Let me get this straight...

She came into the interview with strong opinions of her own and she felt very confident in how the interview was going to go. She was going to defend feminism and make Jordan Peterson look silly and when that didn't go as planned it triggered some cognitive dissonance which caused her to hallucinate. She wasn't consciously trying to misrepresent Peterson's beliefs, she was repeating what she actually heard. That's what Scott Adams says anyway and it seems credible enough to me.

>lemme just make up my own definitions

...

I don't think that's what he did but even if that were the case it's perfectly acceptable because he's defining his terms. When he says power in the context of relationships between men and women he means competence and not a tyrannical rule by one side.

kek

>so you’re saying that we’re lobsters and that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
Even The Atlantic thought this was nuts.

Not literature.

Eco-queer here, if I remember correctly.
I don't get the context but the effects of SSRI pollution are not desirable. Fish no longer feel like eating and die.
Serotonin is a very important sign for all animal life. It's best not to fuck it up on such a large scale.

wheres the vid

I'm still convinced he's a reformed supervillain

The publication is run by a neocon, so it's occasionally sane

...

I want off mr bones wild ride

>the 'debate' was intended to be an interview
No it wasn't. They may have called it that, but people percieved as being associated with the alt-right don't just get to go on tv without someone on camera to provide the counter narritive in between their every sentence.

>theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

This interview was infuriating. I more or less want to have a more openly (and honestly) obnoxious form of this kind of rhetoric, supplanted with my own ideas of course. Like if she said "stop the abuse, stop the anger" then I would say (assuming I've taken on Peterson's Weltanshuaang)

"I agree that people have a tendency to abuse their emotions. And we don't often think of our own emotions as being like a sort of addictive substance where we can become quick to temper to the point we stop making logical sense. I'll say this is something I've covered forthrightly and in great detail in my life's work and I think many of the people I've inspired are forgetting to check the anger at the door and engage in the discourse rationally."

Great literature threads.

>weltanschuaang

Look at this hypocrit. His room is a fucking pigsty with random shit all over the place, and IM the one thats supposed to clear MY room. Get lost Petermeme

>I com on Veeky Forums to discus liturtur

its kind of a meme here

It was a mistake to get a journalist on the case. Any third grade student could have kicked Jordan Peterson's ass.

But I also think that he is a coward and knows that he is a fraud so he steers clear from debates. So i think she tried to go for the hard pressing interview and failed.

Ps. I haven't met yet a JBP fan who is willing to discuss his ideas, they all run away at first sign that you are minimally cultured.

I keep seeing Peterson fans in public. On the bus I saw some lame deskjob looking guy watching one of Peterson's recent videos about boycotting schools that teach so-called "neo Marxist" subjects, and the last two days at my local library I've seen this lanky Asian guy watching videos analysing the interview with that lady in OP, as well as some Ben Shapiro videos. Why do all these pathetic men insist on blaming their problems on the crumbling of Western civilisation?

She didn't win. Memerson is certainly bad but lets not jump inbed with the enemy over his fairly innocuous presence- particularly when that enemy looks like Debbie Wasserman schultz had a nosejob.

Seriously: stagnant wages for 30 years, 82% of all new wealth captured by 1%.

The largest idiot in the world: "my masculinity is frail because of cultural marxism"

>she didn't win
Typical Jordan Peterson crybaby. There's a reason the video starts with 'WAHHHH all my fans want women to be NICER TO THEM WAHHH' obviously you are a kissless virgin who just wants JP to be your martyr

I don't think she won, but I don't see why she is my enemy. On the other hand the idiocy that Jordan Peterson puts around is my enemy. I can't believe how every time I'm online now I have to start every conversation with a lesson on french thought because of this asshole and the two conservative think tanks in washington that fund him, who somehow think that postmodernism and marxism are the same thing like some dipshit freshman.

I LOATHE Peterson. I'm an antinatalist for fucks sake. Nietzscheans represent a brand of life cultism that is so blatantly masochistic I can hardly forgive it.

