/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10890985]

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.10890986]

>>10890985
I haven't read it, nor have 90% of the people who are going to call it shit in this thread.

[Anonymous No.10890991]

>>10890985
it may be helpful to some people that have it really bad in their life

[Anonymous No.10890994]

I just realised Peterson is hardly posted here compared to a few months back

[s a g e No.10890996]

s a g e

[Anonymous No.10891010]

>>10890985
OP is a faggot and so is JBP.

[Anonymous No.10891011]

It's for boys with no father figure.

[Anonymous No.10891041]

>>10890985
brainlet-bait, as with every other self-help book

[Anonymous No.10891076]

>>10890985
Rule 1
>You never talk about Jordan on /LIT/

[Anonymous No.10891080]

Sux Buttox

[Anonymous No.10891085]

Sage

[Anonymous No.10891093]

>>10891076
why?

[Anonymous No.10891099]

>>10890985
Uh, you don't get to bring friends.

[Anonymous No.10891103]

>>10891093
Rule 1

[Anonymous No.10891107]

good thread haha, well memed

[Anonymous No.10891150]

>>10890994
>I just realised Peterson is hardly posted here compared to a few months back
Hm, hm, hm, I wonder why you think that, hm, hm, hm.

[Anonymous No.10891163]

>>10890985
I read it. It's essentially a self help book from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. Check out some of his YouTube vids if you see him there you have a general idea of what the book is like.

Even if you have seen every vid including the maps of meaning class stuff and the bible stuff the book is a different perspective and could be helpful if you are trying to straighten your life out.

[Anonymous No.10891170]

>>10891076
Thought that was asoiaf you not supposed to talk about.

>>10891093
Don't talk about popular current events. Even corner of the internet small scale popular.

Turns into shit inside of 30 posts. Too easy for trolls to use.

[Anonymous No.10891178]

Is it so bad if young men want to improve themselves? God I hate the Left.

[Anonymous No.10891198]

I've read it. Already knew most of this stuff from his lectures. Didn't like the religious parts, some of his metaphorical interpretations seem too far fetched. It's an easy read and it's good.

[Anonymous No.10891210]

>>10890986
Nor have 90% of the people who call it a masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.10891267]

>>10891210
I don't think anyone would unironically call it a masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.10891312]

It's an empirical approach to self-help informed by his decades of experience.

It's not really anything more than that.

There's very little of his politics in the book, except if you go in there trying to drag politics out of it with a fishhook.

[Anonymous No.10891368]

>>10891178
self help books are not inherently bad
self help that you package with a bunch of stupid ideas that push your political beliefs is literally just cravenly exploiting a vulnerable class for personal gain and if you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.10891376]

>>10891312
honestly his consistently gendered framing of the fundamental aspects of human nature present in us all is fucking weird, and I struggle to think of it as apolitical by any stretch.

[Anonymous No.10891394]

>>10891376
I don't think so.

Women are empirically, as a population, more agreeable than men.

Men are empirically, as a population, more conscientious than women.

What explains this if not biology? How are the vague and unproven assertions that "it's cultural" somehow more convincing than the thin, but extant empirical evidence that it really is biological? Sure, the science is not ironclad, but at least it fucking exists on the "biological" side.

Philosophy and "social science" will become increasingly irrelevant as we further unlock the emergent ethic and emergent society that our biology necessitates through the methods of psychology and biology.

[Anonymous No.10891402]

>>10891178
Why are you even bringing up your politics here? I've seen a lot of backlash from all sort of positions

[Anonymous No.10891408]

>>10891312
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

>Here is where Jordan Peterson’s self-help routine connects with his politics. Peterson seemingly discourages all serious political involvement. He says cultivating the self and reading great books is “more important than any possible political action.” Don’t focus on changing the world, focus on tidying up your life. After all, “the meaning of life is to be found in the adoption of individual responsibility” and “when you win everything, everyone around you wins too” because “it means you shine a light on the whole world…” 12 Rules For Life makes it explicit: stop questioning the social order, stop assigning blame for problems to political actors, stop trying to reorganize things.

>Have you taken full advantage of the opportunities offered to you? Are you working hard on your career, or even your job, or are you letting bitterness and resentment hold you back and drag you down? Have you made peace with your brother? … Are there things that you could do, that you know you could do, that would make things around you better? Have you cleaned up your life? If the answer is no, here’s something to try: start to stop doing what you know to be wrong. Start stopping today… Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city? … Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.

>Note: perfect. And since one’s house can never be in perfect order, one can never criticize the world. This is, most obviously, an invitation to total depoliticization and solipsism. But it’s also a recipe for making miserable people even more miserable. Blame yourself. Why haven’t I fixed this? I suck. Well, it’s certainly possible that you suck. (Most of us do!*) But the world also does have injustices in it. A lot, in fact. Peterson speaks to disaffected millennial men, validating their prejudices about feminists and serving as a surrogate father figure. Yet he’s offering them terrible advice, because the “individual responsibility” ethic makes one feel like a failure for failing. Oh, sure, his rules about “standing up straight” and “petting a cat when you see one” are innocuous enough. But you shouldn’t tell people that their problems are their fault if you don’t actually know whether their problems are their fault. Millennials struggle in part because of a viciously competitive economy that is crushing them with debt and a lack of opportunity. Sure, Peterson might train guys to be more brutal and tough-minded, and a few of them will do better at the competition. But if you can’t pay your student loans, or your rent, and you can’t get a better job, what use is it to tell you that you should adopt a confident lobster-posture?

[Anonymous No.10891410]

>>10891178
Only effeminate people need self-help books

[Anonymous No.10891413]

Just watch him explain why you should clean your room and you'll be good. Don't need to read this. Self help books are only acceptable when it's written by ancient philosophers. Yes, I'm a pseud.

[Anonymous No.10891431]

>>10891408
I agree with this criticism of Peterson. He tells young adults to stop trying to run the world because how could they possibly succeed when their own life is such a mess, but what right does he have to say that when the old people who are currently in charge can hardly be considered to be running the world successfully either? His advice is practical, but it won't solve the big problems. BUT, on the other hand, people incapable of following his advice would never have been able to solve the big problems anyway.

[Anonymous No.10891446]

can we not have a JBP every fucking day

the absolute state of lit

[Anonymous No.10891462]

>>10891431
>I agree with this criticism of Peterson. He tells young adults to stop trying to run the world because how could they possibly succeed when their own life is such a mess

Harsh words from a clinically depressed man who failed to raise her daughter properly (look for Mikhaila Peterson, she's a nutritionist quack).

[Anonymous No.10891467]

>>10891462
His*

[Anonymous No.10891471]

>>10891462
>clinically depressed
I doubt this.

>his daughter
I know nothing about this.

[Anonymous No.10891475]

>>10890985
He's a manipulative hack taking advantage of a vulnerable cross-section of the population to cultivate a cult of personality centered around him.

