/lit/ - Literature

>>22626155
mmh look at jeremy meeks. i am not sure sure competence and getting a pat on the bag from teacher cuts it bucko

I am not well versed in this theory of Mr. Peterson, I wish I was so I could contribute to your thread. However, I'd like to make you some questions.
Are you sure Peterson claimed this theory of his to be applicable to all instances of society? Instead of smaller social circles?
You cited this powerful and rich fella, who seems to be quite inept with his social skills. You must understand that there are points out of the curve, bizarre and extraordinary types, who are exceptions to every rule.
It would be better to make a comparison to general interaction and social circles to refute Mr. Peterson claims. Don't you agree?

>>22626233
This is the wrong side of the internet to be reasonable and curious.
In fact, the internet is a wrong place.

>>22626229
>pat on the bag from teacher
tfw no good boy pats from teach

>>22626155
Well, you see, it depends on what you mean by "pyramids". It also depends on what you mean by "lobster". You're really asking three questions there man and it's like wow, that's a bloody big thing to do, ask three questions at the same time.

When he was writing Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky thought a lot about crime, and also about punishment. In a way we're all being punished by crime, and that's a bloody shame. So to answer your question it's important we don't rush into things.

>>22626155
This is a very good question and something that is probably not going to attract the kinds of people that are qualified to answer it.

My hunch is that if you're even remotely well-adjusted and self-aware, you'll end up choosing a path that is suited for your strengths and weaknesses. However, you'll probably end up in a "Peter Principle" niche that keeps you from being at the top of the social hierarchy. That describes most people.

In addition, there are many tiny little social hierarchies for every given area of life (e.g. jobs, hobbies, fields, etc.) that have a social hierarchy of sorts. Most people will be good at something, but not everything, so they'll have high status *somewhere* as long as they put the time in. They're all horizontal hierarchies too, which is exacerbated by our society's penchant for equality, and a "primordial" kind of dominance hierarchy tends to reign supreme.

However, the "overarching" dominance hierarchy of society, wealth and "institutional" status, is generally artificial and not squarely in line with our "primordial" dominance hierarchy. While well-rounded, well-adjusted people tend to do well regardless of where they are (their little circles or the BIG ladder), they're not going to always dominate in the most important ladder of them all. Hence the example of your meek wealthy media magnate

>>22626262
Kek. I like Peterson but he does sound like this

>>22626401
Another confusing aspect of Peterson's serotonergic theory is that the neurotransmitter itself affects different individuals different ways, for example:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/789669v2.full
>Serotonin depletion amplifies distinct human social emotions as a function of individual differences in personality
>Whereas guilt was preferentially elevated in highly empathic participants, annoyance was potentiated in those high in trait psychopathy,
>Greater trait psychopathy following serotonin depletion, meanwhile, was associated with enhancement of annoyance.

So even when deriving conclusions from studies like this, some sort of Dark Triad personality psychopaths, who according to statistics are among all aspects of society, not only might get more "fuel" from serotonin depletion, the fact that their serotogenic depletion might only further contribute to their pathopsychological makeup and thus fuel their traits of remorselessness, lying, avarice, cunning etc.

>>22626155
This is the abstract of the lobster paper. You're interpreting it wrong.

>>22626155
the reality is that most of it is based on deception in modern society. cialdini’s book “persuasion” is the best counter to his lobster bullshit that I’ve read

>>22626155
i think you're equating a small part of our neurobiological/psychological system with how humans should act all the time.

of course jeff bezos would be scared if he had a gun pointed to his head. of course the weakest, most defeated human would still feel some sense of power over a mouse. it's not a black and white system, and humans are intelligent, varied beings that adapt and change constantly.

the concept of "power" is also a very vague notion. in a small tribal setting the power hierarchy is easily established, in the global connected world of 2023 it's a lot harder with concepts like money, information, connections, etc. but!! that doesn't mean our brain just gives up on trying! the underlying systems are still there in every human (how could we devolve such an instinctive part, impossible) but they manifest completely differently.

the man you cite was probably an introverted, above average intelligent guy who didn't want social interaction, and because he has power he can live his life the way he wants to. being shy does not equal being weak, it just means he wants to be shy.

