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

[etiolate]

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.

is this addressing me?

[Rufus]

No, to Curly's post right above. The last two sentences of it weren't there before the last time I looked.

[etiolate]

that neckbeard video

There's a You Must Be This Tall To Ride rule about this stuff. You Must Be This Emotionally and Intellectually Mature To Ride the discussion roller coaster. [=- Proceed to emoji your rolleyes and newsfeed here -=]

A new video topic:

[kingv]

He looks like quite the homer sitting on that bed. Theoretically this dude would be aware that sitting on a soft ass bed will make him look like he had terrible scoliosis.

Edit: also, re: makeup. If you’re married, you realize quick that women wear makeup for each other and not for men. They are far harsher critics of each other than men are to them.

[etiolate]

The odd thing is that I'm rather adverse to make-up on girls. The only time I seem to like it is when they do their make-up in such a way that its hardly noticeable. I do realize that increases in make-up tend to reflect a desired message sent.

The thing to understand is that the great majority of make-up uses draw on the sexual signals even when their motive is not to get the sexual attention of a guy. Everything from status, professionalism and even the sisterly make-up rituals are facial modifications. The modifications make you stick out. It draws attention in a crowd. In competitive situations, it displays that you re competing. This is why in that study of images of women with and without make-up, the female respondents judged the make-up faces as sexual and being sexually competitive.

A guy wants a nice car because the guy desires a nice car. They've like this car their whole life and can finally afford it. It's a status symbol to them and perhaps a symbol of accomplishment. However, that wealth display also sends signals to women. Generally, women respond to wealth and status.

We make these signals elaborate and multi-functional, but they tend to grow from the same seed.

[hungrynoob]

youd be better banging your face against a wall

[hungrynoob]

Edit: also, re: makeup. If you’re married, you realize quick that women wear makeup for each other and not for men. They are far harsher critics of each other than men are to them.

Just out of curiosity, where do you think that competition comes from?

[benjipwns]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

[benjipwns]

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/

these are obvious fakes, or Zizek "paid" a TA to write them for him

they almost got me with the digression into the plot analysis of fifty shades of grey but then it got back on topic too fast

zizek is the best

[curly]

Jacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological: the pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy as the only way to retain his dignity, identity even.

Zizek calling Peterson a cuck

[benjipwns]

because so on and so on and so on

[curly]

I'm guessing he means it in the sense of a compulsion

[hungrynoob]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .

[hungrynoob]

Jacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological: the pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy as the only way to retain his dignity, identity even.

Zizek calling Peterson a cuck

im missing some context here, but does claiming your wife slept with another man only come from a place of jealousy?

[benjipwns]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .

that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers though

[hungrynoob]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .

that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers though

does that include both your masters?

[Mandark]

One of the 120.

[jorma]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .

that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers though

does that include both your masters?

User banned (permanent): Implying curly is a slave.

[Oblivion]

So Vice posted the full interview, and shock and awe, the "context" seems to somehow make Peterson sound even worse than the edited version.

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848084008726528

This is the kind of rigorous academic research you'd expect from the leading right-wing intellectual in the western hemisphere (tm).

[etiolate]

Sweet Jebus

Jay Kang can not follow along with the conversation at all. They did really cut up the interview. Kang also lied about the length of the make-up conversation on twitter. He made it seem like the original clip was the total length of the topic and it was Peterson's fault for not expanding upon it when the truth is they did talk a lot more about it and VICE cut that longer discussion out. Jay could have just admitted the expanded upon it and didn't have space in the time budget rather than blame JBP.

I'd say if you think this makes it worse then you're not understanding the conversation. I'm tired of explaining it though. hungrynoob is right, it's rather futile in effort. People should not still be hung up on the make-up bit at this point.

[Rufus]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848084008726528

This is the kind of rigorous academic research you'd expect from the leading right-wing intellectual in the western hemisphere (tm).

Conversely
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848267232718848

Mind the comments. Suddenly, scrutiny abounds.