>inb4 the morality police says a portion of 4chan users and their ilk can't be vulnerable because they're cis straight white MEN or whatever

A lot of dudes in late capitalist societies around the world are falling victim to a kind of pervasive depressive isolation brought on by their life circumstances, from the burgers to the nips and everything in-between. In western nations it's being brought on by society decrying masculinity as negative while simultaneously assuming men will continue to adhere to traditionally masculine values (i.e. being talked down to about existing while being male, and then immediately getting shat on for dropping out of life instead of getting a job and being the breadwinner). It's hardly surprising that guys commit suicide as much as they do.

So Peterson correctly identifies this problem, and then proceeds to (either consciously or subconsciously) turn these disaffected young men into his personal cult following, who he can then proselytize to about all sorts of shit that varies from common sense you could get anywhere to absolute batshit.

[Anonymous No.10891486]

I just read chapter 1.
I'm usually a pretty big fan of Peterson, but from my brief time this book seems watered down.
Petersons lectures are usually fun to listen to, but the first chapter feels like what I've heard him say in lectures, but for a general audience.
I was able to call out a few lines of thought Peterson was having by the time he was one sentence into them, which is not fun if they last 20+ sentences.
Might put this down. Can anyone tell me how good the rest of it is?

[Anonymous No.10891495]

>>10890985
Peterson fails to debate any serious academic of his caliber; I can only imagine this is because he is afraid of being torn down. When will he debate Zizek or Taleb? He's received challenges from both yet he wastes his time bickering with TV interviewers and the nobodies who author op-eds.

[Anonymous No.10891496]

>>10891471

>I doubt this.
Look for this, he has talked about it multiple times.

>I know nothing about this.
Of course you don't, her existence disprove his own "theories"

[Anonymous No.10891510]

>>10891495
His Stephen Hicks bullshit can't stand up in any debate.

[Anonymous No.10891511]

>>10890994
that's because paid shills were raiding in anticipation of this book release

[Anonymous No.10891515]

>>10891496
>Look for this, he has talked about it multiple times.
Nah, I'm tired. If you want to show it to me feel free. Otherwise I might stumble upon it at some point in the future. Anyway, I think that declaring someone too unhinged to be listened to just because they're depressed is a bit bigoted, don't you? Depression doesn't make you stupid.

>Of course you don't, her existence disprove his own "theories"
Not really. The empirical evidence remains.

Your points may well be valid, but they don't apply in the way that you want them to.

[Anonymous No.10891520]

>>10891462
While taking the nutritionist shit as far as she is may be silly, or may at least seem silly, nutrition can play a very large part for people, especially if they suffer from some medical problem.
I have a pretty serious illness, and eating better (not even good all the time just better) has helped me a lot.
It's just fact too in some cases. For an example, a Keto diet help a lot of people with epilepsy.
>>10891496
He's basically said about the diet that people don't fully understand how these things work yet. Pretty sure he's on the diet too.
I would bet he's afraid endorsing it would reduce his credibility. It totally would.

[Anonymous No.10891525]

>>10891408
>>10891431
The house in perfect order thing is a metaphor. How dense do you have to be take that literally? Petsoñaratason discourages the placard-waving, virtue-signaling brand of political activism. Young people don't know anything. Young people have never "solved big problems." You sound incredibly naive.

[Anonymous No.10891543]

>>10891515
> Anyway, I think that declaring someone too unhinged to be listened to just because they're depressed is a bit bigoted, don't you?
He's the one making the rules.

>Not really. The empirical evidence remains.
She is the empirical evidence. She's what comes out of his theories on parenting. The result: a nutritionist quack with a blog and a 20$ patreon.

[Anonymous No.10891552]

>>10891520
>While taking the nutritionist shit as far as she is may be silly, or may at least seem silly, nutrition can play a very large part for people, especially if they suffer from some medical problem

Nutrition is important. Thar's why being a quack in this field should be inexcusable.

>Pretty sure he's on the diet too.
Yeah, and he also had to drop it because it was killing him, lol.

[Anonymous No.10891557]

>>10891515
holy shit man, do you understand the meaning of the word empiricism?

[Anonymous No.10891615]

>>10891543
>He's the one making the rules.
I don't think that's one of his rules.

>She is the empirical evidence.
That's not how empirical evidence works. "His daughter" is not the empirical evidence he uses to back up his arguments. His daughter is completely irrelevant to his argument because his argument is compelling on its own merits and not merely because he's the one saying it.

However accurate your character assassination may prove to be, it's not a good rebuttal.

>>10891557
Yes. Empiricism is the acquisition of knowledge through observation and inference.

[Anonymous No.10891673]

>>10891552
>Nutrition is important. Thar's why being a quack in this field should be inexcusable.
Fair enough.
>Yeah, and he also had to drop it because it was killing him, lol.
Kek, you got a source on that?

[Anonymous No.10891678]

>>10891615
Can you say that your room is clean if you are a clinically depressed failed father who spends most of his time giving advices on parenting and self-management?

>"His daughter" is not the empirical evidence he uses to back up his arguments.
He should, since she is the only empirical evidence for his parenting advice (a big part of his 12 Rules). The fact that he never mentions her should tell you something about his integrity.

>His daughter is completely irrelevant to his argument because his argument is compelling on its own merits and not merely because he's the one saying it.
The merit of a psychological argument are empirical, you don't just call someone a psychologist because what he says is somewhat interesting. Not even Peterson would stand behind that. She is the only empirical evidence of his prescriptions.

[Anonymous No.10891686]

>>10891394
Whether or not there are traits exhibited by different groups to varying extents has literally never been the question, the socioliogical issues being explored today are largely about
1) given that these identifiable, gendered traits (e.g. agreeableness) exist and are distributed among these populations along a spectrum—that is to say that although the distribution of agreeable people in each group is such that the average man is perhaps less agreeable than the average woman, that leaves ample room for any number of women to themselves be less agreeable than another given group of men—shouldn't we be looking to examine how those traits are imbued upon the members of our society and seek to be explicitly aware of what, how and why we do it, and
2) shouldn't we be concerned that a system that rewards gendered traits that exist outside the purview of the actual job at hand fundamentally fails at self-selecting towards a more capable society.

Peterson's answer to both questions, which he constantly sneaks into every other facet of his personal philosophy, appears to be "no" and "no," fighting vehemently for the established status quo as if it were the be-all end all final result of our millenia of purposeful societal exploration. And that I have to say "appears to be" really highlights his fucking dishonesty, because although invariably when he's left to his own devices this is exactly the thing that he'll romantically swing around but as soon as he's pressed on the points directly he is immediately reticent in admitting what it is exactly he believes what he's saying entails in a practical sense. He's all too quick to ensure that what he said doesn't actually mean what you're asking, and he's more than happy to point out that what he said is nebulous enough to not necessarily imply this or that, and then draws neat little lines around the borders of his musings, and then leaves it to his vulnerable audience to extrapolate the extremely obvious implications of his arguments but he will doggedly refuse to do so himself because when he lets others do it the ideas exist in a form that they cannot be directly addressed, and were he to do it himself he would eventually be forced to defend them explicitly which he cannot do because he is to his credit an honest intellectual thinking person and he wouldn't be able to contradict himself so plainly and live with it.

