We are in grave danger

Is this thread what happens when you take Jordon Peterson seriously?

LOOK THE FUCK OUT

...

GOD IS A LOBSTER
OR A DOUBLE PINCER

>be Dali
>be a serial killer
>cover it up by becoming a successful artist

Take mescaline and you'll see why lobsters are in fact important. Sartre understood.

He wasnt

autoban

Best track by Kraftwerk

What's this lobster meme?

During the debate with Cathy Newman, Peterson used lobsters as an example of how social hierarchy tends to naturally exist given a similar neural set up, despite the evolutionary distance between humans and lobsters.

Cathy Newman thought Peterson meant that we should live like lobsters.

>tfw old memes and new memes are colliding

What the fuck is going to happen now, Veeky Forums?

Its just as Hegel predicted. We're witnessing contradictions self negating towards the dawn of a new zeltgeist

so why the fuck did they put a
>CRAAAB PERSON
on there??

that sounds like a very bad argument tbqh

orwell.ru/library/reviews/dali/english/e_dali

Disgusting Human Being/10

Peterson is a genuine brainlet. Its like someone using ants as proof that people are naturally communists

So in other words, Trump is indeed completing the system in German Idealism?

>Its like someone using ants as proof that people are naturally communists
Way to misinterpret his points.

I think it's the fact that every living animal has hierarchy, even your example of ants or his example of lobsters. You can look at insects and find an analog for communism, but you won't find that everywhere. But if you go looking for hierarchy instead you will find that everywhere.

Wrong there is no hierarchy among Ants, each Ant serves its purpose for no reward, they operate simply out of duty for the nest
If you assert otherwise its simply anthromorphizing them. As if breeding rights or resources mean anything to ants.
Ants and Bees for that matter are extremely successful and unlike other species like lobsters they like humans actually operate on an inter-reliant economy

What is his point then? If that's not it then his anecdote is next to meaningless

Whether the hierarchy is intentional or not is irrelevant to the fact that there is still a hierarchy. Worker ants will give their lives to protect the queen. If anything I'd say that the fact that the hierarchy is completely unintentional and instinctual really only gives credence to Peterson's argument. Ants don't choose to live within a hierarchy, they could not exist without it as a species.

haha

That's retarded. Hierarchy implies privilege of rank. There's a reason Peterson makes sure to cite the serotonin levels in lobsters when they are successful, it proves a desirability in being at a certain position in the order.
For ants its simply a division of labor, they protect the Queen not because she's privileged but because she is valueble which is a very different matter. Its purely economical and there is no changing of ranks or struggle for position, they all know their place and are content with it because they evolved on the basis that it is the success of the nest that matters not any individual

I should note as well that among ants their role in a colony is essentially random. They aren't selected to be soldiers or queens but rather some are fed an appropriate diet while in the identical larval which causes them to grow into a particular adult form
In an ant or bee colony there is simply no struggle for dominance. Its like Marx's adage from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

I use this basis to assert that central planning is natural and should be embraced by humans

>highbrow self help book

60K in patreon money's his point, now read his book and shut up

wtf I love kommunismus

what did he mean by this?

Am I the only one that sees a connection between Peterson's and Moorcock's Chaos/Order dichotomies?

You seem to be very confused, you're describing a hierarchy in one sentence and then in the next sentence saying that this is somehow not a hierarchy. This is probably because you are attempting to frame this in a Marxist foundation, which is inherently paradoxical. As you've noted, the workers will protect the queen because the queen is inherently more valuable, this is a hierarchy. Your anthropomorphisization of them through the lens of leftist privilege politics not withstanding, the queen is materially more valuable than the workers. There is no social construct about it, it is a physical hierarchy.

only in the same sense that there's a hierarchy or bodily organs in which the gonads are superior to the other organs. you can't really consider ants as individuals in the first place, the colony acts as a superorganism. this also makes them a bad metaphor for communism though.

Well yeah which is why I think Peterson uses the lobsters. They're alien enough that it catches your attention but similar enough that it works as a good parallel. But at the bottom of the argument is the fact that really anywhere you look in nature, you're going to find hierarchy. It's an inescapable fact of life, and people who oppose human hierarchy might as well be opposing gravity.

the problem is, that line of thinking implies the idea of social darwinism in humans, which is wrong because western society has been moving against that for thousands of years

Can you clarify what you mean by Social Darwinism? It has a lot of meanings that often lead to very different conclusions.

The notion that, just because something is observed in nature and other living organisms, has to influence humans in the same way. Such as natural selection or hierarchies for example. I don't necessarily disagree here, just kind of playing the devil's advocate

Which is why the highest ones in the human hierarchy will consist of the working class, while the speculators and exploiters get the bullet.

>While crossing the hall I caught sight of my little three-year-old sister crawling unobtrusively through a doorway. I stopped, hesitated a second, then gave her a terrible kick in the head as though it had been a ball, and continued running, carried away with a ‘delirious joy’ induced by this savage act
How do I say this... It is just boring I guess. Feels so artificial.

It's not about observing something in nature and saying "we should do this as humans", but rather observing something in nature and recognizing that is does currently and has always existed in human. Unless you're going to resort to tabula rasa, which is pretty well invalidated nowadays, I don't know how you could argue that we are somehow entirely removed from nature.