[etiolate]

In both links, America is an outlier, which (my assumption) leads to the question of what makes America an outlier in both? Because "guns" doesn't asnwer the outlier question in the first link.

In my opinion, American culture has to do with being an outlier in both situations, and it's not modern culture but something deeper than that.  Modern media probably does have something to do with it in regards to the fame seeking, but a people develop a way of being over time and that becomes a part of culture. American culture is a bit on the paranoid side. In Sweden, the people are pretty placid and unquestioning. In America, it's a culture of rebellion. Both have their good and bad sides to that collective personality.

[Oblivion]

Sweet Jebus

Jay Kang can not follow along with the conversation at all. They did really cut up the interview. Kang also lied about the length of the make-up conversation on twitter. He made it seem like the original clip was the total length of the topic and it was Peterson's fault for not expanding upon it when the truth is they did talk a lot more about it and VICE cut that longer discussion out. Jay could have just admitted the expanded upon it and didn't have space in the time budget rather than blame JBP.

I'd say if you think this makes it worse then you're not understanding the conversation. I'm tired of explaining it though. hungrynoob is right, it's rather futile in effort. People should not still be hung up on the make-up bit at this point.7

Dude...he said we don't need anti sexual harassment laws because women could have went to the police in the 60s  . This is not someone who seems to have much understanding of how sexual harassment works.

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848084008726528

This is the kind of rigorous academic research you'd expect from the leading right-wing intellectual in the western hemisphere (tm).

Conversely
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848267232718848

Mind the comments. Suddenly, scrutiny abounds.

Likes on that tweet: 125
Likes on the other tweet; almost 7k

 

[hungrynoob]

5 mins in, before getting to the makeup part, Kang seems to be confused as the difference between a conversation and a divisive shouting match.

10 mins in, kang is lost. hes looking for an admittance of an absolutist outcome that its women's fault for wearing makeup in the workplace that sexual harassment exists, and he is not saying that at all. Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it. Theres a lot of mental gymnastics to assume that hes saying its womens fault for weaking makeup in the workplace, so its their fault for getting harassed.

12 mins in, i felt like kang was literally starting to get it, and then went back to reframing his words to suit his own conclusions.

Anyway, in regards to Jordan's tweets, hes said on multiple occasions, he retweets stuff that he finds interesting and it does not always reflect what he actually believes. But if youre going to use a tweet on a completely unrelated subject to try dismantle his viewpoints, thats probably shows more to do with your bias than his.

Also, Jordan Peterson, right wing. 

[Mandark]

Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.

I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.

[hungrynoob]

Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.

I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.

yeah we get it, you think women like to paint their face just for the fun of it.

[etiolate]

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyer are currently on Rogan pod talking about biological evolution in regards to sex/gender.

[etiolate]

Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.

I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.

intellectual cowardice

[Mandark]

One of the interesting ramifications of the nordic gender equality paradox is that human behavior has a way of manifesting itself in ways you don't expect. So with sexual behavior, we already know what happens when you artificially limit it in some extreme cases. Priests molest boys and boys in Indian villages become gang rapists. So making the explicit requirement that there should be no flirtation in workplaces could have unknown effects on human behavior in and out of the workplace and it could even increase harassment or sexual misconduct. One of the things he talked about in the video actually was that men and women tend to underscore a conversation with the opposite sex with a little bit of sexual tension, which is readily apparent to anyone who's talked to anyone else and is fun and enjoyable and totally consensual by the way if you're not a moron and can pick up on social cues. So his point is "we don't know what will happen" and also that we should have a dialogue about it to figure out where the right lines are with the right trade-offs.

My dude, this is basically that Megan McArdle blog post about gay marriage that benji posted a couple weeks ago, plus some argumentum ad puncta caerulea.

When someone's reduced to vague, menacing warnings about unintended consequences, it's usually a good indicator they've exhausted any actual defense of the status quo. Also I think the example of priests runs the other way here.