He lets his audience do that for him. And that's why he manages to maintain an air of academic prestige that doesn't even remotely rub off on the people who ascribe to his beliefs. He's just throwing thoughts out into the air and refusing to consider the answers, while his fans are doing the torrid work of actually processing his information and eating the associated shit that comes with it.

[Anonymous No.10891719]

>>10891678
>Can you say that your room is clean if you are a clinically depressed failed father who spends most of his time giving advices on parenting and self-management?
Considering that clinical depression is not something that you choose to have, but is something that he seems to be dealing with very well (if he indeed suffers from it to the extent you imply), and that his "failure" of a daughter seems to be well-adjusted and happy judging by her blog with a strong relationship with her family and apparently her family-soon-to-be, and whose "failure" seems to be limited to "believing things you don't," then yes, I would judge Dr Peterson as someone who has his life together. He's a lecturer and a clinical psychologist who presents as intelligent and articulate and deeply empathetic, with the quiet intensity of a professional who takes on the responsibility to do their job well in the service of others.

That's my estimation of him.

It seems to me that your criticisms of him as a person are shallow and hysterical.

>since she is the only empirical evidence for his parenting advice (a big part of his 12 Rules). The fact that he never mentions her should tell you something about his integrity.
It tells me that he doesn't want to drag his daughter into the mess that exists around the things that he does because of their controversial nature, which seems completely reasonable to me.

I don't think his daughter is a failure and I don't understand why you do, other than that you need to believe that she is to justify your preconceived notions.

>She is the only empirical evidence of his prescriptions.
What about all of the people who say that he has saved their lives? That his advice has helped them make positive changes in their life? Do you dismiss them as mere cultists?

[Anonymous No.10891727]

>>10891178
JP is a leftist.

[Anonymous No.10891733]

>>10891686
Nigger, I am not going to read all of that fucking shit. I am very tired and my brief skimming of your post reinforced my first impression that it could be far more concise and plainly written than it is.

I'll pick out the things that jump out to me
>we should be examining how gendered traits arise
Yes, and we do. The answer seems to be that their origins are biological.
>we should change our system because it rewards gendered traits unfairly
Rawls would argue (as Peterson does) that inequality is justified if it leaves everyone better off than equality would have. If you want to change the system to more "fairly" reward people without considering the biological constraints that humans operate inside I would argue, and I'm sure Peterson would agree, there's a high likelihood you're going to fuck EVERYTHING up.

[Anonymous No.10891734]

>>10891686
social conditioning is not as important as biology and social epistasis, women are not gendered, they have different genetics and neurology, different souls (selves) and different interests they reinforce as a bio-cultural feedback loop. women flocking together to get cock and gossip is gendered and there’s nothing you can do about that

[Anonymous No.10891772]

>>10891719
>and whose "failure" seems to be limited to "believing things you don't,"
Nice wording for "absolutely insane crackpot pseudo-science". Having a daughter who can't critically thinking not even to these extents IS a failure.

I'm also not saying that he is worse because he has depression, only that due to his own logic he can't give any advice, since he has not managed to deal with it himself. His room is not clear, nor as an individual, nor as a father.

>It tells me that he doesn't want to drag his daughter
Then he should not write how to raise kids. Should I trust him on his word? Remember that he has published nothing on the matter, nor he mentions any source.
This is basically Psych Methodological Mistakes 101

>What about all of the people who say that he has saved their lives?
He deals mostly with addicts and rage-related mental illnesses. He literally has no literature on this topic apart from the non-peer reviewed stuff he wrote and spouted (mainlt his public talks and his 12 rules), so I literally havw no proof of his expertise in these topics, and the only empirical evidence he's got is so bad that he had to hid it from the world.

[Anonymous No.10891784]

>>10891733
Peterson says we should be happy our oppressors are a smart and kind minority. Should we?

[Anonymous No.10891787]

>>10891784
s u b b t l e

[Anonymous No.10891800]

>>10891772
>"absolutely insane crackpot pseudo-science"
This sounds like a fair and balanced representation of her views formulated after a long and healthy interview and deep, impartial reflection.

>I'm also not saying that he is worse because he has depression, only that due to his own logic he can't give any advice, since he has not managed to deal with it himself.
Maybe (just maybe) you misunderstand his logic.

>Then he should not write how to raise kids.
Why? Because people like you will immediately begin to insult his daughter in a frothing rage? The only blame here for that is you. If he doesn't want to drag his daughter into things then that's his decision to make. You are the one throwing reprehensible random insults in every direction hoping to see what sticks.

>He deals mostly with addicts and rage-related mental illnesses.
Ah, yes, and these don't count as people.

Your argument boils down to the fact that you don't like what his daughter believes and therefore he's a horrific parent who can't give any advice, even about things unrelated to parenting. I'd call it parody if you weren't so frighteningly sincere. His daughter seems to be me to be happy, healthy, and well-adjusted; starting a young family and comfortably well-off, she can't have "failed" too bad and he clearly hasn't "failed" her to the disastrous extent you suggest.

In short, your argument is a fucking disaster.

>>10891784
>oppressors
Who?

[Anonymous No.10891827]

>>10891800
In the Western our oppressors are a small, international group that organizes in a way that they believe is kind. It simply is not to the native populations. They tell us we should be feel a certain bland, unspired way and write laws to enforce this. Peterson agrees we should feel this way and behave this way, he simply disagrees with the method of reaching this point.

[Anonymous No.10891834]

>life is suffering
>might as well inure yourself to it and make yourself a functional tool for others to use for their own enrichment
oh man dude thanks

[Anonymous No.10891839]

>>10891827
I don't feel particularly oppressed. I feel that objecting to laws because they are insufficiently dramatic and theatrical is perhaps the most the retarded thing I've ever heard. Civil society is not a book. I'd prefer if it didn't have a climax, a denouement, and then an ending.

The only oppression I really feel is the slight, but increasing, curtailment of my rights at the hands of "progressives" (though they're not a monolithic group) and the moderate, and quickly increasing, encroachment of progressive ideology into my everyday life.

Thankfully I'm basically self-employed so I can still avoid it at work.

[Anonymous No.10891844]

>>10891834
And don't forget
>inflict this suffering upon new life so they can suffer and die in a chance that they might be a useful tool too

[Anonymous No.10891858]

>>10891844
>life is so bad that you shouldn't inflict it on others because literally nothing makes life worth its suffering
>i won't kill myself tho lol :)

[Anonymous No.10891865]

>>10891800
>This sounds like a fair and balanced representation of her views formulated after a long and healthy interview and deep, impartial reflection.
Not my fault if you are that accepting of pseudoscience formulated by people absolutely devoid of any sort of medical education.

>Maybe (just maybe) you misunderstand his logic
Or maybe you don't.