in his journey to the position he acquired he was pushed by this underlying serotonergic power system. maybe he started at the bottom of some corporate ladder, but what made him want to pursue a higher position was power, and that power made him feel good, so he kept pursuing more of it. a feedback loop of power (in the form of money/connections/information in 2023) and the internal brain chemistry of some power-hungry, shy, smart guy.

the lobster theory's based on millions of years of evolution. it's absolutely integral to my personal view of how humans (and as a result society) work. you can also literally feel it at play if you analyze your own wellbeing enough

>>22626609
>
the man you cite was probably an introverted, above average intelligent guy who didn't want social interaction, and because he has power he can live his life the way he wants to. being shy does not equal being weak, it just means he wants to be shy.
why does he want to be shy?

>>22626632
if this guy is indeed shy (aka unconfident in his speech, awkward, uncommanding) there could be some other element of his psyche that disturbs his speaking (autism, he might have had to overcome a stutter, etc) but that doesn't mean the power theory is bust. he can still command power in other ways, through sheer force, intelligent finances, ruthless backhanded politicking. these don't always require commanding speech.

if he is reserved (aka untalkative, not willing to give out information) that is just a smart way of handling business. silence is power. these individuals aren't too keen on letting things slip. look at some of xi jin ping's political conferences.

power usually stays in the dark if it can. especially this hyper evolved 21st century idea of power, the more invisible it can pull the strings, the more weight it can put on the puppets. no joke, read byung chul han's psychopolitics, power is mad evolved now.

>>22626696
>
if this guy is indeed shy (aka unconfident in his speech, awkward, uncommanding) there could be some other element of his psyche that disturbs his speaking (autism, he might have had to overcome a stutter, etc) but that doesn't mean the power theory is bust. he can still command power in other ways, through sheer force, intelligent finances, ruthless backhanded politicking. these don't always require commanding speech.
it's probably exceedingly difficult for an autistic person to politick in the way that you describe, especially in most Western countries. but the rest of your post makes sense.

>>22626632
>>22626780
jesus christ I don't know why I can't quote for shit today. sorry about that.

>>22626155
lmao

Juden Peterstein

>>22626856
CANTANKEROUS OAF!

>>22626780
yeah you're right, it doesn't fully explain autism.

the theory is sound, but the human psyche is just too varied and manifests in too many different ways for the theory to be as all-encompassing as you hoped. it is ultimately just a piece of the complete human puzzle. connect it.

You're all retards. The argument isn't that we should organize society on the same level as lobsters. That was one of the Cathy Newman midwit takes in that interview that helped launch him.

The argument is that lower order brain functions have greater influence than is commonly acknowledged in behavioural outcomes. Lobsters are an analogy for how deeply such neural circuitry is rooted and how longstanding its influence has been on the development of various behavioral, and therefore social, systems.

Peterson isn't saying they're the only thing that contributes to outcomes but that most people, especially within a herd, are motivated by such instead of higher order psychological functions (e.g. rational deliberation).

>>22626155
>>22626780
How does the theory explain guys like Augustine? Peterson is writing self help, right? We would pray that we could be like Augustine, confident, happy, living, kind, feeling fully fulfilled and self actualized.

But he threw himself off the hierarchy. He was a very bright student from a wealthy but not super wealthy family. He climbed the ladder, got to teach at Rome, then got into the circle of imperial officials at court in Milan, then the capital. He was a rising star by his mid 30s, the equivalent of some CEO, politician, etc. of our day. His mom found him a rich wife, he was to be married, set for a great life of dominance and status.

Then he converted and threw his entire career away. First he ran off to write philosophy. Then he went home to North Africa and sold most of his family's property and gave it to the poor. What he saved, he saved to establish a monetary where he and fellow Christians did hard manual labor.

He only ended up getting a position of power again because a bishop near him had his eye on him and had a crowd carry him forcibly up to an alter to be ordained. Then he had his hands full. There was a schism in the church, Donatists vs Catholics. He was almost murdered. There were riots. He had to deal with divorces, wills, all sorts of petty stuff when he wanted to write.

And yet he healed wounds, helped families and communities reconcile, freedom slaves en masse from the docks.

How does he fit in? It seems like he gained all by nose diving out of the dominance hierarchy.

