/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19011293]

>Using Lobster behavior to justify wealth inequality.
Why do people take Evolutionary Psychology seriously?

[Anonymous No.19011297]

>>19011293
Has there ever been a Jordan Peterson critic who has actually read his work or listened to his podcasts?

[Anonymous No.19011302]

I have never watched jorden peterson but you guys seem to be very into him. but besides that.
>Why do people take Evolutionary Psychology seriously?
do you believe in evolution? either micro or macro? do you believe the human animal is an animal and thus follows said principles?
Why wouldnt you take evolutionary psychology seriously. Not saying its the extent of human psychology society and whatever and the human ability to make new constructs, but I think its asinine to not believe a good measure of the human psychy would be the product of evolutionary pressures.

[Anonymous No.19011303]

>Why do stupid believe believe convenient and accessible things
Big think time.

[Anonymous No.19011306]

>>19011293
He was trying to make a point about game theory which applies to all animals but he's a retard and didnt really know what he was talking about. The existence of dominance hierarchies as a relatively stable pattern resulting from conflict between members of the same species is a very basic point

[Anonymous No.19011312]

>>19011302
There is no point trying to explain this to evopsych critics, they just refuse to get it. Their brains seem to malfunction if you ask them where if not from evolution did our psychology and behavior come from.

[Anonymous No.19011315]

>>19011302
*psyche

[Anonymous No.19011322]

>>19011297

[Anonymous No.19011334]

>>19011302
I just think it's kind of convenient how everybody who talks about EP somehow comes to the conclusion that it perfectly justifies their worldview.

[Anonymous No.19011348]

>>19011302
>asinine
new word for the day

[Anonymous No.19011394]

>>19011334
I do not believe I espoused any particular worldveiw in my statement. And I would wager that general concept probably applies to any overarching megastructure. Like historical materialism or capitalism or christianity or behaviorism.

Also its kind of implied that whatever worldveiw an indivigual has, of course they would probably justify it with some structure. otherwise that wouldn't be their worldview baka.

[Anonymous No.19011406]

>>19011322
such a bad writer

[Anonymous No.19011409]

>>19011302
>do you believe in evolution?
No.

[Anonymous No.19011424]

>>19011394
It is true that it's nearly impossible to get good evidence for anything in evopsych. This is true also of evolutionary biology in general. But the principle remains: if the feature exists it was selected for, at the least it didnt outright hinder reproductive fitness.

[Anonymous No.19011449]

>>19011424
You should check out the YouTube channel of Edward Dutton, who claims that traits and beliefs that he doesn't like i.e. left-wing ones are all recent mutations that make people less fit.

[Anonymous No.19011467]

>>19011449
I will pass lol. The theory about civilizations collapsing due to dysgenic cycles is more interesting though. Forget who came up with it but there was a little paper

[Anonymous No.19011484]

>>19011467
I haven't watched this one yet, but I can already tell it's a gem.
Just a reminder that this guy is one of those people who constantly bitches about "men not being men anymore".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUsRq0XSDU

[Anonymous No.19011488]

there's nothing to "justify". wealth inequality objectively exists. the end.

[Anonymous No.19011495]

>>19011484
Bro why do you even know this exists let alone spend time watching it

[Anonymous No.19011515]

>>19011495
Because I'm a masochist who likes listening to crazy people.

[Anonymous No.19011543]

>>19011515
That's some 2009 YouTube new atheism tier content, he even has the mask

[Anonymous No.19011564]

>>19011409
oh, ok then.
>>19011424
What do you mean by "good evidence"
I agree there are a lot of hypothetical claims that really are just that, but basic concepts like that of reproductive success perpetuating the traits of that organism seem to be pretty well founded.
>>19011449
donesnt really sound strictly ev psych to me. Of course, a lot of grass roots arguements tend to take aspects of something then kinda string them to a particular fashion and make.

[Anonymous No.19011567]

>>19011543
Yah a real relic. It should be preserved and placed in a museum for posterities sake.

[Anonymous No.19011582]

>>19011564
> basic concepts like that of reproductive success perpetuating the traits of that organism seem to be pretty well founded.
Of course. That part is tautological if you accept evolution. I mean specific theories about "functions" of behaviors.

[Anonymous No.19011609]

>>19011297
Of course. Most people are not faux intellectuals with daddy issues though.

[Anonymous No.19011626]

>>19011582
>I mean specific theories about "functions" of behaviors.
well of course, by their very nature they are theoretical models. Same as any other in a scientific field. Some hold more or less water. A major problem is that practical experimentation is somewhat limited due to the lifespan of humans and the fact that controlling for variables would be distasteful by and large for a study group. Although, I think there were a few done in Israel, but idk.

[Anonymous No.19011632]

>>19011609
>Most people are not faux intellectuals with daddy issues though.
are you sure about that anon?

[Anonymous No.19011648]

>>19011626
>. A major problem is that practical experimentation is somewhat limited
You're understating the case lol. Not only is experimentation basically impossible but the conditions of our ancestral environment are literally unknowable, we cant go back and record how it worked.

I'm still very sympathetic to speculation but we have to admit it is speculation.

[Anonymous No.19011656]

>>19011302
Nah I don’t believe in evolution

[Anonymous No.19011678]

>>19011297
>Has there ever been a Jordan Peterson critic who has actually read his work or listened to his podcasts?
The funny thing is I've been listening to people screech about JBP for years now especially on this board, and I've yet to encounter 1 single solitary good argument against anything he has ever said, not once in what must be thousands and thousands of posts. The closest anyone comes is the actual retard polacks who don't try to disguise their fallacious behavior or ideology, but they clearly have it on record that Peterson refuses to address the Jewish question.

This is legitimately impressive to me. I don't even like Peterson, I think all libertarian types are morons coasting off past legacies, but the fact that all of this energy exists against him can't manage to form a single coherent reason for its existence is so fucking crazy I can't even begin to explain it.

The more I think about this fact the less I can understand how it's possible.

[Anonymous No.19011680]

>>19011648
well of course, but just like historiography (and in a way Marxist materialism, or wider political theory in an adjacent categories) the lack of easy testing does not disregard the whole project, as, like you said, there definitely are tautological processes occurring if you accept evolution. So speculation is far from baseless. you can still make data models and the like to better support or wane a claim.

[Anonymous No.19011689]

>>19011406
he's writing for bad readers

[Anonymous No.19011695]

>>19011689
>he's writing
doubt it
all of his self help books are probably ghost written for pennies

they're that garbage

[Anonymous No.19011704]

>>19011695
its reads exactly the same as his other stuff
it's pretty impressive how persistent that dully cogent academic style can be

[Anonymous No.19011706]

>>19011302
>do you believe in evolution?
No, Im not a dirty hylic.

[Anonymous No.19011720]

>>19011302
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/#BioVsEvoPsy

[Anonymous No.19011724]

Psychology itself is a joke field. Evolutionary psychology is even more of a joke because no data exists. Trying to analyze the behaviors of people removed thousands of years from you, through the view of modernism is just absolutely fucking ridiculous and anyone with half a brain should be disgusted at the claims made by 'evolutionary psychologists'.

[Anonymous No.19011725]

>>19011293
Peterson isn't an evolutionary psychologist; he was a practising clinical psychologist as well as a research psychologist (specializing in addictions and neurobehavioural disorders).
That being said, his analogy concerning lobsters has to do with the fact that they are a species that dates back to the Early Cretaceous and that they display behaviour that is regulated by neurotransmitters found in other species (e.g. humans). Animal models are commonplace in science and using one as a reference doesn't render someone a pseud/crackpot (e.g. squids were used in the early experiments that established the foundation for much of what we know regarding nerve function). Continuing with the analogy--lobsters exposed to medications that we use in the treatment of depression show behavioural patterns one would associate with increased motivation (obviously, lobsters are rudimentary creatures when it comes to behaviour and no one is saying they'd benefit from something like cognitive therapy in order to regain their sense of meaning as lobsters). Nothing wrong.

Now, Peterson also points out that dominance hierarchies are a big part of lobster behaviour. He makes no claim that such hierarchies are as complex as those we experience within human society. Rather, he argues that such hierarchies are naturalistic (and prehistoric). Contrary to an oversimplification--Peterson argues that it is dangerous to politically enforce heavyhanded ideologically based characterizations that ignore how central such systems are when it comes to a societal scale. At this point, the scientific argument becomes a metaphor regarding the danger of fabricating a utopian society that ignores reality. It's that simple.

Full disclaimer: I had Peterson as a professor. He has become a media personality--a talking-head with a closed set of refined and simplified messages with which he interacts broadly with the public. Basically, he's boiled down what works and it becomes feed for midwits (hence conversations concerning him revolving around idiotic, or at best disingenuous, interpretations regarding his lobster metaphor). Most people don't even realize that his biggest influence, at least as far as his public persona goes, is Carl Rogers; most people ignore the fact he's a philosophically-minded psychologist (influenced by Binswanger/Boss as well as Jung) and not a philosopher influenced by psychoanalysis (i.e. "Wow, Zizek sure BTFO'd him in a conversation about Marxism").

As far as fair criticism of Peterson and his ideas go, you can start with (pic). First, realize that Peterson is well aware of the (political/cultural) dark side of his influences. He himself admits frequently that the realization he was susceptible to the social forces that created the Nazis was perhaps the biggest turning point in his life as an intellectual. However, he doesn't go deeply into this as the public sphere is dominated by midwits. (con)

[Anonymous No.19011739]

>>19011424
No, it can be easily tested. One of the examples that I have heard the most in this regard was the falsification of the theory that homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage for the relatives of homosexual individuals because they cooperate more in raising the children with whom they are related (mainly nephews) . Imagine that I theorize that men are attracted to big boobs because they produce more milk, to prove or falsify this it would be enough to measure milk production according to the size of the breast.