> If he doesn't want to drag his daughter into things then that's his decision to make
Do you know how an empirical evidence work? Without his daughter, and without any sort of literature, you have literally no reason whatsoever to trust this man. This is why he should have mentioned her: becuase it would give a clue to his readers about what is the result of his prescriptions. I'll also let you know that there are already systems in check to protect the privacy of a given patient, it's one of the basis of psichology scholarship.
At this point you're just arguing against the necessity of evidences in sciences.

>Ah, yes, and these don't count as people.
It doesn't count as qualifications for giving parenting advices, genius.

>Your argument boils down to the fact that you don't like what his daughter believes and therefore he's a horrific parent who can't give any advice, even about things unrelated to parenting. I'd call it parody if you weren't so frighteningly sincere. His daughter seems to be me to be happy, healthy, and well-adjusted; starting a young family and comfortably well-off, she can't have "failed" too bad and he clearly hasn't "failed" her to the disastrous extent you suggest.
This is honestly just rambling, since it starts from completely made up premises, for example that I simply do not like his daughter. I guess you can't see what's the problem here, since apparently you don't have any simpathy for critical thought (which she lacks) and the concept of empirical evidence (which you lack, making any discussion related to science incomprehensible to you)

[Anonymous No.10891879]

>>10891865
>Without his daughter, and without any sort of literature, you have literally no reason whatsoever to trust this man.
I trust him because he is credible. He is credible because of his background.

But don't think I trust him implicitly or completely. I trust that he is sincere in what he says and that he's thorough in his research, not that he's correct.

>parenting advices
You're attacking all of his advice, anon.

Or are you suggesting that none of his other advice could possibly be used to inform parenting decisions? If I told you that Peterson's parenting advice is simply the logical extension of the rest of his (empirically supported) knowledge into the child-rearing domain, what would you say?

Because that's literally what it is.

>Or maybe you don't.
I clearly understand it better than you do, because I'm not the fucking retard taking "don't throw stones if you live in glass houses" to mean "don't criticise anyone if you're not literal perfection."

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Anonymous No.10891903]

>>10891839
>I feel that objecting to laws because they are insufficiently dramatic and theatrical is perhaps the most the retarded thing I've ever heard.
I don't think you're capable of reading.

[Anonymous No.10891908]

>>10891903
You complained that the "oppressors" (still not sure who exactly you're referring to, feel free to give me at least one name) write bland and uninspired laws that make us feel bland and uninspired.

I find that an esoteric critique.

[Anonymous No.10891910]

>>10891858
i thought i was the only one who saw the hypocrisy.
i would rather suffer for eternity than die, at least pain is an experience.
i'll never understand athiests who hate life. if there's nothing after death,
doesn't that make living an amazing treasure?

[Anonymous No.10891926]

>>10891879
>I trust him because he is credible. He is credible because of his background
His background is not in these fields. I'm not disparaging his works with alcoholics.

>But don't think I trust him implicitly or completely. I trust that he is sincere in what he says and that he's thorough in his research, not that he's correct.
Yeah, you're believing him on his word, even though there is from his side no evidence, literature or source for his parenting advices. What is it that makes you trust him, the tone of his voice? His posture?

>You're attacking all of his advice, anon.
You've just made this point up.

>Or are you suggesting that none of his other advice could possibly be used to inform parenting decisions? If I told you that Peterson's parenting advice is simply the logical extension of the rest of his (empirically supported) knowledge into the child-rearing domain, what would you say?

I would tell you: nice, can you prove it? What he did? He hid every evidence he had. These kind of frauds are very common in this field, and even more so in self-help literature, since there is no reputable peer-reviewed journal for it.
That's how psichology, and virtually every other actual science, works, bucko.

>I clearly understand it better than you do, because I'm not the fucking retard taking "don't throw stones if you live in glass houses" to mean "don't criticise anyone if you're not literal perfection."
Keep telling yourself, at the end of the day you're the one equating empirical evidences in sciences to how much you like the guy. You're free to die on this worthless hill.

[Anonymous No.10891947]

>>10891926
>You've just made this point up.
No, it's the fucking crux of the issue.

Peterson advances a unified theory which explains alcoholism and child-rearing. You can't defeat the one without defeating the other because it's a unified theory. That's the point. He argues that alcoholics and children function the same (not surprising considering they're both fucking humans) and that lessons drawn from the one are applicable to the other.

>"where's the empirical evidence"
It's actually all there, if you watch his lectures where he explains the socialisation process of children and how falling behind developmentally leads to antisocial pathology in men that lands them in jail. But you haven't done this, and won't do this, and will instead refer back to his fucking daughter.

>He hid every evidence he had.
His daughter is not evidence, and even if she were evidence I'd say he's done a pretty good job with her because she seems happy, has income, a family, and isn't fucking dead or in gaol.

>You're free to die on this worthless hill.
Not for much longer if you have your way, I'm sure. Sic semper tyrannis.

[Anonymous No.10891951]

>>10891733
>Yes, and we do. The answer seems to be that their origins are biological.
this is exactly the opposite of what we have been finding
>we should change our system because it rewards gendered traits unfairly
this is what you and apparently peterson hear, but no
what's being said is we should change the system because rewarding gendered traits that are in actual practise not good at much else other than extracting compensation doesn't get us what we want. Take two nurses who exhibit the same level of competence, but one is better at negotiating a pay raise. If the system is about self selecting for people who are good at getting paid, fine. But we want a system that gets us good fucking nurses. If we have a shit nurse who's great at getting paid and a great nurse who's shit at getting paid there's something happening here where what we think we're selecting for isn't matching up with what we're actually selecting for, and it's a problem that manifests itself everywhere in society let alone in the market.

>>10891734
social conditioning is actually incredibly important. We're living in a time where we're directly experiencing the consequences of that discovery. The malleability of traditional roles is a function of that, what it's not is the consequence of some nefarious plot like peterson seems to imagine. People who want to exist outside those constraints are not the invention of some modern age, they've existed from the inception of those very constraints, and to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. Examining the manner by which they were developed—how they serve us, and how they don't—is not only natural but inevitable. There literally isn't a way for us to get all of humanity to stop and say "alright guys we did it this is it. There's nothing after it." It's straight up not possible. Frankly it should be way weirder to people that a guy who fetishizes the enlightenment to this extent is positioning himself to fight this process. Peterson has consistently described not an optimally designed self serving society, he's described a society optimally designed for him to understand and navigate. The attractiveness of that premise is of course going to be universal, but it's also fucking useless. All it does is what we see here: produce a school of thought that sacrifices discovery and self-knowledge for that feeling of just being right on the cusp of being able to meaningfully traverse the social landscape but being frustrated by the fact that it refuses to conform to a constructed fantasy.

[Anonymous No.10891978]

guys, you fall for the Peterson bait every fucking time, it's embarrassing to read all your stuff

[Anonymous No.10891979]

>>10891951
>this is exactly the opposite of what we have been finding
Nope.