He talks about being at the height of his power and seeing a drunk and realizing the drunk was happier than him. Good shit in the Confessions. And of course he goes on to be one of the most influential philosophers of all time and in the literary canon for his prose, aside the theology.

>>22626922
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux has a similar story. Super wealthy, powerful family. Runs away for celibacy and manual labor.

>>22626155
Some of the lobsters I have eaten have tasted better than others, maybe they had more serotonin.

>>22626155
I do not care about Jordan Peterson
I will not care about Jordan Peterson
You can't fucking make me

>>22626262
LMAO. You bedeviled egg you.

>>22626155
The purpose of the lobster comparison is to prove that hierarchies are not the products of economic systems, but are inherent to our biology—so deeply embedded, in fact, that they exist in a comparable way even in lobsters. Somehow people widely and massively misunderstand this very simple point. You make some pretty good general points about hierarchies though.

>>22628458
There's a Facebook group with thousands of members devoted to being angry about having what Peterson meant by something explained to them. A lot of people just want to hate him.

>>22628540
>A lot of people just want to hate him.

Bedeviled egg! Adversary of Logos, repugnant perverter of thought, word, and basic human decency -- Can you not see that your immature and cowardly flight from yourself, your accursed "anonymity" threatens to sever the very fabric of our tenuous modern milieu? You, hyperbolic hatemonger, are manifesting malignity appropriate only for an endtime. Bloody hell, that is where we are headed. The apocalypse! You, malignant rat, externalize your extreme unmedicated psychopathic dark tetrad Machiavellian narcissism and it's we, the pro-social open majority who pay the price. Do you have the vaguest comprehension what wrath will be wrought when you wretched anti-Semitical werewolves have your way with the blessed, supple virgin that is our hard-won democracy?! Black wizard of hopeless folly, pusillanimous pipsqueak of perfidy and prejudice, idiot ideologue of Dunning-Kruger-deranged moral "superiority" -- I straighten my back and take my meds in bitter, eternal opposition to you and your bloody kind! And mark my words, if there is a just God, you and your Holocaust-denying co-specials WILL go to Hell. You feculent miasma of hate-regurgitating Machiavellian weasels, go and find some other site to sully! May you be devoured by The Archetypal Dragon and may I ever be rid of you interminably abominable, shadow-possessed, snake-tongued TROLLS!

>>22626155
Just stand up tall, you idiot.

>>22626155
What did this drug addict schizoid jew exactly do to become so popular among retarded amerifats who consider him some kind of enlightened """""philosopher""""

>>22626155
his wife was a jew and his daughters a whore. He also legally changed his name to juden peterstein to more accurately reflect his goals

>>22628935
Vile rat!

>>22626922
power blinds. Augustine realized this and rid himself off any power. the blinding effect of power is spiritually deadening. pride was the worst of the 7 sins.

augustine's biological power system works just fine, just like it does in the rest of us. it is what allowed him to climb to such a position in the first place. but when he looked he realized he had been blinded. he could think of nothing but his own status, his own power, so he get rid of it, he got rid of the status, and with it the biological need for power. in return he achieved spiritual fulfillment, and something akin to "individuation".

he could not know what it truly meant to be strong, if he did not first figure out what it means to be weak. you have to lose yourself first before you can find yourself. he lost himself in the power/status/wealth hierarchy and wanted to find himself again, he did so thanks to spirituallity.

this power hierarchy and its blindness is also the reason why millionaire ceo's nowadays seemingly have no empathy. their biological power system is just running rampant, they become "blind", they have no empathy and cannot see others. but unlike augustine they won't throw away their mitres to reach spiritual fulfillment.

>>22628646
What did Juden Peterstein do this time?