[Anonymous No.19011743]

>>19011725
(con) There was an actor who expressed he learned much about himself and racism by being motivated to beat a (black) man because a friend had been beaten and raped by one--and subsequent media backlash that follows him to this day Looking at what midwits do with his lobster metaphor--imagine what they'd do if he elaborated on his realization that he himself could have become a fellow traveler with history's biggest historical boogeyman. We won't see conversations on that intellectual level because of midwits--stay satisfied by lobster gotchas.

[Anonymous No.19011757]

>believes in God
>believes man is higher than beasts
>likens man to lobster to prove his innate belief

Intellectuals are useless

[Anonymous No.19011759]

>>19011680
We can but a very large dose of suspension of judgment needs to be maintained. There are a ton of sciences where people just refuse to admit the unavoidable uncertainty inherent to the field.

I still think we can work with speculation though. I mean it is quite reasonable to guess that eg. mate-guarding serves an evolutionary purpose rather than being a socially determined behavior or whatever.

[Anonymous No.19011775]

>>19011739
This is not actually testing the process of evolution. This might seem pedantic but it's not. It's amassing evidence that makes educated guesses stand on better ground but it's not literally testing the evolutionary process.

Your breast milk example does not actually prove the origin of male attraction to large breasts even if larger breasts do actually produce more milk.

[Anonymous No.19011778]

>>19011757
>believe in evil
>believes man has a great propensity for it
>uses metaphor regarding ancient species to describe why ideological utopianism is myopic

You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.19011782]

>>19011757
This. Evolution is a filthy lie

[Anonymous No.19011811]

>>19011678
Also a fan of JBP for about 3-4 years now. I did come across one decent rib jab about a month ago from another poster. They pointed out that JBP claimed in a few different sources that he believed the caduceus (and various civilizations' analogs) was a depiction of an inherent understanding of the double-helix structure of DNA. It sounded pretty ludicrous to me, firstly the idea, secondly that JBP would claim he believed it. It turned out to be true though, and I rediscovered a detailed blog post on the issue for your convenience:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/jordan-peterson-believes-ancient-chinese-had-knowledge-of-dna-double-helix
JBP does take a bit of step back on the issue later on when pushed on the topic post-biblical lecture I believe, saying that he actually "speculating" that it is plausible. I still love the man, and he is fairly well grounded across the board that this can be fairly easily shelved, but it is something to keep in mind.

[Anonymous No.19011825]

>>19011778
I don't think that wanting there to be a more equal distribution of wealth is inherently utopian. It would be just as simple as raising taxes and introducing some new regulations. Oh, but we can't do that because then we'd be living in a Stalinist state. Addressing inequality would actually make totalitarianism less likely, imagine if Nicholas II had reformed the government and given his people a constitution when there was still time, do you think things would have turned out nearly as bad?

[Anonymous No.19011938]

>>19011775
Human women have teats, something that females of other primate species only have when they are in their fertile stage of the cycle. then there must be a reason for them to have them, if there is no reason it would be a by product of another evolutionary trait. This is where the experimentation takes place, you could theorize that it is because they produce more milk (assuming that more milk increases the baby's chances of survival) or because they are simply more attractive to men (as in the case of other primates). To see which explanation is more likely you just measure the volume of milk in relation to the size of the teat. If there is a correlation, the first hypothesis is checked, if not then the second is more likely. To see how much sense the second hypothesis makes, one can compare genetically close species and see what differences exist for this trait to have evolved.

[Anonymous No.19011945]

>>19011938
They could be primarily due to sexual selection and still produce more milk. Or vice versa. You cant know, that's the issue

[Anonymous No.19011955]

>>19011825
First, no one is arguing political reform is inherently utopian (that's a strawman). Second, raising taxes isn't simple and neither is the introduction of "new regulations" (you are in fact being naive/utopian in assuming fundamental change is quick/easy). Third, to have the effect you're assuming (keeping in mind that you're ignoring the political process itself) the government would have to act in an autocratic way (not explicitly Stalinist in character, but no one is making that argument anyway). Fourth, your historical argument is retarded. Crises were mishandled and reforms meant to quell political unrest actually exacerbated them (i.e. hindsight is 20/20 but there's a reason counterfactual history is considered a no-no). Further, there's no analogy concerning the nature of reforms relevant to feudal monarchy operating in the 19th century and the technocratic corporatism we have now (If anything, the lesson is ideology is dangerous be it as a means to uphold a conservative political system or as a means to reform). Aside, it also ignores the fact that the Soviet Union inherited mechanisms (e.g. secret police) that served its totalitarian nature (i.e. there's organic continuity between a state's actions and character--you can't determine the unintended consequences of empowering a government).

Conclusion--you provided further evidence that you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.19011979]

>>19011945
Faggot, you said that evolutionary theories can’t be proved, they can. As I pointed you could use experimentation to prove or disprove something as “men are attracted to big tits because they produce more milk”. You test if big tits=more milk. If it’s true then that’s the reason(even if it’s not the only reason), if it’s not then there should be another reason

[Anonymous No.19012000]

>>19011979
Youd have to literally have separate populations of homo sapiens under identical conditions and test only the variable of milk production in relation to breast size. You can't do it

[Anonymous No.19012005]

>>19011293
Im done trying to argue with critics of peterson, you're side has said your part and we've said ours. All thats left is to hope for some kind of reunion, some guise upon which we are allowed to fight civilly, just dont complain when your teeth end up on the curb

[Anonymous No.19012022]

>>19011811
I don't rightly see the issue. He never elaborates why he thinks this is true and the word 'representation' affords the statement a certain amount of liberty. The title in that url is definitely twisting his words in eagerness for its own conclusion.

[Anonymous No.19012033]

>right wing populist is a charlatan
never could have seen this coming

[Anonymous No.19012036]

>>19012022
https://youtu.be/Nb5cBkbQpGY?t=6354
here's the video with the timestamp btw
'representation of DNA' isn't analogous at all to saying ancient people knew the physical appearance of molecules

[Anonymous No.19012055]

>>19012022
>The title in that url is definitely twisting his words in eagerness for its own conclusion.
That's generous, considering the entire blogpost reads like an angry lesbian wrote it in her menstrual fluid.

[Anonymous No.19012066]

>>19011782
Retard

[Anonymous No.19012081]

>>19011297
You dont need to. He doesn't live by his own principles.

[Anonymous No.19012088]

>>19011938
Your fault lies in assuming that those two are the ONLY possible explanations.

[Anonymous No.19012119]

>>19012088
It’s just a hypothetical example nigger

[Anonymous No.19012143]

>>19011811
I mean our bodies are double helix shaped, albeit one rung with a head on top. But we are symmetrical about the middle like dna is.

I heard this claim too and it just made me think of times i've been retardedly high and in an introspective state. You get intuitions of things. If you were to consider a starting state of nothing, and you wanted to build a living thing from nothing, how would you start?

Maybe you have a long string that runs from head to toe and have strings branching off the become expand to form the flesh and the limbs. You start messing around with the mechanics of such a system. How does it copy itself? A new string sticks onto it and maps where it has branched off. Starting to look something like dna. But you see how the shape can be intuited at if even for the wrong reasons.

I don't know what role those ancient people considered the double helix to take, but I wouldn't be surprised if they considered it the mechanism for replication. If you take yourself to the edges of schizo-land, you can get similar thoughts maybe. But you probably don't have time for that kind of self exploration. Got bills and shiet.

[Anonymous No.19012157]

>>19012119
>It’s just a hypothetical example nigger
Well it isn't, because it's one of the principal mistakes I see from evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychology talks of a possibility for a certain behavior to spread in the population, but not evidence of it

[Anonymous No.19012183]

>>19011678
Same here man.

[Anonymous No.19012191]

>>19011678
>he closest anyone comes is the actual retard polacks who don't try to disguise their fallacious behavior or ideology, but they clearly have it on record that Peterson refuses to address the Jewish question
Dont think too much about that or you'll start noticing a whole bunch of "well they just refuse to talk about that" moments

[Anonymous No.19012209]

>>19011743
Do you think we have seen the best of Peterson? His fame has made him a public persona now and perhaps he plays it safe now and will because of that simply not go in to a lot of things that he would have gone in on had he not blown up? I fear that. I think he still has things to say that he haven't but might not say due to his new status.

[Anonymous No.19012211]

>>19011348
must be esl retard

[Anonymous No.19012220]

>tfw in the new interview his Prager guests talk about how accepting Israel is the dividing line between left and right wing
…..well putting THAT aside….just watch Jordan’s Biblical Lectures

[Anonymous No.19012221]

>>19011293
as others mentioned, jbp isn't an evolutionary psychologist in general, he's more or less a jungian psychologist, which is hardly a science at all and more of a literary-academic exercise, and in his mythic criticism i think jbp actually produces good work. But, as for this particular argument, evolutionary psychology is useful because it can explain the genetic incentives which drive certain social phenomena. essentially, lobsters (and by extension humans, peterson would say) are hierarchical by nature, which is why we see hierarchies based on fitness in human economics and in human reproductive pairings. that is, i think we could agree, true. but what jbp does that no respectable evolutionary psychologist would ever do is justify that hierarchy because it is natural. an evolutionary psychologist would merely say: here are the factors which motivate this behavior. it's up to the pundit class (which jbp basically aligns himself with) to produce a judgment ex post facto. what's more is i think that a lot of peterson's peers in archetypal psychology would probably be just as comfortable arguing the opposite of peterson, that because our hierarchies are rooted in our basest animal instincts, we should struggle against them and instead craft a society on loftier ideals.

