The intellectual dark web

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

Looking within? Everything I've read of Jordan Peterson's has been about how white men are victimized because those pesky women and minorities wanted to have jobs and rights.

He is human garbage, as is anyone who agrees with him.

Stupid comment is stupid. This labelling people racist/nazi/human garbage etc just because you don’t agree with him or has ideas you don’t like has to stop its pathetic.

[opendoor]

I don't know, he comes off pretty terribly in the NY Times piece:

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”


Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.


“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one

cares about the men who fail.”


I laugh, because it is absurd.



“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

So equality of outcomes is evil, but enforced equality of outcomes for single men is desirable. OK...

[Cain]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't know, he comes off pretty terribly in the NY Times piece:

So equality of outcomes is evil, but enforced equality of outcomes for single men is desirable. OK...

Yup, I definitely didn't agree with what he said there, though I would love to read the full context.

He seems to speak a lot on issues that he might not have fully thought out, and thus comes out looking poorly a fair amount of the time. Someone posted a video of him talking with a philosopher about the existence of god and I had to turn it off as he danced around the question and got caught up in semantics for 15 minutes on the first question. Downside is that when you are in the media often you are inevitably going to say something stupid. I don't think that makes you human garbage.

I think he has some thoughtful takes on challenging the status quo you find today, and has his share of takes that I vehemently disagree with. Doesn't make him or me alt right/garbage or whatever other label I've seen in this thread.

But yes, that NYT piece is not a good look (though I don't think the author was looking to help with that either).

[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.

[CliffFletcher]

One things that emerges from a lot of these interviews is that most journalists are scientifically illiterate. I know that Peterson throws a lot of ideas around, and not all of them are scientifically sound. But most of them are.

Like the fact that monogamy developed as a way to stabilize society from the problems caused by lots of men without mates. That's pretty soundly established science. But it's soundly established science that rubs the wrong away against a lot of our fuzzy modern notions and ideals. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that it's the left, increasingly, who are running afoul of scientific truth. And when science runs contrary to their values and beliefs, it's their values and beliefs that win out. Just as it is with religious conservatives.

[CaramonLS]

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.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

Yeah, I'd like to see the context. Because this..

Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

...could simply mean that enforced monogamy has historically been the solution to a serious social problem. It's not clear that he's advocating we enforce marriage today.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One things that emerges from a lot of these interviews is that most journalists are scientifically illiterate. I know that Peterson throws a lot of ideas around, and not all of them are scientifically sound. But most of them are.

Like the fact that monogamy developed as a way to stabilize society from the problems caused by lots of men without mates. That's pretty soundly established science. But it's soundly established science that rubs the wrong away against a lot of our fuzzy modern notions and ideals. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that it's the left, increasingly, who are running afoul of scientific truth. And when science runs contrary to their values and beliefs, it's their values and beliefs that win out. Just as it is with religious conservatives.

But where's the evidence of this actually happening? In the United States people are now far more likely to marry and be in relationships with people drawn from their own economic and educational peers than they were 50 years ago. In fact some people are arguing that this is heavily related to increasing income inequality. Women in the past who normally were unable to independently secure a high status life on their own had far more incentive to seek out high status mates than women today and this is clearly shown by demographic trends. That Atlantic article you quoted about the 9.9% was precisely about this exact trend.


And the other ills that can stem from a large cohort of unattached males (interpersonal violence and other anti-social behavior) have clearly been on a marked decline in the United States for the last 50 years so again, the foundation of his argument lacks evidence. I just don't see any proof that women are eschewing lower status men en masse. Peterson's argument for why this guy drove a van into a crowd of people is essentially that women have too high of standards in mates which I find preposterous. If anything, it's the other way around where the people perpetrating these crimes (members of incel and Men's Rights communities) seem to have impossibly high standards for women.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One things that emerges from a lot of these interviews is that most journalists are scientifically illiterate. I know that Peterson throws a lot of ideas around, and not all of them are scientifically sound. But most of them are.

