Peterson, Sam Harris, pt. 2

>because I stuck my dick in a mentally retarded girl now I can talk down to people online!
step back everyone, I think we're dealing with a master here.

>t. unloved loser

Anyone else feel like Peterson's chimp troop analogy near the start is very similar to r9k dogma?

Basically Peterson claims morality has evolved to stop chad from dominating us and stealing all the females. Selfless values are beneficial in a Darwinian sense. Peterson then goes on to say that human women exclusively date across or above themselves in the "dominance heirarchy", but he doesn't expand on that point.

What exactly does Peterson find wrong with the current female/male relation ship dynamic? I actually do remember finding some user on wizchan posting his videos before he got efamous. I know the dude's married with children now, but I'm detecting this theme of women being promiscuous floozies and needing to buck up their ideas.

it's not as boring as reading

try the redpill we simply hate women and nonwhites here

harris da goat

You think women date beneath themselves the way men do? It's common sense that they don't.

I don't know what he things of sexual morality and current developments.
Petersons research is a lot about reducing linguistic concepts to archetypes and grounding them in evolution.
The second part is stuff like "we evolved from animals that don't see color to humans that do to find and pick the right fruit", and stuff like this also for habits/instinct/sub-personalities (e.g. that babies are automatically afraid of heights, even if they don't understand anything, or psychological theories of evolution)
The first part is the basic psychology tests of asking the same question a few times ("are you happy when X happens", "when X happens, do you smile?", "when X happen, are you euphoric?") and cross correlating them, breaking them down to half a dozen personality trades.
To express the underlying principles, language with it's non-fitting and overlapping words are a baggage, and stories encapsulate and express motivations better than any property. Actions speak louder than words? Of course this means it gets mystic.

Do you think the guy fucked that retard?

There has to be some sort of law against this.

The examples I gave with the X's we are little bit too close.
Consider e.g. how someone votes, what bugs them and how they play games. Those are different things and they ought to be correlated with just a few psychological featues (as in the pic related above) and you're put on a spectrum. And depending one who you are in this regard (different people are different), you set goals different and motivations, but just as there are a few trades that capture personality, there are a few archetypical stories caturing moviations.

Okay, and that's just my explanation of what I heard from him so far - I'm happy for corrections

>You think women date beneath themselves the way men do?

I don't think I've ever seen a man date a woman with downs syndrome, but I think the classification of someone being "beneath" you is very subjective. Does he relate to a superior physical constitution(genetics) or material wealth?

desu it seems like a fake image, I doubt people with downs have the capability to write a post on facebook as well articulated as that.

unless she doesn't have downs and is unfortunately ugly.

youtu.be/-cA3t1HW1Ow

Damn, pretty eye opening.

The only people with downs sydrome I've known are like 40+, so they probably got shafted by my countries education system and disregarded as invalids.

>What exactly does Peterson find wrong with the current female/male relation ship dynamic?
Does he ever actually condemn this behavior? If it's evolutionarily superior it might be totally acceptable. Genuine question, I haven't watched a lot of his lectures or read anything he wrote.
>try the redpill we simply hate women and are all nonwhites here
FTFY

I only watched 4 of his 1.5h lectures and he never judges anyone but the WWII and death cap people etc., and btw. you get to know stuff like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
but regarding sexuality, he's only ever flirting with the female students about how cunning and rather complicated they are made to be

0:52
I don't get Harris view of Veeky Forums at all?!

This is mind numbingly boring. I was so excited for this too

Is there a point where you disagree with both of them?

That's not what Peterson is saying. He's saying that Chad is able to get to the top of the dominance hierarchy, but he can't stay there for long because a couple of more pro-social chimps can tear him apart, and when they rule no one wants to tear them apart.

It's why limited governments aren't as often overthrown as dictatorships.

She could in theory have a normal IQ, and possibly have a better personality than some bimbos. I am mostly worried about her looks.

Was LBJ a homo?

He was just alpha af

Why's he leaning in for a kiss? Looks like a fag to me.

No, that was J. Edgar Hoover.

Obviously, he was a president, but it looks more like insecure behaviour.

Wasn't he just a transvestite like Michelle Obama?

>most intelligent and relevant philosophers of our time

lol... just lol

speak for urself idiot

A philosopher is a man that writes a book length essay on religion or psychology or has a youtube account.

i would unironically suck his dick no homo

Sam Harris is a crypto Buddhist

I like Peterson he is one of the good guys and is able to speak his mind clearly, he is not a genius or whatever but he is good
But I'm not going to listen to that boring shit

>god isnt real
Dostoevsky and Tostoy wrote great works of fiction, even though the story isnt true they still contain more truth than most peoples lives. Religion works in this way.
>god isnt real
Sam are you even listening?

it was pretty good. I do think he is a genius as far as IQ is concerned.

