420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
this cunt by Martin Turveydock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:37:13 EST ID:XRtggDpr No.208623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1516876633072.jpg -(5723B / 5.59KB, 256x162) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5723
so Jordan Peterson has recently been interviewed on britains channel 4 by Cathy Newman and there has been a substantial reaction to it. Peterson's fanboys are all claiming his victory as if this interview was a major debate. I'm going to try and summarise it so that we can all critique the ideas as much as we want and give our opinions, discuss etc. There was a thread about this on /b/ but I thought i'd move the topic here to /pss/. btw here s a link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
the yellowtext below is jordans answers


Newman: you've said men need to grow up, why?
>because theres nothing good about it and men are left useless and miserable if they dont take responsibility over their lives.
A crisis of masculinity, what do you do about it?
>you tell them to grow up and take responsibility, live a life worth living
the majority of your listeners is male?
>yes apparently. Men have something to offer and set the world straight.
what's gone wrong then?
> all sorts of things, men never receive encouragement. Men are starving for my message,

[2:30] does it bother you that 80% of your audience is male
>no, it's just the way it is.
whats in it for women then?
> well men are their partners so they have an interest in men's well-being.
so you're saying women have a duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity?
>depends if they want competent men and partners. If you don't want that you want a partner you can dominate.

[3:45] so women want to dominate is that what youre saying?
>no i'm saying women will settle for a weak partner who have had impaired relationships with men
do you think alot of women are doing this?
>I think a substantial minority of women do that and it's very bad for them
how can you say that? maybe women want that, it's a vast generalisation
>I'm a clinical psychologist
So you've done the research and its shows women are unhappy dominating men?
>I didnt say they were unhappy, i said it was a bad long term solution, it might make them happy in the short term.

[5:00] it seems to alot of women that they are still being dominated
>the pay gap doesnt exist
9% pay gap exists
>yes but there are various reasons for that
it doesnt matter then?
>i'm saying sexism is not the only reason for the wage gap, analysis shows it
the gap exists, do you agree that its unfair
>it depends on the reason why. Women are more agreeable and agreeable people are paid less.

[7:30] again a vast generalisation
>agreeableness accounts for about 5% of the paygap, there are 18 other factors, gender accounts for a much smaller portion
so shouldn't women ask for a payrise more often?
>assertiveness training is one of the treatments we do as psychologists. often that works
so would you be happy if the paygap is eradicated?
>it depends how
if it costs men then not?
> it could come at the cost of alot of things, like choice of carreers or children

[10:05] why shouldnt women have the right to choose?
>they do.
but it makes them miserable you say?
>no, having weak partners makes them miserable. Women face a crisis between work and family around age 30. Men dont' face this crisis so much so they have less pressure to grow up.
I take issue with the generalisation of women. Is gender equality a myth in your view?
>it depends on what you mean by equality
the same opportunities given to men and women.
>we could reach a point where men and women are treated fairly, we are nearly there now
why then is there apparently still gender inequality?
>men are willing to sacrifice more of their life for their carreer.
YOu dont think there are more barriers for women?
>there are barriers for men too

[13:25] is gender equality desirable?
>not equality of outcome.
why not?
>men and women naturally choose different jobs
equality is impossible?
>equality of opportunity is desirable, outcome is not
but still women aren't going to make it given equal opportunity?
>women succeed in medicine and other disciplines

[15:00] (a quote from the book: its impossible to decide which jobs are equal) the simple question is do you believe in equal pay?
> equal outcomes are undesirable, women should still strive to the top, you have to work hard for it

[16:30] conversations between men have an underlying threat of physicality, what about women?
>it's not possible with women
but i still fought for my position
>yes, i suspect you're not a very agreeable person
so basically women have to be more masculine to succeed?
>yes masculine traits are useful, i train women to be tougher in my practice
why don't we reform the top and accept more female traits? women only have to be more masculine because they are competing in male dominated environments.
>no, its not true.The market sets the game
and the market is dominated by men too
>no it's not, women do 80% of the shopping.

[19:15] is it not good to have more female traits at the top of our businesses?
>no, they don't predict success. other things such as intelligence predict success. men and women are equally intelligent.
but still, why do feminine traits not predict success?
> I don't know, it's hard to say. I'm just giving the empirical evidence.
But because of history we cant compare
> it might be a good experiment, but there's no evidence for it.
but it's never been tried
>thats not true, women have been in the workplace for centuries.

[20:45] you refused to call a transgender person by their pronouns
>no I said i would refuse.
you mentioned freedom of speech, why does your freedom trump their right to not be offended?
>because, thinking risks being offensive. I would use their pronouns, i will not yield my speech to radical leftists.
you've called trans activists and leftist are totalitarian? compared transgenders to Mao? it's grossly insensitive isn't it?
>why?
because they aren't killing millions
>they are following the same philosophy
How is that philosophy comparable
>because it assumes group identity is paramount: identity politics.
Aren't you just a provocateur?
>No my opinions just happen to be provocative

[26:00] what about the lobster?
>(peterson gives an evolutionary reason for social hierarchy - due to serotonin in the nervous system - opposed to the idea that hierarchy is a result of capitalism and patriarchy)
>>
Martin Turveydock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:50:35 EST ID:XRtggDpr No.208624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208623
So, as I said, this is a summary, i am shortening most of the answers and questions so as to get to a clear question//answer format that proceeds point by point. Since the interview has been aired the interviewer has been the target of a good deal of abuse online. Peterson has condemned that reaction.

>Mike Deri Smith, deputy head of digital at Channel 4 News, tweeted that a quick search had revealed more than 500 comments calling Newman a “bitch”. Peterson, who is interviewed in today’s Observer magazine, said that when he became aware of the abuse allegations he “immediately tweeted ‘if you’re one of those people doing that, back off’, there’s no excuse for that, no utility’.”
>[Peterson said:] they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous.”
>A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/21/no-excuse-for-online-abuse-says-professor-in-tv-misogyny-row

An article posted on The Atlantic illuminates the criticisms Newman received online which apparently have been coupled with misogynist abuse. The writer also relays the interview but in parts, and does so verbatim which I have not done. The global point that he seems to be making is that her interviewing techniques are unfair. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
>>
Martin Turveydock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:59:14 EST ID:XRtggDpr No.208625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208624
I will now continue by responding to that article on The Atlantic.
The title is: "Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?"

> it is sometimes useful to respond to an evasive subject with an unusually blunt restatement of their views to draw them out or to force them to clarify their ideas. [...]But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

Newman's techniques were far from a pernicious trend and actually did lead the audience closer to the truth. The truth that is of what Jordan Petersons thoughts are, that is. This 'technique', otherwise known as asking critical questions, is devised to force the interviewee to clarify their statements as much as possible. This is highly appropriate for someone with a sizeable following such as Peterson, who is, according to the Guardian "considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals". This line of questioning very much succeeds in the interview and it does not bode well for Peterson.
It shows actually how weak Peterson's arguments are when you keep asking and get down to fundamentals. On the pay gap topic he is asked: "You dont think there are more barriers for women?" and his answer is to simply state there are barriers for men too. Even weaker, he denies that the market is determined by men simply because women do 80% of the consumer shopping. Finally he completely deflects the point that we have never experimented with feminine traits in workplaces by stating that "women have been in the workplace for centuries" ignoring that they have usually been at the bottom thereof.
By this point the argument has turned a corner is and Peterson is not asked why it is that women are more agreeable? but surely there is evidence to suggest that women are socialised to be more agreeable and therefore it is a matter of culture and not of nature. Peterson denies multiple times during the interview that he advocates that we should just accept things the way they are, that this is nature and we cannot contend with it, but all his arguments point to just that. The questions that Newman poses to him during the interview continually try to relay what he is saying, what conclusion one should arrive at following the information he provides. Peterson admits roundly that he normally speaks to an audience of men, an audience that is "starving for his message", it is unusual for him to be speaking in an environment that challenges his message and to a woman who isn't looking for his answers. His supporters and opponents reach then different conclusions, the former that the pay-gap may be real but a complicated issue and one that is to some degree natural, the latter will hear that we should and can not try to alter it. His supporters are then of course reassured, his opponents quite unsettled.

As for the lobster story, which is actually in his book, I will refer to another poster who commented on /b/'s thread of this topic:
> Peterson goes up on stage and says "well, ya see, the patriarchy exists because humans and lobsters both have serotonin and serotonin is the hierarchy chemical", he's literally making shit up as he goes. Worse, he's abusing neuroscience concepts in order to make a case for his political convictions. He's worse than an SJW in that regard, because hardcore SJWs are often anti-science and explicit about it (like Jung himself), they don't try to claim the authority of "science" in order to back up their politics. [...] Even worse, his case is just flat out empirically false: humans don't always organize themselves into hierarchies, especially not based on sex, and neurochemistry offers no basis for an explanation as to why we form them in the first place. It's like people who say "oh, depression is just a neurochemical imbalance". First of all, we can't measure shit like that. Second of all, there's no good empirical evidence available to support the hypothesis. Third, he's not even making this out to be a hypothesis (which, in a scientific setting, we never assume the truth of), but an unchanging and eternal fact. And fourth, to argue such requires us to completely ignore the social setting we find ourselves in, which gives order and meaning to our lies, and is, yes, the creation - consciously or not - of human beings.
>>
Nigel Sandlestone - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:00:38 EST ID:T6K1h92R No.208626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516903238548.png -(862043B / 841.84KB, 1604x2018) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This is the same kind of openly hostile interview that Bill O'Reilly, Piers Morgan and others, use when they bring someone on they want to make a fool of.

They're trying to get the interviewee to give a damning sound bite or say something else stupid by mischaracterizing them and asking leading questions. These kinds of interviews always get press because, the average person would rather watch people bickering instead of a thoughtful interview. Acting like the interviewer didn't go into this with the intention to make Peterson look as bad as possible is willfully ignorant.

Supporters get their "Jordan Peterson destroys hysterical leftist" and people who hate Peterson get reassured that he's an evil misogynist, patriarchy loving, psuedo-scientist.

What's the point of all this? Stirring the pot? /pol/ thread?

Everything of import has already been said about Peterson on both sides.
>>
Cedric Bobberhone - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:43:05 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208626
But... even if the interviewer did a proper job, you wouldn't get anything meaningful out of Peterson anyway.

The guy is a fucking psychologist, pretending to be both a neuroscientist and a philosopher. He's neither. He's a fucking plumber that fixes people with bad tubes in their brain. That's all he is, and all he's good for. Yet, he's pretending to be some great mind that ponders the depths of the zeitgeist.
>>
Nigel Sandlestone - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:06:47 EST ID:T6K1h92R No.208628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516910807548.gif -(88104B / 86.04KB, 195x195) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208627
While I think dismissing all of his ideas regarding nueroscience and philosophy goes a bit far, I agree that he does go out on a scientific limb too much to be considered credible.

Peterson would be just another quasi-religous, psuedo-scientific self-help guru if he didn't have mildy controversial opinions about politics.

The only reason I can see that people give a shit about him at all is that he's become really popular really fast, and people love seeing someone get cut down to size.
>>
Henry Dollerdale - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:22:33 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
He's a MGTOW that got famous for refusing to use pronouns. 4chinners saw this, it went viral, and it went from there. They found their "intellectual" that they were searching for, so they can point out that he's a psychologist whenever anyone questions their views. It's an appeal to authority since he often speaks on topics as though he were an expert when he's. This is ironic for the fact that 4chinners often chastise expertise knowledge since the general consensus overwhelmingly poo-poos on their views. They love experts when it suits them, but hate them for being "lib clucks taking blue pill".

I don't mind him as a self-help guru to people that lacked guidance growing up. He is after all a shrink, so he can give this advice in good faith. But he goes off on limbs way too much and into pseudo-intellectual quackery.
>>
Doris Turveywater - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:18:51 EST ID:jpN96P17 No.208630 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this "interview" was fucking terrible and there's nothing to be gained from it. it's just a meme for teenagers to watch how "BASED canadian professor DESTROYS a stupid SjeW cunt xD" and that's it. Other than self-help motivational speaking, entry level psychology and introduction to stuff like Dostoyevski, Nietzsche, Jung etc, he's worthless. And he's just a liberal in the end, it's not like he's trying something new. Which just makes him completely useless
>>
Phyllis Sammlegold - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:48:26 EST ID:dO/iVu+c No.208631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208626
> Acting like the interviewer didn't go into this with the intention to make Peterson look as bad as possible is willfully ignorant.
I think Peterson was offered ample opportunity to defend himself and for the most part he managed to set the mischaracterisations straight. He himself sseems to think it was a good interview:
>All credit to them [Channel 4 News] for posting the whole thing unedited. I was certain when I left that interview it would be cut to my detriment.

Bill O'Reilly et al spend much more time putting their own views across or completely dismissing their interviewee outright. That is not comparable to what is happening here, this format is much more like another uk program hardtalk. It's critical enquiry and it's a very useful and valuable part of media, something which I am sure Peterson by all means supports.

>Supporters get their "Jordan Peterson destroys hysterical leftist" and people who hate Peterson get reassured that he's an evil misogynist, patriarchy loving, psuedo-scientist.
that happens with every video of Peterson, whether he is being asked tough questions or not.
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:00:08 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208628
>While I think dismissing all of his ideas regarding nueroscience and philosophy goes a bit far

The problem is that those are not things you can just half-ass. >>208627 is right, there is a HUGE difference between being a (especially clincial) psychologist and being a neuroscientist. It's the difference between being a pharmacist and being a psychopharmacologist. Are they in the same area? Sure. Are they doing the same things or have the same knowledge structure? Absolutely not.

And specifically about Peterson's ideas: He clearly has very little understanding of the philosophical basis of science. That's the main problem, and why he does not encourage critical thinking from his followers.
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:20:48 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208631
Yeah, Bill O'Reilly would talk/yell over his guests and cut off their mic when they offered a reply.

If your viewpoint is damned by simple questions about it's basis that you are given ample opportunity to answer, chances are your viewpoint is trash to begin with.
>>
Angus Darthood - Sat, 27 Jan 2018 02:28:12 EST ID:PBgbju+s No.208637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208632
Would you agree his ideas actially have very weak foundations?

Ive also noticed something else. He never really speaks perscriptively in his defense. He just offers facts but no coherent theory. When asked about activism he believes people should start with themselves, he never really seems to define any point at which people should start working towards a better society. Instead 'a good society is composed of good individuals'. Obviously this is completely useless when faced with systemic racism, institutionalised sexism or any other really problem around. The only thing he defines and wants to work changing is the 'crisis of masculinity' and apparently do so by making men more masculine.
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Sat, 27 Jan 2018 04:03:59 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208637

Let's think about it in terms of what he is actually trained in, clinical psychology. What is the goal of psychotherapy? The goal, when there isn't an obvious pure medical treatment, is to build the client's self esteem and coping strategies. For this goal, all that matters in on the individual level. The client is not doing this correctly, or that correctly. If they just changed this, they would be able to cope with whatever problem they're having.

That is an entirely different level of discussion, and way of looking at things, than the problems he talks about. When he says "the pay gap doesn't exist", what he actually is saying (and goes on to elaborate) is that the pay gap *shouldn't* exist if women were taught proper negotiation skills. That's correct, they should be, but a logical reason for the gap existing does not mean it doesn't exist.

He even hits on the reason for the "crisis of masculinity". Labour is becoming more unstable and irrelevant to either the "good of society" or "personal development". This is a highly ironic viewpoint for him to have, because it's basically Marxist. Of course the nihilistic competition of Capitalism breaks down the masculine self-image. Of course it makes everyone feel like there's no point, so they sit home and masturbate. The real problem is that you can't put the cat back in the bag. There is no stable "masculinity" to go back to.
>>
Ebenezer Blenkinfadge - Sat, 27 Jan 2018 06:19:00 EST ID:/cIZ6HtD No.208639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208638
I feel like im kind of missing your point, yes he is a clinical paychologist and approaches everything on an individual level and why he cant see that there are greater social issues beyond indivuals. If your point is his answer provides nothing, i completely agree with you.
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Sat, 27 Jan 2018 09:30:57 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208640 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208639

My point is that he's misapplying his knowledge to a scope that it simply does not operate on.
>>
Nigel Hizzlehood - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:06:25 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.208641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517115985772.jpg -(90906B / 88.78KB, 857x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
All I know about this guy is from this Chapo clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4EIVgEe5U

There's always been a huge grift of preying on overly entitled white guys by telling them exactly what they want to hear. It use to be talk radio, now it's guys like this.

It's important to keep up on their arguments cause they shape a lot of peoples' world views. But it's all pretty repetitive and a lot of them bite off each other and share outrage so I don't feel particularly compelled to follow them beyond stuff like the above clip.
>>
Isabella Congerlock - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:20:11 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208642 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208632
>And specifically about Peterson's ideas: He clearly has very little understanding of the philosophical basis of science.

This here is really big. Because outside (scientific) philosophers and scientists, there's a huge lack of understanding of the importance of knowing the proper philosophical basis of science among educated people.

Jordan Peterson is probably a smart guy, but he's woefully underequiped to deal with scientific and philosophical concepts, and his internet-celeb status will only stroke his ego to such heights he probably tells himself he doesn't need to know that shit.
>>
Matilda Bummertuck - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:15:10 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208642

Even academics don't appreciate what PhD stands for.
>>
Clara Dumblefuck - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:18:30 EST ID:xLCfGCug No.208647 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517300310798.jpg -(11318B / 11.05KB, 300x299) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
so how do we combat bad answers and misapplied knowledge when they are apparently so satisfying to a large audience of white men?
>>
Charles Croddleridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:24:11 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208647

You question is basically, "how do we stop stupid people being stupid?" If we knew the answer to that, the world would be very different.

