The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON

[etiolate]

TVC was asking for something for people to special fellow out on, so why not I make a thread about the varied interests that infuriate our wretched primacy?

First up a Doc





The Deepcode Blog Referenced: https://medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-2017-trump-edition-d189d24fc046

I (and apparently Norm MacDonald) find a section of the public moving heavily back towards longform media and news. I find this shift interesting. The Cathy Newman interview was a 5 minute segment on TV. They put the whole interview up on YT.  The YT whole interview is what sank them. Vice News followed with another recent interview which was apparently 2 hours long. They cut it up into a 4 minute clip for TV. They have yet to put the whole thing up on YT, as if they recognized Channel 4's mistake in going away from the short soundbite format.

[naff]

"An overwhelming majority feel Peterson had been unfairly represented" *zooming in on Sam Harris' Twitter 

Sorry, I might watch one day.

 

[benjipwns]

Okay, so here's the thing, after he was mentioned in the depression thread and I saw it in the related of that crying video, but after I saw the kermit one, I watched one of his normal class lectures (I'm assuming) regarding actual clinical psychology topics. From like 2011 or 2010 or something.

And he should grow that beard back, and join me in gaining a few pounds.

But also my endless rage at listening to him. It's just those vile Canadians and their normal soundingness then they suddenly break and are Yoopers times ten. Exposing their inner selves of evil they work so hard to suppress. Good people don't do what Canadians do.

[etiolate]

His weight loss apparently has to do with finding out some allergies or reactions he has to certain foods. His daughter was sick much of her life until she realized very extreme reactions she had to certain food/chemicals and took them out. I am guessing she inherited it partly from him. When he changed diets, his weight changed. He used to choke a lot during lecture without drinking a diet coke, so you'd see him with a cup or coke can nearby all the time.

Though I think current weight loss is due to his schedule and stress.

[agrajag]

What are you talking a boat benji

[benjipwns]

What are you talking a boat benji

i cannot PRO CESS this

[team filler]

http://pressprogress.ca/ontario-pc-leadership-candidate-school-children-are-too-distracted-by-anal-sex-to-focus-on-math/

[benjipwns]

If any of this thread in English

try using a information gain/understanding pro-cess

[TVC15]

If any of this thread in English

try using a information gain/understanding pro-cess

I suggest starting here: https://www.amazon.com/TITLE-SCHWAG-Sovereign-Citizens-Handbook/dp/1493741306

[benjipwns]

If there's not, why would someone say there is? You really think someone would do that? Just go on multiple types of media including the internet and tell lies?

[hungrynoob]

Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.

as he says, young men are living life without purpose, which is why he believes young men have resonated with his message so much. But nah, a sarcastic quip wrapped in anecdotal evidence should dispel that logic.

[agrajag]

Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.

not enough men with guns to protect us from men with guns

[machine]

Okay, so here's the thing, after he was mentioned in the depression thread and I saw it in the related of that crying video, but after I saw the kermit one, I watched one of his normal class lectures (I'm assuming) regarding actual clinical psychology topics. From like 2011 or 2010 or something.

And he should grow that beard back, and join me in gaining a few pounds.

But also my endless rage at listening to him. It's just those vile Canadians and their normal soundingness then they suddenly break and are Yoopers times ten. Exposing their inner selves of evil they work so hard to suppress. Good people don't do what Canadians do.

Wait, are you implying Yoopers are evil?

[CatsCatsCats]

Your mom should have swallowed it down.

Fixd

[etiolate]

You know, I walked into that one and it's my fault. When he says that, it's clear he's talking about the people he directly touches with a message about intentional life, not making a general statement about all or most men in society.

It still references men in general in first world countries. The other thread went over male suicide rates and how they keep rising in developed countries. Men are falling behind in school as well. They are not showing up in colleges at the same rate as they used to. The fear is that changes in early education are losing the attention of boys. Removal of recess and softened P.E. About 15% of grade school teachers are male, so their representation in early education is under-served. Dropout rates are twice as high for boys.

And labor jobs aren't as plentiful if they do skip the college route. Those that go to college cluster in the STEM fields, which means they're all piling into the same job field which makes creating a career rather highly competitive and even more difficult. Plus, now that they dominate STEM that is seen as a problem and there's a lot of effort to get girls into STEM and essentially push some boys out. With the google lawsuit, you see large tech companies creating quotas for female employees.