[Anonymous No.19012240]

>>19012221
>what's more is i think that a lot of peterson's peers in archetypal psychology would probably be just as comfortable arguing the opposite of peterson, that because our hierarchies are rooted in our basest animal instincts, we should struggle against them and instead craft a society on loftier ideals.
They would lose the argument then, since Peterson's argument is fundamentally less of an explanation of why things happen and more so what happens, that hierarchies are absolutely universal across all things, from lobsters to humans to corporations. Which is absolutely true, even trying to defy this is another expression of it as we can clearly see in today's political class.

[Anonymous No.19012279]

>>19012209
It's highly likely that he'll stay the way he is now for the foreseeable future. I don't think it's so much that he just plays it safe to protect himself as it is that he's adapted into the natural role of media personality/talking head.

I don't think he'll try his hand at another Maps of Meaning, just more self-help shit, but he might produce some more lectures along the same line as his bible series. He was a university professor so he was probably set to just stay in his groove doing research and teaching the same classes...I wouldn't expect him to venture into anything exciting (e.g. establishing an online university like he has talked about in the past).

[Anonymous No.19012286]

>>19011449
I think certain heritable traits render a person susceptible to groupthink such as leftist ideology in American institutions. It makes an uncomfy experience for any heretic existing in academia.

[Anonymous No.19012292]

>>19012240
this is exactly what i mean when i say jbp is not an evolutionary psychologist, but he masquerades as one, and has apparently convinced (you). he is not arguing whether phenomena occur, he is arguing whether it is fundamentally good that phenomena occur. that is a matter of ethics, not science.
let me put it this way. everyone can agree that murder is a constant in human societies (and for that matter lobsters kill each other all the time). that's scientific fact. now let's say i tell you that, since murder is natural and universal, it is a good and right thing. i have not just won an argument, nor have i proved any sort of absolute truth. i've made an appeal to nature and i've set forth a basic system of ethics, neither of which are incontrovertible. by the way, i don't necessarily disagree with peterson's lobster argument, but i take issue with your view that he has 'won' somehow, as if ethics is settled science. that kind of conflation is lazy but jbp tends to be riddled with that.

[Anonymous No.19012293]

>>19011293
Do I have to stop mating with lobsters though?

[Anonymous No.19012307]

>>19011449
I think certain heritable traits render a person susceptible to groupthink such as leftist ideology in American institutions. How this relates to evolution is an interesting question, because the stepwise progress in science and the arts has been made by the fewer heretics.

[Anonymous No.19012308]

>>19012221
>that because our hierarchies are rooted in our basest animal instincts, we should struggle against them and instead craft a society on loftier ideals.
The whole argument is flawed to me. Hierarchies become less the rule the further you move away from higher forms of existence. Hierarchy is fundamentally a non-natural, arguably even divine, institution. The closer you move to nature, the more generic, the less differentiated, the less hierarchical reality becomes - until you reach the level of purely undifferentiated, non-hierarchical prime matter. Hierarchy is a product of distinct, powerful and concentrated consciousness. The more intelligent and noble a race, the greater the differentiation and principle of entelechy.

[Anonymous No.19012315]

>>19011449
I think certain heritable traits render a person susceptible to groupthink such as leftist ideology in American institutions. How this relates to evolution is an interesting question, because the stepwise progress in science and the arts throughout human history has been made by the heretics, who are few, rather than the mob.

[Anonymous No.19012323]

>>19011449
Complete misrepresentation of Dutton here. He has complete rational, logical and empirical justification for why, what he describes as, left-wing (he's actually caracterizing progressive liberals) people are mentally ill enough to become eunuchs (i.e. troons). He also describes why there are so many inate diseases in western people's: mostly due to [very] low amounts of natural selection. He's videos are autistic drivel, and I love them.

[Anonymous No.19012357]

>>19012308
sure, i wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. i was just illustrating for op that the evolutionary psychology and the ex post facto ethical debate are very much separate, and that it does harm to evopsych as a field to conflate the two.

[Anonymous No.19012362]

>>19012292
>this is exactly what i mean when i say jbp is not an evolutionary psychologist, but he masquerades as one, and has apparently convinced (you). he is not arguing whether phenomena occur, he is arguing whether it is fundamentally good that phenomena occur. that is a matter of ethics, not science.
Yes but you're wrong because of the particular phenomena in question. Since what Peterson is saying does occur is a universal constant, a fucking law of physics basically, trying to argue you can change the law is fundamentally a wrong argument. Your murder example is nonsense because if it were true, it would in fact be an absolute truth. That is the point. No matter what you do, hierarchies arise, in everything, everywhere.
>he is arguing whether it is fundamentally good that phenomena occur. that is a matter of ethics, not science.
Peterson never says this. At best he says why hierarchies arise, because of evolutionary processes that reward competence leading to evolutionary progress - - but that isn't the same thing as saying it's 'good' that they do. It's still a purely descriptive claim, not a normative one as you repeatedly suggest.

Now Peterson surely says this information is useful, as once you understand it you can try to modify your place in the hierarchy, but that is still not the same thing as hierarchies are morally good.

[Anonymous No.19012396]

>>19011449
I think certain heritable traits render a person susceptible to groupthink such as leftist ideology in American institutions. How this relates to evolution is an interesting question, because the stepwise development of science and the arts throughout human history has been a product more of the few heretics rather than the mob. If heritable traits didn't exist to protected individuals from the sway of prevailing ideas, then we'd have had have no Picassos, Einsteins or Feynmans.

[Anonymous No.19012417]

>>19012362
>Your murder example is nonsense because if it were true, it would in fact be an absolute truth
? show me a society without murder and i'll show you a society without hierarchy. there are any number of universal social constants in nature, many of which we generally try to minimize or avoid.

>It's still a purely descriptive claim, not a normative one as you repeatedly suggest.
alright, that's fair. but, i think suggesting that it is good to find one's place within a hierarchy is functionally equivalent to suggesting the hierarchy itself is good. it would be like (to return to my completely valid and pertinent example) saying that you should embrace your role as a murder victim because murder is natural and universal. but no, i'm not condoning murder no sir-ee.

[Anonymous No.19012447]

>>19011409
>>19011656
>>19011706
Why?

[Anonymous No.19012463]

>>19011678
>1 single solitary good argument against anything he has ever said
ha hem, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDfj8DOY52c.. It might not be the 4chan-like post you're looking for, but it is certainly a critique of his «philosophical» worldview.

[Anonymous No.19012491]

>>19011293
imagine posing for that picture

[Anonymous No.19012507]

>>19012447
Atheists have never seen God. I've never seen a fish turn into a human. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.19012515]

>>19011334
You could say this about literally anything.

[Anonymous No.19012516]

>>19012417
>? show me a society without murder and i'll show you a society without hierarchy.
What. Why? This seems like a total non sequitur to me, I've no idea why you brought it up. I never claimed societies without murder existed or didn't exist either.
>there are any number of universal social constants in nature, many of which we generally try to minimize or avoid.
Like what? I guess you want to argue we try to minimize murder as society and murder is a universal law like hierarchies, but it seems obvious that isn't true. For one thing we don't even need to talk about human societies, you can safely assume a sloth has never murdered another sloth, but they still have clear hierarchies. But even without examples I'd say your argument is mistaken because again, you are confusing things people do with a description of what happens. That is not the same thing, the sum of things done is what happens, it's an expression of equilibriums, not a component. The top of the hierarchy exists for various reasons, none of which are 'they're the top of the hierarchy'.

>i think suggesting that it is good to find one's place within a hierarchy is functionally equivalent to suggesting the hierarchy itself is good.
It isn't, which should be obvious given the benefit of finding your place in the hierarchy is equally expressed throughout all the varying positions of the hierarchy. It's a limitation on fruitless pain, and pain is as close to an objective bad as can be.

[Anonymous No.19012522]

>>19012507
>le ebic empiricism
sigh, fuck me.

[Anonymous No.19012528]

>>19011406
He's not a writer. There are writers then there are authors. Authors write shit for people to read, writers master the art of writing.

[Anonymous No.19012551]

>>19011725
Yeah, but the Nazis were right. They just went too far extending their reprisal. I definitely don't think, although you can draw fairly similar comparisons between USA, Trump, and Nazi Germany, that it's necessarily a negative process for America. But the association and the ultimate possibility is obviously something someone deeply at the centre of that may want to understandably not have to bear responsibility for. It's a shame. He had a lot of sway that could shape the sort've 'movement' he was auxiliary to if he had not just ducked out on it. He could have ensured it went in a more positive way.

[Anonymous No.19012658]

>>19012516
>Your murder example is nonsense because if it were true, it would in fact be an absolute truth
>This seems like a total non sequitur to me
....really?

>you want to argue we try to minimize murder as society and murder is a universal law like hierarchies
oh, nevermind, i guess it wasn't a non-sequitur after all. moving on.

>you can safely assume a sloth has never murdered another sloth, but they still have clear hierarchies
Well, yes, but you're actually bringing up different species at the detriment of jbp's original point. i'd been stipulating to the presumption that hierarchy is, in fact, universal, for the sake of argument. but there are so many species in nature which lack any sort of clearly distinguished hierarchies. many of the 'solitary' animals, especially those animals which reproduce asexually or through parthenogenesis, or are hermaphroditic, or those which rarely encounter others of their same kind are great examples of species which do not create hierarchies. i need not belabor the countless plants, fungi and bacterium that do not create hierarchies either. why pay any particular attention to lobsters (which aren't even very closely related to humans) over any other species on earth? i think jbp's obsession with this one particular trait found in only a handful of species (certainly not the majority) is suggestive of his intention and his knack for obfuscation. he dare not, for some reason, extend his appeal to nature to all of nature...