Some of them are. Some are pop psychology garbage with a spattering of Social Science 101. I think Peterson should stick to public commentary on his discipline and not venture off to subjects not in his wheelhouse. I tell this to academics all the time, especially when the discussion of academic freedom rears its ugly head. Academic freedom affords you the latitude to explore controversial subject matter relating to your subject of study, as defined in your syllabus, no more, no less. Academic freedom ceases the second you leave the safe harbor of your classroom. I am surprised Peterson has not been challenged on his commentary by his faculty and by his institution.

Like the fact that monogamy developed as a way to stabilize society from the problems caused by lots of men without mates. That's pretty soundly established science. But it's soundly established science that rubs the wrong away against a lot of our fuzzy modern notions and ideals. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that it's the left, increasingly, who are running afoul of scientific truth. And when science runs contrary to their values and beliefs, it's their values and beliefs that win out. Just as it is with religious conservatives.

That's interesting. I'd like to see the studies on that. I've read studies that say our adoption of monogamy goes against our biological instincts and survival needs as a species. Less than 5% of all species on this planet adopt monogamous relationships. It has been suggested that the only reason that the great apes established the level of monogamy they did was to prevent rivals from killing their offspring. Even then, strict monogamy in a troop is not all that common. Seems we like to spread our seed, and it's part of what made us successful as a species.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If anything, it's the other way around where the people perpetrating these crimes (members of incel and Men's Rights communities) seem to have impossibly high standards for women.

What crimes are Men's Rights communities going around perpetrating? They are not the same thing as "incels" as far as I understand. Incels seem to be on their own.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's interesting. I'd like to see the studies on that. I've read studies that say our adoption of monogamy goes against our biological instincts and survival needs as a species. Less than 5% of all species on this planet adopt monogamous relationships. It has been suggested that the only reason that the great apes established the level of monogamy they did was to prevent rivals from killing their offspring. Even then, strict monogamy in a troop is not all that common. Seems we like to spread our seed, and it's part of what made us successful as a species.

Link

May not answer your question exclusively, but according to this study, married men are 35% less likely to commit crimes than a similar man who is single. Monogamy = more opportunities for the average man to marry.

[Bunk]

One should probably be careful about dismissing all of anyone’s ideas - but with regard to specific ideas articulated through this NY Times piece - some are extremely odious. The incel, redistributed sex, enforced monogamy stuff here is truly bad. As the writer points out these are at odds with the idea of rejecting equality of outcome - yet he seems to think the ends justify the means here.

Worse, he seems to let a mass murderer off the hook as some sort of victim. That narrative is extremely dangerous. And as a thought leader, it’ll risk getting more people killed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Worse, he seems to let a mass murderer off the hook as some sort of victim. That narrative is extremely dangerous. And as a thought leader, it’ll risk getting more people killed.

How is that different from saying social alienation sometimes plays a part in the radicalization of Muslims who commit terrorist attacks in the West? Alienation seems to be a common ingredient in a lot of mass attacks. In some cases that alienation is caused by being a young Muslim in a secular country, and in others by being unhappily celibate. Why is the one a legitimate explanation and the other not?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But where's the evidence of this actually happening? In the United States people are now far more likely to marry and be in relationships with people drawn from their own economic and educational peers than they were 50 years ago. In fact some people are arguing that this is heavily related to increasing income inequality. Women in the past who normally were unable to independently secure a high status life on their own had far more incentive to seek out high status mates than women today and this is clearly shown by demographic trends. That Atlantic article you quoted about the 9.9% was precisely about this exact trend.

But many still avoid low-status men who offer few resources. In socio-economic environments where women are significantly more educated than men (such as working class black American communities), marriage rates are extremely low. We're now seeing the same thing happen in working class white communities. Because women can earn a living on their own, an unreliable or low-earning man doesn't seem to be an attractive mate.