The problems people have concerning his utilitarianism, his pragmatism, and the bugbear he has against postmodernism I can understand. But how does that relate to that interview? Peterson was talking about how hierarchies are inherent to the animal kingdom (which we're a part of), and that different hormonal profiles can lead to different interests between men and women. Hardly controversial notions. Peterson articulated his least problematic (or disagreeable) views in that interview. Defending the interviewer because you hate Peterson in general reveals an actual bias.

What exactly is his most imflammatory altright bs? I know the trannies are mad at him and I'm not totally sure what his stance is. I've watched a few hours of his shit and he just says clean your room.

>"I'm an antinatalist for fucks sake"
>"I'm 14 for fucks sake"

If you want things to be on topic then just go to reddit, bro.

She, or rather her methods and hyper-incredulous attitude, should be the “enemy” of anyone who cares about good discourse.

>men and women are different
>hormones play a role in determining different interests between men and women
>IQ is partially genetic
>hierarchies are a natural part of humanity, even if we should do our best to make everything fair
He also has left wing views, like concerns over wealth inequality and racial discrepancies in achievement. He's a mild conservative who makes Ben Shapiro look like Mussolini, but because he's an academic who isn't far left people call him alt-right.

This is where I struggle with him. While the west has obviously produce a fair level of stability, it is also driven by an economical ideology that would also deserves its share of criticism. It's one thing to loathe stupid lefties, but in the mean time he kind of absolves any form of destructive neo-liberalism (in the economic sense).

Hallucination is codeword for hyperreality, and Scott Adams says you should follow whichever hallucination you like best. He's a crypto-postmodernist.

Because they are too insecure to admit that the so called "nu-males" are twice the men they are. They're just reactionaries going insane because they can't handle the fact that masculinity has changed.

>So what you’re saying is the lobsters have it all figured out, so humanity should just give up and accept lobster rule. That’s really what you’re saying, isn’t it?

I don't believe any philosophical outlook can be dismissed out of hand as immature. It only matters to what extent they have been considered and then obfuscated by the dissimulating very adult intellect that any of them can be distignuished as more mature than the others.

>there's a purely material explanation as to why men are failing
You're a fucking retard if you don't think that cultural factors like sexual liberation, small families, and over-parenting are contributing factors. Masculinity isn't in anywhere near that same crisis in the third world, despite its far more dire economic conditions.

They are incredibly controversial notions. Let's start from the first one:

Very little of our hierarchies are determined by our hormonal or genetic make up as he would like us to believe with the example of the lobster.

The possibility to understand and have hierarchies and move in them, is of course a trait that we have evolved. But the shape that they take has very little to do with nature, no more than our holding a knife in our right or left hand has to do with it.

Our hierarchies evolve with our society, and good chunk of them is not determined by evolutive fitness, but by systems of inheritance and wealth. These are the systems of privilege, the fact that if you are the adoptive child of people who went to Harvard you are still incredibly more likely to go into Harvard because of the legacy system. If you are born to people that work in the music business you are more likely to work in the music business.

And most of your success, and hence hierarchy, depends on the luck of the draw: in the 1920s your chances of being millionaire as a musician were none to slim, in the 1980s having a dad who is a vp in a record company because he was some woodstock musician, meant that you were going to be rich too.

His naturalization of hierarchies is either silly or deceitful:

Silly because all he does is stating the obvious that no one denies: power exists in nature.

Deceitful because it wants to normalize the hierarchy as grounded in biology when instead it's the fruit of exercise in wealth, habit, and institution-building (and it's not just leftists that say this, but serious conservatives like Fukuyama)

>men and women are different
>hormones play a role in determining different interests between men and women
>IQ is partially genetic
>hierarchies are a natural part of humanity, even if we should do our best to make everything fair
Tell anyone in academia you actually believe those things and they will laugh at you. If you believe in any of those things you're as much as a brainlet as Peterson.

Maybe I'm Chad materialist vs the virgin culturalist.

But I think it's all bullshit. If you think there is an anti-male culture that is castrating you, it mostly means you are either a piece of shit or bitter because you are ugly.

Going against sexual liberation, is just being a protectionist in the market of sexual competition. Any guy who has a good sex life would be horrified by that.

If anything your men are weak because you're way too rich. We poor here in south america and manly as fuck, bro.