Young men dominate the prison system. A prison system in America that has gotten way out of hand. It has replaced war as a way of disposing of excess men. Men face harsher sentences for the same crimes as women. Overall, I think they make up around 90% of all inmates.

So young men in the general sense do face some bad trends and to go along with that problem they don't have the advocacy power that women currently do.

[recursivelyenumerable]

This is a bad thread

[hungrynoob]

y tho

[naff]

Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.

White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2016.

White male guilt? Impotence? Lack of melanin?

[Oblivion]

Yes, I'm sure we just need more context on the discussion about how women who wear lipstick are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed. Vice is clearly holding the full interview back because they don't want to be embarrassed by Peterson's hyperintellectual truths.

[etiolate]

Yes, I'm sure we just need more context on the discussion about how women who wear lipstick are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed. Vice is clearly holding the full interview back because they don't want to be embarrassed by Peterson's hyperintellectual truths.

You can figure out the context yourself. Kang made a statement that the Social Studies Warrior stuff stays in colleges, to which Peterson disagreed and pointed towards NBC regulating hugging, and Kang explained that as a reaction towards #metoo as though that justifies it without pause, and Peterson said such a thing as workplace harassment is more complicated than ready made answers can handle and that we have to really questions assumptions about women and men working together, to which Kang said it's no issue and he works with women all the time, to which everyone did a double take because Kang works for fucking VICE, and Peterson was like u srs? and then asked why not regulate make-up, to which Kang seemed unable to follow, and Peterson explained that make-up replicates the appearance of sexual arousal and sends sexual messages. Eventually Kang asked if women who wear make-up (sexual message sender) are somewhat hypocritical if they don't want to receive harassment (which tends to be sexual in nature) and Peterson said yes.

So if the goal is X then there are many things you can do to achieve X. However the vast variables of things you can do (y1, y2, y3) are also varied in public acceptance and personal cost. To fully eliminate workplace harassment we would have to go to some extreme ends. The question is if we want to go that far or not and where do we draw the line on what we are willing to do?  And can we accept that harassment will happen? Must it be rid of at all costs? If you're going to regulate hugging then why not regulate make-up? If we are regulating male sexual expressions then shouldn't we regulate female sexual expressions?

And Jay's response is a goofy "oh its easy its no prob" while ignoring his own employer is in the midst of heavy sexual assault and impropriety accusations.

I would say that Peterson's line of questioning was due a longer talk, but Jay chose to move on. I directly challenged Jay on this, but he said it was Peterson's job to explain and took no responsibility for being the guy running the interview and changing the subject. Kang is pretty much an online troll, so I don't have faith that he was at all interested in the deeper conversation and was just hoping for a gotcha clip to put on the HBO show.

Which is the sort of stuff people are sick of why they're ditching old media.

[hungrynoob]

am i missing something about peterson and vice?

[etiolate]

This is the Vice interview being talked about.

Someone asked Peterson about the reaction to the clip at one of his events.



(warning: 15 min long)

[Oblivion]

The interviewer didn't follow what Peterson was saying because he made - as he does quite often - an utterly bizarre leap from two seemingly distant, and unrelated subjects (like he does when he compares the effects of the trans bill to Gulags). You could probably feel that the no hugging thing is too much, but given how common workplace harassment is, that companies just want to cover their asses as much as possible. This seems like protecting their self-interest rather than attempting to further some SJW cause. So what the hell does lipstick have to do with anything? Peterson claims that it's "sexually provocative" because lips turn red when you have sex. Nevermind that women wear all kinds of different lipstick, and that many of them do so to impress their female friends, and that many companies mandate dress codes. Peterson's basically saying that if a woman is sexually harassed for trying to make herself look more attractive, then they brought it on themselves. I don't see what other way you can parse that.

[etiolate]

Peterson's basically saying that if a woman is sexually harassed for trying to make herself look more attractive, then they brought it on themselves.

No. The question was if a very serious business woman wants to avoid harassment and wears make-up, is that somewhat hypocritical? To which he said yes. He also said he was not saying we should eliminate sexual displays in the workplace.

If you're seriously addressing harassment, then these are the questions you have to face. However, if you're just using harassment as a threat against the company in some sort of racketeering operation by HR then you pose dumb solutions like hugging regulations which make it look like you're doing something when it doesn't actually accomplish anything. And since it doesn't accomplish anything, then the problem persists and you blame someone other than the people whose job it is to "fix" the problem. This doesn't help harassment. It only establishes that a company can regulate behavior down to the level of friendliness allowed.