Women are more agreeable than men no matter how you raise them. Even if you fuck up raising them to the point that they develop pathologies in your attempt to make them disagreeable, they even develop different pathologies to men.

In general, obviously.

>nurse who's good at getting paid versus nurse who's good at being a nurse
The market will select the company that pays the latter more than the former.

Now imagine this: your planned economy will reward the nurse who's good at getting paid even more than the "capitalist" economy, because the process of the market no longer applies. Instead bureaucrats like you (who are just as susceptible to being convinced by the nurse who's good at getting paid) who think they have the answer will impose diktats that make this inefficiency law. There will always be nurses who are better at getting paid than other nurses - the market provides companies incentive to ferret these nurses out and get rid of them for being inefficient. Your proposed "solution" destroys that self-check.

This is what I mean when I say trying to fix this problem while being totally ignorant of human constraints will just fuck everything up.

You need to think before posting.

[Anonymous No.10892056]

>>10891979
>The market will select the company that pays the latter more than the former.
no, and now you're entering the territory of a completely differrent set of issues. In a market where every participant is a) fully and reliably informed and b) always acts rationally, what you describe could hypothetically be observed. That's nowhere near applicable to our existing market, and furthermore those criterion will literally never be met in any market that is not strictly regulated, because a) it becomes directly beneficial to obfuscate information and b) human beings are not designed to (or "have not evolved to," if that's more attractive to the peterson in you) behave as perfectly rational market actors. So the question becomes how do you compensate for those things? This is exactly what we're trying to find out.

[Anonymous No.10892099]

> He reads self help books

[Anonymous No.10892103]

[Anonymous No.10892109]

>>10892099
even I, a person who is on the other side of peterson in almost every way other than his historical analysis of classical religions, don't think there's an inherent shame in wanting to help yourself. Sure, this may not be the ideal path to personal development, but we've all got that desire.

[Anonymous No.10892115]

>>10892103
>white male and straight
Ffs just say boomer and everyone will RT you

>>10892109
Yea but buying and reading self-help is fucking retarded and antithetical to actually improving yourself

[Anonymous No.10892137]

>>10892103
not an argument

[Anonymous No.10892147]

>>10890985
>peterson
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.10892156]

Lefty /pol/ really out here in force today
Hope no one posts excerpts from the Gulag Archipelago

[Anonymous No.10892166]

>>10892103
>tfw I'm like "Got em" and then I see that I'm agreeing with Laurie Penny

[Anonymous No.10892189]

>>10891908
They desire a bland and unspired population. They push this through media, laws, and changed social norms. The laws are not bland and unspired, the outcome from the laws is the continued and reinforced. That outcome being a more bland and unspired population.

Peterson supports this. For example, he doesn't seem to think trannies are mentally ill. Just that they should pick a gender and not be called xir.

[Anonymous No.10892275]

>>10892166
if you get the opportunity, you should kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10892298]

>>10892115
>Yea but buying and reading self-help is fucking retarded and antithetical to actually improving yourself
it takes a while to figure that shit out
it took me a while, anyways. It seems like a really appealing option at first: a succinct, neatly packaged philosophy of the self offered up for consumption that skips the work of having to research the ideas yourself. It's just one of the ways people start down that path. The encouraging bit is that if people are starting down that path it's pretty rare that that's where they stop

[Anonymous No.10892351]

>>10890994
thank god, I cant stand Peterson posting

[Anonymous No.10892803]

>>10891011
dat me

[Anonymous No.10892815]

>>10891210
>>10891267
I think that Maps of Meaning would be JBP's gesamtkunstwerk

[Anonymous No.10892865]

>>10891552
>he had to drop it
He just recently talked about doing keto, and said it was still working well for his auto-immune disorder. I also did keto for several months, but I had trouble gaining muscle like I did before so I had to quit. Shit's great for brain function. It's like fasting, but you're eating all three meals a day.

[Anonymous No.10893085]

Daddy

[Anonymous No.10893110]

>>10891011
>relentlessly mock people who grew up without a father figure due to the anti-family policies that you support while at the same time claiming that your politics are due to compassion and wanting to help the less fortunate in society

[Anonymous No.10893131]

>>10893110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhxBHlH5R04

[Anonymous No.10893224]

>>10891093
People who like him won't shut the fuck up about how great he is. People who dislike him won't shut the fuck up about how awful he is. Both sides continue until neither are actually talking about his presented material and everything devolves into a shit flinging contest.

It's the same for every recognizable figurehead on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10893279]

Someone post the joke about being crabby.

[Anonymous No.10893466]

>>10891408
The level of this criticism is LITERALLY at the level of
>perfect? well, um, EXCUSE ME, doctor peterson, but i'm afraid that a state of PERFECTION is unattainable
published criticism masquerading as intellectual thought
the absolute state of the world

this man has autism

>But if you can’t pay your student loans, or your rent, and you can’t get a better job, what use is it to tell you that you should adopt a confident lobster-posture?
actually i'm pretty sure that it could help a fair amount

i don't even "like" peterson, but christ, the state of his critics, my god, why are these people so dumb?

[Anonymous No.10893471]

>>10893131
>>10893110
lena dunham is so gross but i also want to fuck the shit out of her its weird

[Anonymous No.10893525]

>tl;dr
>Quit sulking and get your act together

I can understand JBP's sentiment but what bothers me is his presupposition.

If I get up and clean my act, I still die in the end.
I'm no different than the person who decided not to act on this 100 years down the road.

The wise man and the fool go to the same place in the end. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?

[Anonymous No.10893533]

>>10893525
um, because maybe you'll be a bit happier along the way?

[Anonymous No.10893583]

>>10893533
what does that matter 100 years from now?
who's to say the fool isn't happier in the end?

what difference does it make?
i find the overall argument extremely lacking in this sense

[Anonymous No.10894213]

>>10893466
>I don't even like peterson but wow this critique of him doesn't hold up!
every time

[Anonymous No.10894226]

>>10891979
>>10892056

[Anonymous No.10894273]

It's a book aimed at potential school shooters. (I'm only half kidding.)

[Anonymous No.10894303]

>>10894273
I mean, there is literally a chapter in the book about them.

[Anonymous No.10894428]

Mods are deleting peterson threads.

[Anonymous No.10894495]

Just started Oeconomicus by Xenophon and the first part of the treatise section is literally about cleaning your room and how the foundations of an estate are an ordered clean house (that you teach your wife how to manage.)

Peterson started with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.10894504]

>>10893525
Because you have an obligation to both the body politic and to God. Your life is not your own to do with as you please.

[Anonymous No.10894525]

>>10894504
Does Peterson even subscribe to a higher being, let alone God?

You can't just borrow from other worldviews when it suits your ideas.

[Anonymous No.10894527]

>>10894525
>You can't just borrow from other worldviews when it suits your ideas.