>I know the trannies are mad at him and I'm not totally sure what his stance is
He doesn't have a problem with transfolk but he's fundamentally opposed to legally compelled speech on the principle of its dictatorial nature. It comes up in the interview in the context of the woman asking him what right he has to offend people, and his response being (generally) that: she's happy to offend people, she's made a career of it, why should she and her cohorts (politically speaking) be the only group privileged to say things that could offend someone else, and that we have to have the freedom to risk saying things that are offensive in order to further a dialogue because immediately barring someone from saying something that could be perceived as offensive automatically narrows the potential of discussion and thus the identification of proper recourse in the amelioration of social discourse. Basically championing, "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It's not a new idea, but his concern is that it is an indication of the polarity of the socio-political climate in the West that such an idea has become a subject of highly controversial contention.

Basically his word is twisted into slandering him as transphobic when his real problem is policies that bear dictatorial potential that could end up who-knows-where when people feel the need to start policing each other so much and use the authoritative strong arm of the government to achieve their ends. As always, today it's you, but tomorrow it's me, which is why personal liberty (as opposed to legal compulsion) should be the highest value.

Evil right-wing bootstrap ideologue... blaming victims... the poor oughta just get a job n stop complainin’... their fault fer bein’ in the gutter! yer just a lazy piece a shit! gahh, ya freakin’ bleedin’ heart

>But the shape that they take has very little to do with nature, no more than our holding a knife in our right or left hand has to do with it.
First of all, Peterson doesn't contend that the shape of any human hierarchy is based on an inherent nature. He said that the concept of a hierarchy itself is. That's a really important distinction to make. Second, if you genuinely believe in the concept of an inherent nature (which is pretty close to irrefutable at this point; all that's questioned is how much we're able to sublimate and control that nature through culture), then you necessarily also have to believe that, given our genetic diversity, and given that any hierarchical system is going to naturally select for certain traits over others, some people are more likely to rise to the top based on criteria that don't relate to cultural privilege, but genetic privilege. And third. success being determined by luck (whether it be genetic or social luck) doesn't automatically delegitimize it. Every single criterion for success in any hierarchy is necessarily going to depend on luck. There isn't a domain of success possible that isn't determined by luck. If we were all born in identical economic conditions and our natural talents were allowed to manifest themselves to a maximum degree, those talents won't be equally distributed among the population, and whether or not you have them is based on luck. You can't really have genetic diversity without hierarchies, otherwise there's nothing to select for.

>Deceitful because it wants to normalize the hierarchy as grounded in biology when instead it's the fruit of exercise in wealth, habit, and institution-building (and it's not just leftists that say this, but serious conservatives like Fukuyama)

This is exactly what I don't like about him, the fact that he absolutely does not adress this. He'll just say "work hard be good don't be resentful".

The thing is, the ugly guy protecting his sexual value has just as valid a concern as Chad protecting his harem. Unless you think that good-looking people are inherently superior to ugly people, which is a right-wing hierarchical belief, then being concerned about how the sexual marketplace treats certain people is a perfectly valid concern.

So you prefer a time when women were forced to have sex with you because your family arranged the marriage?

I don't know how someone can seriously go through life thinking that hormones play no role in determining either interest or behavior. You'd have to not come into contact with many women or children if you don't see massive differences manifesting themselves even in the most gender-equal societies.

>Tell anyone in academia you actually believe those things and they will laugh at you.
Peterson isn't part of academia? And why should I care about the views social scientists have concerning biology and human psychology, which aren't their fields?

You can have a utilitarian concern about how it affects society as a whole. The top 20% of men getting all of the sex isn't conducive to stability, as the Middle East demonstrates. Nor is it good for women in the long-term either:
>I get to have sex and get pregnant by Chad
>I'm spending the second half of my life alone

This has deep, negative repercussions for both men and women. The people who benefit are the few men who can fuck when they want and not have to worry about the bodies they leave behind.

I’m not familir with what’s being discussed here on more than a cursory level, but is Peterson really trying to explain all hierarchies like wealth and power distribution in the sense you’re saying? Because I don’t believe Peterson would disagree with what you’ve said here. I think what he’s trying to say is best figured out by what it is he is (or thinks he is) arguing against. He’s trying to reclaim hierarchy - probably in a sense beyond the most obvious power dynamics of the Western economy - as something we think of as “natural”, rather than as something artificial that can easily disassembled. I don’t think Peterson is saying your genetic traits determine your place in the social hierarchy (or that they should), though I’m sure he believes it plays a part.