So we give up choosing whether we can handle hugging a worker friend in order to make the appearance of fighting harassment. The line of questioning involves some adept thinking. It's more of a leap to some than it is to the people who get it. So listen to the people who can follow along.

[hungrynoob]

ok to contribute to this makeup in the work place malarky.



He specifically says hes not saying women shouldnt wear high heels or makeup in the workplace, what hes saying is, men and women working together is such a small sample size that the answers for reconciliation haven't been found, and that he poses that rule as speculation and backs his reasons up as to why it should be a question that should be asked. If people have a problem with that, I would ask, how often when you see powerful and successful women in a professional setting, with a face full of makeup that could be easily interchanged with a night on the town? Not a lot, and those women specifically keep it that way because they know thats how they will be taken seriously - that doesnt even come from a place of prejudice.


also @ 5:50-5:51 bonus confused looking for help kang eyes.

[curly]

Yeah when Peterson said that women wear lipstick because it imitates the effects of sexual arousal like it was that simple and straightforward I realized this guy was just an idiot.

It's the standard reactionary evopsych tendency where you start out saying we have to account for biology along with culture in accounting for human behavior and then go immediately into plain old genetic reductionism

[etiolate]

Yes, it's that crazy trick where you say you have to account for biology and how it works without your awareness of it and then says this is sending signals without your awareness of it.

[hungrynoob]

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

[Oblivion]

Yes, I'm aware Peterson said he wasn't arguing that women shouldn't wear make up high heels, but that ALSO if they do, they should expect to be harassed. It doesn't make what he said any better.

Can we get down to some actual specifics here? What is an example of an interaction one may have with a woman at work who wears make-up/high heels, and some guy who's interested in them that might be totally fine, but people would object to as harassment?

ok to contribute to this makeup in the work place malarky.

While I enjoyed that clip over the years, what the hell does that have to do with women wearing lipstick at work?

[Oblivion]

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.

[hungrynoob]

I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.

[hungrynoob]

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.

you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?

[curly]

when did I ever say biology played no part? I was questioning the reductionism of Peterson's claim, which reduced the decision to wear makeup to a single motivating factor.

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

appeal to authority, -50 logic points

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.

you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?

lmao a ba

[Oblivion]

I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.

So you were posting a video in a post that was completely unrelated to what you were trying to say?

[hungrynoob]

I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.

So you were posting a video in a post that was completely unrelated to what you were trying to say?

im not even sure how to address this.

[Oblivion]

If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.

Fuck man, hard choice.

I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.

you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?

Yikes...

[Mandark]

like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional

It's grooming?

[hungrynoob]

lmao a ba

Okay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?

[etiolate]

they should expect to be harassed.

Again, that is not what he said. 

Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.

That doesn't mean he's justified in doing. It doesn't mean she should expect that response. It's not about blaming everything on one person or one thing.  It's about our rules of interaction at work and whether they are fit to the task.

[Oblivion]

I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.

So you were posting a video in a post that was completely unrelated to what you were trying to say?

im not even sure how to address this.

Whoops, I misread that post.

But again, nothing you said in that post really rebuts what I was arguing.

[curly]

like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional

and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.

His claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc

Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.

[Mandark]

It's grooming?

Yes, I agree that women have been groomed to do this!

no thats not it

[Oblivion]

they should expect to be harassed.

Again, that is not what he said. 

Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.

Again, can you guys give me something concrete here? What's an example of a sexual expression from a man that you think would not be an issue, but would be made out to be?

[Mandark]

[etiolate]

they should expect to be harassed.

Again, that is not what he said. 

Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.

Again, can you guys give me something concrete here? What's an example of a sexual expression from a man that you think would not be an issue, but would be made out to be?

I am not sure what your question has to do with your mistake.

A man noticing a woman's large breasts and instinctively pausing on them. This can be seen as ogling. However, this can happen without any intent or immediate awareness by the man.

Put another way: We've all had awkward boners.

However, those examples are obvious physical displays by the man. We're talking about things a man might to with intent that is not sexual but that is received sexually by women. These would include standing tall, walking tall or exaggerating physical size. (Leaning back, spreading arms.) Displays of accomplishment do this as well.