The problems that Peterson claims to have answers for are all real and pretty much all unsolved. How do you rebuild a conception of masculinity, or any identity for that matter, when it's consistently devalued by society? How do you cope with technological progress that may well be harmful to our existence? How do we find a place in the world when the world is a ever shrinking game of musical chairs?

His answers are shallow and often baseless, but he has answers. That's the attraction, and the first step is being empathetic to the need for answers to these probems.
>>
Phyllis Purryridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:04:03 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208650 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208647
Tell them to read some existentialist/absurdist philosophy/literature, like you know. Normal people living in today's age.

Fucking retarded the future alt-right fags thinking they can find meaning when Western culture has proven again and again for the last 200 years that there's absolutely no meaning to be found anywhere.
>>
Reuben Bardbanks - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:59 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208648
I find your questions interesting, but I'm not following. Help me to understand.

>How do you rebuild a conception of masculinity, or any identity for that matter, when it's consistently devalued by society?

Why do we need a conception of masculinity? Why not focus on the individuals likes and dislikes? I feel gender norms have been pushed too hard and for so long that it's actually had a negative affect on our sense of identity. It leads to conformity. Want to be a stay at home husband, cook, clean, shop, etc? That's seen as pathetic and unmanly, despite no matter how satisfying it might be for that person. It's pushed on society to such an extent that people change their perception of babies if the baby is wearing blue or pink. There's an existentialist crisis in those faced with babies using gender neutral colors and toys.

And I'm not saying to be some identity politics extremist, just the opposite. Just allow people to define themselves instead of society forcing these parameters on others. If a girl picks up a Tonka Truck, let her play with it. If a boy picks up a Barbie, let him play with it, without it turning into some sort of social crisis.

Also, give an example of identity being devalued in society? I guess that I ended up accidentally giving these examples already, but I'm curious to hear it from your view.

>How do we find a place in the world when the world is a ever shrinking game of musical chairs?

First, we need to do away with jobs being the source of survival. Jobs and careers should foremost be fulfilling for the person. When it becomes a matter of literal life or death, it becomes stressful and you are likely to stay in a job you hate for stability. When the need is gone, stability doesn't matter so much. If you lose a job, no problem, you can just get another one when it props itself up; Maybe even giving you an opportunity to explore new venues.

The archaic value of work as a virtue in of itself, even if it sucks, has to be done away with. When people are free to choose paths for themselves, no matter how inconsequential it may appear to outside viewers, it leads to contentment and self-fulfillment. Also, when you don't have to work to survive, or feel guilty because society puts so much value in the virtue of work, you have more leisurely time. People are becoming overworked, and it's only going to get worse each generation following the next.
>>
Hamilton Wemmersurk - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:14:50 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208627
>>208628



>pretending to be both a neuroscientist and a philosopher
>That's all he is, and all he's good for.
>Peterson would be just another quasi-religous, psuedo-scientific self-help guru if he didn't have mildy controversial opinions about politics.
>he does go out on a scientific limb too much to be considered credible.
>Jordan Peterson is probably a smart guy, but he's woefully underequiped to deal with scientific and philosophical concepts


Im sorry but this sounds so terribly elitist, like the idea of yall criticizing someone like JP for not being close enough to some arbitrary standard, which you apparently are close enough to, so much that you can say that about JP. Like its really just.... inadequate.
>>
George Bardstone - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:03:37 EST ID:IdF5339U No.208654 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208650

maybe you should look at other cultures idiot. just because the purveyors of guns germs and steel happen to preach nihilism doesnt make it inherently true
>>
Fuck Buzzshit - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:30:47 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208655 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208653
Elitist? Fuck off you goddamn retarded cocksucker. We have a fucking academic system put in place to properly evaluate the value of information, and if you don't fucking like it, you can fuck right off and wallow in the dirt along with the animals. Fucking faggot.

A psychologist has nothing to say about neurobiology, just like a fucking neurobiologist has nothing to say about astrophysics.
>>
Beatrice Hasslenedge - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:04:39 EST ID:bBRXVplu No.208656 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517375079807.jpg -(23305B / 22.76KB, 505x431) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208653
I'm really curious to know why you think 'JP' is worth defending.
>>
Charles Blackshaw - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 02:32:04 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208657 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208653
>elitist

"Elite" is not a dirty word when you're talking about basic competency in an academic area. If you don't care about "elitism", then why listen to Peterson at all? He is abusing his credentials to talk about things he doesn't have proper education in.

If you go to a foot doctor and he starts giving you heart advice, is it elitist to think he's maybe talking outside his area?

>Like its really just.... inadequate.

There are some people whose outlook is so basically wrong that it's an enormous effort to explain exactly how wrong they are. It's easier to just describe the wrongness than to go through every single point.
>>
Charles Blackshaw - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 03:21:59 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208659 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208651
>Why do we need a conception of masculinity? Why not focus on the individuals likes and dislikes? I feel gender norms have been pushed too hard and for so long that it's actually had a negative affect on our sense of identity. It leads to conformity.

I'm not strictly defending the traditional conception of masculinity, or gender roles in general. What I'm saying is that as the traditional gender roles break down, there a sense of lost stability that accompanies any social transition. Conformity is not necessarily an oppression. It's a human drive.

When I say "devalued by society" I don't mean in the sense that Peterson or /pol/tards mean it, in that "everyone is mean to white men". I mean that everything that was part of the traditional masculine gender role, ie labour, independence and leadership, are themselves being devalued or made harder to obtain for everyone. When the labour market is unstable and social mobility slows down, people start pointing fingers and retreating into the only thing left that could consistently give them meaning: Their identity. Now I don't have to be proud about what I (am failing to) do. I can be proud of "who I am", and bitter at everything I feel has attacked that identity. I could hate women or gays for "feminizing" men, or if I'm a woman I could hate white men for oppressing me.

I get what you mean in that strict conformity is harmful, but we can't decouple conformity from the sense of belonging that makes it attractive.

>Just allow people to define themselves instead of society forcing these parameters on others

Given the inherently personal and social basis of identity, is there any way to define yourself that doesn't also prescribe how others should define themselves? Is it possible for an identity to exist in a vacuum?

>First, we need to do away with jobs being the source of survival.
>The archaic value of work as a virtue in of itself, even if it sucks, has to be done away with

I absolutely agree. The puritan work ethic I feel inevitably leads to a Social Darwinist attitude in a society where value is habitually quantified, and the potential for homelessness or starvation is the main engine of motivation. If technology does not free human energy for other tasks, I don't see any value to it.
>>
Hugh Serringford - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:46:31 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208660 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208656

worth defending? From this thread? Give me a break. I just thought I'd be honest on how they sounded like. But it is of no use, they are all individual geniuses.
>>
Martin Neggleville - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 03:40:25 EST ID:XUUNgMgt No.208662 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208659

I think that your disparagement towards the modernist nihilism of endless work for no god and no reward is the same problem every person faces and needs to overcome through personal reflection and goal setting.

Gesticulation about the proper role of technology is frustration in the face of the reality of social darwinism. There is no vacuum in which the individual could exist, such a blank space leaves no room for the necessary humanity. The reproductive drive extends beyond children and we all want those around us to think and be like us. That part of are personality is not sick, racist, or wrong but is the real world deployment of the crazy combination of insecurities, desires, and madness that composes each and every one of us.

I think that anyone like JP that tries to get people to listen to the part of themselves that feels constrained by their peers or society is fighting the good fight. I'm not aware of any misogynistic claims and it seems to me that he is encouraging men that want to be men to embrace themselves to do so.
>>
Hedda Sishsudge - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:13:26 EST ID:NS81rYL9 No.208666 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208623
He peddles the Cultural Marxism meme, a conspiracy theory. He's smart enough to use the word 'postmodernism' instead tho. He's a fucking sophist stroking the egos of damaged white males.
>>
James Hellydale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:05:56 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208667 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208666 this.
>>
James Hellydale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:09:06 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208668 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What's up with Anglophone Canadians giving us a constant barrage of alt-right grifter and adjacent dipshits?
>>
Hedda Sishsudge - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:40:17 EST ID:NS81rYL9 No.208671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208668
Money, probably.
>>
Ernest Bannercocke - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:57:46 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208672 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208666

And this is why I'm instantly suspicious when people have something against JP. Especially when they are cryptic about it, they just don't wanna reveal their bigotry.
>>
James Hellydale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:41:13 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208673 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208672
lol mayocide when.
>>
Cornelius Fanspear - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:20:58 EST ID:pDpYFcmy No.208674 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't get the big deal from either side. He's just a psychologist who has some dumb ideas about things outside of his field and likes to speak as though he has some authority, as most academics do (anyone who's ever discussed philosophy or art with an engineer will know exactly what I mean).

I understand why he appeals to his core audience of bitter young white males, but what I can't understand is why rational people even give him the time of day. His actual beliefs are half-baked and sophomoric, but since he's reasonably well-spoken and has the appearance of authority, people think he has something of substance to say.
>>
Ernest Bannercocke - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:26:25 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208676 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208674

But what dumb ideas?
>>
Shit Smallford - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:59:52 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208677 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I had never heard of either of these people before I watched the interview, and I was appalled at Cathy Newman’s “interviewing”.
As a left-leaning statistician I thought this woman was extremely anti-science and anti-fact. Peterson remained calm, honest, and articulate.
If you’re even trying to defend Newman’s behavior here you have no class, and possibly no education.
>>
Shit Smallford - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:03:37 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208674
The big deal was that, regardless of what you think about Peterson’s opinions, the interviewer was reckless and blatantly trying to skew what dr Peterson said.
And your first sentence is wrong. All of the opinions discussed in the interview were relevant to current psychology.
I know he did his graduate research on the Old Testament and myths but everything in the interview was applied psychology.
>>
Cornelius Fanspear - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:36:29 EST ID:pDpYFcmy No.208680 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208678
Ok I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing. You're right, that was a shitshow and while I definitely don't agree with everything JP said, he certainly comes across as more genuine and the interviewer is clearly just trying to attack him. Shame.
>>
Hedda Crogglegold - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:26:50 EST ID:NS81rYL9 No.208683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208672
Why? Because when people point out the factual demographics of his audience and the goal of his profession you think its raciss?
>>
Hedda Crogglegold - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:35:46 EST ID:NS81rYL9 No.208684 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208676
Well that serotonin explains hierarchy is an incredibly stupid idea or that our social organisation is in any way comparable to lobsters'. Also this post: >>>>208625. Not to mention the cultural marxism meme.
>>
Priscilla Gamblespear - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:58:12 EST ID:pDpYFcmy No.208685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208672
There's absolutely nothing cryptic about the post you're replying to
>>
Nigel Drovingstan - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:09:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208672
Are you fucking retarded? Fuck off cocksucker. Take your /tinfoil/ circlejerk shit some other place.
>>
Jack Fendlecocke - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:31:10 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208678
>All of the opinions discussed in the interview were relevant to current psychology.

Relevant, but outside his expertise as a clinical psychologist. He talks about neuroscience, philosophy and sociology as if they are his area, and as if he knows his stuff, which he doesn't. You can see that here with the wage gap.

"Women need to be trained in assertiveness to function better in wage negotiation." - His area.
"The wage gap does not exist because these factors exist to explain it" - Not his area, and simply nonsensical.

He abuses his authority because he switches between professionally informed opinion to layman opinion with every other sentence.
>>
Sidney Hublinghug - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:06:19 EST ID:T6K1h92R No.208688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518231979342.png -(21282B / 20.78KB, 700x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208687
This is kind of a ridiculous argument, they're asking him what his opinion is on those topics and he's telling them.

Does he need to preface every statement with, "Well this isn't my area of expertise, but..."?

People are allowed to have opinions on things outside of their area of expertise, you're doing it right now, in fact. Why should I believe a word you say when you're probably not an expert in any of those things?
>>
Augustus Cupperstadge - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:26:19 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208689 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208688 You coulda just left the post blank with that picture, honestly.
>>
Edwin Fuckingfuck - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:39:07 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208691 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208687
>Relevant, but outside his expertise as a clinical psychologist.
Wrong, he’s a psych professor and a clinical psychologist.

>"The wage gap does not exist because these factors exist to explain it" - Not his area,
Actually lots of academic psychologists do social studies all the time. There are journals devoted to just that. A lot of ground-breaking work in the social sciences came from psychologists because psychology is in the college of social sciences at 90% of schools, how the fuck does anyone need to explain this to you.
>and simply nonsensical
No, it’s a multivariate study looking for correlations between gender and wage discrimination, and not finding any, and he’s not the only one to do it.
You have just got to have a lack of education to have this many opinions this bad.
No bump
>>
Oliver Hobbertore - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:04:32 EST ID:zOByA3r8 No.208692 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208687

Questioning his authority on the subject he's giving his opinion on is a poor way of trying to discredit him. He reads the research and science on those areas and comments on it with his own opinion. He's never claiming to be a all knowing neuroscience, he simply references the studies....
>>
Edwin Fuckingfuck - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:18:30 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208694 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208692
And also...the wage gap doesn’t exist. In fact younger women tend to slightly out-earn males working the same jobs.
Anyone who really thinks the gender pay gap exists ought to look at studies. People try to find it, and can’t.
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21729993-women-still-earn-lot-less-men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender
>>
Jack Fendlecocke - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:34:42 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208695 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208688
>Does he need to preface every statement with, "Well this isn't my area of expertise, but..."?

Ideally, yes. That's the entire problem with pundits. They are asked for their opinions, and they give them whether they're informed or not. Sure, they're asking him, but by the same token they shouldn't be asking him.

>People are allowed to have opinions on things outside of their area of expertise, you're doing it right now, in fact.

Yeah, and I'm posting this on an anonymous forum with no claimed or given authority, and you are giving me your opinion on the same grounds. I'm not going on TV and exploiting my credentials to talk about whatever the fuck I want. When you talk outside your area as an expert, you make it clear A) that it's outside your area and B) how the mindset of your expertise approaches information. A carpenter probably has relevant opinions on metalworking, but it would be dishonest for them to pretend that they are an expert on it, because there are subtle distinctions between the disciplines. Peterson does not make this distinction.

>>208691
>Wrong, he’s a psych professor and a clinical psychologist.

Yeah, so neuroscience and philosophy are outside his area.

>Actually lots of academic psychologists do social studies all the time.
>A lot of ground-breaking work in the social sciences came from psychologists

If it's their area. If they're trained in that research. "Psychology" is not a homogeneous discipline.

>No, it’s a multivariate study looking for correlations between gender and wage discrimination, and not finding any, and he’s not the only one to do it.

What I'm saying is that to say "here are the trait factors that contribute to the problem" is a statement he is qualified to make. "Therefor the problem does not exist" is a philosophical and factual statement, and it does not make sense to say that the problem doesn't exist when he just elaborated on the reasons it exists. That it's explainable in terms other than gender do not change the fact that there is a gap between genders.

>He reads the research and science on those areas and comments on it with his own opinion.

So what? He's not a scientist. A GP reads the updates to medical science because it's relevant to their clinical field. It's not the same as being a scientist, or being informed in science.
>>
Edwin Fuckingfuck - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:20:56 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208696 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518276056985.jpg -(28555B / 27.89KB, 343x284) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208695
Obviously "science" and "academia" are way outside your realm of expertise, but you're still spamming your opinion on it.
>>
Matilda Smallforth - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:25:43 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208696
Shut the fuck up you goddamn retard. There are clearly defined rules on how to deal with academic information, designed in such a way that ANYONE regardless of level of education can approximate the trustworthiness of said information. Take your retarded fucking the future immigrant shit elsewhere.
>>
Thomas Gunderlitch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:57:12 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518310632085.jpg -(106919B / 104.41KB, 613x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208700
>Shut the fuck up you goddamn retard.
>Take your retarded fucking the future immigrant shit elsewhere.
Again, obviously science and academia are way outside your realm of expertise, but you're still spamming your opinion on it.
>>
Jenny Mottingsatch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:56:35 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208702
>>Equivocating between someone commenting on an imageboard and someone who is asked to speak publicly as a scientific expert
>>ad hominem
Weak argument, try again.
>>
Jarvis Honeyfuck - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:41:36 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208706 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208696

What have I specifically said about science or academia that is wrong?

If you'd like to check Peterson's publication history and tell me where he has experience on anything other than applying personality inventories to various behaviours, let me know.
>>
Jarvis Honeyfuck - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:14:31 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208707 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208702

Also, I'm not >>208700

Do your research.
>>
Cornelius Goodville - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:13:11 EST ID:CFHTFQ9t No.208758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208623
JP offended me, he is so stupid right guys? boo hoo
  • u
>>
Nicholas Piblingspear - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:34:03 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208759 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208758
Offending as in completely shitting on the philosophical framework on how to do science, yes. The fact that he's a real psychologist who should know how science works, and not some fucking retarded insane Christian creationist fuckwit who simply is too fucking deluded and retarded to understand how science works makes it even worse.
>>
Isabella Sullerridge - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:15:48 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208759
Pffffffff
>>
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:31:29 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208764 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208761
Who gives a shit about proper conduct in academia, right?
>>
Clara Windergold - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 02:04:21 EST ID:QBdc3KF4 No.208765 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208764
Part of his problem is that he is intensely combative and defensive of himself and his ideas in conversation. It comes across as extremely arrogant and does no help to make his ideas clearer. The recent conversation he had with russel brand was a bit better. Basically he wants to psychologise basically all sorts of social problems. Instead of fixing the system he seems to want to make wveryone more capable within it. Its still fucking stupid tho for several reasons, among them that there arent the resources to provide everyone with their personal psychologist. And he has beliefs about deeper truths which for him trump empirical reality as we know it.
>>
Isabella Sullerridge - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:32:23 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208766 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208761
I work in academia and have watched you derp all over the thread. Just stop blabbering with that angle, you're better off admitting you just don't like his results.
And as a matter of fact he's successfully defended his results to other academics.
No bump again.
>>
Lillian Sabberham - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:01:07 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208766
I directly asked you what was wrong with my opinion and you didn't reply.