[etiolate]

The point of the exploratory discussion is that we haven't had a real exploratory discussion. You assume the matter is settled based on untested assumptions, so the entire conversation sounds like "menacing warnings about unintended consequences" that mean nothing to you when the unintended consequences are real questions for people who look at these things on an evolutionary scale.

Does sexual harassment exist yes? Yes. Do we denounce it? Yes.  Does it still happen? Yes.

So why does it happen? And can we eliminate it? Do we want to fully eliminate it? Where is the line of what we are willing to do stand?

If you fill all these unknowns with assumptions and don't pay attention closely to what people do in response then we are driving blindly upon the subject.

[Mandark]

on an evolutionary scale.

I think you mean "from an evolutionary perspective" unless those effects are going to take millions of years to show up.

[etiolate]

The evolutionary scale is different biologically and socially. Social adaptation and change occurs much faster than biological. They both have a scale that evolves. This question exists on both formats at once, but we have to mostly face it on the social behavioral side while still worrying about the longer term evo scale. 

[curly]

In both links, America is an outlier, which (my assumption) leads to the question of what makes America an outlier in both? Because "guns" doesn't asnwer the outlier question in the first link.

In my opinion, American culture has to do with being an outlier in both situations, and it's not modern culture but something deeper than that.  Modern media probably does have something to do with it in regards to the fame seeking, but a people develop a way of being over time and that becomes a part of culture. American culture is a bit on the paranoid side. In Sweden, the people are pretty placid and unquestioning. In America, it's a culture of rebellion. Both have their good and bad sides to that collective personality.

lol this is pretty dumb my dude

[Oblivion]

Also, Jordan Peterson, right wing. 

Not right wing, just no. 1 with right wingers.

The mysteries of life.

[Mandark]

It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.

[TakingBackSunday]

this is a fun thread of ignores for me

[curly]

So Vice posted the full interview, and shock and awe, the "context" seems to somehow make Peterson sound even worse than the edited version.

Haha this guy is a fucking moron in just the first minute he says there's no evidence workplace harassment has gotten better in the last forty years and that in the sixties women had recourse against sexual harassment because they could go to the police. You chumps are getting grifted so hard by this clown.

[Mandark]

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Listen to this TED talk by Jordan Peterson!"... and I'll look down and whisper "lmao"

[benjipwns]

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

lmao a ba

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

hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or two

i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .

that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers though

does that include both your masters?

no, they're both fully American

it's a joke about the Canadian exchange rate god dammit

[Oblivion]

Not right wing, just no. 1 with right wingers.

The mysteries of life.

Dunno where you live but where I'm from, the right wingers don't believe in climate change or evolution, don't think inequality is a serious problem, and don't think the nation-state is a dangerous idea if it's the end goal or highest ideal. They also hate literature and psychology.
[

Yes, because those are the things Jordan fucking Peterson is known for.


You seem to defend a lot of these types of people (Peterson, Damore, etc)for some reason...

[Mandark]

And benji actually looked up the exchange rate to make it accurate.

I know because I looked it up while considering making the same joke, but didn't want Boogie to arrest me.

[Mandark]

It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.

That's a surprising conclusion to me. What makes you think evolution isn't at the immutable core of everything Peterson believes in?

This was a reprise of my famous and much-acclaimed public choice theory zinger.

I'd like to thank everyone for their outpouring of support for this gag, and I hope to see you all next week when I use it again for the authors of Freakonomics.

[etiolate]

It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.

 

[Mandark]

Peterson is different because I find myself enamored with him intellectually. I remember reading hungrynoob posting something that read close to a religious experience some time ago and it seemed rather stupid and silly. And then I tried looking him up and my first exposure to him was this video where he said ideology leads to genocide and I immediately dismissed him because it was such a reductive and uninteresting argument. And boring, too! But his name kept popping up and then this interview thing happened so of course I had to figure out why the fuck this guy had a fucking religious cult that seemed to be entirely composed of right wing manchildren and red pilled losers. Well, the short story is that I haven't been so invigorated philosophically and intellectually since I first read Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground when I was 14, or George Orwell's Politics and the English Language.