[Anonymous No.10894532]

>>10894525
he has de Maistre's view, he just uses god as a social cohesion mechanism, he doesn't take it seriously at all. If you hammer new christians hard enough it all comes down to real world desires they think religion will grant. They don't genuinely need God to explain reality at all, none of them are metaphysically inclined, spiritually inclined, philosophically oriented, its just a new way to feel superior and like they're healthy

[Anonymous No.10894536]

>>10894525
I was answering your question. I don't know what Peterson argues. He is a Christian, I don't think he is an anti-Liberal.

[Anonymous No.10894542]

>>10894536
>He is a Christian

[Anonymous No.10894550]

>>10894542
>no arguments just pictures and greentext quote your post

[Anonymous No.10894586]

>>10894527
>>10894532
pleb here, thanks for this insight on these philosophies

>>10894550
making baseless assumptions

[Anonymous No.10894629]

>>10891910
You are a retard. If you woudn't be born in the first place you wouldn't have to die. And you wouldn't regret that you weren't born.

[Anonymous No.10894727]

>>10892056
>no
So you're suggesting that the market will reward companies that are more inefficient?

Not to mention you failed to address my criticism of your alternative, which is that putting all the remuneration decisions in the hands of a central body does NOTHING to solve the "problem" you have pointed out and, in fact, makes it worse.

A pathetic rebuttal. Apply yourself.

>>10892189
>they
WHO

NAME JUST ONE PERSON.

Put a face to this faceless cabal that you are telling me I should hate.

>bland and uninspired
I don't feel like I'm living in particularly bland or uninspired times. I think you're nostalgic for places you've never even been.

>>10893583
It's not an "argument" in the existential sense. He is giving you practical advice about how to do things that let you feel better about yourself right now.

>but i feel fine about myself
Then why are you looking for his advice?

[Anonymous No.10894787]

>>10894727
>He is giving you practical advice about how to do things that let you feel better about yourself right now.

This is an assumption.

Ignorance is bliss for a reason.
With wisdom comes hardship and sorrow as King Solomon put it. How can you ensure this route will bring happiness?

>Then why are you looking for his advice?
I've provided my critique and highlighted its flaws. Flaws that garner responses akin to yours which really don't address the flaw at all.

>if you don't like what ____ is saying, move on
This is not a coherent response to any form of critique.

[Anonymous No.10894813]

>>10890985
Have read it, it's a good set of methods that connect intention to action, without being too proscriptive (and thus specific to a particular personality type) or too descriptive (and thus too abstract to be applicable with all the noise getting in the way of the signal of modern life). The stories he uses to illustrate his points effectively but also show that while they can be simple, they're sadly far from simplistic and can take quite a bit of mental fortitude at times (his drunken landlord toaster salesman incident comes immediately to mind).

[Anonymous No.10894832]

>>10890985
WHY THE FUCK IS THIS FUCKING SELF HELP GARBAGE ON A LITERATURE BOARD
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10894862]

>>10891511
I'm no fan of peterson, but seriously, why do people think companies give enough of a fuck about this shithole to pay for anonymous shills to come and promote some product? i mean, this place literally has *ads*, there's not even a fucking NEED for shills

[Anonymous No.10894889]

our guy likes him.

[Anonymous No.10894891]

>>10894862
This is very naive. Shilling is a very different way of advertising than a paid banner and it's no longer controversial that all kinds of organisations will pay people to promote them online.

[Anonymous No.10894892]

>>10894787
>happiness
If you'd read any Peterson or even watched his lectures you'd already know that he rejects happiness as a goal.

Nobody derives meaning in their lives from being happy. People derive meaning from their responsibilities.

>This is not a coherent response to any form of critique.
Your critique is not coherent.

[Anonymous No.10894894]

>>10894889
frogdad on the norm podcast when?

can't wait for adam eget to ask him where he gets his ideas from

[Anonymous No.10894903]

>>10894889
>clean your room
>WOAH HE CHANGED MY LIFE
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10894924]

>>10890985
>tfw you realize JBP is the Lacan of this era
How does it make you feel?

[Anonymous No.10894939]

why do we keep having these fucking threads

[Anonymous No.10894948]

>>10894924
Is Petersons critique of Postmodernists basically a selfcritique? Who forces him to do that? Stalin?

[Anonymous No.10894960]

>>10894948
One day Peterson will slip up in his facade and people will recognize him for the charlatan that he is.

[Anonymous No.10894987]

>>10894960
>charlatan
What exactly is his deception?

[Anonymous No.10895076]

>>10891733
nigga why are you on /lit/ if you cant read?
Correlation ain't causation, so unless you have a direct mechanism linking it to a biological process, you and JP don't know shit

[Anonymous No.10895092]

>>10895076
>unless you have a direct mechanism linking it to a biological process
The groundwork for this has been done and more is being uncovered every day.

There are indeed biological processes that we can already link to emotions and personalities. That's how antidepressants work, as well as other psych drugs. There is literally zero evidence that consciousness is derived from any other source than the fucking brain, and plenty of evidence that it's not. This being the case, the physical structure of your brain must explain all aspects of your consciousness - i.e. that even if you "learn" certain behaviours these have to be stored physically in your brain somehow, much like saved data on a computer is burned into a hard drive platter.

Lo and behold, male and female brains are physically different. Do you think this may perhaps explain some of the differences in the ways that men and women behave?

Better yet: you don't even need to think. It's true regardless of whether or not you believe it, and all the empirical data backs that up. If you get a bullet to the brain, destroying the physical structure from where your consciousness and your behavioural patterns are derived, your brain stops working.

Nobody says "blood flow through your body has some strange unknowable unfathomable source!" It is caused by the fucking heart. Same with you and your brain.

[Anonymous No.10895097]

>>10894939
Shills from Petersons book company. I hope you fuckers know I'm torrenting this shit if I ever get around to reading it.

[Anonymous No.10895101]

>>10895092
>what is the gut-brain axis

[Anonymous No.10895102]

>>10891525
>don't try and fix the world because you can't even fix yourself

[Anonymous No.10895105]

>>10895101
Not magic.

[Anonymous No.10895106]

>>10895092
>what is epigenetics

[Anonymous No.10895107]

>>10895106
Not magic.

[Anonymous No.10895118]

>>10895092
White middle class boys in their early 20s who took one biology class in university are the worst, you learned how one thing works now you think this is how the rest works. pathetic

[Anonymous No.10895122]

>>10892156
>MUH SAFE SPAAACE

[Anonymous No.10895126]

>>10895118
And how many biology classes have you taken, Mr Aspiring WRITER.

Not to mention that I am restating Peterson's thesis, you fucking retard. He doesn't take the classes, he teaches them.

[Anonymous No.10895130]

>>10895126
>implying I'm a writer and not a PhD biologist

Then again, how would you know?

[Anonymous No.10895134]

>>10895130
>implying you're a PhD biologist
>attempting to pre-emptively forestall being called out on obvious bullshit with a nod and a wink of "well I know it's bullshit :) but believe me anyway"
lel

[Anonymous No.10895140]

>>10895134
>projecting

You really are in your early 20s (then again, why would you need to 'follow' Peterson if you were more mature?)

