the things JP is railing against).

 

[ilikecheese]

Honestly don't understand the point of posting other comments from other online-communities without any context.

Don't you have your own opinion, mate? What is it you want to say? Just curious as you only seem to post comments critical of the man, it's like you want your thinking to be done for you (one of the things JP is railing against).

Pretty crappy thing for JP to do though don't you think? The Durham Mayor Pro Tem issued a statement that was signed by the city council saying they strongly disagree with him...but also says he has a right to speak.

Then he does that. Pretty lame if you ask me.

 

[longers]

Truly boggles the mind that there are young people wanting to take life advice from this wet flannel. Imagine being a teenager and having him as your dad, what a joyless childhood that would be.

 

[DanEFC92]

Wind = Feeling of impending doom.

What a loon.

 

[dholliday]

Pretty crappy thing for JP to do though don't you think? The Durham Mayor Pro Tem issued a statement that was signed by the city council saying they strongly disagree with him...but also says he has a right to speak.

Then he does that. Pretty lame if you ask me.

Lame and even a little vindictive. Deffo minus points for JP there. But I couldn't find the original post so can't see the statement they put out. Sometimes a lame vindictive reaction, while not entirely justified, is understandable.

 

[ilikecheese]

Lame and even a little vindictive. Deffo minus points for JP there. But I couldn't find the original post so can't see the statement they put out. Sometimes a lame vindictive reaction, while not entirely justified, is understandable.

 

[dholliday]

Yeah, definitely understandable reaction from Peterson. When the City Mayor of the next gig you're playing in says:

"Mr. Peterson’s racist, misogynist, and transphobic views...Those who seek to exclude or deny the humanity of others will find no comfort here. We believe that violence against women is horrific and unacceptable under any circumstances. "

then it implies that Peterson is a very bad apple indeed. It's character assassination from a politician and other council members. Personally I think their accusations are totally unfounded or if I'm giving them an inch then utterly exaggerated, designed to dirty the character of Jordan Peterson. We've not seen such brazen character-assassination even from the perma-outraged opinion writers of anti-JP news sites like The Guardian.

I've listened to enough JP to know he can be quite conservative & traditionalist in his views, but never have I identified racism, women-hatred or transphobia, and never have I heard him supporting "horrific" violence against women.


It's an ugly tit-for-tat situation. I still feel JP's reaction - posting the (already-public) email-addresses knowing they'll get trolled by his überfans - is lame & vindictive. But now I also understand, and there's an argument there that it's even justified. Public character assassination isn't something to be taken lightly, he may even have a case to sue (defamation).

 

[dholliday]

Or put another way:

 

[dholliday]

Pretty crappy thing for JP to do though don't you think? The Durham Mayor Pro Tem issued a statement that was signed by the city council saying they strongly disagree with him...but also says he has a right to speak.

Then he does that. Pretty lame if you ask me.

And finally, these are publicly-elected City Council representatives. As such they are supposed to represent the people. Their contact details are public so if people wish to report their displeasure at how these members represent then they are free to do so.

While JP still loses a point because he knows what he was doing when he posted these (public...no need to cross them out) mail addresses, the signatories are engaged in outrageous character defamation, which is worth a 3-point deduction. They've also deleted a lot of Facebook comments, but if you care to look anywhere that isn't an echo chamber you'll see almost-unanimous support for JP.

Final Score: Mayor Jillian Johnson & Team 1 - 3 Jordan Peterson

 

[ilikecheese]

And finally, these are publicly-elected City Council representatives. As such they are supposed to represent the people. Their contact details are public so if people wish to report their displeasure at how these members represent then they are free to do so.

While JP still loses a point because he knows what he was doing when he posted these (public...no need to cross them out) mail addresses, the signatories are engaged in outrageous character defamation, which is worth a 3-point deduction. They've also deleted a lot of Facebook comments, but if you care to look anywhere that isn't an echo chamber you'll see almost-unanimous support for JP.

Final Score: Mayor Jillian Johnson & Team 1 - 3 Jordan Peterson

The City of Durham is a very liberal place so I reckon they are just echoing what the majority of it's people believe. Moreover, this event is in a building owned by the City...hence distancing themselves from the controversial and provacative speaker.

There is no doubt in my mind that he has expressed views of racism, misogyny, and has a problem with trans people. He does it in a way where he has plausible deniability. That is why he is loved by white male bigots.

Seems this has stuck a chord with you.