I think this is a current of thought one could properly call belonging to the conservative tradition. The idea of unsavoury aspects of human existence as being “natural”, rather than as abnormal or aberrant - consider the simplistic difference between an orthodox Christian and a Rousseauian understanding of where vice originates, both are to a degree informative. The term natural not - inherently - being used as a form of moral endorsement, but as a way of apprehending the phenomena. That we should understand it from a certain angle so that we can better remedy it, because if we go in with delusions about the nature of the thing we’re not going to get good results.

That wasn't such a bad system to be honest. If your parents were decent people they were going to marry you well. If you were the daughter of the local drunk then you were fucked from the start anyway regardless of the system.

Two points:

1) The possibility of a hierarchy is natural, the hierarchy in itself is cultural. He should know that. The possibility of our emotions are natural, but as a jungian he is well aware of how they are shaped by cultural traits.

2) It's not so simple. You don't see the problem with luck because you see the game for hierarchy as a competition, that's a Nietzschean prejudice that he doesn't see through.

In reality it's both a competition, but it's a also a specialization. As foucault points out power is not something that you only use to gain resources (the competitive part) but also as a way to allocate them and specialize others.

You use the resources to create institutions that change the face of our society. But not always this institutions, and those who fortune favor are also the best to allocate them.

Take the heir of the Koch brothers. He is much higher than all of us on the hierarchy. He was lucky, and won the game at birth, it's part of the game. But he is also an idiot who is spending all the money in making ugly shirt and buying escorts.

And that's why an inheritance tax would be beneficial.

Or even more equality, so that huge power doesn't simply go in the hands of a lucky idiot.

...

>He was lucky
No, he wasn't. He wasn't some soul wandering around the soul realm who just happened to be lucky enough to be born as their heir. He's the direct consequence of someone's actions. He couldn't be anyone but himself and that's the case for everyone.

Have you ever tried living with someone who you didn't love? Of course not. I did and it's a living hell even if the person is decent.

The 20% data, if I remember correctly, comes from a bad interpretation of an okcupid statistic.

It said that every woman like 20% of guys. It doesn't mean it's the same 20%.

Let's say that there is guys A B C D E

Girl 1 likes only A
Girl 2 likes only B
Girl 3 like only C
Girl 4 likes only D
Girl 4 likes only E

Each of the girls likes only 20% of the guy, they are all getting laid.

And girls seriously like the weirdest guys and are mostly just as a lonely and desperate as guys.

Please explain what's the alternative to sexual liberation.

He was literally a sperm swimming in a vagina.

>Men and women aren't different

You should visit a basic sex ed class

The problem with the "problem with luck" is that it can't be fixed without tyranny. In any domain some people are going to win due to purely genetic factors. For example, the distribution of success in the domain of sex (which is among the most powerful) can't be altered without forcing beautiful people to fuck ugly people. Even if you remove intergenerational privilege (everyone starts off middle class), the distribution of success is going to favor those who have the traits that the hierarchical domain they're a part of selects for. This is the inherent tragedy of being a human being. There's legitimately no way to fix this. Even if we were to upturn our culture and create new hierarchies with new values, there will still be people at the bottom, and those people at the bottom will try their hardest to form a society where they can succeed.

Basically, we're fucked and there's nothing we can do about it.

So what you're saying is ¬(what you're saying)?

Tinder statistics are pretty clear: a minority of men get laid, a majority of women do. The 20% statistic is mostly made up, I'll grant you that, but there is a much steeper sexual hierarchy for men in non-monogamous societies than there is in monogamous societies. If the average woman sleeps with like 20-something men in a lifetime (which is what statistics from Europe show), and someone like my Chad brother has been with hundreds of women, then there's a pretty major imbalance in how sex is distributed among the genders. Even lefties are starting to talk about this.

And I don't see how Foucault's point affects anything. Yes, people who succeed want to continue the system that allowed them to succeed. Getting rid of their ability to do that wouldn't get rid of the concept of hierarchies, it would just mean that the hierarchies would cycle through more rapidly.