So I guess you've got the academic appeal to authority down pat.
>>
Hamilton Hottingstock - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:13:57 EST ID:u3lkHVx+ No.208768 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208766
What results? Has he unequivocally proved there is a neomarxist conspiracy to silence free speech through transgender activism? Maybe youd like to check out thw validity of his lobster story too.
>>
Alice Murdshit - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:42:17 EST ID:KTyBU0gb No.208769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208768
idk shit about the neomarxist conspiracy but what's the problem with the lobster story?
>>
James Fittingstid - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:43:26 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208766
>I work in academia

>I clean toilets at the MIT
>>
James Fittingstid - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:44:13 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208771 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208766
Also
>you're better off admitting you just don't like his results.

What results? He's a fucking psychologist pretending to be a philosopher. He produces no results.
>>
Hedda Humblebuck - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:06:39 EST ID:FgR2AKJC No.208772 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208768
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
>>
Hedda Humblebuck - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:08:36 EST ID:FgR2AKJC No.208773 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208772
For >>208769*
>>
Nicholas Haddlebury - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:38:22 EST ID:mTFsi+sT No.208774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519256302573.png -(109933B / 107.36KB, 337x264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well this thread is a goddamn pit if I ever saw one.
>>
Ian Chuddlegold - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:22:35 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208775 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208771
>He produces no results.

Actually, he does produce results. The problem is that none of them are relevant to anything of the grandiose things he talks about.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

He is good at factor analysis, I'll give him that. Too bad factor analysis is a crock of shit.
>>
Ian Chuddlegold - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:25:37 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208776 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208775
Shit, that link possibly doesn't work. It's supposed to be his google scholar citation list.
>>
Nicholas Bringercocke - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:10:58 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.208780 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519312258714.jpg -(48981B / 47.83KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This bitch is a good example of why the left needs to be more aggressive and confront this shit face on. The idea that women and men can't work together is obviously absurd and so is his reasoning based on makeup, but when it's met with eye rolls this nonsense festers in the less critical mind.
>>
Augustus Barddock - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:12:45 EST ID:FgR2AKJC No.208781 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208780
really? are people that dumb? it seems to me you'd accept that shit only if you really wanted it to be true
>>
Lydia Lightfuck - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:16:36 EST ID:9hoxh0Mi No.208783 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208780

If JP is a bitch, then the average person is a ultra bitch.
>>
Lydia Sallerkudging - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:58:05 EST ID:HRjmfIjw No.208784 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208783
Imagine being such a beta you look up to this Kermit sounding bitch.
>>
Lydia Lightfuck - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 01:20:53 EST ID:9hoxh0Mi No.208785 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208784

Yeah, I'm not alpah because I don't hate a guy who's doing a lot of good. Come....... On.
>>
George Wundersetch - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:52:43 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208786 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208785

There are lots of people "doing good" while being far less cheaply provocative.
>>
Doris Pittson - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:29:42 EST ID:YaTMH1J8 No.208787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208786

Yeah well, cheaply provocative or not, I ain't about to use that as a excuse for hating him due to some emotional issue. Perhaps people ought to focus on not being so easily provoked by apparently "cheap" stuff.
>>
George Wundersetch - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:21:47 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208788 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208787

No one's hating him due to emotional issues, it's his rhetoric that's the problem.
>>
Lydia Sallerkudging - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:14:13 EST ID:HRjmfIjw No.208789 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208785
The only good he’s doing is making it easier to find the retards.
>>
Doris Pittson - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:34:23 EST ID:YaTMH1J8 No.208791 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208789

That's very true.
>>
Hugh Mucklebore - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:30:52 EST ID:RjwJpidp No.208792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208772
oki, still the main point he was trying to convey was about the positive feedback loop which holds true irrelevantly to the complexity of lobster brain
>>
Doris Grandhall - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 21:40:35 EST ID:FgR2AKJC No.208793 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208792
No, his main point was to explain that hierarchy in humans is biologically determined, that its natural for us to form hierarchies and its complete horse shit. Its a biological fallacy like many others the right wing tries to push.
>>
Molly Sozzleham - Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:38:19 EST ID:63tRQmt8 No.208795 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208784

lmao he does sound like kermit
>>
Samuel Nicklehood - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 04:57:32 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208796 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519552652909.png -(60797B / 59.37KB, 500x528) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208793
well low seretonin levels is linked to depression and depression is linked to mal-adaptive social behavior, which in turn is the likely cause of a low social beta status. Also psychedelics such as psylosin in mushrooms (which mimic seretonin) give you great amounts of sexual energy, which is associated with alpha male traits. So this suggests that high seretonin will increase your social status while low seretonin will decrease it, so seretonin would in fact facillitate the emergent properties of a heirarchy.
>>
Henry Worthingdale - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:26:58 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208797 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208796
You fucking retarded frogposter, there are no alpha males or beta males. That's based on outdated scientific errors. Scientists observed wolves in the zoo, thinking that there are alpha and beta wolves in a group. But they failed to realise that wolves in a zoo tend to be all related - since it's easier to keep a single family in your zoo and just trade male wolves with other zoos to keep the wolf genetics healthy and all.

There are no beta males. Well in a sense, there are. But there are also gamma males, delta males, epsilon males, digamma males, zeta males, eta males, theta males, iota males, kappa males, lambda males, mu males, nu males, ksi males, omnicron males, pi males, koppa males, rho males, sigma males, tau males, upsilon males, phi males, chi males, psi males and finally omega males.

Human social behaviour is too complex to be reduced to a simple binary system, you fucking retarded frogposter.
>>
Samuel Nicklehood - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:43:10 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208798 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208797
well I take it you didn't like my classification of males, but you didn't address the links to seretonin, for which i mentioned that depression is linked to people acting withdrawn and tend to be treated like social outcasts, while people with high seretonin are sexually energetic and are given alot of attention in social situations (and you can do your own research to confirm this).
>>
Henry Worthingdale - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:28:37 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208799 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208798
Look mate, if your entire argument rests on an alpha/beta male distinction, there's no point arguing over the rest of your argument because it has a fucking shit foundation.
>>
Reuben Blatherwill - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:47:38 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol how is this thread still up
>>
Jenny Clocklemick - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:17:30 EST ID:YaTMH1J8 No.208801 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208799

You don't wanna discuss it cause you know you lose.
>>
Jenny Clocklemick - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:27:11 EST ID:YaTMH1J8 No.208802 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe some of you JP haters have some valid criticism but it all feels like excuses, y'all appear as angry Christians who got mad because the atheist got some attention. Each one with his own bullshit reason to partake in a discussion about how bad he is or whatever and everyone can see through it. JP 4 life.
>>
Esther Pockshit - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:34:27 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208801
No you fucking retard. Take that fucking dick out of your faggot mouth, and properly reconstruct your argument without using false information.
>>
Martin Dartbury - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:54:11 EST ID:SBpjdVf/ No.208805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208796
You didnt read did you?
>However, we know that the human brain is hugely malleable and that behaviour and society can influence how it develops. Even how much serotonin we produce is a product of many interior and exterior factors. For example, “stereotype threat” is a process by which people feel anxiety about skills that they perceive to be associated with members of another group. We know such negative feelings actually change brain activity. One study showed that people who perceived themselves as being of lower status than others had different volumes of grey matter in brain regions involved in experiencing emotions and reacting to stress than those who did not.
>So believing that it is “natural” that some people are “losers” because that’s what lobsters do can have dire consequences. Some people may continue to see themselves as inferior to the guy who bullied them in school, while their brains adapt to this “reality”. If we instead chose to believe that all humans are unique and equal – and we have the power to make society fairer – this will change our brains too. It is a clear example of how attitudes can alter both brains and behaviour.
>>
Nell Pockdale - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 23:45:27 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208806 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519620327074.jpg -(45418B / 44.35KB, 639x674) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208803
>reconstruction. nb i chose words that will not trigger you

Low serotonin levels is linked to depression and depression is linked to being socially withdrawn and moody. High serotonin does the opposite and makes you more likely to talk to others and more likable to other people, which are prerequisites for receiving attention. Psychedelics such as psilocin in mushrooms (which mimics serotonin) give you great amounts of sexual energy and you can't reproduce without sexual energy.

Even considering brain plasticity and the ability to change your own serotonin through your own beliefs, it is still serotonin that underlies the factors which determine your social status. Also, considering that there is a great variation in the amount of serotonin that different people produce, this will influence what kind f social structures develop in a society, e.g. a hierarchy.
>>
Charlotte Dangerfoot - Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:36:32 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208806
>Low serotonin levels is linked to depression and depression is linked to being socially withdrawn and moody.
>it is still serotonin that underlies the factors which determine your social status.
That's retarded.

Depression is a complicated cluster of symptoms, it's not simply being "socially withdrawn a moody". You become socially withdrawn and moody because of psychosomatic pain, fatigue, emotional disturbance, attentional issues, etc. Those things make it hard or impossible to simply engage in social interaction.

Human beings are social creatures. Any difference in available energy or attention will be prioritized into social interaction, and since social interaction is energy intensive, it will vary greatly depending on available mental resources.

It's trivial to see social status as a factor of available energy, but that's nowhere near the whole picture.
>>
Nell Pockdale - Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:36:56 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208808 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519645016074.png -(158361B / 154.65KB, 579x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208807
I'm not stating that depression isn't complicated, just that social withdrawal will not make you the life of the party and that will still effect your social status.

Of course how energetic you feel isn't the whole picture to explaining social status and nowhere did i say that. I only stated that serotonin plays an important role in social status, but you are free to add details of other factors if you insist.
>>
Hedda Gusslebit - Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:33:40 EST ID:w8qDl8j3 No.208809 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208808
>>social withdrawal will not make you the life of the party and that will still effect your social status.
Man that's a tautology if I ever saw one. Look m8, if you want to argue about the relative value of social behaviors that's one thing, but pretending it has something to do with serotonin in particular is absurd. Serotonin is a fundamental aspect of most processes in the brain -- of most animals, even those that *dont* have hierarchy. That's like saying life is caused by oxygen, because without oxygen, things die, so ergo, it must be the oxygen causing it!

No, complex social behaviors emerge from a lot more factors in the brain than just how much of one chemical there is, and even if that was all there was to it, the fact that the same chemical exists in another species doesn't mean we have to imitate that species or that it would effect behavior in the same way. Chocolate causes pleasure in humans and death in cats, where do you get this idea that the same chemical will necessarily have the same effect across species?
>>
Clara Sollybanks - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:23:21 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208810 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519719801477.jpg -(20695B / 20.21KB, 160x160) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208809
> Chocolate causes pleasure in humans and death in cats, where do you get this idea that the same chemical will necessarily have the same effect across species?

Well look, It was Jordan Peterson who used lobsters as an analogy to humans, not me.

I was making the point that low serotonin is associated with depression in humans based on publicly available knowledge on serotonin.

And based on my own experiences I feel like I have difficulty talking to people when I feel depressed, yet when I'm happy I also socialize alot.
When I observe other humans I see that they talk to the most positive person in the room and ignore the most negative of humans.

Based on all these observations of humans and the publicly available information, I deduced that I serotonin must play an important role in how socially apt. people are. I also deduced that if there is variation in how much attention some people receive v.s others, then there is inequality in attention people receive during communication.

As to hierarchies, If I said that all humans receive inequality amounts of attention, it is only natural that a hierarchy would form because the society is primed for it. A commune by contrast would be primed by all humans receiving equal attention. And one final note; my argument does not make any mention of lobsters.
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 07:24:58 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208815 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208625

you are being very disingenuous here, not all of peterson's statements match up 1 to 1 with the questions because Newman was constantly interrupting him with more and more questions.

She asked "you dont think there are more barriers for women?", at which point he said "men face barriers too", but you're ignoring that he already explained throughout the interview that he DOES agree women face more "barriers" (in some sense) to success, that being all the different factors he discussed including the relatively small effect of discrimination.

the fact that you think peterson came off looking worse from this interview (than had he not done the interview) is proof that you are completely gone down the rabbit hole of leftist ideology

you're right that newman's techniques "did lead the audience closer to the truth", the truth being that the average leftist like newman is totally incapable of critical reasoning and only able to repeat talking points and memes

you clearly dont understand how workplaces function if you believe it is possible for pure, spiteful discrimination to prevent women en masse from achieving success in the business world. if their ideas and personalities were right for the job than this would be in evidence in the work performance, and their superiors would not throw away dollar bills in the name of spiteful misogyny. business is a competition to make money and women largely do not succeed to the extent men do for very understandable and non-problematic reasons

>>Peterson denies multiple times during the interview that he advocates that we should just accept things the way they are, that this is nature and we cannot contend with it, but all his arguments point to just that

this shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what peterson is saying. the leftist claims that all inequalities of outcome must necessarily be the result of NEFARIOUS and UNJUST decisions made by some in society over others, what peterson is saying is that there is much more evidene that inequalities of outcome are natural and the result of free decisions of all involved, which means that they are NOT inherently unjust

he is not against anybody merely for trying to achieve equality of outcome, he is saying that equality of outcome is not inherently morally desirable (because it may only be achievable at the expense of personal freedom) and the inequality of outcome we have is not inherently morally wrong (because it results from free choices rather than from tyranny)

as for the lobster thing, you're clearly strawmanning him so ill just link to peterson himself actually discussing the lobsters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw1m87XsMgI

he's not pulling it out of his ass here, he's basing this off some other biologists work, but i do think he's wrong here. he's just eating up some old biology stuff that superficially supports some idea of his and running with it. i disagree with that, i think he should stay in his lane

both you and the /b/ poster are totally insane if you dont think humans organize themselves in hierarchies 99% of the time
>>
Oliver Sendlecocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:46:02 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208818 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208806
>Psychedelics such as psilocin in mushrooms (which mimics serotonin) give you great amounts of sexual energy and you can't reproduce without sexual energy.
Factually wrong. As a /psy/ resident who has grown and used magic mushrooms for 6 years, you're full of shit. Psychedelics like psilocin in mushrooms CAN give you great amounts of sexual energy. They can also give you erectile dysfunction, or temporary asexuality, or even total disgust towards all sexual things. Psychedelics don't enforce one type of behavior, they're like throwing down some dice at random and picking an effect from a random number generator list.
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:55 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208819 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208818

thats anecdotal

here's my anecdote: i've always had a greater desire for sex, and found a new depth of pleasure in sex, while on mushrooms
>>
Hedda Gusslebit - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:03:12 EST ID:w8qDl8j3 No.208820 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208810
My choice of wording was poor, sorry. I do absolutely know where you got the idea, I just meant to imply that that line of thinking is short sighted and wrong, and you shouldn't listen to it no matter whose mouth it comes out of.
I'm also pointing out you're using a simplistic model of human psychology with reference to neurotransmitter's role in it. You're leaving out other neurotransmitters that also play key roles within attention processes, like dopamine and glutamate. If you want to speak authoritatively about the relation between neurotransmitters and human consciousness (which is a very interesting topic!) I suggest doing a bit more reading on some of the real research that has been done in the field, rather than relying on anecdotal experience (which is sufficient to talk about mystical/psychedelic experience, sure, but just not neurotransmitters. Also, psilocin also boosts dopamine, not just serotonin so again, the serotonin-only hypothesis, while looking good at first glance and intuitive, is not the case by current understanding.)

As to the broader suggestion that humanity and social interactions would be well served by taking conscious control of our neurochemical state a la some kind of paradise engineering scenario, so that attention could be maximized and equitable, I agree 100%.

>>208815
You're also clearly a frothy ideologue, so why should we listen to you either? You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of both the nature of discourse and how/why modern society functions the way it does, but without getting too technical about it, I'll just point out a few fundamental problems in your argument:
In order to make a judgement about what is morally permissible, you need to subscribe to a moral code or authority. JP does this, making appeal not to some religious code but to secular moral authority. This ignores the fact that the code of what constitutes secular morality has been changing for centuries, and has basically constantly been in a state of flux. Thus, his argument that it must remain a certain way, or that a certain condition must inherently not hold (equality of outcomes) is intrinsically disingenuous.

Further, saying injustice is natural and therefore good is not only the naturalistic fallacy, but ignores the fact that what is natural is irrelevant to humans, who constantly modify their environments. If natural is good, JP should live in a tree.

Finally, the supposition that equality of outcomes requires the loss of personal freedom is false. Certainly, we can imagine there are *some* configurations of society that feature both equality of outcome and perfect personal freedom, so why are some unwilling to entertain the possibility?

The answer is of course, that some have a vested interest in retaining the status quo, and defending the hierarchy, because they themselves have an advantaged position within it. What most of the people making such arguments don't realize is that they are way, way far down on the totem pole of the very hierarchy they are defending, and could only stand to gain by generalized restorations of equality. Those taking advantage of you depend on you holding on to this ignorance.
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:34:44 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208825 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208820

>>In order to make a judgement about what is morally permissible, you need to subscribe to a moral code or authority

actually no, you dont. you can simply make moral statements and accept that not everybody is going to agree that what you value is actually good. thankfully humans often do share values like honesty, fairness, etc. you dont have to justify why honesty and fairness are actually good things every time you make a moral statement, you can just let people who think honesty and fairness are bad live in their own strange moral landscape

>Further, saying injustice is natural and therefore good is not only the naturalistic fallacy

injustice =/= inequality. if i work 40 hours a week and make $400, and you work 20 hours and make $200, was that unjust? if im an engineer and make 100k a year, and you're a janitor and make 30k a year, is that unjust? the whole point is that peterson does not accept your premise that the inequality between the average earnings of men and women is an unjust state of affairs

>Finally, the supposition that equality of outcomes requires the loss of personal freedom is false

thats on you to prove though, in every society which has attempted to create true equality of outcomes, mass authoritarian violence and loss of freedom ensued.