>It isn't, [because] pain is as close to an objective bad as can be
i disagree, but i think that's a fundamental divergence between us that probably nothing can bridge. you apparently value individual comfort over a grander ethical schema (which is fine, by the way). i think if something is determined to be, by whatever gauge you like, an evil, then acquiescing to that evil in favor of comfort is all the more evil. if hierarchy is good, however, then it only makes sense that jbp should support assimilation within that hierarchy. supporting an evil system because it brings comfort is myopic.

i do enjoy talking with you, though :)

[Anonymous No.19012679]

[Anonymous No.19012724]

>>19012679
damn... I kinda don't care what christcuks say

[Anonymous No.19012731]

>>19012658
>but there are so many species in nature which lack any sort of clearly distinguished hierarchie
No there aren't, you'd have to misunderstand what a hierarchy even is to make this claim. This is like saying there aren't winners and losers in a contest. It's axiomatic.

[Anonymous No.19012778]

>>19012731
in what way do protozoans, algae, hydra and dandelions have hierarchies? since i've misunderstood what a hierarchy even is, this should be easy for you to answer. explain the axiom that describes the ability of these organisms to recognize and apply authority amongst one another, please. oh, and by the way, if you can't provide an axiomatic description of this phenomenon in every extant and extinct species, it is not universal or 'natural'

[Anonymous No.19013059]

>>19011302
>dung beetles roll dung
>humans should roll dung too
you see the problem? I'm not saying peterson is necessarily wrong, but this is a spurious argument

[Anonymous No.19013078]

>>19011297
Nathan J. Robinson
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

[Anonymous No.19013081]

>>19011678
I liked what Zizek did once when he said that the whole idea Men ~ Order - Women ~ Chaos could easily be exhanged for its reciprocal in that women are responsible for societal bonds/household and men are the explorers, the adventurers i.e. live in chaos

he then followed that its as ideological as the jew that is both very succesful and influental and poor and stupid at the same time

[Anonymous No.19013131]

>>19011302
It's just a huge set of analogies you can pick from to justify your own worldview. Just ignore the ones that don't apply.

You might as well use astrology or numerology in the same fashion, if you want to go fedora free.

[Anonymous No.19013150]

pls someone send i wish i was at home meme, jbp version

[Anonymous No.19013154]

>>19013078
That article reads like seething resentment

[Anonymous No.19013174]

>>19013154
Triggered?

[Anonymous No.19013197]

>>19013174
it's just painful to read when there is so much venom

[Anonymous No.19013273]

>>19013059
That's not analogus to the lobster idea at all

[Anonymous No.19013327]

>>19011302
the connection between evolution and the human brain is undeniable
the ability of a self styled 'evo-psych' bro to assess the impact of various evolutionary pressures is suspect
its nearly all unverifiable, so just a pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.19013372]

5000 some odd years and we are still no better than our ancestors.
just as flawed and sick and depraved.
what has changed?
the fact that children can now see their parents grow up enough to see how much of a piece of shit they are
only to lament them and try to remember better times

[Anonymous No.19013544]

>>19011293
noooooo you are only supposed to apply evolutionary theory in the sense that it abolishes christianity and justifies unlimited power to the bourgeoisie! You aren't supposed to use it to conceptualize human-human interactions (evolutionary psychology) and DEFINITELY not state-state interactions (naziism)!

[Anonymous No.19013637]

>>19011297
I listened to the time he cried narrating the audiobook

[Anonymous No.19013651]

>>19011348
Hello ESL

[Anonymous No.19013657]

>>19011678
>gets BTFO'd by an Australian comedian
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=299

[Anonymous No.19013674]

>>19011811
how much are they paying you

[Anonymous No.19013677]

>>19013078
Based

[Anonymous No.19013816]

>>19011293
>the photo is real
kek

[Anonymous No.19013867]

>>19011322
What's the problem with that passage? Nothing said in that seems to be justifying inequality.

[Anonymous No.19013880]

>>19011297
Yes, but never one that has understood him.

[Anonymous No.19013908]

Why does this same argument persist year after year where Petercucks continue to believe that if you don't like Peterson then you must be some SJW wokeist when there are numerous critiques of Peterson from many right wing perspectives? Why do they ignore this?
Peterson is not even right wing or conservative by any reasonable standard. He is socially very liberal and progressive.

[Anonymous No.19013926]

Furthermore, how do leftoids justify their claims that Peterson is some kind of fascist or Nazi when he explicitly supports mass immigration of third world populations into Europe and America and he makes passionate, angry tirades against any kind of white group identity and insists that young white men by individualist liberals?
And he even agreed to use tranny pronouns. His argument was never that trannies are wrong, but merely that their pronouns should not be enforced by law. This is quintessential milquetoast liberalism.

[Anonymous No.19013944]

Also, Peterson is friends with the feminist and LITERAL pedo enabler Camille Paglia.
He also has said that most of his friends are Jews.

[Anonymous No.19013954]

In addition, Peterson's entire ontology and metaphysics is grounded in """Enlightenment""" rationalism and empiricism, from which it is impossible to have a genuine traditionalist perspective.

[Anonymous No.19013978]

>>19011293
he is very ugly desu

[Anonymous No.19013979]

>>19011293
He used lobsters to explain male dominance interaction and the function of antidepressants.
When male lobsters encounter each other they’ll puff up their tails and take a splayed leg stance and fight each other. The defeated one will hunker down and take a drooping defeated position, while the winner will puff itself up at the next battle.
If you give the defeated lobster serotonin reuptake inhibitors it will puff itself up again the next time it meets another male instead of staying in its fetal position.
Whether or not it comes from evolution, we share similar nervous system structures to lobsters, and antidepressants have been observed to work in the same way in humans. It’s simple and observable: depressed people take fetal positions, while the healthy can carry their head held high, right?
Jordan Peterson offers an alternative to antidepressants in his writing.
He shares the observation that if depressed people “stand up straight with their shoulders back”, mimicking the healthy, the effect is similar to the effect of antidepressants neurochemically: that is to say we have the ability to alter our neurochemistry by choosing new behavior patterns. Merely by modeling your behavior after the healthy, holding your chin up, relaxing, putting your shoulders back, the neurochemical condition of depression reverts to a healthy baseline.

What does this have to do with wealth inequality?

[Anonymous No.19013983]

>>19013978
The fuck? He’s handsome and consistently well dressed

[Anonymous No.19013988]

>>19013983
>The fuck? He’s handsome
No he is very ugly desu

[Anonymous No.19014009]

>>19013988
No.

[Anonymous No.19014012]

Jonathan Pageau is sort of like a smarter and better version of Jordan Peterson.
https://youtu.be/W7a5Z_K8LjU

[Anonymous No.19014020]

>>19014012
>projects orthodox christianity onto pop culture films
Incredible.

[Anonymous No.19014024]

>>19014009
repulsive

[Anonymous No.19014038]

>>19013926
>doesn't believe in protected classes
>says he will vote for someone that said he would bomb civilians in the middle east
>has really weird criticism of feminism
>says feminists that talk about islamophobia or whatever secretly long for "masculine dominance" kek
>promotes climate change denial
>is against adoption for gay people
He's not a nazi but it's not a puzzle why he is not popular among leftists

[Anonymous No.19014040]

Coroneus Phocis talks about some similar topics to Peterson but in greater detail and in a less middlebrow way.
https://youtu.be/nkbbk5HCCmU

[Anonymous No.19014057]

>>19014038
But he is a feminist. Maybe not the newer more radical type of feminist, but he is friends with older feminists and he supports womens' rights. One of his problems with Islam is that it is "too mysoginist" and could endanger womens' rights.
Why do people ignore these things? He is the stereotype of the lukewarm centrist who never conserves anything.

[Anonymous No.19014056]

>>19011449
Antinatalism and making yourself sterile through gender reassignment surgery are obviously unfit behaviors from a Darwinian standpoint and never were very widespread precisely because of that. Groups like the Cathars and the Moriori are cultural deadends.

[Anonymous No.19014080]

>>19014057
>lukewarm centrist
he'd be a daffy academic lefty weirdo in 1993. You guys forget anal marriage wasn't even invented till the mid 2000s.

[Anonymous No.19014084]

A really good critique from a traditionalist perspective about why Jordan Peterson fails
https://youtu.be/KXduQlaU-Mg

[Anonymous No.19014095]

>>19014024
Be repulsed, then.

[Anonymous No.19014105]

>>19014080
Yes, exactly. That was the point that I was trying to make, that what is considered "normal" has consistently moved farther and farther left for decades, and it just shows how insane things have gotten that some people actually think Peterson's positions are right wing.
The guy literally works for the UN.

[Anonymous No.19014106]

What exactly is it about Jordan Peterson that makes everyone mad except me?

[Anonymous No.19014159]

>>19014057
It's not a radical feminist thing to advocate for cultural tolerance. He spends more of his time making these kinds of smears and attacking feminists than promoting one. Maybe that's why. Sort of feels like he only pays lip service to being for women's rights and other liberal values but his real beliefs are sort of socially conservative.

That said i agree, Peterson is to the left of Ben Shapiro for the most part and Shapiro is hardly a radical. Although you can see how he is not a friend to leftists.

[Anonymous No.19014189]

>>19014159
Both Peterson and Shapiro are liberals and globalists. Both of them have said that they are ok with America and Europe becoming nonwhite. Both of them got the jab. Both of them support the establishment. Neither of them would even think of taking away womens' rights

[Anonymous No.19014219]

>>19014159
>It's not a radical feminist thing to advocate for cultural tolerance.
It is fundamentally a liberal stance.