Jesus you have the worst taste.

[Mandark]

Haven't read him but given your #mcm track record probably yeah.

[etiolate]

This wasn't intended as a JBP thread. I've linked other people and associated arguments.

I put in a Pinker video, who is far more towards the biological determination end of the argument than Peterson is, but nobody blinked an eye at that. I am guessing because people weren't' told to hate Pinker, so they don't respond to his rundown of genetic influence. I imagine they didn't watch the video, but they don't watch the Peterson videos either.

[benjipwns]

the brothers karamazov? crime and punishment? demons?

[curly]

Dostoyevsky is great, Orwell is trash. My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984

[etiolate]

I also didn't intend this thread as an exposing of Mandy as a hack, but here we are.

 

[Mandark]

If I really had to enumerate the writers that really shaped me (in my younger years, lifelong learning is real!) or that I'm enamored with, that would include Franz Kafka, Miguel de Cervantes, Carlos Fuentes, William Faulkner, and my favorite author ever Samuel Beckett.

(flawless Wallace Shawn impersonation) Morons!


edit: Shosta, are you really going to make me explain that joke from upthread?

[benjipwns]

my personal favorite comparison is that we live in Brave New World now. But anyway, 1984 wasn't written for the present day

obligatory comic i'm surprised doesn't get posted more often considering how many do:

[benjipwns]

My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984

watch out, this is a common sentiment among libertarian, anarchist circles...i don't want to have to report you

[curly]

My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984

watch out, this is a common sentiment among libertarian, anarchist circles...i don't want to have to report you

Ha now I'm curious on how they read Kafka although I guess it's pretty obvious

My personal opinion is that for example The Castle is a better imagination of how power operates and reproduces itself on a granular level than either 1984 or Brave New World 

[benjipwns]

iirc the comic has a few errors including stuff from Brave New World Revisited

and 1984 does have components of willing submission too not just imposed, i mean that's kinda the ending

[benjipwns]

should have read the fine print on your social contract buddy

[Mandark]

[etiolate]

The whole pod, more than two hours long, but chuck full of info.

[Oblivion]

looks like etiolate's goal in creating a controversial thread was extremely successful

Yes, because those are the things Jordan fucking Peterson is known for.

They're not, but look: you were mocking the claim that Jordan Peterson isn't right wing. Besides the fact that collapsing people into one of two ideologies along a single political spectrum is totally inadequate, I was pointing out that even if you tried to you'd get a lot of contradictions. People on the right love him because he criticizes the political left but that's a temporary alignment on social issues, not an accurate or by any means complete characterization. So when you say "but no. 1 with right wingers, go figure," well, that's on you to go figure that out, actually.

What possible relevance does mentioning those supposedly leftists beliefs of his have on the subject at hand? It doesn't matter if JP believes in UHC if he almost never fucking talks about it. This is like if Trump came out and said that he personally wanted to appoint someone that the Center For American Progress recommended to the SC, a day after he already appointed Neil Gorsuch. Or like if he came out in support of climate change the day after he shredded the Paris Agreement. Or if he said he was in favor of raising taxes on the rich a day after passing his recent shitty tax cut bill. And so on and so on.

Do you understand this? Why the fuck should anybody care about what somebody supposedly believes if they're not actually acting on it? How much time do you think JP has dedicated to discussing progressive solutions to inequality within the five thousand hours of lectures he has on youtube? I'd be surprised if it was literally 15 minutes total since he mentions it only in passing, or when directly asked about it. Again, look at the ratio of likes/retweets between the two opposing gun control tweets he posted. It's not even fucking close. He knows damn well who's buttering his bread.

To say that JP believes in climate change is about as germane to the discussion as pointing out what his favorite brand of toilet paper is.

Speaking of, where the hell did you get the idea that he believes in climate change?

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/825871336333574144?lang=en