Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I haven't been able to read the NYT piece because I've reached my limit of free articles. Peterson's point that monogamous societies are more stable and less violent than polygynous societies is hardly controversial in a scientific sense. The greater the proportion of men in a society who are not in a monagamous marriage, the worse it is for society as a whole, not just those men. The unattached men are more likely to be violent and engage in other anti-social behaviour, the high-status men are less likely to treat women well, and children get fewer resources from their parents.
https://phys.org/news/2012-01-monoga...olygamist.html
There is no stronger correlation to economic status in our society today than being part of, or the child of, an enduring monogamous marriage. You'd have to be crazy not to recognize monogamous bonding as something worth encouraging.
Going further than that, though, and suggesting that marriage should be enforced, well that's ridiculous. Especially coming from someone who's so vocally against the enforcement of equality of outcomes. |
I'd love to hear the question he was asked.
I've noticed Peterson seems to give answers that seem 'extreme' if the questions are kind of dumb and looking for a simple solution or quick fix. If he was asked "How do we stop these Incels from launching these kind of attacks?", I could definitely see the response fitting with what he gave.
I'm reminded of the answer about no make-up in the workplace. He was posing it as an answer to how to we stop sexual harassment in the workplace. His point was that there will always be sexual tension in the workplace, so in order to stop it, you'd likely have to do something pretty extreme.
It doesn't mean he actually endorses the solution to the problem, but it's almost challenge to the question and a note to the interviewer that the solutions aren't simple in nature.