[Anonymous No.19014248]

>>19014189
I am saying within the confines of mainstream discourse and what is considered acceptable Peterson steps out of bounds too much. You say he wouldn't take away women's right, which is most likely true but he also says women were never oppressed and implied that women that get sexual assaulted in the workplace are asking for it. It's obvious how this would ruffle some feathers.
>>19014219
Meaning Peterson shouldn't have made that derisive comment.

[Anonymous No.19014251]

>>19014106
mad with laughter at his inane hijinks lmao!

[Anonymous No.19014327]

>>19014248
stop whining

[Anonymous No.19014352]

>>19014327
No

[Anonymous No.19014355]

>>19014352
Do as I say.

[Anonymous No.19014364]

>>19013979
>No.19011322

[Anonymous No.19014377]

>>19013979
>>19011322

[Anonymous No.19014389]

>>19014355
Alright, I kneel

[Anonymous No.19014410]

>>19014389
Good. Good.
Now pledge your fealty to me from this day forward.

[Anonymous No.19014454]

>>19011297
Chapo Traphouse

[Anonymous No.19014489]

>>19011297
Jay Dyer
Keith Woods
Morgoth's Review
Edward Dutton
The Distributist

[Anonymous No.19014613]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BDgQMGs7Mc&ab_channel=Badgerow

[Anonymous No.19014784]

>>19013979
>What does this have to do with wealth inequality?
Its analogous to the way in which successful people go upward in a positive feedback loop and vise versa. Although wealth inequality isn't half as relevant as the point about depression, but commies will ignore this and act like he's justifying poverty as something to be desired.

[Anonymous No.19014793]

>>19011406
this reads fine

[Anonymous No.19014834]

>>19011293
I don't know, you tell me. Seems like all these people that like to rage against him think he's some kind of intellectual mastermind that nobody should take seriously, and yet. They just can't get enough of him.

[Anonymous No.19014850]

>>19014834
Why do you constantly pretend there are no arguments against him when people have presented numerous arguments against him (legitimate ones, not SJW crap) in this very thread????
It's the same thing every time. You ignore dissenting arguments and then you act like there aren't any

[Anonymous No.19014905]

It's unfair how Jordan Peterson gets all the fame when Jonathan Pageau talks about similar topics but does a much better job.

[Anonymous No.19014935]

>>19013059
>>19013131
>>19013327
Literally everything you said is malpractice that can be applied to any field of evaluation. Like Statistics where you control for some variables, and not others until you get a data point model that confirms your statement.

Thats not an inherent problem with evpsych, thats a problem in rhetoric in general.

[Anonymous No.19015012]

Jordan Peterson is a crypto-Marxist using middlebrow "conservative" talking points as a Trojan horse to poison the minds of disillusion young men and keep them trapped in the liberal globalist dialectic.

[Anonymous No.19015018]

>>19015012
and thats a good thing.

[Anonymous No.19015353]

This shows the weakness of Jordan Peterson. He cucks out to the progressive agenda whenever the topic goes into unsafe territory. He is no consistent, firmly rooted positions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jay_d007/status/1010165184638447616?s=12

[Anonymous No.19015494]

>>19014935
Sure, but for some reason it's really common and blatant in evpsych.

[Anonymous No.19015849]

>>19011725
>clinical psychologist as well as a research psychologist (specializing in addictions
WOW. Fucking Ironic. Like a fat dietician

[Anonymous No.19015916]

>>19015353
>>19013657
>Peterson is clearly exhausted of the leftist bullshit and is handwaving it away
>HAHAHA BTFO WE BEAT HIM GUYS IT'S OVER TELL F U C K I N G E V E R Y O N E
lol do you have any idea how pathetic you are?

[Anonymous No.19015940]

>>19015916
It shows that Peterson is a leftist himself you idiot.

[Anonymous No.19015949]

>>19015940
No it shows he's done responding to lefty drivel that insists on trying to incriminate him by comparing every minute thing to some cosmic holocaust and telling him to choose between being left or Hitler.

[Anonymous No.19015957]

>>19015949
Why are you so upset? Why do you feel this strange need to defend him and insist that he is NOT a leftist liberal (which he clearly is)? I see this a lot from the Peterson cult. You get irrationally angry when someone doesn't like him.

[Anonymous No.19015960]

>>19015957
>it can't be that I'm deeply pathetic
>YOU'RE ANGRY
lolok

[Anonymous No.19015968]

>>19015949
Just admit that Peterson's classical liberalism is an ontological black hole, he has no solid arguments, and he is fundamentally no different from the SJWs that he has these gay little debates with.

[Anonymous No.19015978]

>>19015960
You are not addressing the actual point. You are just getting hysterical and mad like a woman. You are only feeling instead of thinking.
Your liberal cult leader Peterson is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.19015990]

>>19015949
Instead of standing his ground, he cucked out like a spineless coward.
This is the same guy who says you should always tell the truth.
What a hack.

[Anonymous No.19015991]

>>19011297
kys, Baseddan Judenstein is cringe, simple as. Literally his self-professed goal is that he wants to deradicalize his audience of white men by telling them to wash their cocks. The guy is a psyop and his continued "popularity" is a testament to how much white people are hated.

[Anonymous No.19015997]

>>19015991
>>19015991
>>19015991
>>19015991
>>19015991
How do so many people still not get it

[Anonymous No.19016008]

>>19011293
Peterson didn’t use lobster behavior to justify wealth inequality, Peterson used lobster behavior to demonstrate the biological basis of hierarchies. Peterson is well aware of the issues of wealth inequality, he has spoken of the GINI coefficient and how wealth inequality is a major predictor of crime. The closest thing he has done in terms of justifying wealth inequality, is that he has argued that society’s tendency towards the Pareto distribution makes power/wealth inequality something that is inevitable, so rather than seeking to remove it, we should try to find an equilibrium. (I am not attached to any of these opinions, I am just giving a more accurate representation of Peterson’s arguments)

[Anonymous No.19016009]

>>19015990
He's only human, it's not always possible to do what you should do. That's why moral guidelines are important, we're fallible.

[Anonymous No.19016024]

Neither Peterson nor the Australian guy seemed to understand that equating the two situations is a fallacy. Being gay is a choice, whereas being black is just how a black person is born.

[Anonymous No.19016026]

>>19014784
poverty is to be desired tho, and he'd know this if he was actually a christian, rather than a gaytheist who finds utility in other people believing in things he thinks are utter nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19016038]

>>19011322
He’s just laying out the cruel facts.
At no point does he say this is how it “should” be.

[Anonymous No.19016052]

>>19011757
He’s never professed belief in an abrahamic style god in any traditional sense.

[Anonymous No.19016066]

>>19011678
The most damning thing for me about his detractors is that the guy is only trying to help people. What type of person does it take to go out of their way to attack someone that is only trying to help people?

[Anonymous No.19016070]

>>19011757
>>believes in God
I thought he was always very wishy washy and fence sitting about this. He mostly seems to reduce spirituality to psychological constructs.

[Anonymous No.19016078]

>>19012005
kek
Average JBP fan

[Anonymous No.19016100]

>>19013867
>>19016038
The "laying out the facts" part is literally the justification.

[Anonymous No.19016106]

>>19016078
>>19012005
>no-one takes your shitty bait
>samefag to feel better
ouch

[Anonymous No.19016113]

>>19012033
>Jordan Peterson
>right wing populist
Are you people insane? He is literally the opposite of that. Half of his gay little lectures are specifically about how much he hates any form of white group identity and how he wants everyone to be atomized individuals.

[Anonymous No.19016125]

>>19015916
He indirectly conceded that his entire classical liberalism is a sham. This works both for the left and the right cause he can no longer decry leftists for advocating for censorship/hate speech laws because according to him it is fair game to infringe upon freedom of association/implement anti-discriminatory laws.

[Anonymous No.19016126]

>>19012033
>right wing
for fucks sake. He’s extremely left wing, despite his refusal to comply with laws that would force him to use a transgendered person’s preferred pronouns he’s been overtly supportive of LGBTQ individuals, he’s helped many in his clinical practice to live fulfilling lives, and he’s asserted his willingness to address a transgender person by their preferred pronouns if they asked him. What he’s objecting to is fascist laws that would force him to speak in a certain way or be jailed: draconian laws that could easily be abused.
The insanity around this man is incredibly disheartening.

[Anonymous No.19016128]

>>19016113
as we should be

[Anonymous No.19016134]

>>19011297
Alt hype had a good video on him, but iirc also Morgoth, Keith Woods and Edward Dutton did some stuff. Peterson basically is slightly saner than the left which is why majority of criticism of his you hear about is retarded but he falls easily when you take him on from the right

[Anonymous No.19016151]

>>19016113
Jordan Peterson is literally what you get when you turn liberalism into a religion.

[Anonymous No.19016152]

>>19016134
This desu
Jay Dyer and Keith Woods, two very different types of right wing/traditionalist thinkers, have both annihilated Jordan Peterson's arguments.

[Anonymous No.19016164]

>>19016126
Yes morons itt are desperate to try and conflate very basic anti-discriminatory laws meant for businesses to actual totalitarian laws that can be interpreted as anything against anyone. There's no comparison whatsoever here, and people like
>>19016125
>>19015990
>>19015940
>>19015353
>>19013657
Are complete idiots deluding themselves.

But what else is new? Peterson's positions are only controversial to crazy people.

[Anonymous No.19016167]

I've been reading these threads for years and despite the mountain of anti-Peterson literature out there, the only counterargument I ever hear is "there exist no arguments against Peterson. These kinds of people
>>19011297
>>19011678
clearly go out of their way to avoid reading any criticism of Peterson, preferring instead of live in a fantasy where nobody has made a valid point against him.

[Anonymous No.19016170]

>>19012033
>JORDAN PETERSON IS A POPULIST
JBP is what you get when you turn ANTIFA into a self-help pseud.