Originally Posted by opendoor

And the other ills that can stem from a large cohort of unattached males (interpersonal violence and other anti-social behavior) have clearly been on a marked decline in the United States for the last 50 years so again, the foundation of his argument lacks evidence. I just don't see any proof that women are eschewing lower status men en masse.

Economic forces making US men less appealing partners, researchers say

"The lack of good jobs for these men is making them less and less attractive to women in the marriage market, and women, with their greater earnings, can do fine remaining single," says Bertrand, the Chicago economist.

While overall violence is trending down, that's doesn't mean we should ignore social changes that lead to anti-social behaviour. These days, only a handful of low-status men without partners will commit violent crime. It's not as though we have a society where these guys gather on street corners and empty lots and menace passerby, or set cars on fire. Most will rarely leave their porn and videogame dens. But they can be bad for society in other ways. And of course it's not great for women if large numbers of them are pursuing a relatively small number of high-status men. Not unless they're okay with reviving the convention of high-status men having both a wife and a mistress.

[dre]

Ben Shapiro talks about the NYT piece on Jordan Peterson

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30825...an-ben-shapiro

But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”

Bowles likely believes that Peterson believes in witches, or is at least obscuring his belief in witches. That’s because she’s a dolt.

Then her coverage gets even worse, if possible. She describes Peterson’s take on incels – involuntary celibates, or as we’d put it in impolite society, guys who want to get laid but can’t. Here’s how she reports it:

The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships. Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”

This is plainly dishonest reportage. First off, Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.

So, here’s what Peterson is not arguing: that women should be forced to marry men to cure the insecurity of incels. But that's what Bowles says he's saying, and then calls it "absurd." Because she's a very objective reporter, don't you see.

[PepsiFree]

Shapiro should probably cite his sources, I’m not sure he even has a lick of education in anthropology or scientific literature.

He’s kind of a dolt himself.

[dre]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Shapiro should probably cite his sources, I’m not sure he even has a lick of education in anthropology or scientific literature.

He’s kind of a dolt himself.

A dolt that graduates high school at 16, and university at 20.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by dre

A dolt that graduates high school at 16, and university at 20.

We truly are in the age of dumb of you think (pepsi) that Shapiro is dolt. God bless social science education

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How is that different from saying social alienation sometimes plays a part in the radicalization of Muslims who commit terrorist attacks in the West? Alienation seems to be a common ingredient in a lot of mass attacks. In some cases that alienation is caused by being a young Muslim in a secular country, and in others by being unhappily celibate. Why is the one a legitimate explanation and the other not?

Peterson usually touts individual responsibility, but here is claiming that societal norms or culpable primarily and “the solution” is society making sure men get mates so they don’t get angry. Isn’t the responsibility on the individual man to try and be most suitable to find mates? Shapiro makes that point in his piece in fact.

Of course alienation is a factor in attacks - but who is culpable in a case like incels? Women not distributing sex? Society for not adequately enforcing monogamy? Or an individual who blames others for not having success with women, and manifests it in misogyny and violence?

[flylock shox]

I think this thread is the best evidence one could ask for that Peterson's voice is a valuable one. The discussion has been excellent to read through.


One of the reasons I think he gets criticized so much is that he is willing, unlike some academics, to venture into and opine on areas that are beyond his expertise. He's interested in the discussion and the argument, which inevitably means he'll take some positions that are strong and others that are less so. But I'm okay with that: it's critical that we be able to have these conversations civilly - something that seems to be disappearing at a number of levels throughout society.



He's also an advocate in many respects for a group that has been lacking one (or at least a good one). There is a general vilification of males going on at the moment, when at the same time there's plenty of evidence to show that they're struggling. So he has a role to play there too.



I wish he'd stop with all the biblical references and just use Aesop's fables or Disney plots to make some of his points though. He loses me with the religious stuff.