>Certainly, we can imagine there are *some* configurations of society that feature both equality of outcome and perfect personal freedom

actually no, i cant imagine that at all. how do you propose to make people of different levels of intelligence and ambition achieve the same level of success without preventing the more intelligent and ambitious from reaching their full potential or forcing those with less intelligence and ambition to do something they arent inclined to do?

seriously describe to me how it could be possible for a society to achieve equality of outcome without pervasive authoritarian control over almost every aspect of society

what most marxist lunatics like yourself dont realize is that your ideology has already been revealed to be a transparent scheme for the subjugation of free peoples, you're still arguing like its the 1800's and communism hasnt had a chance to show what its like yet
>>
Rebecca Pidgebet - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:14:44 EST ID:w8qDl8j3 No.208832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519794884482.jpg -(217689B / 212.59KB, 710x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208825
>>actually no, you dont.
No, you are wrong. You clearly know nothing about the history of philosophy. Godel proved that no set of axioms can be used to completely describe itself without becoming infinitely self-referential. Therefore, if you based your morality (you ideas about what is right and wrong) on what you see as moral (on what you claim to be right and wrong) you are inherently trapped in a circular argument. This is basically the reason post-modernism evolved as a philosophical movement, and you've done nothing to disrupt or change the state of play it has introduced to the cutting edge of philosophy. You have simply tried to ignore it.

>>injustice =/= inequality
That's semantical. If I include equality within the definition of justice, then injustice == inequality. 'Justice' merely means things seeming to be right and appropriate according to a particular philosophical or moral view, and again we're back to needing appeals to authority in order to make moral declarations.
This statement is mostly just a weak defense of capitalism, which isn't really at issue (although I would argue that yes, capitalism is inherently unjust.) Since neither engineers nor janitors exist in nature, if is entirely an artificial human construct how much we want to value what they do. So to say it is 'natural' for engineers to make more than janitors is false. It is merely the status quo, which you have not justified, just reiterated as being the present case. (Justifying income inequality is a separate argument.)

>>every society which has attempted to create true equality of outcomes
There has never been such a society, so evidence of your claim is lacking.
Further, even if it had always been the case that historically one had always followed the other, that wouldn't be proof that equality of outcomes necessitates loss of freedom. You're the one making that claim, so the burden of proof is on you.


>>make people of different levels of intelligence and ambition achieve the same level of success
It's simple, if you aren't a rabid capitalist. For one thing, society is not a zero-sum game like you're trying to pretend it is. It is not the case that for one person to have more, you have to take away an equal amount from someone else. No, the interactions between people actually create real value, and nature is full of inexhaustible value (if you know how to get it) which means it is possible to play society like a positive-sum game. It isn't done this way currently, but that's for other reasons.
As an alternative example, and one which you should be familiar with if you are as familiar with '1800s' political philosophy as you are pretending, is that communism is inherently geared toward a post-scarcity level of production, which is the main factor that makes both equality of outcome and equality of compensation functional. Everyone would be able to receive the same level of material support from society (boundless, at least for individual purposes) which means 'outcome' in the narrow sense of 'wealth' would be exactly equitable, but this would in no way prevent anyone from achieving whatever they wanted to achieve, and certainly wouldn't entail subjugating or restricting anyone. Obviously 'outcomes' wouldn't be equal in the absurd sense that say, a bad basketball player would score as many points as a good basketball player, but that's absurd and no one is arguing for that.

By you last line you're starting to foam at the mouth again, so nothing to say there. Tl;dr: You need more Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism in your life
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 03:53:35 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208838 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208832

>>No, you are wrong. You clearly know nothing about the history of philosophy. Godel proved that no set of axioms can be used to completely describe itself without becoming infinitely self-referential. Therefore, if you based your morality (you ideas about what is right and wrong) on what you see as moral (on what you claim to be right and wrong) you are inherently trapped in a circular argument. This is basically the reason post-modernism evolved as a philosophical movement, and you've done nothing to disrupt or change the state of play it has introduced to the cutting edge of philosophy. You have simply tried to ignore it.

actually no, you are the one who seems to know nothing about the history of philosophy if you think the post-modernist view is the only view that incorporates Godel's incompleteness theorems. however dont think i havent noticed the marxist attempts to take over philosophy departments on college campuses

>Therefore, if you based your morality (you ideas about what is right and wrong) on what you see as moral (on what you claim to be right and wrong) you are inherently trapped in a circular argument.

you dont have to "base your morality" on "what you see as moral". you can simply say what you see as moral and allow others to argue for or against as they see fit. we do not derive ought from is directly, rather our subconscious mind supplies us with motivations and desires, and we use our powers of reason and logic to analyze the best ways of instantiating these valued states of affairs. Because the mind evolved in a physical system that requires our cooperation, our motivations and desires largely intersect, allowing us to have productive discussion of our moral disagreements

i dont see the need for a set of axioms that can completely describe itself without becoming infinitely self-referential. you seem to imply that this means we should moral nihilists in your first reply to me. You said something like "secular moral views are changing throughout time, therefore its wrong to ever claim a certain historically held view is right"

but you're not a moral nihilist because you clearly appeal to all the usual marxist values such as the need to destroy victim-oppressor hierarchies, so please describe to me in what way communism and other leftist ideologies are exempt from the "circular argument" you see in making moral judgments based on "what you see as moral"

>>That's semantical. If I include equality within the definition of justice, then injustice == inequality

all statements and disagreements have a semantic component, in point of fact, or in other words, as an empirical recording of the usage of "injustice" and "inequality", they are not interchangeable.

>>again we're back to needing appeals to authority in order to make moral declarations.
again how are your moral appeals exempt from this? if you believe moral declarations are simply unjustified in all cases due to godel's incompleteness theorem (a complete misunderstanding of the incompleteness theorems, btw), then what supports your claim that capitalism is inherently unjust

>>Since neither engineers nor janitors exist in nature, if is entirely an artificial human construct how much we want to value what they do
humans are a real animal, your distinction between nature and human here has no explanatory power regarding how we decide what is valued. empirical economics is essentially a behavioral biology of humans. the reason it is "natural" or more accurately, the reason it is not unjust that an engineer makes more than a janitor is that the state of affairs arises in an emergent fashion from the collective values of all in society, no subjugation is required for this state of affairs to arise, it arises because a janitor is easily replaced and therefore his wages are undercut by competitors, whereas an engineer is not easily replaced, and his or her value is a more powerful determinant of success on a large scale therefore he is an investment with greater potential return for an employer
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:12:58 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208832

>>There has never been such a society, so evidence of your claim is lacking.
Can we not trust the stated intentions of the philosophers and political leaders that implmented communist regimes? If your argument is that REAL communism is totally different then i think an explanation on your part is in order of how REAL communism works.

>>It's simple, if you aren't a rabid capitalist. For one thing, society is not a zero-sum game like you're trying to pretend it is.

thats your view though. you are the one claiming inequality is inherently bad. that can only be so in a zero sum system. inequality is only inherently wrong if those with more are enjoying so at the expense of those with less. im the one who believes society is positive-sum here. Im the one who believes that all of us acting in our own best interests results in greater good for all. youre the one who believes those who are succeeding more in the current system must be brought down to the level of those who arent

>>post-scarcity stuff

okay so ill actually agree with you that if we actually completely remove literally all economic roles for humans, then we can have the sort of equality you desire. Bear in mind that it would have to be really and truly FULLY automated, as in if there still needs to be humans maintaining the technology that makes this post-scarcity society possible, then a hierarchy will naturally form that can only be eradicated by force.

however if there is an artificial intelligence that maintains everything, and resources are truly unlimited, then i agree the kind of equality you want is possible

what is not at all clear is whether this should guide moral decision-making in the 21st century, unless you think capitalism threatens the possibility of reaching a post-scarcity state. you could argue that, i would be interesting in hearing that since i suspect thats what you think
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:33:20 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519810400611.jpg -(106246B / 103.76KB, 648x531) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208839
>Im the one who believes that all of us acting in our own best interests results in greater good for all.
>the reason it is not unjust that an engineer makes more than a janitor is that the state of affairs arises in an emergent fashion from the collective values of all in society

So you've basically decided apriori that whatever state of affairs exists has to be just, because humans decide hierarchies"emergently" with "no subjugation".

>however dont think i havent noticed the marxist attempts to take over philosophy departments on college campuses

Given the political takeover of economics departments that's been going on since the 70s and resulted in the academic orthodoxy being pushed in the direction of economic liberalism, which coincidentally produces corporate-friendly public policy and deregulation, I don't know how you can say such a thing without irony.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:52:37 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208846 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208840

>>So you've basically decided apriori that whatever state of affairs exists has to be just, because humans decide hierarchies"emergently" with "no subjugation".

the distinct agenda of the anti-capitalist is generally to introduce subjugatory practices in order to create more equality of outcome. the anticapitalist seeks essentially to make certain or all voluntary transactions illegal, the capitalist society is the one that at least operates under the assumption that voluntary transactions are desirable or possible. the communist view is incoherent in that you are basically saying the wrong people are on top of the hierarchy but the only thing you offer as incentive for us in the hierarchy to rearrange ourselves is violence. whereas in capitalist society, you are free to rise to the extent that your skills and ideas provide value to somebody else
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:02:55 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208849 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208846
>at least operates under the assumption that voluntary transactions are desirable or possible

There is a difference between assuming that voluntary transactions are desirable, and assuming that all transactions are inherently voluntary.

Sure, Stalinism isn't a voluntary, non-violent meritocracy. No one's arguing it is. However, you seem to be suggesting that modern capitalism is A) the natural state of humanity, B) a system in which everyone is perfectly mobile according to merit, and C) that merit itself is perfectly valued and assigned. This is equally incoherent an ideology, especially with your suggestion that capitalism doesn't require force to maintain hegemony. Sure, it may not impinge on freedom of choice or freedom of movement as much as Stalinism, but it is no less totalitarian in it's values.
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:44:36 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208849

Voluntary exchange of goods and services is natural in the sense that humans are animals and no non-human force had to intervene for us to exchange goods and services. Its not clear to me what you mean by natural here

Explain how capitalism is totalitarian. Nobody owes you anything merely because you exist. Your family happens to care about you, hopefully, and will develop in you the skills you need to earn your right to the resources labor of other people. When your family fails, your surrounding community does their best, when they fail the greater society helps as they will. You are not owed anything on account of lacking the skills to achieve what you desire.

The difference between a totalitarian and non-totalitarian system is the allocation of authority and the use of force. In the totalitarian system, one group as a monopoly on authority and force, whereas in a free society, one is empowered to use force to defend their own interests.

In a capitalist republic, the only force you need to exercise is the willingness to defend yourself from those who would use their force to subjugate you or take from you. Part of defending yourself can be "buying in" to a collective peacekeeping force. But it really works best when the people bear arms to defend their freedoms. The key is that you don't need anybody to do something for you that they do not want to do without giving them sufficient incentive in order to achieve your goals in this kind of society. In the collectivist society where equality of outcome is paramojnt, there is no room for variation in how people value their time and skills
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:18:05 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208857 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208840

>>deregulation

Lmao. Regulation of the economy has never been more pervasive. You're right that it's all for the benefit of the largest and most powerful corporations no doubt. Regulations benefit the 1% contrary to leftist propaganda.
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:59:49 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208853
>Explain how capitalism is totalitarian.

"You are not owed anything on account of lacking the skills to achieve what you desire."

Explain how that is not a totalitarian value system.
>>
Sidney Snodfield - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:04:33 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208863 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208857
Depends what kind of regulation you're talking about. Over here in Europe, small coporporations and one-man-businesses routinely take cases to court in high EU courts, and soon after the EU starts billing American megacorps with fines of a few billion dollars for shady shit.
>>
Ian Cenningfuck - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:35:39 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208868 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208838
All developments which respond to the incompleteness theorem are considered part of the post-modern era, although they are not necessarily part of the school that calls itself 'post-modernism' they all nonetheless have the feature of grappling with the fact that no set of philosophical axioms will be complete without reference to something outside of itself (they have to, because that's what the theorem tells us.) Thus they are all 'post-modern' in the broad, but not necessarily narrow, sense. That's again all semantical, but I'll address the meat of your objection below.

>>you can simply say what you see as moral...our subconscious mind supplies us with motivations and desires... we use our powers of reason and logic to analyze the best ways of instantiating these valued states
Can you not see how absurd and dangerous a system that is? Throughout all of human history and especially since the scientific revolution we have relied on the idea that we need justifications for actions and belief. If we elevate the subconscious mind above the conscious, as you seem to be proposing, we are more likely to fall back into a dark age nightmare of superstition and persecution.
I'm not advocating moral nihilism, I'm saying that any morality requires either subscription to a code or appeal to an authority to justify it.
>> therefore its wrong to ever claim a certain historically held view is right
You're twisting my words, I never claimed that. I suggested it is insufficient to claim that a historical view is correct merely because it is historical. You need to justify it on alternative means (which means you need to justify it based on ideological principles which means again, we're back to moral codes or sources of authority.)

>> the need to destroy victim-oppressor hierarchies
The justification for this moral stance comes from the observation of nature and humanity's relation to it, and from subscription to a utilitarian moral code. Victimization evolved because of its evolutionary utility, but because humans are sentient, we are not beholden to what evolution wants. What we want can mostly be quantified as maximizing the good and minimizing the bad, this is the utilitarian ethic. If being victimized is bad for the oppressed (and, additionally, being an oppressor is bad for them too) it is our moral obligation to attempt to dismantle such systems. See, it's just that simple to state where your justification comes from, then we can begin to argue about that rather than casting aspersions in thin air.

>> nature and human here has no explanatory power regarding how we decide what is valued
Only humans have the capacity to determine what value something has. 'Value' itself is a human abstraction. Animals and nature itself have no such capacity, that's why the distinction is meaningful.

>>the state of affairs arises in an emergent fashion from the collective values of all in society, no subjugation is required for this state of affairs
Actually, subjugation is the only way this state of affairs can arise. 'Value' does not actually exist. It is a human concept applied to physical reality, largely based on what we think we can get out of some portion of that reality (based on cultural and societal pressures) but which also depend on everyone else sharing that system of values. You may think a car is worth 20k, but if there isn't anyone willing to buy it, or anyone willing to fill up the gas stations, it's actually worth nothing. So the value of everything is both contingent on human desires and arbitrarily determined by human caprice (and human's own valuation of their time.) Since you weren't able to determine the value of anything else in society (and you aren't even able to meaningfully vote about it anymore) you are complete slave to a mathematical system of values over which you have no control (nor does any one else, really, except that they can choose to stop participating.)

>>Can we not trust the stated intentions of the philosophers and political leaders that implmented communist regimes?
Can we not trust the stated intentions of the oligarchs of the west who claim to champion democracy while running the government based on who has the deepest pockets?
Are you seriously making the argument 'leaders never lie'?

>an explanation on your part is in order of how REAL communism works
Well, I would suggest you read some Marx if you're looking for that. The most manifested such a system ever got in the old soviet order was Trotskyism, but we all know where that got him. In the modern day there are some other attempts (everyone loves the Kurds) but by and large the kind of socialism (as a bridge to true communism, which for Marx was then and still would be now over the technological horizon) that would qualify as authentic has never been allowed to exist. It has either been co-opted by authoritarians as in the early 20th c. or by neo-liberal covert market capitalists since.

>> inequality is only inherently wrong if those with more are enjoying so at the expense of those with less
That's exactly how the inequality in our modern world was created, perpetuated, and continues to be defended. How could you describe the staggering explosion of wealth inequality in the past 15 years, coupled with the decay of most strata of society, as anything but an 'expense'?

>>oure the one who believes those who are succeeding more in the current system must be brought down to the level of those who arent
No, I believe that people should be treated fairly. If you are succeeding because you are robbing people blind, even if they 'voluntarily' (i.e. they have to say they agree even though they have no choice) agree, then you deserve justice. If you are succeeding for the right reasons, through helping people and improving society, you could only stand to benefit from such changes. So why are you protecting thieves?

>> if there still needs to be humans maintaining the technology
Not really, technology doesn't need us at all. We will be begging to find ways to remain relevant to the technology, not the other way around.

>>whether this should guide moral decision-making in the 21st century
Since by all indications we will achieve at least the cusp of post-scarcity production in this century, it better guide us now or it will be too late.

>> you think capitalism threatens the possibility of reaching a post-scarcity state
No I think capitalism and communism each have pros and cons viz. the rate at which they fuel technological progress. However, changing the amount of inertia capitalism has behind it at this point definitely would stifle progress, which is why (because I believe the post-scarcity threshold is so close -- if it was far, the equation would differ) I'm willing to accept market economics for the time being, with a gradual shift toward market socialism until the tech is ready.
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:36:01 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208862

Is reality totalitarian itself? Is the universe subjugating you by not letting you grow wings or breathe underwater? It's simply a fact of human life that nobody will give you what you desire unless they have some incentive, either the incentive of family who loves you and wants you to succeed, the incentive of you threatening them with violence (the Marxist way), or your ability to offer them something they value in exchange

Nobody outside these transactions has to enforce these things, that's why they are not totalitarian. If you have something valuable to somebody else, you can trade it for something they have that you want. Nobody had to enforce laws allowing you to do that
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:26:50 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208868

It's not absurd or dangerous at all, and it doesn't elevate the subconscious Mind, the subconscious Mind is already in this position, all moral codes appeal to some unjustified motivations and goals, even basic ones like human life is preferable to human extinction, or freedom is preferable to subjugation.

You can make arguments trying to justify such statements but you can only do so by appealing to other subjective desires and motivations.