[Anonymous No.19016174]

>>19011678
>The funny thing is I've been listening to people screech about JBP for years now especially on this board, and I've yet to encounter 1 single solitary good argument against anything he has ever said, not once in what must be thousands and thousands of posts. The closest anyone comes is the actual retard polacks who don't try to disguise their fallacious behavior or ideology, but they clearly have it on record that Peterson refuses to address the Jewish question.
>
>This is legitimately impressive to me. I don't even like Peterson, I think all libertarian types are morons coasting off past legacies, but the fact that all of this energy exists against him can't manage to form a single coherent reason for its existence is so fucking crazy I can't even begin to explain it.
>
>The more I think about this fact the less I can understand how it's possible.
Well I posted this yesterday and this thread is near the bump limit now. I'm sad to say I read the entire thing and still didn't find a single actual argument against Peterson while encountering huge amounts of hostility and 'disagreement' despite this. The world keeps spinning I guess.

[Anonymous No.19016178]

>>19016134
>Alt hype had a good video
God is this really who I'm posting alongside with. Bumping imageboard shoulders with? I really need to stop coming here.

[Anonymous No.19016180]

>>19016174
https://youtu.be/NDfj8DOY52c
https://youtu.be/8qhybRpTllI

[Anonymous No.19016190]

He isn't very profound or original. He is basically just John Stuart Mill + Jung.

[Anonymous No.19016197]

>>19016100
In what way?
Or are you saying you’d prefer to deny reality to facing it?
His assertions regarding lobsters here could be used as very valid justifications for socialist systems, but if you just ignore the observable facts, you’re unable to use them.
What is it about Peterson that drives people like you insane?

[Anonymous No.19016210]

>>19016174
Well the disagreements I have with Peterson are vast.

1. Christianity is false bullshit.
2. Carl Jung was a literal schizophrenic or psychotic and nobody should take anything he said as fact(especially the concept of synchronicity is hilarious unscientific)
3. His cold war boomer liberalism is lame. We don't live in a world where you can work for a summer and buy yourself a Camaro, we live in a world that has an economy that has been completely destroyed by 2 economic meltdowns just in *my* lifetime(32 years).
4. He's a psychologist, so LITERALLY EVERY PROBLEM is psychological. He literally refuses to accept any other causal mechanism that controls people's lives, everything is just about the individual's psychology, so if you fix the individual's psychology, then society will be a utopia(he got this insane idea from Solzhenitsyn).

I could go on forever.

[Anonymous No.19016211]

>>19016164
Right wingers would argue that anti-discriminatory laws are totalitarian you fucking idiot, cause they would say their right to freely associate is being violated. And if you are pro those laws then why throw a fit when leftists follow in your footsteps and try to put "very basic" speech laws.

[Anonymous No.19016212]

>>19016167
Having actually read Peterson, I have yet to see a valid point against him.

[Anonymous No.19016221]

>>19016212
You refuse to address the criticisms lf him from the right wing perspective. You willfully ignore them.

[Anonymous No.19016223]

>>19016211
What you wrote makes literally zero sense, go back to the drawing board, reading this is rapidly decreasing my IQ.

[Anonymous No.19016224]

>>19016197
>In what way?

Whenever a liberal says: "These are the facts", what he actually means is: "I don't want this to change, so I'm going to construct an argument whereby this thing is eternal and unchangeable and the best way to do that is through pseudo-scientific arguments."

[Anonymous No.19016246]

>>19016221
The ultimate criticism of him is that he on the surface argues against the "left" while utilizing arguments that are meant to deradicalize his followers of white, right wing, young men. This is why he is signal boosted on every platform, this is why he gets the huge auditoriums, this is why he talks with Zizek, he is a tool and it´s as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.19016251]

>>19016223
It makes perfect sense and this just shows how lowbrow liberals are that you cannot understand it.

[Anonymous No.19016275]

>>19016223
Tell me how it doesn't make sense.
Also you say Peterson wouldn't be controversial to a sane person but in the same video he said people should be allowed to deny service to gay people which is no different than the counter example the comedian gave with the civil rights movement. Wouldn't you say being against the principles of the civil rights act is controversial to the general public?

[Anonymous No.19016276]

>>19016211
Every law is a diminishing of liberty, dumb-butt. We still want laws, it's about finding a reasonable balance. Only psychotic libertarians think it's unthinkable to have any kind of limit on personal liberty. Anti-discriminatory laws from the civil rights era are very reasonable and clearly were needed.

[Anonymous No.19016310]

>>19016211
The law that was being introduced in Canada was ridiculously draconian and would allow a person to accuse an individual of misgendering them and have them jailed with next to no evidence.

[Anonymous No.19016325]

>>19016251
>>19016275
It doesn´t, you wrote it like a drooling retard. And who cares what similar drooling MAGAturd masses think? What is right is right because it is right, I don´t give one fuck what you or a MAGAt thinks.

[Anonymous No.19016356]

>>19016221
I don’t exactly consider the “right wing” position legitimate.
This is not meant as a slight against self identifying “right wingers”: rather I do not see the “left/right” division of political issues as legitimate.
As evidenced in this thread, “Left Wingers” who identify as “liberal” are in favor of tyrannical regulation, while supposed “fascistic right wingers” argue in favor of less regulation of the individual and free discourse.
It seems to me that the division of political issues in the way that most people engage with them is a top down assertion designed to confuse and control the masses.

[Anonymous No.19016381]

>>19016224
It’s time to take a break sweety.
If we’re not allowed to talk about what is observable in nature, we might as well not speak at all.

[Anonymous No.19016386]

>>19016246
He has never identified as “right wing”

[Anonymous No.19016389]

>its clean and kosher to discriminate against homophobes
>but illegal and wicked to discriminate against homosexuals
thanks a lot rabbi peterstein.

[Anonymous No.19016397]

>>19016389
How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from anything he’s written or said?
Quotes please

[Anonymous No.19016410]

The two situations are not even equivalent anyway. Being gay is a choice. No one is born gay.

[Anonymous No.19016419]

>>19016381
If you say that "Wow, the world's money sure is unequally distributed" and some guy comes around and says "You know, the lobsters have a very tough hierarchy, it just makes sense and is natural" what the fuck do you think people are supposed to glean from that?

I know what they are supposed to glean from it, and that's that the ones who have all the money deserves all their money, and everyone else should just sit down and shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.19016432]

>>19016397
He said that it is morally wrong for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a fag wedding. He was ambivalent about whether or not it should be illegal, but he clearly is a social liberal.

[Anonymous No.19016479]

>>19016276
I love how the retard stopped replying after getting btfo

[Anonymous No.19016480]

>>19016419
>"You know, the lobsters have a very tough hierarchy, it just makes sense and is natural"
He’s not saying it makes sense or is natural in terms of what’s morally right, he’s simply saying these sorts of dominance hierarchies are what occurs in nature.
He cites studies in which antidepressants are observed to help defeated lobsters get their courage again, observes that the neurochemistry between lobsters and humans are similar to the point where antidepressants work for depressed individuals in the same way, and also asserts that depressed individuals can ALSO adjust their neurochemistry in the same manner as antidepressants by standing up straight with their shoulders back: that by choosing to behave courageously our neurochemistry adjusts from a depressive to a healthy state.
You can take whatever you want from this knowledge.
At no point does he say what “should” be

[Anonymous No.19016487]

>>19016479
Pretty sure he's the one spamming frog pictures and non sequiturs now to 'save face'

[Anonymous No.19016493]

>>19016276
Why are anti discrimination laws necessary?

[Anonymous No.19016498]

>>19016480
>he’s simply saying these sorts of dominance hierarchies are what occurs in nature.

Yes and why would that be relevant if not to use it as an argument for why we should never engage in wealth redistribution of any kind?

If the hierarchy of property and money in society is as rigid as a lobster's dominance hierarchy, then that means any politics that is left of libertarianism is "unnatural" and "scientifically invalid".

[Anonymous No.19016499]

>>19016432
Sounds reasonable.
It *is* morally wrong to hate gays, but forcing people to bake cakes for gays by law would be tyrannical overreach.
The market forces of people naturally avoiding a homophobic business, and socially ridiculing the homophobic should be enough.

[Anonymous No.19016504]

>>19016276
You're violating principles you fucking retard. From falsehood anything follows.
>>19016276
He's against speech laws on principle. I wasn't even thinking of c-16. Just basic hate speech laws.
>>19016325
You're not even engaging. Petersonfags are so insufferable.

[Anonymous No.19016512]

>>19016499
>It *is* morally wrong to hate gays
why

[Anonymous No.19016519]

>>19016386
He doesn´t need to, he clearly signals to it.

[Anonymous No.19016533]

>>19016498
>Yes and why would that be relevant if not to use it as an argument for why we should never engage in wealth redistribution of any kind?
He never makes that argument, and he used the lobster illustration to discuss how antidepressants work: relevant because he’s a clinical psychologist.

[Anonymous No.19016547]

>>19016519
Well, if you identify as “right wing” don’t be angry when you realize he’s not, and if you identify as “left wing” continue to be angry that his ideas are not easily reducible to plebian conceptions like Marxism.

[Anonymous No.19016552]

>>19016533
The guy LITERALLY talks about lobster hierarchies IMMEDIATELY before talking about wealth inequality you fucking moron.>>19011322

[Anonymous No.19016559]

>>19016504
>use specifics as an argument
>get pointed out they're not the same
>it's about the generic principle!
yawn

[Anonymous No.19016564]

>>19016499
>It *is* morally wrong to hate gays
complete insane, it is moral to love virtue and hate vice. And a gay is not merely a person who engages in sodomy, but promotes its normalization. It is extremely morally righteous to hate gays.