You are giving up too easily. It can be fixed with better access to resources.

Let me take a silly example, as we were saying: getting laid.

It's true some people are better predisposed because more charming and better looking.

But that doesn't mean that the playing field cannot be improved:

1) Not having to worry about health insurance and student debt may lead the ugly duckling to explore his artistic talents and become a successful musician or poet, captivating thus many girls he otherwise would not have gotten.

2) More economically independent women, means more women that don't have to stick with people they don't love because they can't afford to be single. Thus you increase the pool and the possibility of getting laid.

Naturally there is the obverse. If you have a lot of money, you want people's economic situation to be as desperate as they can in comparison, so that you can literally buy sex from the best looking girls.

And here is where politics diverge and it's not a question of truth and facts, but of desire and vision of in which society you want to live.

I want to live in a society where the only condition for people to be together is that they like each other.

Others, I suspect, want to maintain privileges and differences in power because that allows them to access and coerce people into sleeping with them.

I personally think that the first option is more just, and the one I would choose from behind the veil of justice. And I don't think you need tyranny to advance that justice.

>my Chad brother has been with hundreds of women
Do you want to depress me, user?

Tinder is a very particular dating app where you are offering very little personal information and you are chosen on your pic.

yeah in clubs where everyone is drunk and the music is loud the best dressed and good looking guys are the only ones that get laid.

But that's not all of life.

Girls now for example are going back to okcupid because they are stupid of the douchbags on tinder.

You don't have to live with seeing him bring different 19 year old coeds over to your place, or our mom being proud of that for some reason

I admire your optimism, my fellow robot, but I think I would be a virgin even in your lovely utopia.

Nobody says of getting rid of hierarchies, but to be aware of how they are determined by culture, history and luck, so that you can dismantle when they are no longer useful to you.

Winner takes all hierarchies necessary lead to political decay. The current status of political decay it's not due to political correctness.

It's due to the fact that our economy is blocked by the wealth capture of financialization and administration.

Take colleges, which are the institutions that necessarily form the leading class of the country:

-No one gets tenure anymore
-Entire humanities departments getting dismantled.
-Wages are at a historical low with no benefits.
-Meanwhile football coaches and deans make millions.

Who do you think that can afford to go to become a professor? Who will form the future of the nation. Do you think the most brilliant minds of our generation are going into academia? THAT is political decay.

I know a guy like that. He's so much of a Chad that even his mom flirts with him.

If you minimize the importance of economic privilege in the dating marketplace, all you will do is increase the importance of genetic traits like looks (any wonder more men are lifting now that women work?), which will then cause the genetically disadvantaged to create and climb a particular hierarchy in order to have access to sex, which will then lead to hierarchical distinctions between people. There's no escape. The escape is not to play, which is what celibate monks discovered.

Try boxing. You get fit, you make friends, it's inexpensive, cool, and it changes you.

Nice coping mechanism. I am certain that you have never opened an anthropology book in your life, as those things you cite are thought in respected universities. Go watch the Yale anthropology classes availiable on Youtube, as an example.

Economic is not the only form of status. Humor, charm, talents are all components of it. The weeknd is a pretty ugly dude, but he was getting laid even before being famous.

Naturally this is bad if you are rich and detestable. But if you are ugly and poor, seeing lower interest given to wealth is an advantage: it liberates the attention span to other elements, maybe a shared passion in media consumption.

Every dating situation is going to privilege a minority of men. It's part of being a mammal: sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. So women have all of the power of selection, and because they have that power they know that they can go for the most valuable men (whatever that means to them) in situations where longterm monogamy isn't a factor.

It doesn't matter what the criteria are, what's important is that those criteria aren't equally distributed. I'm about to say something insane, but I think there might be something to it: men created culture in order to have domains in which to compete sexually that aren't purely physical, and that's the reason that they excluded women from participation.

Are you racist? The Weeknd is a pretty good looking dude. Also, blacks don't even have to try to get laid because of the BBC factor anyway. I know I love it.

First of all you are being to reproductive centric. It's not a question of eggs and sperm. That's not really how it works.