I'm no fan of international finance or the rent-seeking capitalist era we live in, but if investment was not work then everyone would do it. Whether it's work that we should tolerate is a different argument. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that the "working class" is going to accomplish anything. The best you can hope with that kind of jargon is a vanguard party, who certainly should not be considered part of the "working class", fomenting the rise of a second Soviet Union or Maoist China, and it'll end the same way as the previous; at it's knees in front of modern capitalism. You're parroting a 19th century ideology in the 21st century, you might as well be shilling for Napoleon.

>I don't know how you could argue that we are somehow entirely removed from nature.
Well no, not yet. Probably not for hundreds of years still. The spectacular failure of """communism""" made that quite obvious.

>Unless you're going to resort to tabula rasa, which is pretty well invalidated nowadays
do you have sources for this? I just got into Marxism recently so I'm just learning. Marxists believe in that stuff, I'd like to see the opposite arguments (that don't revolve around a capitalist society)

There is still no proof that "natural hierarchy" actually exists in humans. Following that line of reason one could argue that we're naturally prepared to smell each other's butts like dogs do, since we share more neurological similarities with mammals.

It's just a silly biased assumption made out of nowhere.

isn't this just the is-ought problem?

just google amygdala+social hierarchy
leftists have a negative emotional response to dominance hierarchies

How would a group of humans without some form of hierarchy act then?How are the strongest and most intelligent not always on top?
Has such a group ever been recorded at all?

Well the prime example that is generally brought up to invalidate radical behaviorism (the idea that humans are blank slates and that anything can be socialized) is the case of Dr. John Money and David Reimer. It's a pretty sick case, so I'll leave you to look into that one. The Red Brain Blue Brain study is also pretty interesting. It's essentially found that self-reported Republicans and self-reported Democrats tend to have key differences in brain mass in different parts of their brains. It shows that there not just functional but structural differences between the brains of people who support different political parties and ideologies. It comes to the conclusion then that since the differences are structural and not just functional, that there must be a genetic component to their beliefs, since our brains don't change in mass to the degree that these differences were observed. Studies on twins are also good to look at for this kind of stuff. I can't remember the name of the study, but there are quite a few out there that look at twins who were separated at birth and find that they often share political opinions to a significant degree. Obviously it's all linked to genes, but genetic research is all really in its infancy. One gene that I can think off of the top of my head that there's been a lot of research on recently is MAO-A, which is considered the 'warrior gene', as it associated with higher degrees of aggression.

You're making the same argument as the poster I was responding to in the first place who brought up ants as an example of communism. Refer here and replace communist ants with butt-sniffing dogs.

I don't really see how there's any ought about it. It's not that things ought to be this way, it's that they are. That's the entire argument, hierarchy is not normative, it's positive. You can look at any level of life from cells to ants to lobsters to humans and regardless of whether the organism is capable of normative judgement you will find some kind of hierarchy.

Just because something is processed by a specific structure in the brain doesn't mean it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

We also have a specific designated area for language, but we are still debating whether language is a capacity that is developed due to a natural predisposition (a language acquisition device) or a socially constructed way of communication that just happened to be located in specific cortex areas for reasons unknown.

Money reward also has its neural basis, yet money is a social construct.

people who are okay with social stratification will get along with likeminded people even if they're rewarded to different degrees. they might consider people higher up more competent and intelligent
people who get angry when confronted with idea of dominance hierarchies will downplay the concept of competence and try their best to equalize everything

there's no is-ought here. it's just how different people interact based on brain differences

but user, brain differences are also shaped by the environment due to the brain's plasticity. How can you tell if a brain is "shaped" as a leftist because it upholds certain values or the other way around?

I addressed this in my post Red Brain Blue Brain paper is right up your alley and it answers this question.

yea I already know genes aren't real and soon you'll be able to mold everyone into the same kind of superior human simply by showing them diverse movies and female lawyers. utopia is on the horizon

Okay thanks, will check it out. Still there is a massive load of research in the direction of ideology being the product of environment, so I have to take it with a grain of salt.

>there is a massive load of research in the direction of ideology being the product of environment
No, there isn't. Nobody takes tabula rasa seriously anymore, this isn't the 70s. Contemporary research shows that there is a significant genetic component contributing to the things people believe, and the more research we do into this field the more it supports this hypothesis. Red Brain Blue Brain was a groundbreaking study within the field of political psychology, but its results and conclusions are by no means isolated.

Of course I don't believe in tabula rasa, there is a strong genetic component in both intelligence measured as IQ and personality. However, thanks to twin studies we also know there is also an environmental factor accounting for part of the variability (which is heavier for personality traits than it is for IQ). So if personality isthe product of both nature and nurture, and different personality traits are associated with different political standpoints, I can't help but think that genetics isn't only what there is.

Well no, genetics is not entirely responsible for shaping your views, but that was never really what I said. It's a mixture of both to a certain degree. Your argument was that genetics is does not play a significant role, but it does. You can predict >80% of people's partisanship by looking at a scan of the structure of their amygdala and insular cortex.

what did he mean by this?

>she has crabs
or
>reference to future study of lobster neuroscience, the timelessness of the dominance hierarchy and it's role in sexual reproduction

>Red Brain Blue Brain
~80 participants
is this a joke