If all you're saying is "don't appeal to tradition" then I think you are confused. Tradition is not proof that a way of thinking is correct but it's not irrelevant to its truth either. By claiming that traditions are purely predicated on subjective beliefs that change constantly you are ignoring that humans have continuity with their ancestors, if something worked for our ancestors there IS reason to believe it will work for us (not proof)

And nobody has appealed purely to tradition so you framing it this way is a strawman.

I'm not seeing how either a code or an appeal to authority "justifies" a moral opinion. It would be more accurate to say that a code elucidates or formulates a moral opinion. It is the subjective moral opinion that informs the moral code.

It actually sounds like we sort of agree since you're basically saying you have to subscribe to the utilitarian set of values to justify your position on Marxism.

Where I disagree is I think you have misunderstood what ethical systems do. they seek to DESCRIBE our moral beliefs, particularly they seek to describe the moral beliefs we are likely to share.

All that shit in that paragraph about values actually completely undermines your insane leftist ideology. The leftist is the one saying "my labor is worth this much and it's unjust that nobody will pay me that much for it". The capitalist understands that values are judged collectively through transactions. It's not arbitrary at all, it's corresponds perfectly to our behavior and decisions.

You are not a slave to it anymore than you're a slave to reality for not letting you breathe underwater. You don't get to tell other people how to value goods and services with your utilitarian ethics, everybody decides for themselves what the value of their time and labor is terms of voluntarily trading it for other things.

As far as lying politicians go, that is all the more reason why the capitalist conservative-republican system is superior, it requires the minimum of top down control, and puts the least amount of power in the hands of corruptible individuals and puts decision-making in the hands of self-interested citizens

The leftists have nearly destroyed our democracy by ever increasing the power and role of the government and threatening the organic system of capitalism.

Wealth inequality is a retarded leftist meme that shows a basic lack of understanding of economics. When were you wealthier than you are now and when did rich people come and steal money from you? Wealth is not zero sum and it's rich that you would keep claiming it is after accusing me of saying it was originally. Wealth is increasing across the board, all around the world and especially in western societies, this is despite the constant attempts by leftists to sabotage this process. yet those at the top who have the most ability to increase their wealth increase it faster than those at the bottom, that's not unjust at all. If the bottom starts at 1 and goes to 3, and the top starts at 80 and goes to 300, the leftist says see, the ratio between bottom and top went from 1/80 to 1/100, inequality is getting worse, meanwhile the bottom has actually tripled their standard of living

Explain how it is possible to "rob people blind" in a free market. You would need a state enforced monopoly, the kind only advocated by leftists. If the service you're providing isn't worth the price you're charging then people wouldn't buy it. That people do buy it is unequivocal proof that the price was not unjust. If you are providing value to somebody they will exchange some of their resources for it.
>>
Ian Cenningfuck - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:32:18 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208870
>>You can make arguments trying to justify such statements but you can only do so by appealing to other subjective desires and motivations.
Okay, well here's what I'm motivated to say; if you take away the need for justification for holding opinions, then democracy is impossible because debate is impossible, it simply becomes a matter of who can shout about their desires the loudest. In all honesty, that's the system we are drifting toward, and away from democracy, thanks to rampant polarization.

>> you are ignoring that humans have continuity with their ancestors
And one of the things our ancestors did is expand the definitions of social and personal justice. One society we have continuity with is humanistic rationalist enlightenment democracy. According to that tradition, it is sensible to expand the definition of equality to include some types of outcome (at least under this version of the thinking) and since past expansions of the definition of justice have resulted in good things, we also have reason to believe that this will also be good for us as a whole. Now, you will say that you have reasons to think it won't work and shouldn't be, based on different aspects of past societies and different valuations of what is 'good.' This is why appealing to past societies' values and what worked for them won't help us.

>>how either a code or an appeal to authority "justifies" a moral opinion
Well, here we are abutting the problem of 'you can't derive an ought from an is' but the short answer is that we use appeals to authority (usually, to the history of scientific discovery) or a code (usually, either the system of rational empiricism or other related enlightenment institutions like reasoned debate and public discourse) all the time to justify courses of action, and we generally frown upon doing things that have no justification at all. We are 'justified' in having a space program/industry because it correlates both with past things we can prove we know about the world and jives theoretically with how we model the world. Ultimately all beliefs about the world break down along similar lines of justification until we dig all the way back down to cogito ergo sum. Sure, at the lowest level, the *primary* reason we prefer life to death, pleasure to pain, freedom to subjugation, etc. are emotional reasons (we don't want to be subjected to these things ourselves) we can nonetheless deduce other justifications for them based on our past knowledge and theoretical models of reality (life is good for abstract reasons, for example, such as that if life didn't exist, the possibility of choosing between life and death wouldn't exist. Even if we were to assume that death might be preferable, we cannot get to that realization without having been alive in the first place. There are other technical and highly nuanced arguments for why primitive intuitions are or must be the way they are, but that leads us in a useless direction. For our purposes it is sufficient to know that when you propose a course of action, people will always inquire as to a chain of justifications upon which it is based, and how quickly one is reduced to saying 'it's just simply how I want it to be!' will bear heavily on how convinced they will be that they should adopt your justifications, which must be your point in arguing for something?)

>> It's not arbitrary at all, it's corresponds perfectly to our behavior and decisions.
It's not arbitrary in the sense that it is random. We know exactly how it is that, for example, it ended up being the case that the government paid $500 for a hammer. It's based on a confluence of factors we can measure and understand. However it is nonetheless arbitrary in the real sense of the world, meaning determined through arbitration. Now, the physical components it took to create the hammer is known. We can measure it in joules, we can measure it in raw materials, we can measure it in human lifetime expended. However, those costs are pretty much the same for the $3 hammer sold at the hardware store and the one the military buys. So how is the difference in value possible? Because the value is arbitrary -- it has been determined through contracts and bureaucracy that the government will pay that much for the hammer, and so that's the 'value' it has -- but that value doesn't correspond to anything natural, like joules or grams or seconds, only an arbitrated human system.

>>not a slave to it anymore than you're a slave to reality for not letting you breathe underwater
A human being didn't invent human lungs and their lack of ability to breathe water. A human being did invent money, did invent markets, did invent global financial systems designed to keep the majority yoked to engines to extract the planet's resources so a handful of people can live like kings.

>> You don't get to tell other people how to value goods and services with your utilitarian ethics
There are both left and right wing flavors of utilitarianism so don't pretend like there's not. And honestly, you're just reiterating my point. You don't get to determine the value of your own life under capitalism, you are subjugated to the value it is ascribed to you by the system, 99% of which is due to factors outside of your control. Everyone else is in the same situation, because none of them individually have control over the mechanisms that determine value. However, we do *collectively* have control over those mechanisms, because value is something we determine. We don't determine joules, grams or seconds, but how they are organized is entirely up to us. The people who control 99% of the paper wealth actually contribute a very small percentage of the work energy that makes up the planet's wealth, they are just in such a position that they can pull the strings and orchestrate the energy of the rest to benefit mainly themselves. And they force this reality upon everyone who is born into this world, who have no ability to establish their own system (and if they do, the entire global governmental apparatus will orchestrate against them, as was seen during the Cold War.) This is what people mean by capitalism is unjust and there is no freedom, even though you are deluded into thinking you have absolute freedom. It is a carefully crafted illusion, and you have shifted from being a victim to an apologist for it.

>>as lying politicians go, that is all the more reason why the capitalist conservative-republican system is superior
Republicanism is at fault. As soon as you start focusing on individuals -- politicians -- you stop paying attention to what the people want. Republicanism has, since the time of Plato, been a means for the ruling class to masquerade their way back into the throne room whenever the people wake up and realize they are being manipulated and demand their power back. Direct democracy is our future and our only hope.

>> Wealth is not zero sum
Wealth need not be zero sum, it's true, but I think you're applying the concept of zero sum a little too literally and specifically. Yes, the actual numerical value of wealth has skyrocketed. This is not what a 'zero sum game' means from a game theory perspective. That's a reference to your earlier suggestion that in order for someone to have more (+1) you must take away from someone else (-1) and thus reach 0. What I'm asserting is that the configuration of society can be such that everyone can have a +1, leaving us with a positive sum. This isn't contingent on the number values of how money is circulated, but the real values that lead to production (joules, grams, and time are essentially all they can be.)
>>
Ian Cenningfuck - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:32:38 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208870

>>Wealth is increasing across the board
That's just not true. Real wages adjusted for inflation have declined in the west for an increasingly large percentage of the population. Yes, the actual numerical values have gone up, but because we're talking about percentage (i.e. the whole pie still always adds up to 100%, all the wealth) the actual proportion has significantly decreased. This wealth was robbed from the middle class, of course, by carefully and continually concentrating the wealth and means of production into smaller groups, so that, for example, when the company that owns the plant that you have been working at for years decides to move overseas, you have no power to change it or retain your livelihood -- you can't even buy from a competitor and use your market power to change things, because the owners of the means of production are working together. This is different from earlier eras of human history entirely. The blacksmiths' workshop couldn't decide to move to China, and no one came and told him his steel production technique was actually patented and he needed to pay a fee.

The system as you describe would work in a perfect world where everyone played nice, but that's not the real world. It's easy to cheat and take advantage of people, to steal the value they create by using all kinds of complex systems from the financial system to the police state to political ideologies, and people have gotten so good at doing that that 99% of the value created is not owned by the people that create it. This has little to do with what is fair or what price other people will pay for your service, and everything to do with the power of conglomerates to control every aspect of society if you let them own all of the means of production.

The only safeguard the public has against corporations destroying the public interest is something that is essentially a corporation but is not beholden to profit but instead the will and interest of the public. That's what a state is, and that's why we need them. They are for your protection, not to harm you. That's also why we need them to be carefully regulated and democratic, because they can become even worse than corporations if left unchecked, but simply doing without them and believing human nature will keep everyone playing nice is a fantasy.
>>
Albert Munningnadge - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:16:47 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.208881 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Mr. Chapo has done it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JdD-WADUG8

Peterson is such a joke.
>>
Cornelius Sezzlegold - Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:58:59 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.208886 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520042339385.jpg -(6202B / 6.06KB, 281x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Jesus Fucking Christ this thread is the fucking "Contrarian Olympics" isn't it.

Ya know- sometimes I come to this board to see if there is anything actually interesting in the way of discourse. I find myself happily not fucking surprised to find none. BACK TO /b/!
>>
Barnaby Greendock - Sat, 03 Mar 2018 13:58:05 EST ID:mZAIyaLO No.208887 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This thread represents to me this classical tendency of my environment displaying sudden disapproval of what I like, so it's irritating to hear you all talk about Peterson in this vague way, it's equally irritating to find myself only capable of offering vague reasons on why I like him and the stuff he says. However I can understand why he is not likable, sometimes he comes off as preachy and self righteous but I think those vibes he can give are very much forgivable since after all, lots of people in lots of bad situations, they find themselves in a better place from listening to him.
>>
Jenny Bindershit - Sat, 03 Mar 2018 22:18:34 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208888 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208887
I don't fucking care about how likable or wrong someone is mate. I like listening to Lawrence Krauss and the guy is a total unlikeable egotripping wanker (who also is a seriously fucked up sexual harasser to the point where several universities won't allow him near students).

All I care about is the fucking facts. And Peterson is a fucking retarded wanker who wouldn't even recognize a fact if it bored a hole into his skull.
>>
Emma Dremmleson - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 00:37:51 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520141871985.jpg -(89487B / 87.39KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208888
Well this isn't how philosophical discourse is meant to sound. You're meant to disprove someones argument using sound logical reasoning if you don't agree with them.
e.g.

>Peterson is a fucking retarded wanker who wouldn't even recognize a fact if it bored a hole into his skull

This whether true or not sounds very ad hominem and is not what I would call "proper philosophical discourse". Unfortunately you need to cite a specific example or you are just making a weak argument.
>>
Samuel Grimson - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 01:17:47 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208890 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208889
There's been discussion here about the problems with his arguments and rhetoric. If you want to respond to some of that instead of the more vague criticisms of the impression he makes, then do that.
>>
Emma Dremmleson - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 06:16:23 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208891 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520162183985.jpg -(33746B / 32.96KB, 480x470) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208890
Well >>208888 above me has criticized JP throughout this thread saying "he is under-equipped to deal with scientific and philosophical concepts" or doesn't understand facts. My issue here is that facts are understood differently by different people (everyone has their own way of thinking and their own perception of reality). There are no people on earth who can 100% agree with each other on everything and you will always find something about someones beliefs that you don't agree with. This can be summarized as saying "my facts aren't your facts". That's not to say I think facts aren't absolute or that reality is relative to the observer, but all humans interpret reality and process information differently. If someone wants to claim JP doesn't understand facts, this could either be interpreted as A) He says stuff I don't personally agree with OR B) he says stuff that contradicts well established, independently verified and peer reviewed scientific literature. So I ask only for clarification whether this is an A or a B.
>>
Jenny Bindershit - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:17:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208892 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208891
>B) he says stuff that contradicts well established, independently verified and peer reviewed scientific literature.

This.
>>
Thomas Bigglecocke - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 22:38:23 EST ID:/sOIIrIf No.208896 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I genuinely agree with Peterson on most things, and I'm not by any definition "right-wing". He is just trying to help people get better by teaching them accountability. That part, he bases on psychology and his experience as a clinician.

People claiming he's referencing sciences he shouldn't are very dim. If he references a neuroscience or biology study, he's not in any way claiming to be a neuroscientist or biologist, he's just an educated guy who can read a study. It's not hard.
Furthermore if you really wanted to knock him for doing that you should be able to refute whatever claim he makes. I can't believe this is an issue but I guess some of the people who hate him are really that uneducated. I can't believe someone has to explain that.
>>
Eugene Grimstone - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:28:39 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208897 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208896
I agree that it's not wrong for JP to comment on things that are outside his academic wheelhouse per se, but it means that he doesn't have 'expert' status appended to his claims in those area, he is an educated layperson or at best an amateur researcher in those fields and his opinion should be weighed accordingly.
>>Furthermore if you really wanted to knock him for doing that you should be able to refute whatever claim he makes.
But that's what everyone in this thread did.
>>
Ian Daddlewater - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:05:10 EST ID:XL/eeBYd No.208899 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520276710605.jpg -(31315B / 30.58KB, 450x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208897

>But that's what everyone in this thread did.

Those are just comments of strangers on the internet and I'm going to weigh their opinion accordingly, against them that is.
>>
Eugene Grimstone - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:11:53 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208900 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208899
Wow, devastating argument.
>>
Ian Daddlewater - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:37:55 EST ID:XL/eeBYd No.208901 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208900

I was just joking. Most of what I've seen of this thread is name calling, and then just claims that JP has been proven wrong. The only concrete issue seems to be about the lobster comment, of which I am not equipped or interested to argue in favor or against. After all, I don't see much if any implications. But perhaps a bit off track, I seem to recall zizek once talking about prehistoric times where fathers of the tribe would supposedly keep all the women to themselves, in a ruthless fashion. Zizek went on to say that perhaps the authority a father has, that moment when he stares his children into submission, that this is the image of the prehistoric father who creeps into the childrens minds. That example is no example of genetics being involved (I assume) but it does make one wonder that after so much time of humanity evolving in such conditions, can't one reasonably assume that our genes are somewhat responsive to hierarchies?
>>
Hugh Bibblechick - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:03:53 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208904 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208897
If the guy points out a bunch of facts you don’t like, you can’t pretend they’re not facts.
>>
Shitting Croblingshaw - Tue, 06 Mar 2018 03:31:28 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208904
I read the tread too. Some people are calling things facts but they are just basing their argument on economic theories "capitalism vs communism" and calling them facts. The only facts I saw were based on science when the serotonin argument was brought up. But for every fact there have been 100 subjective opinions.
>>
Martin Gishway - Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:43:33 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208901
>>208904
>>208906
If you guys are so unconvinced by the arguments made in this thread, then respond to them. If people asserting that facts back up a point means nothing, then surely merely complaining about an argument because it contains reference to such facts means even less?
>>
Samuel Cuffingfin - Wed, 07 Mar 2018 09:55:22 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208909 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520434522057.jpg -(68597B / 66.99KB, 768x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208907
Well people in this thread are saying "Jordan isn't an expert on various topics therefore he can't be right", while being non-experts themselves and discussing various points and trying to claim that their counter point is right despite never really directly refuting Jordan's main points.
>>
Martin Gishway - Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:56:02 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208909
His main points have been refuted over and over again. You seem to be cherry picking posts which support your argument, which you again just reiterated, not made a defense of. If you want fresh argumentation against JP's points, you need to make a fresh defense of them, because to my eyes the thread is fairly concluded without someone offering a new angle.
>>
Augustus Cromblebock - Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:31:24 EST ID:fA25umos No.208911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520458284954.jpg -(533527B / 521.02KB, 2000x1333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208907
>>208910

Just think of it this way, there are newcomers, like a guy that overheard stuff. He didn't hear about what the two disagree about (Jordan yes/no) but wants to make his mind on his own, so he asks them what they disagree about and THE two of them won't even tell but offer you the transcript of their conversation. Third guy now wonders, are things perhaps better left unknown? Third guy doesn't know.
>>
Martin Gishway - Wed, 07 Mar 2018 17:50:34 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208911
>>people too lazy read threads deserve to have dead 100+ post threads explained back to them
>>even better, they take the fact that they didn't read it as evidence that their automatic assumption about what is right is correct.
Sure pal.
>>
Ebenezer Buzzdale - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 03:02:22 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520496142043.gif -(237355B / 231.79KB, 200x193) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208910
>>208892

Ok let's get something straight. Some of you have made the claim that Jordan contradicts well founded scientific arguments. I'm open to anyone making a bold claim as long as it is supported by evidence, which I would like you to present.
So far nobody in this thread has actually presented such a claim beyond making a straw-man argument but I am open to listening if someone will actually show that Jordan does without a doubt contradict peer reviewed science.