[Anonymous No.19016590]

>>19016504
>He's against speech laws on principle.
I have never seen him argue this.
Back up what you say with quotes.
>>19016512
Some men like men. It is relatively rare in mammal species, but exists all across the animal kingdom. If two men enjoy each others company and are respectable members of society, what can you say about that is wrong?

[Anonymous No.19016591]

>>19016512
Why is hating any demographic without proper reason morally correct?

[Anonymous No.19016609]

>>19016591
Because they are gay is the proper moral reason, just as its morally correct to hate thieves or liars or communists, it is morally just to hate gays.

[Anonymous No.19016631]

>>19016559
Once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition can be inferred from it and that includes it's negation. Hence Peterson has no grounds for being against hate speech laws.

[Anonymous No.19016633]

>>19016609
Is it not morally incorrect to hate someone for a behavior they have little control over and did not choose to have?

[Anonymous No.19016653]

>>19016552
>The guy LITERALLY talks about lobster hierarchies IMMEDIATELY before talking about wealth inequality you fucking moron.
At no point does he argue we should “never engage in wealth redistribution”.
You’re in hysterics.
He compared the brutal naturally occuring dominance heirarchy of lobsters to economic distribution as it occurs without socialist interference.
He then asserts that antidepressants can help lobsters in a way THAT WILL UPSET the natural dominance hierarchy, AND asserts that we, as human beings, have the capacity to be aware of how our behavior can effect our neurochemistry: that if we choose to stand up straight with our shoulders back our neurochemistry will re-adjust to something approximating a healthy baseline.
HE IS ALL BUT ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

[Anonymous No.19016660]

Inequality is nature. Nature is not equal.

Leftists are deranged faggots.

[Anonymous No.19016663]

>>19016564
You will never have virtue.

[Anonymous No.19016668]

>>19016633
No one is born gay. God did not make you gay. It is a perverse fetish that you chose.

[Anonymous No.19016676]

>>19016631
It's not a contradiction, he isn't again laws despite your vocal misreading.

[Anonymous No.19016682]

>>19016660
What’s more, the recognition that inequality exists is necessary to ameliorate the suffering caused by inequality: the socialist project of helping the needy is impossible without first recognizing that inequality exists.

[Anonymous No.19016685]

>>19016633
"control and choice" are gay marketing terms. Zoomers aren't old enough to remember the switch from a "harmless lifestyle choice" to "born this way" that occured in the early 00s for no reason other than marketing research suggested normal people would give gays what they wanted if they presented their vice as a form of unchosen disablity. In reality it seems like gays can't tell you whether or not sexuality is fluid until they know why you are asking.

Furthermore, who knows how much "choice" exists for any other anti-social behavior? Does the rapist or the murderer chose to be rapists or murderers? This kind of moral obscuratism never gets extended from supporting sodomy to other areas, curiously enough.

[Anonymous No.19016691]

>>19016653
>He compared the brutal naturally occuring dominance heirarchy of lobsters to economic distribution as it occurs without socialist interference.

Exactly! Finally you understand! Peterson is literally arguing that liberal capitalism is as natural as a lobster hierarchy, which means that any interference with this system is "unnatural" and will fail.

[Anonymous No.19016696]

>>19016663
you don't even believe in virtue, but you do believe there is "gay ghosts" that inhabit perverts brains.

[Anonymous No.19016706]

Have you seen the absolute pseud shit he wrote on Heidegger? What a fag.

[Anonymous No.19016727]

>>19016676
I don't know how you can honestly say that. In the video the comedian clearly demonstrates Peterson's contradiction. He's against laws that violate natural rights.

[Anonymous No.19016741]

>>19016691
>Exactly! Finally you understand! Peterson is literally arguing that liberal capitalism is as natural as a lobster hierarchy, which means that any interference with this system is "unnatural" and will fail.
No, I’ve understood that from the beginning because I’ve actually read Peterson.
I also understand that AT NO POINT does he suggest we should not try to interfere with dominance hierarchies.
He merely observes that IF one interferes with the naturally occurring hierarchies, economic or otherwise, nature will eventually run its course and things will return to hierarchy.
At no point does he argue this is the way things “should be”, and he provides many implicit suggestions for ameliorating the suffering caused by the hierarchy including “stand up straight with your shoulders back” ... or in other words, engage in socialist revolt

[Anonymous No.19016746]

>>19016727
Not him, but It's not a contradiction though, Peterson just knows that it's bad optics in 2021 to say that a business should be able to deny anyone a service regardless of who they are, if this was 1990, he wouldn't hesitate being a more principled right-wing liberal.

[Anonymous No.19016760]

>>19016741
>He merely observes that IF one interferes with the naturally occurring hierarchies, economic or otherwise, nature will eventually run its course and things will return to hierarchy.

Which is literally exactly what I said you fucking sperg, and yes that is the same as saying you "shouldn't" do something you retard.

[Anonymous No.19016781]

>>19016727
>I don't know how you can honestly say that. In the video the comedian clearly demonstrates Peterson's contradiction. He's against laws that violate natural rights.
No it doesn't, I watched the whole thing, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. And ALL laws violate 'natural rights', but obviously you're not going to try and suggest Peterson is against laws in general because that makes it too overt how retarded and made up your position is.

[Anonymous No.19016804]

>>19016760
>and yes that is the same as saying you "shouldn't" do something you retard.
No.
You’re arguing that any discussion of the nature of capitalism necessitates people are in favor of it.
Peterson is a compassionate man.
Stand up straight with your shoulders back against the hierarchy that has beaten you down.
Doing so has been observed to adjust one’s neurochemistry from the state of clinical depression to near healthy baseline.

[Anonymous No.19016825]

>>19016804
>You’re arguing that any discussion of the nature of capitalism necessitates people are in favor of it.

No I'm arguing that when Peterson uses pseudo-naturalistic arguments as reasons why wealth inequality exists, he is justifying the continued existence of that wealth inequality.

[Anonymous No.19016865]

>>19016781
>And ALL laws violate 'natural rights',

[Anonymous No.19016879]

>>19016825
>No I'm arguing that when Peterson uses pseudo-naturalistic arguments as reasons why wealth inequality exists, he is justifying the continued existence of that wealth inequality.
How?
By saying that it exists?
If you’d read Maps of Meaning you could understand the pre-natural state as chaos.
That mythologically speaking, before the tyrannical hierarchy of capitalism there was no system.
You would also understand his argument that all systems collapse because they are unable to properly contend with what is pre-system.
If capitalistic hierarchy is order compared to chaos: according to Peterson’s own arguments, all hierarchies both arise and collapse due to chaos (as a mythological/geometric function).

Do you get it?

[Anonymous No.19016886]

>>19011322
I like how you could copy paste that entire paragraph into a Communist's blog (not well written enough to be a book) and just add an extra sentence about not being happy about those facts, and nobody would tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.19016892]

>>19016865
>retard is a frogposter
shocking

[Anonymous No.19016895]

I do not understand people who fellate flowery prose over functional prose.
Maps of Meaning is a thesis, not a novel.

[Anonymous No.19016900]

>>19016746
>>19016781
Who to believe?
>ALL laws violate 'natural rights'
kek

[Anonymous No.19016905]

>>19016879
>How?

I mean, can you read anon? I've literally said how for several posts.

If I say to you that homosexuality is natural, do you think you are less likely to try to change people who are gay or more likely?

Fact is that the moment you argue something is natural, people think it is eternal and unchangeable, and since Peterson argues that capitalism is associated with eternal animal hierarchies, he is basically saying capitalism is natural and unchangeable, he just doesn't have the nutsack to say it directly.

[Anonymous No.19016909]

>>19016892
what do you think “natural rights” are, zoomer?

[Anonymous No.19016920]

>>19016905
>I mean, can you read anon? I've literally said how for several posts.
>If I say to you that homosexuality is natural, do you think you are less likely to try to change people who are gay or more likely?
>Fact is that the moment you argue something is natural, people think it is eternal and unchangeable, and since Peterson argues that capitalism is associated with eternal animal hierarchies, he is basically saying capitalism is natural and unchangeable, he just doesn't have the nutsack to say it directly.
You fundamentally misunderstand Peterson.

[Anonymous No.19016938]

Can't stand Peterson and droopy beta gay face and his nasty curly hair and his faggy froggy voice

[Anonymous No.19016945]

>>19016920
No I don't fundamentally misunderstand him. I perfectly understand him. Peterson is a liberal. He believes in liberalism and capitalism. And he tries to convince his readers that liberalism and capitalism are great by saying they are natural and eternal.

That's fine. I don't agree. That doesn't mean I think he's an idiot, it doesn't mean I hate him, I just think he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.19016951]

>>19016938
Ah.
So you’re a homophobic marxist.
He’s not even gay.

[Anonymous No.19016961]

>>19016951
Being gay just means you think sodomy is morally neutral or positive. You don’t actually have to have ever shoved anything up your ass to be gay.

[Anonymous No.19016969]

>>19016951
>homophobic
Yes.
>marxist
Not at all.
>He's not even gay.
Maybe not but he is still effeminate and weak and girly and he is quintessentially middlebrow.

[Anonymous No.19016973]

>>19016945
>And he tries to convince his readers that liberalism and capitalism are great by saying they are natural and eternal.
He literally argues that they are tyrannical and actively destroy their dissidents in a futile effort to prevent their inevitable collapse.

[Anonymous No.19016979]

>Peterson haters are room temp IQ homophobes
Unexpected.

[Anonymous No.19016996]

>>19016973
That's not what he argues here>>19011322

[Anonymous No.19017002]

>>19013081
>Men ~ Order - Women ~ Chaos
JP has never said this so idk what sniff man is trying to refute here.