Attraction works in multiple complex ways. For example most of the threesomes I had were not even because of girls attracted to me, but attracted to my gf.

Or another example is I know communities of friends that spend a lot of time together and have sex parties all the time where everyone hooks up with everyone else.

A lot of our mating strategies, and mate selection are conscious and once you eliminate certain barriers or privileges so they change.

There are more possibilities than you know there are.

Also finally: sperm is not cheap. I can't come more than twice or thrice a day. After that I'm tired of fucking. Our sexual attention is very limited, and actually girls would have to compete for it. Every guy can satisfy at top two or three women. And the others would go elsewhere, or prefer to ignore a very courted man in exchange of a guy that is more appropriate to them and their particular needs.

This highlights the difference between a conservative and a progressive disposition. Peterson always talks about how much of a miracle Western society is. How we manage to keep the lights on, have little violence, and create massive infrastructures that work. His position would be: don't get rid of the hierarchies that got us to this privileged place because the ways in which something could go wrong far outnumber the ways in which something could go right. The world leads towards chaos and entropy, so let's not fuck this thing up, even if it is a little flawed.

The Weeknd is pretty pudgy, he even says he has to lose weight. He is a bad boy and cool, but no one thinks he is a hotty.

Nice projecting, soyboy

I literally had a class on cognitive differences between men and women in my biology degree.

What he ignores is modern societies keep the light on, the west was just the spark.

Evolution and disruption are part of the reasons that we have managed to stay up. And change for the best and worse has always come from everywhere. Germany was united under a conservative and Nation states were invented by a monarch.

His immobilism is a fantasy that comes from his fixation with structural analysis of myth. In reality it is nothing more than your roommate saying that he doesn't want to clean the apartment because it would mess his order and not find things anymore.

In nature, prior to birth control and abortion, women were forced to be choosier when it came to partners because they'd likely end up 9 months pregnant. A man could spread his seed wide and fuck uggos because he could just leave any time. My position is predicated on the notion that millions of years of evolution left this imprint on the human brain. It's a belief that's predicated on the notion that we have an inherent psychology that informs us to this day, but I think it's also borne out by statistical evidence.

>Also finally: sperm is not cheap.
Yes it fucking is. A man can impregnate a continent. A woman can't have more than two dozen children in a lifetime.

Millions of years of evolution lead us to a brain that is plastic.

Plasticity in choosing mating strategies and spotting desirability is much more evolutionary suitable.

Because human societies change so fast, and because the luck and the misfortune of our offspring depend so much on social factors, we are mostly capable of changing our strategies depending on what is better at the moment.

Is one of the reasons why cool is attractive, but it can't be hardwired because the definition of cool literally changes every few years.

>Yes it fucking is. A man can impregnate a continent. A woman can't have more than two dozen children in a lifetime.

But he can't fuck more than two women at a time. And in regular fucking is how you bond with a girl. Once you stop fucking her she gets horny and she moves on to the next guy no matter how much she liked you.

Again once you take children out, the mechanisms and the dynamics change. That's another reason why evopsych is a reactionary pseudoscience: it eliminates modern ways of living, so that it can justify traditional institutions as natural.

Modern societies in so much as they follow the example of Western culture. There's no modern day Japan without the European enlightenment. First of all, you do have to concede that Peterson is right that contemporary Western culture is as close to ideal as a society has gotten since the agricultural revolution. We live longer, have better access to healthcare, food, and other amenities. Peterson is also right that Western attempts to radically change the cultures brought about by the Enlightenment have all ended disastrously. Peterson looks at how both Germany and Russia did away with the Enlightenment concept of individual sovereignty over collective interest, and sees that as the potential risks of radically altering our values. He doesn't want to run the risk another 100 million dead just to allow for the possibility of things getting better.

Not Veeky Forums

I agree with the first part but I disagree with the second part.

I don't see in germany or russia any break from western enlightenment. It's the same institutions that were functioning and they just got taken over by certain classes. Mass incarceration, mass murder, and denial of human rights is still today happening as it was happening in russia and germany. It's only that it's happening far away from us. Who was financing contras for example? Who has just passed measures to allow unsupervised methods of surveillance?

One could eat a good strudel in Berlin in 1933 and in Moscow in 1951.