>>22628646
>Peterson: it would be productive to involve men in the conversation about violence against women in a way that doesn't label masculinity as inherently negative
>Libtard: so you're saying in order to make men care about rape women have to be returned to the status of men's property
>Peterson: the rise of identitarianism is linked to reactionary politics that sublimate personal resentment into collectivistic extremism
>Chud: so you're saying white people don't have group interests and therefore shouldn't exist
>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused and open to mental pathologies via social contagion--we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors
>Tranny: so you're literal nazi saying we're a disease and we should be exterminated like one
>Peterson: anonymity increases the likelihood of pathological behavior so perhaps one way to alleviate the negative repercussions of its overall influence would be to segregate accounts on these specific widely used social media websites--it's definitely better than secret and selective control of the public narrative as it exists now
>/pol/tard: so you're saying you want everyone everywhere to be tied to whatever they say and do at all times...I'm a freedom fighter [goes to another thread to post about AOC's asshole while writing "nig*er" 50 times]
Basically, Peterson will touch a nerve by simply pointing out something that is blatantly ignored in the way an ideological group frames an issue. He exposes ideological blind spots in a simple and straightforward way; this leads to the fellow travelers of whichever idea is being discussed having a breakdown and exposing themselves. He's valuable as a media personality if even for that reason alone.

>>22626908
>>22628458
>>22629464
Petersontards are so annoying. Cathy Newman has gotten a lot of hate for that interview, but her assumption was fair given Peterson's unwillingness to state his position clearly. Remember he refered to the lobster analogy within the context of countering feminist critique on how society is organized.

If Peterson believes that these darwinian factors justify current social hierarchies then Cathy Newman was in the right all along. If he doesnt then that would have been a complete misdirection and he was not engaging with the topic at hand.

It's not like Peterson doesnt believe unjust hierarchies exist. In fact he has made a career out of complaining about how white conservative men are at the bottom of this post-modernist/neo-marxist pecking order. Would he accept the lobster analogy as a justification? Of course not. Then why is it fair to use the same argument on the other side?

>>22629705
>Peterson's unwillingness to state his position clearly.
His position is clear. Ideologues become confused because he doesn't cede linguistic territory and argue within the boundaries by which they assert an unjustified monopoly.
>Remember he refered to the lobster analogy within the context of countering feminist critique on how society is organized.
Societal norms maintain the stability by which progress is made. Newman's version of feminism is the standard equity argument which is complete nonsense if you think about it instead of regurgitating it. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she has more in common with a female politican than she does with a male politician. Imagine trying to solve the world's problems by bringing back stereotyping and racial discrimination. "Progressives" lol. You retards can't even define "woman."
>If Peterson believes that these darwinian factors justify current social hierarchies then Cathy Newman was in the right all along.
It's not Darwinian. In fact, the side of the debate Peterson argues against has far more parallels with Social Darwinism. It's one of the reasons libtards/trannies end up on the same team with chuds.
>If he doesnt then that would have been a complete misdirection and he was not engaging with the topic at hand.
It's quite obvious you're filtered, anon.
>It's not like Peterson doesnt believe unjust hierarchies exist.
He explicitly says that they tend toward tyranny.
>In fact he has made a career out of complaining about how white conservative men are at the bottom of this post-modernist/neo-marxist pecking order.
You're confusing one of the ideological shorthands you use to otherize perceived enemies as a hierarchy.
>Would he accept the lobster analogy as a justification?
Considering it has nothing to do with the actual basis of the argument he's making he'd probably tell you to rephrase your question in the hope you'd realize it's way off base.
>Then why is it fair to use the same argument on the other side?
Because you don't understand the argument.

>>22630119
> Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she has more in common with a female politican than she does with a male politician. Imagine trying to solve the world's problems by bringing back stereotyping and racial discrimination.
This is just silly. People unite around identity markers due to shared experiences and the basic acknowledgment that groups have more influence than individuals. Somehow you interpret this to mean that individuals within groups are identical and take it as an endorsement of racial discrimination and stereotyping. If you were to take this line of reasoning seriously, you would have to be against the very idea of establishing a collective movement. The salient lesson of the social revolutions of the 60s is not that pattern recognition is bad, rather it's essentialism, the idea that you can take a generalization and directly assign it to an individual to negatively judge them for it, that is deserving of condemnation. But you are not making these ridiculous arguments due to a lack of understanding, because Peterson and his followers absolutely engage in what they pejoratively refer to as "collectivism" when it is an issue they care about, like big tech censorship or what have you.

>He explicitly says that they tend toward tyranny.
That's progress i guess, but any attempt at trying to address said tyranny he decries as the evil machinations of clandestine leftist academics that will usher in the death of 300 gorrillion people or some equally dishonest, benzo ridden, scaremongering shit.