So I will offer a new point.I listened to Jordan Peterson speak and he made a good point about equity. He said that If one person works and the other does not, then that creates inequity that is not necessarily bad. His underlying point was that not all inequity is bad. If you don't work, you can't expect to get paid the same as someone who works 40 hours a week because you aren't being productive. I thought that was a solid point.

Then we have this point by >>208871.

>>There are both left and right wing flavors of utilitarianism so don't pretend like there's not. And honestly, you're just reiterating my point. You don't get to determine the value of your own life under capitalism, you are subjugated to the value it is ascribed to you by the system, 99% of which is due to factors outside of your control. Everyone else is in the same situation, because none of them individually have control over the mechanisms that determine value. However, we do *collectively* have control over those mechanisms, because value is something we determine. We don't determine joules, grams or seconds, but how they are organized is entirely up to us. The people who control 99% of the paper wealth actually contribute a very small percentage of the work energy that makes up the planet's wealth, they are just in such a position that they can pull the strings and orchestrate the energy of the rest to benefit mainly themselves. And they force this reality upon everyone who is born into this world, who have no ability to establish their own system (and if they do, the entire global governmental apparatus will orchestrate against them, as was seen during the Cold War.) This is what people mean by capitalism is unjust and there is no freedom, even though you are deluded into thinking you have absolute freedom. It is a carefully crafted illusion, and you have shifted from being a victim to an apologist for it.

There is many things wrong with this argument. Firstly people in power are not necessarily capitalists and I would argue that corporatism is distinct from capitalism. Also, you can't blame government, military and geopolitical events on capitalism. It is well studied that when a government focuses funding the military and not social services (e.g. during the uprising of the east Indian company in Britain), it forces the people into poverty. Capitalism in a better society could flourish and all you would need to do is work, but because capitalism is nested in a system geared for military conquest and funding the elite, wealth is stolen from the working class. Again, capitalism isn't the problem; it's the facts that it is nested in a corrupt system, which would steal wealth from the average worker regardless. But the average person blames the capitalism itself rather than the corrupt system it is nested in.
>>
Nathaniel Crushville - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:29:25 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520515765996.jpg -(20579B / 20.10KB, 200x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208913
>So I will offer a new point.I listened to Jordan Peterson speak and he made a good point about equity. He said that If one person works and the other does not, then that creates inequity that is not necessarily bad. His underlying point was that not all inequity is bad. If you don't work, you can't expect to get paid the same as someone who works 40 hours a week because you aren't being productive. I thought that was a solid point.

Holy shit, Jordan Peterson is so fucking smart! How did I not realise this? WOOOOW! Thanks mate! You really redpilled me there!
>>
Cedric Dattingwidge - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:38:52 EST ID:kRlNBVJE No.208916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520516332293.jpg -(172225B / 168.19KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208914
It's not obvious to everybody, it seems, if you just listen to all the talk about equality. Very rarely do the people talking about it actually define the exact way they are using the term, which they should, because there are many. I get the feeling most people use it in the warm and fuzzy way that words like 'freedom' or 'justice' get thrown around.
>>
Nathaniel Crushville - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:43:51 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208916
>It's not obvious to everybody, it seems, if you just listen to all the talk about equality.

Maybe if all you read about "equality" is from retarded autistic the future alt-right websites.
>>
Beatrice Drundlenotch - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:48:16 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.208918 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208914
Wait is peterson a commie? This is literally why Marx said the worker is more valuable than the owners, bosses and managers.
>>
Phineas Wunningstack - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:31:36 EST ID:g7qCLR+O No.208919 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208913
Conflating equity and equality is such a poor quality misdirection technique I'm surprised JP would resort to it. Further, saying something that is inequitable isn't bad (read, unfair) means whoever saying it doesn't even know what the word equity means. The definition of equity (outside of finance) is "the quality of being fair and impartial." He is either making the claim that either fairness itself is bad, or that inequality of compensation is not actually inequity, but 'inequity is not bad' borders on nonsense.

As the originator of the point you singled out, I will defend it;
>>Firstly people in power are not necessarily capitalists
Huh, that's a wallop of a falsehood. Tell me which major world countries are not run by capitalists, and I'll entertain this proposition. Good luck!
>>corporatism is distinct from capitalism
Only in a very nuanced way that is mostly insignificant for this discussion. The people in power are both corporatists and capitalists; while it might be the case that one does not necessarily have to be both simultaneously, in the present situation most are. Does this distinction change the argument in any other way?

>>shifting the blame from capitalism to the military
That would be all well and good, and of course I support the deconstruction of military hegemony and a decrease in military spending by all governments. However, you have forgotten how the military became and remains so powerful in the west. Have you never heard of the military industrial complex? In order to grow larger, the military needs more funding and more materiel of various kinds. In order to grow larger, the industrial complex needs to find more consumers for its various materiel to increase its own funds. Because the government will always rubber-stamp the desires of the military (particularly in the jingoistic, neo-colonial west dominated by right-wing politics) the industrial complex has unlimited incentive to increase the need for the military and police in the world, so they can make more money. This desire only exists because money -- capital -- has been established as an unqualified unlimited good. If the purpose of industry wasn't to make profit but to benefit society, it wouldn't have incentive to increase war, or increase prison populations; it could just make things, as much as was needed and no more, and the military could equip itself just as much as is needed for defense, and no more (since there wouldn't be incentive to spend money for no good reason just so they don't get less money the next funding bill.)
>>you can't blame government, military and geopolitical events on capitalism
Not intrinsically no, but when the way all those things operate is because of and defense of capitalism, then capitalism itself becomes directly relevant.
>> capitalism itself rather than the corrupt system it is nested in.
It's corrupt because everyone in power is looking out for their own self-interest which ultimately boils down to money. You have to have some kind of social order, whether you're a minarchist or an authoritarian, so you have to have some version of 'the system.' But if you take away the mechanism of power that enables corruption -- greed, setting up wealth as the universal good -- then that system can function as it is intended, rather than turning the whole planet into a paperclip maximizer like global capitalism does.
In short you're attributing problems that capitalism causes and manifest in society to society itself, but that's silly. We can't remove society itself, but we can remove capitalism.

Lastly, the unironic pepe posting is like screaming 'I don't belong here!'
>>
Sidney Blambleville - Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:25:28 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208920 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520576728408.png -(212976B / 207.98KB, 400x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208919
>>Tell me which major world countries are not run by capitalists, and I'll entertain this proposition. Good luck!
America. Run by Corporatists and big governments, not capitalists.


>>The people in power are both corporatists and capitalists; while it might be the case that one does not necessarily have to be both simultaneously, in the present situation most are. Does this distinction change the argument in any other way?
Yes, because corporations corrupted capitalism and changed into something that no longer resembles it. They created a monopoly on business so no other businesses can thrive in a free market. If it doesn't look like capitalism then it isn't capitalism.


>>Have you never heard of the military industrial complex? In order to grow larger, the military needs more funding and more materiel of various kinds. In order to grow larger, the industrial complex needs to find more consumers for its various materiel to increase its own funds. Because the government will always rubber-stamp the desires of the military (particularly in the jingoistic, neo-colonial west dominated by right-wing politics) the industrial complex has unlimited incentive to increase the need for the military and police in the world, so they can make more money. This desire only exists because money -- capital -- has been established as an unqualified unlimited good.

The desire exists because people want power and corporations lobby governments to create special rules just for them. Tyranny can be found in communist systems too, like we see with China, Soviet Russia or North Korea and all have had great military power without using capitalism. The point is governments use the economic and legislative tools available to them to consolidate military power. If they can do that with non capitalist tools, then capitalism can't be the single underlying cause.


>>Not intrinsically no, but when the way all those things operate is because of and defense of capitalism, then capitalism itself becomes directly relevant.
This is the government using a red herring. They defend capitalism because it is within their current tool-set and they would have to adapt if things were changes. They don't actually need capitalism to have all this power. Remember, Soviet Russia operated on communism and look at how powerful they became.


>>In short you're attributing problems that capitalism causes and manifest in society to society itself, but that's silly. We can't remove society itself, but we can remove capitalism.

Many people are self interested narcissists who will exploit anything to their own ends and it is true that they have done so within our current economic system, but my point is they would also exploit any alternative economic system, so how can we rule out human nature as the cause of this greed?

I would love a system that humans can't exploit but any alternative to capitalism could just as easily be exploited. The only defense to greed is the decentralization of power, which the free market accomplished long ago. The current problem is govs and corps have worked together to crush the free market and centralize power.

>>Lastly, the unironic pepe posting is like screaming 'I don't belong here!'
Objection. Pepe had many different meanings to many different people for years before his meme was hijacked by conservatives. That doesn't mean pepe is theirs. Pepe is just a dynamic meme that can be made to mean anything you want it to mean.
>>
Basil Fickledale - Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:12:04 EST ID:g7qCLR+O No.208921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208920
This post is pretty absurd, man. There are so many glaring contradictions and holes in your knowledge about basic things that I have to assume you're either trolling me or are very young. Either way, I'm not trying to sound condescending, but you're fucking up such basic facts it's probably going to be inevitable:

To start off, I'm just going to give you a definition of capitalism so we can be clear we are talking about the same thing;
>Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
That's what we mean when we talk about capitalism. You don't get to redefine it for your own purposes. This will become relevant below.

>>America. Run by Corporatists and big governments, not capitalists.
Again, being corporatist and capitalist are not mutually exclusive and usually go hand in hand. Corporatism is "the control of the state by large interest groups." The interest groups which control the state in the US are the private owners of the means of production who operate for profit, in so far as they control the lobbying organizations and PACs which pull the strings of elections and the branches of government. So yes, the US is corporatist, but under what definition can you claim it isn't also capitalist?

>>If it doesn't look like capitalism then it isn't capitalism.
How does it not look like capitalism though? Private owners of the means of production operate business for profit. The reason they form large corporations rather than remaining mom & pops is because it's easier to make more money the more you control. If monopolies weren't superior at generating profit to small businesses, no one would form them. It's precisely because of capitalism's focus on profit that capitalists chose to form corporations.

>>The desire exists because people want power and corporations lobby governments to create special rules just for them.
Interest groups are always going to lobby the government in a democracy. But if you take away capital's ability to completely control democracy through money, then it can actually be a democracy instead of a plutocracy.

>>Tyranny can be found in communist systems too,
Enough whataboutism. Yes, tyranny can crop up under a host of human social systems. That doesn't absolve capitalism of the problems that are unique to it.

>>China, Soviet Russia or North Korea
The only one of those that you might argue isn't capitalist is NK, and even though they wouldn't admit it, they really are, since so much of their funds come through black market deals -- which is capitalism.

>>capitalism can't be the single underlying cause.
I never said capitalism was the cause of the consolidation of military power. You're the one who wants to talk about military power and brought it up. I merely said capitalism allows military power to grow without bound, because it is no longer just the state or warhawks who have an incentive to expand the military, but also private business. That's unique to capitalism. Yes, ancient sparta consolidated military power as a key feature of its government, but it didn't pass the laws to train the warriors because the spear and shield consortium wanted to make a buck. That's the difference.

>>They don't actually need capitalism to have all this power.
Capitalism is not the same thing as power, and I never claimed it was. The power of the state is a distinct thing from the power of capitalism, of course, that's why we have separate words for them. But saying 'capitalism's power can't be bad, because other things also have power and can also be bad' is like saying 'electric chairs can't kill you, because there are other things that also have electricity and can kill you too!' We're not trying to solve the problem of humanity's lust for power. We're trying to fix our economic system.

>>they would also exploit any alternative economic system
You're asking us to assume that all economic systems have exactly equal vulnerability to exploitation, but that's absurd. Nomadic hunter gatherers have pretty limited ability to exploit their neighbors. Post-scarcity technoutopians likewise would have little reason to exploit their neighbors. Not all economic systems are equal in their exploitability, and that's a big part of the point -- capitalism is uniquely vulnerable to corruption.

>>human nature as the cause of this greed?
Human nature is the cause of greed, just like human rage (among other emotions) is the cause of murder. Thus, just as we create society to protect ourselves from murder, so do we regulate the market in order to protect ourselves from greed. We can't change human nature, but we can change society.

>>govs and corps have worked together to crush the free market and centralize power.
They did this because, operating in the free market, they had a profit incentive to centralize and consolidate power. If profit wasn't the universal good, ie if the values of capitalism weren't in effect, this would not have occurred. This distinguishes pure laissez-faire capitalism from other economic modes that also feature capital but don't put it as a universal good, like market socialism. That's more like what you are championing -- you could have free enterprise, but nothing would ever be allowed to grow so big as to establish a monopoly. The only thing that has the power to prevent monopolies from forming is the state and regulation.

>>Pepe is just a dynamic meme that can be made to mean anything you want it to mean.
Hey, the past three years called. They're wondering when you're going to pay attention to them. The people who are posting pepe memes now are pretty much the opposite of the people who posted them 5 years ago, and you can't roll back time by pretending to hide under a rock. Times have changed.
>>
Isabella Shittingfield - Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:53:48 EST ID:mHC1oW2M No.208926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1521168828306.jpg -(54480B / 53.20KB, 506x422) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208797
>
There are no beta males. Well in a sense, there are. But there are also gamma males, delta males, epsilon males, digamma males, zeta males, eta males, theta males, iota males, kappa males, lambda males, mu males, nu males, ksi males, omnicron males, pi males, koppa males, rho males, sigma males, tau males, upsilon males, phi males, chi males, psi males and finally omega males.

being this retarded
>>
Martha Clobbleman - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:21:42 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have to reconsider my stance on Jordan Peterson. He always seemed pretty familiar to me but I couldn't place him.

So I think all his opinions on subjects outside his field are still retarded, but he's not completely retarded.

He has a video seminar on heroic and shamanic psychology (which lies at the heart of religions, myths and entertainment), which is VERY VERY VERY good. Because he just sticks to his OWN fucking field where he has expertise.
>>
Cornelius Sangershaw - Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:14:44 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.208929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1521339284963.jpg -(8897B / 8.69KB, 201x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208927

honestly i think the dude just got caught up in a huge wave of conversation that was far beyond anything he was prepared for (made me think of a certain orange man... lol). i think he was just a professor trying to cover some moderately edgy topics, i.e. "men have difficulties also", which caused a blind screaming rage from people who disagreed with him, or more commonly misconstrued him as having a wide range of controversial positions which he didn't (see the interview with that lady where she constantly tries to put words in his mouth), and he just didn't ride it out too solidly. maybe out of a state of semi-panic and fear he started to go a little deeper down his edgy rabbit hole, but i dont think this dude has any malice or whatever. i just think he was a goofy guy who tried a little edge and the whole internet happened to violently react and polarize over it. this dude was just like, a small factor in the whole "series of events" that followed his rise to prominence, the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will. anyone agree or disagree with this thinking?
>>
Phyllis Clussleville - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:31:35 EST ID:SnW4+xYB No.208930 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208929

It's kind of like you over minimize Jordan and the meaning behind him. Zizek made like a article (which I haven't read) and said JP was gaining so much attention because "the left doesn't have it's house in order" but the second part of the article was supposed to be a sick burn, supposedly. I think Zizek got it right in a way, the left has insufficiencies and they know it which is why JP gets a whole spectrum of absurd reactions to what he says but there is hope though, I see way less JP haters compared to JP supporters. I think the left is learning.
>>
Reuben Cleshwill - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:40:08 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Perfect description of Jordan.
>>
Phyllis Clussleville - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:44:03 EST ID:SnW4+xYB No.208932 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208931

I paste from the near end of that article:

"What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point"

Yeah good luck in trying that last part. I don't know which "we" is referred to there, but it's like it's being spoken with a confused sense of others and self, it comes of as arrogant to speak for "us" in such a single minded way. But here's a tip, if you care about someone and yet they seem to be giving you less attention, try not to write a article about the competitor where the first thing you do is dismissing the competitor as worthless. I think the left should be far more in tune with the people but it's like that they never update their knowledge of people, so when there are elections, it shows.
>>
Priscilla Shakeson - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:32:47 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208929
>i dont think this dude has any malice or whatever.

I don't think he has any malice either, beyond the need for attention that obviously drives his character. If we didn't have the alt-right/SJW dichotomy monopolizing public debate on the things he talks about, he wouldn't have drawn any notice whatsoever for his content.

I think it's interesting how obviously he himself has been polarized by the whole process of internet fame.
>>
Priscilla Shakeson - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:15:45 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208934 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208932
That's literally the last concluding paragraph of a long essay of specific examples. Did you read the bits that came before it?
>>
Esther Brarringsut - Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:34:38 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1521455678383.jpg -(1685898B / 1.61MB, 1772x2517) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208934
>That's literally the last concluding paragraph of a long essay of specific examples. Did you read the bits that came before it?

I did. Check out this paragraph in response to Jordan giving a complex definition of Procedural Knowledge.

"What’s important about this kind of writing is that it can easily appear to contain useful insight, because it says many things that either are true or “feel kind of true,” and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding."

So the article's writer is bewildered because Jordan's ideas are too complex and deep for this timid author. I just don't see the point of criticism like this, as the author of a book has no obligation to make sure his book makes his readers feel good about themselves. The fact that the writer is made to feel stupid is more of a fault of their own timidness than a criticism of Jordan's method for conveying information in his own book that he himself wrote. I just couldn't take the writer in that article seriously after that, after all, an author who works hard to write a book has every right to choose how he conveys information to his selected audience, which may have been meant for academics studying philosophy rather than laymen.
>>
Phyllis Criblingfidge - Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:43:27 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208935
No, they aren't too complex or deep. That's the point of the entire article. They are written to seem more complex than it is by using overly wordy academic descriptors that most people aren't fully able to parse out. But for those that can parse them out, realize that it's taking simply platitudes and life advice and stretching it out as much as possible using poetic, solipsistic, and esoteric license.