[Anonymous No.10895145]

>>10895140
Post your doctorate with timestamp or just fuck off.

This merry-go-round of no-u achieves nothing.

Don't expect further reply in the absence of the above.

[Anonymous No.10895148]

>>10895092

> Brain is where the thinking happen
Yeah no shit. The brain also has a huge degree of plasticity. The environment you grow up in, the culture that surrounds you, the people you interact with and the food you eat affects how your brain develops and thus your personality and thoughts.

That's why its so hard to understand why male and female brains are different and in what ways, because its pretty much impossible to separate the local societal influences on the brain from the raw genetic influences. And thats' not even accounting for epigenetics.

[Anonymous No.10895151]

>>10895118
>>10895126
>>10895130
>>10895134
>>10895140
>>10895145
wth is wrong with you

[Anonymous No.10895157]

>>10895148
>Yeah no shit. The brain also has a huge degree of plasticity. The environment you grow up in, the culture that surrounds you, the people you interact with and the food you eat affects how your brain develops and thus your personality and thoughts.
This is a platitude.

Men and women are universally different in the same ways across all of humanity regardless of culture, and their brains are universally different in the same ways across all of humanity regardless of culture.

>"MERE COINCIDENCE"
Laughable.

[Anonymous No.10895172]

>>10895157
>This is a platitude
Its proven truth; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409833/

>Men and women are universally different in the same ways across all of humanity regardless of culture, and their brains are universally different in the same ways across all of humanity regardless of culture.

citation needed

[Anonymous No.10895187]

>>10895172
>that article
It literally boils down to "your brain gets better at things it does a lot."

It does not, in any way, shape, or form, support your assertion that women being more agreeable than men is a purely cultural artefact.

>citation needed
Peterson, J. B., Dr. (2018). 12 Rules for Life.

[Anonymous No.10895205]

>>10895187
>when you're stuck in youtube ideology

[Anonymous No.10895206]

>>10895187
>It does not, in any way, shape, or form, support your assertion that women being more agreeable than men is a purely cultural artefact.

Read it again. Or rather, just read it; and then use your own head dear.

Nu age self help books are not a valid citation.

[Anonymous No.10895218]

>>10895206
>Read it again.
It literally does not suggest what you claim it does. I can't read what isn't there.

It says that brains get good at things they do a lot. It says nothing about why brains would be doing those things in the first place.

If we're "examining how gendered traits arise" that's the fundamental question, which your study DOES NOT ANSWER.

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.10895223]

>>10895206
>An important direction for cognitive neuroscience of culture will be to develop broader frameworks that go beyond East Asian and Western cultures and to consistently consider the possibility that observed effects may not be determined by cultural values or experiences but may instead result from differences in diet, health, and even genetics.
I bet you wish I hadn't read that, anon.

[Anonymous No.10895231]

>>10895223
I did mention the influence of diet, health and epigenetics in my previous post.

[Anonymous No.10895236]

>>10895223
>I bet you wish I hadn't read that, anon.

reads like

>you have triggered my trap card!!!

[Anonymous No.10895240]

>>10895231
No you didn't, you just >memearrowed them.

The fact is that you have no idea what you're talking about and just threw up the first study you could find on Google which doesn't even support your claim.

And this is why people like me believe people like Peterson over people like you.

[Anonymous No.10895329]

>>10894727
>your alternative
this is the very definition of a strawman. The only person talking about putting "all remuneration decisions in the hands of a central body" is literally you. You say your point goes unaddressed but you don't have any actual answer to what I've said here. This is where the most obvious lie is
>So you're suggesting that the market will reward companies that are more inefficient?
no such suggestion was made. This entire discussion is about correcting for the issues that have arisen in an insufficiently regulated market, namely: what do we want our society and the systems that are products of our society to be efficient at?

As was literally stated in the post you are supposedly "responding" to, if you don't correct for the fact that spreading disinformation and muddying the water to make it difficult to identify inefficiency in delivering the actual product, THAT's what companies will and currently are efficient at doing. If you don't correct for the fact that compensation is tied to factors that often are unrelated to the actual deliverable being sought, THAT's what you're going to be self-selecting for. If you don't correct for the fact that humans are not rational market actors, do not behave perfectly rationally or even in their own best interests, and can largely be influenced by factors that are not actually pertinent to the services they purchase for, THAT's what you're going to have companies succeed by exploiting. All of this requires a cohesive plan of attack to regulate and fix. What you keep (hopefully) pretending not to understand, and god I hope it's pretending because the veracity with which you seem to miss the point implies devastating learning disability otherwise, is that a company A that is less efficient at delivering a product than a company B but more efficient at convincing people they're the best option and/or that B is shit, will always win out. It's currently playing out over and over before your very eyes. If you want to make it purely a race of efficiency relevant to delivering the product, which you clearly do because it's the entirety of your argument, you need to make it so A is not able to use those avenues to its advantage. You need to make efficiency in those fields irrelevant. You need expansive, comprehensive, and diligently enforced regulation. Telling yourself otherwise is a fantasy. Telling others otherwise is pure disrespect of their intelligence.

You are doing a fuckload of transparent posturing and not much else.

[Anonymous No.10895334]

>>10893466
>perfect? well, um, EXCUSE ME
what the actual fuck are you talking about
the criticism is "at best he is taking platitudes, obscuring them with gibberish, and passing them off as deep philosophical truths; at worst he is just making shit up and avoiding at all costs having to actually explain what it is he thinks he's getting at." Do you just have poor reading comprehension or were you hoping that people would just take you at your word and not bother to look at the contents of the actual article?

[Anonymous No.10895406]

>>10894727
>your alternative
this is the very definition of a strawman. The only person talking about putting "all remuneration decisions in the hands of a central body" is literally you. You say your point goes unaddressed but you don't have any actual answer to what I've said here. This is where the most obvious lie is
>So you're suggesting that the market will reward companies that are more inefficient?
no such suggestion was made. This entire discussion is about correcting for the issues that have arisen in an insufficiently regulated market, namely: what do we want our society and the systems that are products of our society to be efficient at?

Re-stated for clarity: as was literally stated in the post you are supposedly "responding" to, if you don't correct for the fact that spreading disinformation and muddying the water to make it difficult to identify inefficiency in delivering the actual product is extremely effective on a large scale, THAT's what companies will be (and currently are) efficient at doing. If you don't correct for the fact that compensation is tied to factors that often are unrelated to the actual deliverable being sought, THAT's what you're going to be self-selecting for. If you don't correct for the fact that humans are not rational market actors, do not behave perfectly rationally or even in their own best interests, and can largely be influenced by factors that are not actually pertinent to the services they purchase, THAT's what you're going to have companies succeed by exploiting.