>>22629705
Did you even read my post? Peterson's point has nothing to do with "justifying social hierarchies". It's about demonstrating that hierarchies are not the results of particular economic systems, but are deeply embedded in our biology. Newman's assumption was not fair. This is a simple point, but Peterson somehow brings out such retardation in people (you) that they're unable to understand the most simple points.
>It's not like Peterson doesnt believe unjust hierarchies exist.
Yes, that's exactly right. His point had nothing to do with justifying hierarchies, which is what I said in my post, to which you're supposedly replying.

Peterson made sense when Western nations were still generally believed to be unified societies (2021 roughly speaking).
From then, an increasing number of nihilists of the most illustrious descendance have stopped participating and contributing to it'd stupid decadence.
But I don't want to go off in a tangent of how Europe is going to fall into some weird state of pseudo-anarchy where the de-facto states have to compete against landowners douted with the intellectual capacities to justify their views.
All I'm going to say is that the continuation of Western civilization in it's current form is inadmissible by any realistic metrics. Talking about a society like it's still existing is, as of today, of no practical use, because de-facto, there is no society to speak there-of. The ones who had the energy of creating this marvel are either gone or they no longer participate in it, jealously reclused to the confines of their domes, where at least in this atomic realm, the sickness of degeneracy has not penetrated yet.
What is left of it's tottering ruins can be compared to a chicken that has got it's head chopped off, moving and running around without consciousness, creating the illusion to an ignorant viewer that this dead society is still alive.

>>22630575
If that was the totality of his objective with the lobsters then it would just be trivially true and wouldnt be engaging with the leftist argument. Also the implication now would be that leftists do not believe biology plays some role in the establishment of hierarchies. That is a strawman.

>>22626869
CRETINOUS KIKE!

>>22630643
It's a rebuttal of the claim that hierarchies are products of capitalism. This is not a a strawman; it's a real claim that people make. Peterson made the lobster argument explicitly for this reason. Yes, it is "trivially true", but retards insist on totally misunderstanding a very basic point.

>>22628646
https://youtu.be/QT13kk8HDDo

Peterson was good in 2018 but in 2023 he's overly-dramatic and kind of strung out.
>HUMBUG, YOU LOPSIDED FOREMAN

>>22626155
All of Peterson summarized in one short 4chan post:
>focus on your personal problems before getting mad about societal problems
>religion is beneficial in a practical sense for societies
>the state and major institutions shouldn't police language (((unless)))
>loife is hawrd mahn! think about that for a secund!

The things he says are generally correct as they're mostly just common sense. As soon as he gets into any nuance he breaks down and can't keep things straight (see the epistemology conversation with Sam Harris, who is also an insufferable retard but at least can discuss epistemology coherently, or could at the time of that discussion - pretty sure he's gone completely off the rails at this point). The fact that such a middling intellect with such absolutely mundane ideas is considered some kind of controversial intellectual heavy-weight is indicative of how fucking DUMB a lot of people in our society are and it's really depressing.

>>22628646
Well done post

Having an unclean room and causing chaos and disaster generally speaking are marks of being imbued with Germanic blood. Peterson, himself an advocate of Romanism, opposes himself to it with all his force.

>>22630958
Ah. Is he an acolyte of Theodore Newman Kaufman?

>>22630975
Not quite, he just wants them not be chaotic and abide to Roman law, an easy and undemanding task in the eyes of Peterson, but contradictory to the animated Germanic spirit.

>>22626155
>, but even the high serotonin CEO, after the day is done, would not challenge some sort of criminal ghetto gangster if they met on sidewalk while he was walking home, he might even lower his gaze to avoid conflict.
This is an important sociological fact which actually supports the pseudo-Hobbesian frame Memerson uses, though he himself doesn't go far enough with it.

The reason the CEO has to lower his gaze is that the criminal is a de facto state employee. If you seriously doubt this then look at what the justice system does to men who decide to make little militias to kill these criminals, versus how it treats the criminals themselves when they commit murder. In a sane society you could just gun down any of these street criminals, or they would already have been executed years ago, and this entire dynamic would not exist. The state wants these people on the street acting as little vectors of domination. (The correct course of action is to kill them anyway and not get caught, ie. to just be a criminal yourself).