And the author is 100% correct.
>>
Sophie Feblingstetch - Mon, 19 Mar 2018 20:20:26 EST ID:IGEC3QOd No.208937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://m.soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-194-fck-12-feat-shuja-haider-and-elon-musk-31818

Some real ass intellectuals discuss Petersons basic ass surface level book. Fool got attacked by birds and wants to be a lobster.
>>
Edwin Bimmerlit - Mon, 19 Mar 2018 20:59:29 EST ID:i7wPqEbt No.208938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ya'll should read this, a well written critique: https://literalmachines.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/on-your-knees-in-a-field-under-heavy-rain-screaming-for-your-dad-to-notice-you/
>>
Fucking Smallworth - Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:50:39 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208939 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208935
>in response to Jordan giving a complex definition of Procedural Knowledge.

Then what is the definition? I mean, I know the psychological definition of procedural knowledge, but I have no idea if that's what he's talking about in that paragraph because it's so circuitously written.

>Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges.

Can you tell me how he's using the term "intrapsychic" or what that refers to?
>>
Molly Sinderwirk - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:38:32 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208939
>Then what is the definition? I mean, I know the psychological definition of procedural knowledge, but I have no idea if that's what he's talking about in that paragraph because it's so circuitously written.

Well he is an academic and he is using academic writing as a writing style. I agree that it is written in a highly complex and long winded style and a simpler style would be an easier read for a general audience. Academic writing has its advantages for when you want to explain something in the most precise way possible and normal words just seem too blunt. I mean his book is called "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief " which just sounds like it would only appeal to an academic philosopher looking for a deep and complex explanation that has words that have highly precise meanings so nothing is left as ambiguous. However if a normal person reads a book which was targeted at academics, then the highly technical words and jargon will just go over their heads.


>Can you tell me how he's using the term "intrapsychic" or what that refers to?

Intra- means within and -psychic just means your mind, so intra-psychic is just means withing your own mind. There are simpler terms like 'mentally' but that word can be a bit vague. I think this word is just an example of the technical jargon that academics love using. I mean, one of the foundations of academic writing is to leave nothing to interpretation for the reader, assuming of course they are familiar with that terminology. But if they are not familiar with the terminology then the meaning will go over their head.
>>
Graham Bamblefudging - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:02:27 EST ID:OaatFpkW No.208941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208934

Not really, no. The reason is that I like JP and have seen a lot of bullshit about JP. But I admit I'm increasingly way more interested in the reaction towards JP from those who don't seem to like him. It's as if the same person calls him a evil fascist and then the next moment says all he really does is just offer simple life advice, I don't think JP is fairly described that way and so whatever he's doing, I hope he does more.
>>
Edward Morryfield - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:18:40 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't think he's an evil fascist. I just think he talks very simple platitudes in complex ways; He says a lot without actually saying anything of substance. Although, he does hold a lot of cringey rightish anti-feminism views, and fear-mongers over "Marxism" in universities.


Sure, he's an educated man, but he's an educated many that tend to go way beyond his station and it definitely shows. The only one's that are impressed by him are those that don't know any better.
>>
Nell Snodway - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:05:16 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.208943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208933

yeah exactly, thats what i was trying to say, its like this whole furor over him is more a reflection of the current polarization than anything about this single dude.
>>
Hedda Cliblingworth - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:35:23 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.208944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208940
>Intra- means within and -psychic just means your mind, so intra-psychic is just means withing your own mind.

Does it? Because "intrapsychic" is primarily jargon from Fruedian psychoanalysis. Is he using it in the psychoanalytic sense? Is he connecting a Fruedian concept to the concept of procedural knowledge from cognitive psychology? If so, how is he reconciling two very different perspectives of the mind? Is he just using it as a more interesting way of saying "personal", or as a filler word to pad out the sentence?

It's little things like that I could probably forgive if the point he was trying to make wasn't so obscured by it.

>which just sounds like it would only appeal to an academic philosopher looking for a deep and complex explanation that has words that have highly precise meanings so nothing is left as ambiguous.

But that's the point. You think it would because you don't have the range of necessary skillsets to say "I know for certain there is no meaning here". You say "Well, I can work out these words and it sounds reasonable, so if I knew the jargon a little better the rest would be just as reasonable". But using words with precise meanings means nothing if you don't make very clear how you're using them or how they relate.
>>
Martin Dinderhood - Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:49:07 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208945 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208944
>Because "intrapsychic" is primarily jargon from Fruedian psychoanalysis

Well when he speaks, he seems more inspired by Carl Jung's psychoanalysis than anything to do with Fruedian psychoanalysis so we can rule that one out. I guess given he didn't specify (well I didn't know there were more than 1 definition of intraphychic) so the general definition seems a safe bet.

>But using words with precise meanings means nothing if you don't make very clear how you're using them or how they relate.

Well since I only read the paragraph and not the whole book he wrote I can't see the deeper context, but some books build the context in introduction chapters and it becomes clear how words are being used later in the book, but not so when you strip it of context. If I read more of the book I could tell you if that introduction is there or not, but that's what his argument would be dependent on.
>>
Hedda Cliblingworth - Wed, 21 Mar 2018 03:15:11 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.208947 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208945
>he seems more inspired by Carl Jung's psychoanalysis
>so the general definition seems a safe bet

But then you run into the same problem of an idea that could be much more simply stated as "in your mind" is substituted with a word that implies a deeper meaning and leaves it up to your personal interpretation/knowledge base to explain it.
>>
Martin Dinderhood - Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:54:44 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208947
>But then you run into the same problem of an idea that could be much more simply stated as "in your mind" is substituted with a word that implies a deeper meaning and leaves it up to your personal interpretation/knowledge base to explain it.

fair point, but when you spend even 4 years at university and you are expected to use words like intrapsychic rather than "in your mind", it messes with your head and rewires your brain. I got off light with only 6 years at university and had my own fair share of learning academic Jargon, but Jordan has probably been there 40, so the academic writing standard has obviously rewired his brain a great deal so he speaks in convoluted ways now. It's not his fault in this respect because it's the whole university system which did this to him. He isn't doing this to be smug tho.
>>
Molly Fottinghurk - Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:10:45 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.208949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208948

Academic writing is supposed to be clear and use only the amount of jargon that is necessary. The whole process of peer review is to have people who know the jargon confirm that it's actually meaningful.

If you look at the sort of papers that Peterson submits to his academic colleagues, you'll find none of the pseudo-mystical bullshit you see in his writing for public consumption. That tells me that he doesn't intend for them to have deeper content, they're simply designed to be too confusing to criticize.
>>
Emma Gabblestadging - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:05:03 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208949
So you're basically saying Peterson is tying metaphysical carrot-on-sticks to his fanboys?

"It's a carrot, you just can't see it yet. Move fast and far and one day you'll see the carrot."
>>
Molly Fottinghurk - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:32:19 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.208951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208950

He's more like an old man on a park bench throwing seeds in the hope of attracting some pidgeons, but ends up attracting the entire set of The Birds.
>>
Martin Gillyfuck - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:05:54 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208949
For the sake of context, he always talks about Jungian archetypes in most of his philosophical viewpoints and the language he uses is inspired by this. If you read about Jungian archetypes, then this philosophy will sound less mystical because now you will understand the context behind his choice of words.
>>
Molly Fottinghurk - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:39:24 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.208955 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208954

Jung is already pretty mystical in himself, so what will that context add besides more vagueness?
>>
Lillian Blatherway - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:38:36 EST ID:cdyryaVR No.208956 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Nobody seems to be adressing the aspect of this whole horrorshow that any publicity is good publicity. Even as we are discussing this, and boiling it down to its very core, we are reinforcing his "brand".

Annoying and agiatating commercials tend to stick longer in your head.
>>
Martin Gillyfuck - Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:02:33 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208958 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208955
Well I agree Jung is mystical but his philosophy is built on archetypes that were cutting edge at defining different types of human personality in the 1920s. We have more modern and scientific ways of describing human personality in 2018. However I think Jordan likes using Jung's archetypes instead because it is more intuitively understood to most people and humanizes the types of personalities that people have rather than making people sound like machines, which modern personalty profiles accomplish. I remember Jordan even went as far as saying that because modern science can't scientifically study ethics and science atomizes meaningful ideas, that it can't be true. I don't personally agree with this particular point, since reductionist is the basis of science, but everything he says in his philosophy contains a humanized element because he bases truth on how meaningful something sounds. It isn't vague if you understand the context.
>>
Nell Sinderweck - Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:07:14 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.208959 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208951

lol this is the most dead-on analogy i've heard for the peterson situation so far. and i had a chuckle picturing him screaming in his kermit voice as the birds descend on him
>>
Phineas Focklematch - Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:14:17 EST ID:hUskAT+c No.208960 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Farty bum bums
>>
Betsy Bramblekutch - Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:22:46 EST ID:aw0gD1C6 No.208969 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think he gets a lot of flak for being frank. Nothing in his views I've seen was even that controversial.
>>
Edwin Snodson - Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:40:23 EST ID:15cOv94C No.208970 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208969
He’s views are only controversial to smart people who actually think.

Like the idea that makeup is applied in a way that simulates sexual arousal is pretty much a given. But then when asked to extrapolate he gets all coy like a bitch, cause everyone knows the implication is that women are to blame for the behavior of harassers.

Men wear jackets to appear to have broader shoulders but his fans would throw a fit if you implied that makes them responsible for their abuse.

He just says basic ass shit you’d have to be an idiot to think is insightful and because it’s so basic all you can do extrapolate on it.
>>
Hedda Pollerson - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:41:58 EST ID:klwkxMMt No.208976 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208969
He gets a lot of flak because his "frankness" is meaningless pablum that presents obvious givens as profound insights:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
>If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly.

>Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

Classic grifter strategy.
>>
Priscilla Bogglemudging - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:02:15 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208977 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208970
Or you just imagined the “implication” because you want_to_believe.jpeg and have injected your biases into the dialogue.

I started reading this guy’s stuff just because all the hate threads I’ve seen about him, from left and right-wing people, and I noticed 2 important things:
  1. Left- and right-wing people alike accuse him of “””implying””” all sorts of stuff because he doesn’t support their biases. For instance I could say Cathy Newman’s interview was just her making a serious of implications, because as a fact it was.
  2. You’re exactly right; the writings in his book are fairly simple platitudes but that’s what pique did my interest. It’s hard to find normal, reliable self-help in today’s world. The fact that someone had to lay down advice in simple terms like that speaks volumes. There’s nothing in the book that’s controversial, as claimed earlier in this thread. You don’t need to be a neuroscientist to understand a mechanism in the human brain, a Harvard-trained psychology professor has plenty of authority.
>>
Lydia Cledgesidge - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:43:27 EST ID:9w1yREFK No.208978 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522161807855.jpg -(40882B / 39.92KB, 458x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208977
>The fact that someone had to lay down advice in simple terms like that speaks volumes.
>a thing exists, therefore there must have been a need or demand for that thing
That's not how the world works
>>
Esther Dartspear - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:42:43 EST ID:uhpIZv0K No.208979 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208978
It topped the Amazon, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Publishers Weekly, and Washington Post’s bestselling books lists. It was for several weeks the bestselling book in the UK and Canada as well.
>>
Esther Borrydane - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:50:43 EST ID:NyCyb4IT No.208980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208979
You do realize that gaming the best sellers lists is an industry unto itself, right? It's a pretty open secret among anyone in the publishing industry that best seller lists are utter garbage. This is why every partisan cable-news hack gets to reliably call every ghostwritten derivative turd that they shit out every few years a "best seller". Fucking Hillary Clinton is considered a "best selling" author.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/02/22/heres-how-you-buy-your-way-onto-the-new-york-times-bestsellers-list/
http://observer.com/2016/02/behind-the-scam-what-does-it-takes-to-be-a-bestselling-author-3-and-5-minutes/

Besides, it's pretty clear that his books are selling largely in part because his gender drama made him a darling of the right. His books are selling because of partisan politics and algorithms, not because there was some huge unmet demand for brilliant insights like "clean your room" and "lobsters are cool".
>>
Barnaby Duckbury - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:35:26 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208981 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208980
Even Gish-gallop champion Ben Shapiro has a best selling book out called True Allegiance... and it's a hot steaming pile of garbage with bygone stereotypes of black people. It's meaningless.
>>
Priscilla Bogglemudging - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:24:12 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208982 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522175052074.gif -(17361B / 16.95KB, 300x213) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208980
>Nobody reads his books!
Well, actually, it's topped all these bestseller lists...
>You realize bestseller lists mean NOTHING right? Nobody's reading them, trust me not all the bestseller lists!
Uh, sure dude.
>Lots of people are reading them only because of marketing!
Do you ever get tired of disagreeing with yourself?

I'm also going to point out that I specifically didn't mention the NYTimes bestseller list because it's biased, and in one of the articles you linked, they talk about the bias of the NYTimes bestseller. But nowhere in anything you linked does it imply that you can simultaneously TOP the lists of several organizations around several countries without being the actual best-selling book. What I mentioned in my post was not "the title of "bestseller" you can buy," but actually "the best-selling book".

Which is retarded I'd have to do that anyway; the popularity of his argument doesn't reflect how true it is. You, like many people on the left and the right, want to discredit his work because it doesn't reflect your personal biases. Instead of deconstructing specific statements he's made, you've complained about "implications" and misquoted him too. I'm not sure what, specifically, your problem is with him, but I've never read anything untrue in his work. I think the bulk of his criticism just comes from having his opinions be widely read.
>>
Doris Brellybanks - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:27:38 EST ID:IW2VUCl5 No.208983 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208982
>Nobody reads his books!
Nobody said that you lying asslicking fanboy.
>>
Edwin Snodson - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:30:12 EST ID:15cOv94C No.208984 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208977
You a dumbass bitch like him. If you don’t draw your own conclusions then he’s just a Kermit sounding punk ass talking about frozen.

Either he’s promoting awful shit while being a coy bitch or his fans are even dumber than we all thought cause he has no complete thoughts.
>>
Priscilla Bogglemudging - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:37:51 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522175871074.jpg -(312551B / 305.23KB, 800x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208984
>I couldn't bait him into saying something I specifically disagree with so I'm going to jump the gun and cover up my brashness with a string of profanity and accusations
>>
Charles Pimmleshaw - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:17:56 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.208986 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can someone explain how his twitter meltdown was actually alpha in agreement with his rules for life?
>>
Isabella Shittingwater - Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:03:14 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208990 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522238594600.png -(10097B / 9.86KB, 150x150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208986
It's about standing up to bullies. If a journalist tried to slander you, you may see that as an attempted character assassination which is a form of bullying, so he fought back rather than just taking it like a bitch. That make his kinda alpha don't you think?
>>
Phoebe Drimmerchog - Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:43:14 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Overreacting is the least alpha move that I can think of.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:28:27 EST ID:8jOW3Mqg No.208994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208990
This weird frail old man acting like he’ll physically attack people who insult him—as if he’s Toshiro Mifune in a samurai movie—is one of the saddest, goofiest things I’ve ever seen. Other than his bargain-bin Joseph Campbell chaos dragon schtick, that is.
>>
Simon Fopperbanks - Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:19:56 EST ID:ZSq91hzT No.208996 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208990
is this the pankaj mishra thing?
> journalist tried to slander you
not the case. Peterson seemed to get mostly butthurt about the noble savage comment, as if Mishra was calling his kwakwakawak tribe members savages. But really he just demonstrates he has no idea what the term means, and once again that he's a thin-skinned attention seeking idiot too childish in his mind to debate and most interested in riling up mgtows against strawman communist sjews.
>>
Priscilla Bardforth - Sun, 01 Apr 2018 03:33:31 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.208997 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522568011241.jpg -(82365B / 80.43KB, 550x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208996
>Peterson seemed to get mostly butthurt about the noble savage comment, as if Mishra was calling his kwakwakawak tribe members savages

Well he said that 'noble savage' was a racist thing to say about his friend. Are you arguing that noble savage is some kind of compliment not meant to be insulting? not saying you're wrong but what is so enthralling about calling someone a noble savage?
>>
Nathaniel Dogglehone - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:01:48 EST ID:ZSq91hzT No.208998 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208997
As i said peterson has no idea what the term means and i may be mistaken but you dont seem to either so educate yourself why dont you? A correct understanding will reveal the comment bears no relevance to the native american but to peterson himself.
>>
Nathaniel Dogglehone - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:02:39 EST ID:ZSq91hzT No.208999 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208998
Forgot to link wikipage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
>>
James Honeyfield - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 05:20:28 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209000 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208998
Ok, so a noble savage is really just a person who hasn't been assimilated into society and prefers to live by their own rules rather than the rule of our western empire, but Peterson mistook that comment and thought his friend was being called a savage (like a barbarian) and got mad on twitter about it right?
>>
Nathaniel Dogglehone - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:46:10 EST ID:ZSq91hzT No.209001 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209000
No."Noble Savage" refers to the idealisation of cultures regarded as more primitive and foreign. It is also the idea that we are corrupted by civilisation and modern society, if we are stripped to our 'pure' uncivilised selves then we are more virtuous and happy. These ideas are tied into paternalistic and even colonialistic views of non-western societies and people.

From the actual article Peterson had a tantrum about:
>These neo-romantics were responding, in the same way as Peterson, to an urgent need, springing from a traumatic experience of social and economic modernity, to believe—in whatever reassures and comforts. This new object of belief tended to be exotically and esoterically pre-modern. The East, and India in particular, turned into a screen on which needy Westerners projected their fantasies; Jung, among many others, went on tediously about the Indian’s timeless—and feminine—self.
>Peterson may seem the latest in a long line of eggheads pretentiously but harmlessly romancing the noble savage.