You can argue that all of these displays are status displays to both men and women, but that goes both ways. A study of women and men and their reaction to images of women with make-up revealed that men see that as status on the conscience report level and women see that as women competing sexually. Self-grooming also falls into sexual display (across species). A simple straight back, chest forward, tightening of the necktie can send signals.

[etiolate]

like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional

and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.

His claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc

Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.

You don't get to choose how the signals are received. You are not following along. You are not even applying any real world personal experience or else your own experience is completely out of whack with general trends.

Read my other reply. They send sexual signals on a biological level. That doesn't negate their status signal or the person's intent. The point is that you are still replicating sexual displays and that can be recognized by others.

[Mandark]

Are there dudes who go through life thinking every woman wearing lipstick is horny for them?

How do they survive?

[hungrynoob]

9:50 onwards jordan gives further insight onto the evolutionary purpose of red, red dresses, red lips and their effect on men, scientifically speaking.

Now for all you nay-sayers, i would like an answer as to why powerful/successful women dont dress this way, without trying to deflect to something i never mentioned like marxism.

[toku]

where is benji
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/

[etiolate]

Stealth framerate master race argument in that video.

[hungrynoob]

where is benji
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/

Back to marxism, jordan is more of a hardcore marxist than all of you.

[hungrynoob]

lmao nah.

[curly]

like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional

and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.

His claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc

Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.

You don't get to choose how the signals are received. You are not following along. You are not even applying any real world personal experience or else your own experience is completely out of whack with general trends.

Read my other reply. They send sexual signals on a biological level. That doesn't negate their status signal or the person's intent. The point is that you are still replicating sexual displays and that can be recognized by others.

uh no you're not following along? The statement was about why women wear lipstick. I never said it couldn't be interpreted sexually by men. My entire complaint was that he reduces the decision on the women's part to wear lipstick to simply a need to replicate sexual arousal (he literally says that is the purpose of lipstick). Which makes no fucking sense in the workplace! Women in the workplace are probably not trying to come across as in heat!

[hungrynoob]

Do you know how i know were on completely different pages, because everytime you post that I feel like youre not the one following along.

E: to respond to your edit, then answer why successful and powerful women do not wear makeup the same way. 

[etiolate]

Zizek could solve regional droughts by giving speeches from an open air cropduster.

He's all over the place in his arguments, and you're not sure he understood what he's talking about, but that's sort of his thing.

Claims about women’s oppression cannot be dismissed by referring to Fifty Shades of Grey, the story of a woman who enjoys being dominated (as one of my critics claims), the suffering of transgender people is all too real, etc.

The 50 shade of Gray was in response to why western feminism tends to overlook the plight of women in the rest of the world. He said there was various reasons, including the enemy of my enemy logic, but also posited it may be the unconscious bubbling out in weird ways. It's a statement about why feminism ignores the plight of women when its politically expedient to do so. Not a suggestion to ignore opression. His objects to C-16 were putely about free speech infringement and compelled speech. It doesn't ignore the trans experience.

I find Zizek amusing, but not always on point.

[etiolate]

like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional

and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.

His claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc

Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.

You don't get to choose how the signals are received. You are not following along. You are not even applying any real world personal experience or else your own experience is completely out of whack with general trends.

Read my other reply. They send sexual signals on a biological level. That doesn't negate their status signal or the person's intent. The point is that you are still replicating sexual displays and that can be recognized by others.

uh no you're not following along? The statement was about why women wear lipstick. I never said it couldn't be interpreted sexually by men. My entire complaint was that he reduces the decision on the women's part to wear lipstick to simply a need to replicate sexual arousal (he literally says that is the purpose of lipstick). Which makes no fucking sense in the workplace! Women in the workplace are probably not trying to come across as in heat!

Sexual display and status display are likely intertwined to the point that they activate similar parts of the brain.

I don't think he thinks that sexual allure is the only reason women wear make-up. It is probably hard to detach it from sexual display. All modern uses likely hearken back to that as their origin.  An honest adult woman likely knows how she does her make-up increases her sexuality and that increases her status and power.

[Trent Dole]

Fuck this guy.

[naff]

Also no men with V-shaped torsos in the workplace. Shit is hella intimidating and sexy. Also tight polos (especially not tucked in, looking at you Mupepe).

[Momo]

bunch of weaponized likes in this thread 

[Rufus]

I find Zizek amusing, but not always on point.

Pretty on point about "cultural marxism" there, though. But then you've moved on to critical theory now, so whatever.