[Anonymous No.19017011]

>>19011293
I mean it's on the same level as using fucking mentally aberrant penguins to justify homosexuality like liberals do.

[Anonymous No.19017029]

a classic trick to play on children to get them to do what you want, is to give them two choices: "do you want to brush your teeth first, or take your bath first?" where both choices are things you want. Juden Petersteins fag liberalism is just Door A to tranny liberalisms Door B.

[Anonymous No.19017045]

>>19016996
No.
He compares male dominance hierarchies among lobsters with economic inequality, but at no point does he argue that economic or dominance hierarchies are ideals to strive towards, and he asserts both antidepressants and behavior changes like “standing up straight with your shoulders back” - which has a neurochemical effect similar to that of antidepressants, as a means to upset natural dominance hierarchies. In fact he does not say you should upset natural hierarchies either, but he gives direct advice for for how to do it if you wanted to.

Later on in the book he does argue this explicitly >>19016973

You are simply a poor reader.

[Anonymous No.19017060]

>>19017045
How about reading my replies once more you sperglord? I've literally answered all of these weak retorts several times.

[Anonymous No.19017061]

>>19017029
He self identifies as a liberal.
A classical liberal specifically.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing other than an inane “fags bad I’m mad” position.

[Anonymous No.19017063]

>>19017029
The whole thing is a scam.
Don't Peterson fans ever ask themselves, if he is such a brave rebel against the system, then why is he on TV talk shows and getting promoted by the youtube algorithm.
He is safe and establishment approved.

[Anonymous No.19017066]

>>19017060
No.

[Anonymous No.19017071]

>>19017066
Yes I have. Read this post>>19016905

[Anonymous No.19017081]

>>19017063
He asserts several means of addressing conditions of “mental illness” outside of the systems of therapy and psychiatry in his book.

[Anonymous No.19017085]

>>19017071
No, as in I’m not going to read your posts when its clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, have not read Maps of Meaning, and have cherrypicked a single quote about lobsters to seethe about.
No.

[Anonymous No.19017096]

>>19017085
Okay keep coping retard. Your hero Peterson is a milquetoast boomer liberal, and it's evident from every single fucking argument he's ever made publically.

He's basically Ben Shapiro's grandfather.

[Anonymous No.19017106]

>>19017096
At no point have I asserted that he’s a hero.
I have asserted his liberalism many times.
What was your argument?

[Anonymous No.19017122]

>>19017106
>I have asserted his liberalism many times.

No you haven't lol. You've literally spent 3 hours arguing against my critique of Peterson's lobster defense of wealth inequality and capitalism.

You clearly can't cope with him being a liberal at all.

[Anonymous No.19017128]

>>19017045
>Standing up straight same effect as neurochemicals

Thanks God I didn't bother to read the role thread

[Anonymous No.19017144]

>>19017128
peterstein should consider sitting up straight rather than railing coke and benzos

[Anonymous No.19017149]

>>19017144
/thread

[Anonymous No.19017160]

Jay Dyer mogs Jordan Peterson intellectually
https://youtu.be/bOvGIhoC9W4

[Anonymous No.19017169]

>>19017122
All I am asserting is that I believe I understand the arguments he’s made.

[Anonymous No.19017196]

>>19011293
I dont care about Jordan peterson, but what i do wonder is why people single out vvolutionary psychology having empirical problems. The entire fucking field of psychology has that problem, so why not throw it all in the dumpster then?

[Anonymous No.19017205]

>>19017196
because liberals are too big of pussies to throw out evolutionary theory as a creation, as it buttresses their right to rule. It gives them a very hypocritical aspect, and this causes them to react with insane hostility towards any form of evolutionary theory leaving its tightly curated domain.

[Anonymous No.19017219]

>>19017196
the people in this thread have outed themselves as homophobic christians taking issue with Peterson's liberalism, so it follows they would piss themselves over anything with the word evolution in it

[Anonymous No.19017222]

>>19017196
A lot of psychology is debated in a semiempirical way and this is not so odd in the STEM field. So I don't see why all the concepts should be disregards in that matter.

[Anonymous No.19017264]

There's no good point to refer to lobsters when evolutionarily more apt and closer examples exist, such as chimps. Basically he's saying there is a positive correlation between social success and serotonin levels, the more you are rewarded by society, the bolder and more prone to acting in ways society rewards you become because your serotonin levels are increased. Vice versa for social defeats, it decreases serotonin and thus confidence. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The only reason he used lobsters as the example and not chimps is to show how universal this correlation is among phylogenetically related classes of animals.

I don't believe Peterson ever used this example to justify hierarchy in the moral sense, only to demonstrate that the tendency toward hierarchy is a natural self-organizing principle.

[Anonymous No.19017283]

>>19017196
You would have to prove the opposite, that it is impossible to empirically study the mind. The behaviorists took that position but weren't able to get any farther just by analyzing behavioral conditioning .

[Anonymous No.19017286]

>>19017264
>There's no good point to refer to lobsters when evolutionarily more apt and closer examples exist, such as chimps.
The comparatively simple nervous systems of lobsters are similar to the structure of the nerves of the spinal column.

[Anonymous No.19017295]

>>19017286
And?

[Anonymous No.19017302]

>>19017295
Idk. Lobsters are kind of funnier than chimps.

[Anonymous No.19017368]

real liberals are far more intelligent, accomplished, and entertaining than a canuck parade goy.

[Anonymous No.19017414]

>>19017264
No one disagrees that hierarchies exist in nature, but every time someone tries to remedy the excesses of a hierarchy Peterson retorts by giving his lobster example which seems to suggest that he is indeed making the claim that since it exists in nature it is therefore just.

[Anonymous No.19017463]

how is wealth inequality unjustified?

[Anonymous No.19017491]

Jeremy Peterson will be the first lobster warlock

[Anonymous No.19017623]

>>19017264
>There's no good point to refer to lobsters when evolutionarily more apt and closer examples exist, such as chimps
Fucking this. This whole idea is stupid. By this basic principle, lot of animals rape other animals, so it is okay to rape other humans. "These animals have such and such hierarchies therefore so do humans" is a non-argument, which he often uses in interviews to refute the people who argue for certain or absolute abolishment of hierarchies.

Hierarchies evidently exist, but that does not mean humans cannot ascend above those hierarchies, just like we did with rape which we surely once did like animals still do. Saying that we must obey the hierarchies of our initial evolutionary conditions is a defeatist, slave mentality in the guise of manly traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.19017656]

>>19016493
to protect vulnerable people

[Anonymous No.19017754]

>>19013674
I am self-employed for free to answer in the form of your question. Your excerpt screenshot may have given me retinal cancer, and I can't afford health insurance with my authentic posting volunteerism.

[Anonymous No.19017791]

>>19012022
Sure, the article is very pointed, but it had the source material compiled into one place, a feat pretty much no one on this site can ever accomplish. I also grant JBP a share of liberty on the topic. I'm not after the guy on this topic, but I'm also not going to pretend like this wasn't a really strange take for him to lean into as he has/did. I'm just glad he is back and getting better.

[Anonymous No.19017815]

>>19012143
I've smoked a little in my life, but pretty much just avoid it now due to the paranoia it induces. I explore schizotrails, but once the community becomes so incoherent and inconsistent in their communication I ensure that I can pull myself back to reality with anything of value I found along the way. One day I'm sure I'll go mad and be too far gone, but it's not today.

[Anonymous No.19017857]

>>19017791
Providing the source is pretty irrelevant when it has no actual context (he explicitly says he isn't explaining it because it's complicated) but you still create your own context in said article.

[Anonymous No.19017912]

>>19011293
JP is actually somewhat insightful... given you're someone who'd benefit from therapy as a whole. But regardless "Shut up and go to work" isn't going to help much if getting goatsed by your shit job is making you miserable.

[Anonymous No.19017913]

>>19017623
>Hierarchies evidently exist, but that does not mean humans cannot ascend above those hierarchies
Show me a practical solution to transcending hierarchy.
Note that all socialistic systems have merely resulted in new bourgeoisie political elite replacing the old.
Peterson suggests something like radical individualism, like a religious or revolutionary commitment to ones own interests as an evolution of the revolutionary act.
I am not arguing that he is correct, mind you, just that that is my articulation of his assertion for a method for transcending hierarchy: by driving the existing hierarchy into chaos.
He also argues that to do so is to forfeit the security the hierarchy provides, not to suggest that hierarchy should not be dismantled, but in understanding that to do so is dangerous: the inevitable violent destruction of society.
So go ahead and suggest a practical means of transcending hierarchy that’s better.
Give us your better idea.

[Anonymous No.19018294]

>>19016419
Have you considered that you aren't gonna solve any problems if you can't even look at how they came about in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19018345]

>>19011302
>either micro or macro?
christfags can't into scale

[Anonymous No.19018357]

>>19012507
You share 70% of your genome with Zebrafish

[Anonymous No.19018382]

>>19015494
Ok. But thats still simply a problem of malpractic. Icould also probably accuse a unscholarly sociology undergrad for conforming social reality to their own pet project too. Or any other number of feilds.

[Anonymous No.19018402]

>>19016552
>The guy LITERALLY talks about lobster hierarchies IMMEDIATELY before talking about wealth inequality you fucking moron
And? How about you read the words as written instead of trying to play pretend with wordplay?

[Anonymous No.19019327]

>>19018294
Who disagrees with that retard? You're having an argument with yourself.

[Anonymous No.19019342]

>>19016552
>>19016498
>>19016419
>>19016224
>>19016100
>>19011322
Holy shit what is it about JP that sends people into such violent histrionics

[Anonymous No.19019374]

>>19019342
It really is confusing.

[Anonymous No.19019438]

>>19019342
he's just a pseud

[Anonymous No.19019441]

>>19017754
filtered