The point made in the article is that Peterson presents his archetypical Jungian truths as a guide to lost young men but his views are derrived from discredited colonialist and semi-fascist ideas.

For further illustration watch from 12:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7RyVmZWuzs
>>
Walter Dublingpit - Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:56:05 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.209019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209000
He's more upset at the romancing part. Thought he was being called gay.
>>
Ebenezer Chendlemidge - Fri, 06 Apr 2018 20:52:15 EST ID:cluIF0sg No.209029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I always jumped into the JP hate circlejerk based on what I've heard from his interviews and lectures but after I really dived into his work I'm just ambivalent towards him.

The further you get away from politics and policy, the more sensible his views become. His oeuvre has a lot of genuinely insightful and thought provoking works.

There's a lot more to him than just what he does for the money of bitter young white men.
>>
Barnaby Dullershit - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 10:47:58 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.209036 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209029
I eventually read his book and I didn’t find anything outlandish in it. It was actually nice to see a book saying something that simple; I always balked at self-help books because I thought they were kooky.
>>
Edward Nobberstodge - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:49:30 EST ID:V8N/5kWg No.209037 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523206170168.png -(219011B / 213.88KB, 997x792) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209036
I dunno, some of this stuff looks pretty fucking kooky to me
>>
Cornelius Chedgestut - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 14:01:58 EST ID:Gz0HylVJ No.209038 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209037
>Matriarchal World of Darkness

lmao
>>
Shit Suzzletug - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:23:59 EST ID:P34E6PYr No.209041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209037
I was talking about the book Einstein.

But for the record those are some fairly established tropes in the modern study of myths and a lot of them are actually used to persuade the reader to a feminist point of view. And you're right it does look kooky.
>>
David Chabbertere - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:11:12 EST ID:V8N/5kWg No.209042 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209041
>I was talking about the book Einstein.
He has more than one book., Poindexter
>>
Barnaby Bluzzlesot - Sun, 08 Apr 2018 22:55:01 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209043 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523242501607.jpg -(151899B / 148.34KB, 661x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209037
>>
Charlotte Meblinggold - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:40:54 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209038
Remember, the jews believed that all the horrible monsters lurking in the dark were birthed by a woman, Lilith. Adam's first wife. Adam didn't like her because she did whatever the fuck she wanted and didn't listen to him, after all, she was an independent primordial being just like Adam. So Adam prayed to God and God divorced the two and then cursed Lilith so she could only birth monsters. Then God made Adam sleep, and created a flesh slave out of his ribs, Eve, who was completely subservient to Adam because she was made of his flesh.
>>
Nathaniel Woddlemud - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:03:45 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209048 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209037
Looks like a schizophrenic came up with this diagram.
>>
Rebecca Gerringwell - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:24:02 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523309042499.jpg -(134830B / 131.67KB, 640x443) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209037
>>209038
>>209041
>>
Hedda Blatherridge - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:45:50 EST ID:XcJfLXZP No.209050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209049
What did he mean by this?
>>
Esther Werryway - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:48:19 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209052 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209049

Are you suggesting that that diagram would be meaningful in context?
>>
Betsy Cricklewell - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:58:15 EST ID:V8N/5kWg No.209053 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523325495765.png -(304532B / 297.39KB, 777x690) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209049
Here have another schizocherry
>>
Rebecca Cennermure - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:46:03 EST ID:ZSq91hzT No.209057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523335563641.jpg -(563290B / 550.09KB, 800x1332) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209053
I made one too! xd lolz
so profound
>>
Beatrice Dambletitch - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:22:49 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523355769339.jpg -(64175B / 62.67KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209050
>>209052
>>209053

Well my reasoning for saying this diagram you posted is cherry picking is based on 2 reasons.

A. Jordan speaks about many philosophical topics ranging from Jungian Archetypes to economics, social issues and even free speech. In this he is willing to explore a diverse range of things and discuss them. Given all that, some of his material will sound a bit funky and that is this bit you chose pick to make him sound crazy.

B. Context matters and closer examination will show this diagram is perfectly sane, as I will now demonstrate. One thing Jordan likes doing is analyzing biblical stories and art for their underlying symbolic meaning and relating it to our past collective knowledge, as he believes meaning found in such work can still teach modern people many lessons about meaning.

Figure 56 is obviously about concepts of god and creation and about how the garden of Eden represents order, while the real word represents chaos. It is just a map of these concepts, nothing more. Even if you are not religious, you can still agree that these concepts were representations of these ideas and the map serves the purpose of how these concepts interrelate.

Figure 37. is a map of 2 Jungian Archetypes, being a "Hero" and a "godly mother". These archetypes are just ideas invented by Carl Jung when psychiatry was new and the archetypes are just 2D characters that represent simplified aspects of a persons personality. In this diagram he is also trying to talk about how chaos and order can affect these archetypes.

Now these figures were part a book and have supporting paragraphs explaining them, but here they have been removed from context, isolated and ridiculed in an attempt to make Jordan sound like he went mad, but hopefully my argument will convince you otherwise.
>>
William Punkinfoot - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:04:47 EST ID:XcJfLXZP No.209059 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I can't get over how incompetent the interviewer was. Also his last point about serotonin being responsible for social hierarchy is fringe at best. All we know is that higher social status is associated with higher serotonin levels, there's no reason to believe serotonin itself is the cause (lol).

He needs to stick to Jung and self-help and stay way from politics and neuroscience. It's such an obvious break between shit he actually knows about and shit he just thinks he does.
>>
William Grimdock - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:06:07 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209060 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209058
>B. Context matters and closer examination will show this diagram is perfectly sane, as I will now demonstrate. One thing Jordan likes doing is analyzing biblical stories and art for their underlying symbolic meaning and relating it to our past collective knowledge, as he believes meaning found in such work can still teach modern people many lessons about meaning.

Goddamn I wish all people that think meaning still has value would just fuck off to the surface of the sun or something. There's nothing inherently valueable about meaning, you'd think that modern science would have showed that to the entire human population.
>>
Beatrice Dambletitch - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:14:25 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209061 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523366065339.png -(9549B / 9.33KB, 300x241) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209060
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Meaning at its core is the memes which emerge through collective knowledge, which is collated through 1000000000000s of lifetimes and experiences being passed on from person to person. It may not matter to you but meaning is a story we can pass on to other people so they can carry our memes once we are dead. Modern science needs meaning to exist too, as meaning gave rise to the concepts that articulated to concepts underlying the foundation of science in the first place.
>>
William Grimdock - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:22:52 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209061
Dude, if a fucking asteroid the size of Australia hits Earth right now, we all die, and aliens in half a million years discover Earth, you know what meaning they'll get from our artifacts?

Exactly. Fucking zero. Meaning exists only in the mind, and when your mind is gone, your logs of values are gone.
>>
Nigel Dorrysere - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:21:43 EST ID:skBqcWbV No.209063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523373703689.webm [mp4] -(2644999B / 2.52MB, 540x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209060
>Subtext, context, and connotative thought has no value

Goddamn I wish all people that think post-modernist theory still has value would just fuck off to the surface of the sun or something.
>>
Alice Pongerdud - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:39:18 EST ID:o56cbUKm No.209064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523378358641.jpg -(62314B / 60.85KB, 958x784) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Scratch the most clever postmodern-relativist professor's Mercedez with a key, and you will see how fast the mask of relativism (with its pretense that there can be neither right nor wrong) and the cloak of radical tolerance come off.

He legitimately doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about sometimes.
>>
William Grimdock - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:45:17 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209065 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209063
Explain to me how "meaning" can somehow survive human extinction. Unless you're another one of those /psy/ retards that think the mind is some kind of empty psychic antenna vessel for the cosmic oversoul of the god multiverse.
>>
Beatrice Dambletitch - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:29:19 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209066 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523399359339.jpg -(40319B / 39.37KB, 280x262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209062
Many people across cultures throughout the earth come to the same conclusions about meaning. Examples include "Aztecs and Egyptians both built pyramids, yet how do we explain that given their geographical isolation?" ALSO "Many cultures worshiped the sun because they saw its significance in creation (again they were geographical isolated from each other).

Even if all humans were wiped out and another culture with no knowledge of the human race emerged, they would still come to the same conclusions about a lot of things. This means that meaning is a constant and not relative to the mind that holds it.
>>
Archie Nicklelock - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:03:38 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209067 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209066
>Examples include "Aztecs and Egyptians both built pyramids, yet how do we explain that given their geographical isolation?"
>This means that meaning is a constant and not relative to the mind that holds it.

Human cultures derive similar meaning from their environment because humans are themselves similar. You can't say a priori that a non-human sentient being will come to the same conclusions as humans have about meaning. They may come to the same conclusions about the patterns of reality, but that's not the same thing.

Anyone can see the Sun rising, so long as they have eyes, and they can deduce that it will rise tomorrow. That doesn't mean that the Sun "has meaning", simply that it has regularity. Likewise, a pyramid is a solid shape to build a brick structure. That fact is not in itself meaning. "Why was this pyramid built in the shape of a pyramid?" is not the same question as "why was it built at all?"
>>
Phoebe Nangerridge - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:59:37 EST ID:/KXzHYRx No.209068 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209067
Any sentient life would have the concept of 'meaning,' it's an essential aspect of consciousness. The first thing you asserted 'that you'd think people would know that meaning has no value' is itself a concept that is only parsable with reference to meaning.

>> non-human sentient being will [not] come to the same conclusions as humans have about meaning
Human beings don't come to the same conclusions about meaning, basically ever. It doesn't mean we don't all have a use for the concept of meaning, and it would be same for alien intelligence. They would have the same need to evaluate and prioritize the contents of the world and find justifications and objectives for their courses of action, and use symbolic systems to explain and codify those evaluations and justifications. That's what meaning is.

>>conclusions about the patterns of reality and meaning are not the same thing
How, why? You're just admitting you are wrong here secretly. If the 'meaning' of reality is not the 'pattern' of reality then what is it? You have retreated into semantics, it's sad.

You seem to believe 'meaning' has some very specific esoteric content, and so you rail against windmills. Meaning is simply what it is defined as; in this sense 'the importance, quality or purpose of a thing' -- no two people or species could ever agree on the importance of a thing in an absolute sense precisely because it is inherently a relative, subjective thing, but anything that is an intelligent system that has a need to organize its behavior will need to have the concepts of importance, quality and purpose to even function.

Meaning is a concept all sentient life will share, but they won't ever agree perfectly as to what has meaning, or why, or how. That doesn't mean the concept of 'meaning' is meaningless. To even assert such a thing is self-contradictory.
>>
Wesley Turveylock - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:10:03 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209070 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209066
That's not meaning, you retard. That's just math and physics combining into "the easiest and most effective way how to stack bricks."
>>
Wesley Turveylock - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:12:24 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209068
If you were talking about sapient life, you might have had a point.

But imagine hyperintelligent sentient life. Like some kind of naturally evolved super computer made out of a network of fungi.

It would colonize the universe with starships, could wage intergalactic wars, unravel the secrets of the universe, and it wouldn't know meaning.
>>
Wesley Hunkinfuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:50:18 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209073 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209068
>You have retreated into semantics, it's sad.
We're talking about meaning, of course there's going to be semantics.

>no two people or species could ever agree on the importance of a thing in an absolute sense precisely because it is inherently a relative, subjective thing, but anything that is an intelligent system that has a need to organize its behavior will need to have the concepts of importance, quality and purpose to even function
>meaning is a constant and not relative to the mind that holds it.
These are mutually exclusive statements. If meaning is an objective constant of reality, then it would not be possible to derive different meanings from the same phenomena. You are treating the extraction of meaning as if meaning were a trait being observed in the phenomena itself, and not as an inference constructed from that phenomena.

We have eyes. Our eyes allow us to categorize our environment in terms of light. In our environment we observe a big ball of light in the sky, that causes us pain to look at. This is the pattern of our reality. We infer from this that the ball of light is God. This meaning has drawn from the patterns of the phenomena, but it is constructed from those patterns, not inherent to them. It comes from an idiosyncratic method of categorization. Now we have lots of complicated instruments to more precisely observe that light, and we conclude that it's a star. "Star" is also a meaning constructed in the exact same way as we did "God", just from a more detailed look at the phenomena. Nothing in the phenomena inherently said "this is a Star" anymore than it said "this is God".

>Any sentient life would have the concept of 'meaning,' it's an essential aspect of consciousness.
>anything that is an intelligent system that has a need to organize its behavior will need to have the concepts of importance, quality and purpose to even function
How would you define an "intelligent system" in terms other than its ability to organize its behaviour? Ants organize their behaviour. Are they an intelligent system? They must be, by that definition. They even have a system of symbolic communication in pheromones. So does the individual ant have consciousness? Does the ant colony itself have consciousness? Does it have a concept of meaning? Are those things necessary for the complexity of their behaviours? Can the colony have a concept of meaning that the individual ant does not?
>>
Fuck Drevingdore - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:34:20 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209074 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523522060553.jpg -(51343B / 50.14KB, 540x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209070
>That's not meaning, you retard.
2018 and people calling anyone with a different point of view a retard. Philosophy has come a long way hasn't it.

>That's just math and physics combining into "the easiest and most effective way how to stack bricks."
If you take everything at face value you would reach this conclusion but it is very ignorant to argue that this is all that is happening. The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead and 1 pyramid was for 1 person. The idea was that bigger pyramids would be for people who were revered greatly in life and the gods would be appeased by that. So lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too.
>>
Wesley Hunkinfuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:52:42 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209075 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209074
>lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too
>The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead

And the Aztecs built them as temples or palaces or any number of things. The point is not that those cultures had no reason for building them. The point is that that reason is disconnected from them being built in a pyramidal shape. A monument for the dead doesn't necessitate it be in the shape of a pyramid. However, if you want to stack big stones with only slaves and ropes, it'll be easiest and strongest if you do it in pyramid.

>that this is all that is happening.
I'm not saying that it's all that is happening. My point is that in saying "both cultures built pyramids therefor pyramids must have intrinsic meaning" is conflating meaning with the practical limitations of physics. I'm sure if Ancient Egyptians had modern construction equipment, they would have built something very different to honour their dead.
>>
Matilda Nubblestuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:50:44 EST ID:/KXzHYRx No.209078 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209071
Most people are ignorant of the sapient/sentient distinction so I was using sentient as a catch all. However, I don't know if I entirely agree with your premise.

I think, in order to colonize space, a sentient computerized fungus would need to understand the 'meaning' of existence about as well as we do if it was indeed colonizing by means of starship rather than some natural process. It would need to be aware of what it was any why to understand that it needed to get off world, at least as minimally as we do.

And I mean, by the definition of an alien intelligence much, much more sapient than we are, we might hardly seem more aware of our surroundings and the meaning of our own existence than even an ordinary fungus...

>>209073
>>of course there's going to be semantics
Well there's a difference between discussions on meaning have a semantic component and hiding behind mere semantics.

The two "mutually exclusive" statements you quote are by two different people, so the whole segment is irrelevant.

Anyway, you are conflating different definitions of the term 'meaning' which is why I think you are coming across problems. For example you are conflating the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the sense of a term' where sun = bright fusion ball, and the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the purpose or function of a thing' where sun = God.

My basic point is that while alien life certainly won't have exactly the same interpretations of what meaning means and what means what as we do, there will still be a need for 'meaning' in order to categorize their existence, and in broad strokes a lot of the things will be the same. Many of them will live around giant exploding fusion balls. Many of them will in their primitive stages conflate the idea of a unified sustaining ball of fired with a unified organizing external consciousness, and the influence of this idea will stretch far into their futures.

>>ants have symbolic comunication
Animal communication is distinct from language. That's just a basic fact you should know and can look up. The key difference is that humans can invent new signs and signals, whereas all other animals have a fixed number of signs they can use, so they aren't arbitrarily symbolic and generative. Conflating the intelligence of ants and humans doesn't get you out of this bind either. You should study Hofstadter's system of categorizing the intelligence of systems by their level of recursiveness.

As a simple example, a toilet is an intelligent system. It 'knows' how much water it has in it, and maintains an internal equilibrium in order to keep that water level within a consistent range. A single cell is an intelligent system; it manages an internal environment to maintain homeostasis against an external environment. But we can measure just how much less information processing capacity a toilet or worm has than a cat or a human, in surprisingly precise terms. That they all may be classed as intelligent systems, yet that we are the only one of them has ever harped on about 'meaning' is unremarkable. We are the only one that talks about anything; yet they all have, for their own purposes and within their own scope, a utility for 'meaning.' The 'meaning of life' for a human may be to struggle to comprehend life as a limited biological organism containing an unlimited infinite subjective interiority in a constant search for meaning, and the 'meaning of life' for a toilet may be to fill with water to get shit in, and there's no contradiction in that.

>>Can the colony have a concept of meaning that the individual ant does not?
It expresses a deeper meaning while having a shallower consciousness of it. The individual ant has sensation, pain, hunger, excitement, so it has a, very small, interior sense of its own life. There is 'something it is to be like' an ant. Yet the ant has no idea what it's really doing or why. It doesn't know why it makes the tunnels, it doesn't know why it carries the larvae, and it definitely doesn't understand that without all the other ants working together, it couldn't survive at all.
So in that sense it knows less than the colony, which has all kinds of knowledge -- it is reactive the geographic and climatic conditions, it is capable of responding to variations in population and food supply, it is even capable of planning for the future beyond the life of any individual ant...yet, it has no interiority whatsoever. There is nothing that it is 'like' to be an ant colony.

Now what will really tickle your noodle later is when you realize that there is nothing that it is like to be like a neuron, yet that is the only thing that creates what it is like to be like a human.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.