Your example doesn't demonstrate the absence or complication of dominance hierarchies, it just demonstrates a dominance hierarchy you might not be aware of.

>>22630984
>but contradictory to the animated Germanic spirit
So, how does one achieve the goal without adhering to Kaufman's ''one drop rule'' and subsequent plan for extermination?

I did a cursory web search for ''jordan peterson lobster hierarchy essay'' and did not find it. Can someone please point to it?

>>22630546
>This is just silly.
IDoes a waitress in a flyover state have more in common with a guy from the same small town or a career politician who grew up upper-middle class in New York City who happens to have a vagina? The equity argument betrays the fact that elites have a complete poverty of empathy and to make up for it they've brought back implicit stereotyping and intentional racial discrimination.
>People unite around identity markers due to shared experiences and the basic acknowledgment that groups have more influence than individuals.
You can't pick a random individual out of a group and automatically know their makeup. That's the primary argument against racism. Before you say it's fine to govern by via aggregate notice you have a glaring blindspot demonstrated by the practical application of targeted policies. For example, something like affirmative action primarily benefits upper income blacks much moreso than the vast majority of them. This means that such a policy isn't improving the lot of the aggregate and is really just institutionalizing the idea of racial discrimination for the benefit of a small few--its empty symbolism at a large cost.
>Somehow you interpret this to mean that individuals within groups are identical and take it as an endorsement of racial discrimination and stereotyping.
See above.
>If you were to take this line of reasoning seriously, you would have to be against the very idea of establishing a collective movement.
Only if you misinterpret the argument being made. No one is arguing that collective action is always detrimental and group interests don't exist. The problem is with how such groups are categorized according to the interests of an established elite alongside their refusal to discuss the unintended consequences of institutionalizing stereotyping/discrimination based on ill-defined collective interests.
>But you are not making these ridiculous arguments due to a lack of understanding
You're unable to understand the arguments being made because you come at them from within an ideological box.
>ends with strawman/ad hom
The fact you guys ways have to go back to these easily disproven falsehoods doesn't do what you think. It's a signal you don't understand that which you speak of and are disconnected from reality (i.e. ideological possession).

>>22626262
So good I read it in his voice automatically + nice post numbers.

>>22626262
checked and keked

>>22633269
>checked
Newfag.

>>22633499
>99
This is checked.

>>22626155
Wow, so the cycle of defeat is almost a certainty when the entire government and all institutions promote faggots, dysgenic browns, and women over men in every level of art, politics, and business?

It should not be a mystery to people why shit has been in a nose-dive. Here in Canada, we live in the Starfield of nations.

>>22626155
Does anyone have that image of Jordan Peterson being connected to a bunch of powerful corporations?
Why even take him seriously? He's basically a glowie involved in social engineering.

>>22630695
>insist on totally misunderstanding
Once you realize it the scary thing is they're filtered and can't accept the truth--its not simply willful ignorance but the inability to see the context Peterson lays out and thoughtfully engage with it. They honestly believe Peterson is arguing that no one should ever do anything because all hierarchies are justified via biology; that's how their internalized beliefs interpret what he says so they don't have to question them.

>>22633884
>>22633532
Peterson sucks the dicks of his kike masters so fucking hard.

Imagine a 1 hour interview between Jason Bryan and Jordan Peterson, it would completely fuck the entire modern world.

>>22633508
kill yourself

>>22633895
kill yourself twice

>>22633906
>>22633904
Build a sex dungeon and get laid you fucking incel dorks

>>22631073
Because the Romans think it's nothing but a disposition of the will. It's a bit like lefties thinking a negro can become civilized and intelligent simply by living in developped societies.

>>22631073
Btw, when I say the Germanic is chaotic and doesn't clean his room, I mean that these traits are positive and that what is to be defeated is the orderly nature of the Roman. The sad truth is that the Romans outnumber the Germanics in a scale 9/1 if not 99/1. The house of Hohenstauffen in Sicily mutts it's last descendants, while England still separates the Roman from the Germanic in a manner that can be called scientific.

>>22633937
kill yourself