All of this requires organised efforts to regulate and fix. What you keep (hopefully) pretending not to understand, and god I hope it's pretending because the veracity with which you seem to miss the point otherwise implies a devastating learning disability, is that a company A that is less efficient at delivering a product than a company B but more efficient at convincing people they're the best option and/or that B is shit, will always win out. It's currently playing out over and over before your very eyes. If you want to make it purely a race of efficiency relevant to delivering the product, which you clearly do because it's the entirety of your argument, you need to make it so A is not able to use those avenues to its advantage. You need to make efficiency in those extraneous fields irrelevant. You need expansive, comprehensive, and diligently enforced regulation. Telling yourself otherwise is a fantasy. Telling others otherwise is pure disrespect of their intelligence.

You are doing a fuckload of transparent posturing and not much else.

[Anonymous No.10895465]

>>10894892
>>>10894787

>If you'd read any Peterson or even watched his lectures you'd already know that he rejects happiness as a goal.

He wouldn't reject the idea of people feeling better about themselves as a result of undertaking such responsibilities that could very well lead to happiness. Stop nitpicking.

>Nobody derives meaning in their lives from being happy. People derive meaning from their responsibilities.

My point still stands though. What difference does it make and how can you guarantee that? You can't.

>Your critique is not coherent.
>I know you are but what am I?
Another incoherent statement...

[Anonymous No.10895494]

>D A D D Y

[Anonymous No.10895536]

>>10894987
>>10894924
>it's all science and shiet, trust me
>also donate $50 to my patreon so that your life could get in order

[Anonymous No.10895542]

http://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left

http://archive.is/vvwVo

[Anonymous No.10895651]

>>10891834
>>10891844
This never got said

[Anonymous No.10895680]

>>10895542
>random roastie not getting she has it easier than men
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX2ep5fCJZ8

[Anonymous No.10895719]

>>10895680

[Anonymous No.10895874]

>>10895406
>no such suggestion was made
Then on what fucking basis do you dare allege that what I said won't happen - that inefficient companies that don't ferret out impostors won't be out-competed by more efficient companies that do?

>"BUT SOME INEFFICIENCIES WILL REMAIN"
Not for the lack of trying to stamp them out, you spastic, which is the point. The fact that the current system isn't literal perfection is not an argument against it.

The ONLY argument against the current system is that you have a better alternative and you fucking don't, so shut the fuck up.

You can write paragraph after paragraph but the simple fact is that if you don't present an alternative then no matter how accurate your criticisms are the exercise is pointless.

>A makes a better product but B gets all the sales
Yeah, righto fucking Stalin. YOUR decision about which product is better is clearly so much more important and valid than everyone else's. We should just put you in charge of the economy so you can tell us what the best products are and we can only make those.

Jesus, you fucking people make me sick.

[Anonymous No.10895882]

>>10895465
>He wouldn't reject the idea of people feeling better about themselves as a result of undertaking such responsibilities that could very well lead to happiness. Stop nitpicking.
It's not nitpicking.

You asked "how would X make me happy?"
The answer is "stop trying to be happy."

>What difference does it make
It makes a difference in how people think about themselves.

>"NUH UH NOT ME I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE I AM AN INSIGNIFICANT IRRELEVANT PIECE OF SHIT"
ok

[Anonymous No.10895900]

>>10895874
You in turn acknowledge the problem and then spend the rest of your time convincing yourself that the problem is actually a good thing, it's fucking impressive

[Anonymous No.10895907]

>>10895900
This from Mr. "The World Would Be A Better Place If Only Products I Approved Of Personally Were Manufactured, But Don't Call Me A Tinpot Dictator."

Have you considered killing yourself? I highly recommend it.

[Anonymous No.10895973]

>>10895874
More specifically, You admitting the problem must be stamped out is already just you straight up agreeing with my point and abandoning your own. Then not to seconds later you're feverishly trying to say that the continued efforts to stamp them out through regulation is unconscionable. You have to understand why I'm having trouble figuring out if you're fucking for real. The only way you manage to keep circling back to your completely meritless argument is by repeatedly ignoring the fact that the issue is you're aiming the competition takes place on the plane of the s service that's being provided by then and sought by the customer. Beyond a bare minimum of competence, efficiency at that service becomes almost irrelevant. Instead, when companies start operating at greater scale, what's rewarded is efficiency at messaging, efficiency at undermining your competition, efficiency at pretty much everything other than the actual space the consumer needs them to be competing at. The fucking incredible irony is that as of this moment I know even you aren't stupid enough to deny this, because you straight up just finished acknowledging this issue is one to be stamped out. That you follow it up by immediately and bizarrely trying to imply that taking any further action in that direction would be unthinkable is moronic, yes, but based on the "logic" you've put on display how could I expect any different

[Anonymous No.10895981]

>>10890985
I'm just kind of regurgitating opinion here. I've watched his videos, and it seems clear to me that because there is an anthropological need for religion in society, the continuing degradation of religious values gives rise to postmodernism. He thinks this will lead to false prophets arising, and he's right.

People have been centering around a person who gives easy morals without a lot of thought. This person just published the 12 commandments that you should live by without justifying the underlying philosophy. JBP is the exact thing he's fighting against, just with traditional religious values.

[Anonymous No.10895990]

>>10895907
You have consistently tried to take this to a place where you try to claim I'm saying an individual or group of individuals decide on what products get manufactured, and I wonder if you are that bad at reading, if you fundamentally don't understand the difference between control over what products exist and control over HOW products are brought to market, or if you're unaware of how obvious it is that you're completely fabricating an entire side of the "argument" you're engaged in

[Anonymous No.10895996]

>>10895973
>Then not to seconds later you're feverishly trying to say that the continued efforts to stamp them out through regulation is unconscionable.
If you want to propose a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-limited goal and a regulation that you think achieves the goal then I am more than happy to judge that specific proposal on its merits.

I will not and will never give you blanket fucking approval to implement whatever the fuck you want.

If I did, you'd have transformed this place into a planned economy already.

You expect me to say yes without telling me your plan, and for that you can get fucked.

[Anonymous No.10895997]

>>10895990
>You have consistently tried to take this to a place where you try to claim I'm saying an individual or group of individuals decide on what products get manufactured
It's easy to speak for you when you refuse to speak for yourself.

Stop bitching and propose a solution.

[Anonymous No.10896027]

>>10895996
You literally already have, by agreeing that regulation is necessary. Now it's just of la matter of exploring to find exactly that, which methods of regulation bring the system more in line with what we want. It's exactly the process we're engaged in today, and that we need to unabashedly dedicate ourselves to. The idea that even trying to consider these avenues is unthinkable just can't hold, it's completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.10896042]

>>10896027
>You literally already have, by agreeing that regulation is necessary
I never disagreed about this.

I simply think that you are the very last person on the entire fucking planet who should be in charge of formulating and implementing the regulation.

This argument, by the way, is a stupid fucking tangent that you have drawn us down and has nothing to do with how gendered traits arise.

[Anonymous No.10896043]

>>10893583
>what does that matter 100 years from now?

Why do you even care what happens in a 100 years from now, that's the question. Your life is in this moment, so make the best of it.