>almost certain the surprise box will be no homo
>scroll over it
>it is
What an awful feeling. This website is so rarely something other than garbage.

I really disliked this podcast. I like JP and am going to see him talk this weekend at my university but conversations like these just leave me flabbergasted. He gives the overwhelming of being both smart, and a moron.

Does Jordan Peterson still work at UoT?

I agree. I don't know what to make of him.

I don't think they disagree on a whole lot, Harris just sees everything through a political lens so all he can think about is political consequences of the things Peterson is saying. I think Peterson is talking purely on a philosophical level

Alpha

>If it's evolutionarily superior it might be totally acceptable.
It's not. It's why Islamic societies are so violent.

1. Islam allows men to have many wives. Therefore, there are more single men than women. Single men are more violent than married men.

2. To fix this problem Islam allows conquest and the taking of slaves as wives.

3. Islam acts in the same way as a bureaucracy or a cancer in that it grows to contain itself.

Means Of Ascent by Robert Caro is a rad as fuck LBJ bio, I hate political bios (unless they are communist dictators) but this shit went hard, plus it was at a key time in american history, def. check it out, LBJ was like some undereducated (but supposedly high iq) dude who played american politics like stalin playing the bolshevik central committee, JFK and Nixon seemed to be much more vividly remembered from that era, probably due to the sensational ends to their presidential careers, but LBJ was p interesting, i was surprised how much i enjoyed it

(This review is of the audiobook version of the product)

>Therefore, there are more single men than women. Single men are more violent than married men.

that's also why if a woman walks unescorted through places like cairo a mob of horny dudes will come down and grope her

caro's over 80, do you think he'll be able to finish the final volume in time?

if you can't understand why that might generate an immense sense of alienation and resentment on a large portion of men, just on the ground that you deem it "evolutionary superior"(in what way? are individual women all skillful appraisers of what constitutes an evolutionary superior decision? did nature equip them with a foolproof hardware for genetic selection? protip the answers are all no) , which is an extremely arbitrary judgment of value, you are probably autistic.

Do I have to pay for this one?

How are they hacks?

Can someone post the audio with all the Harris parts edited out? Peterson is an interesting guy, but Harris has literally never said anything worth hearing.

Interesting discussion.

You know what isn't an awful feeling?
Gay sex

>not calling Sam Harris ''Scam Harrtist''

Also Memerson is pretty bad, I'd rather stick to Kermit.

i always thought sam harris was like just an honest atheist like hitchens, i don't give a shit about atheism one way or the other so i never really payed attention to his shit until it was pointed out that he's a jew who has dedicated his entire career to undermining christianity, then i saw this:

samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

and now i'm like ok FUCK this dude

Sam isn't symaphetic, but he's mostly, bitterly, saying that cults are dangerous

I think Sam is correct in saying that religion causes more harm than it causes good, and the reason is because they view their religion true as scientific theories.

But I do think he should've admitted that Peterson's approach to religion is a vast improvement.

Says the dude who probably takes shit like Lacan seriously.

>cult leader says that cults are dangerous

eh eh

Except he has a wife and kids.

See this is the shit with Veeky Forums. It's all ad hominem at this point based on nothing more than assumptions with nothing to base it on.

Nobody can actually debate shit on here or even consider the validity of a seemingly outrageous idea without forthing from the mouth.

how fucking new are you

>>>/reddit/

he seems to use evolutionary psychology related to sexual dymanics to describe the development of the distribution of power and the organisation in society, government and religion.

I see some similarity in Nietzsche's idea of master-slave dynamic creating modern morals to counteract the power of the master. (So he's probably again mixing different ideas from different disciplines to tell a new story).

I'm probably wrong though. Not familiar with Peterson

He does use his own form of evolutionary psychology, but he also criticizes evolutionary psychology for being too narrow.

He imagines that a great deal of our morality is way more ancient than when early Homo sapiens lived on the African savannah, which presumably it is, given that the life form that is now called human is vastly older than a couple of hundreds of thousands of years.

Yeah I wasn't really insulting the guy for being beta. More inquiring about his world view

Relax faggot

Not him, but I mean, he was giving a descriptive explanation of animal hierarchy, and giving an argument for how this can be said to be true for humans as well.(E.g men are more aggressive, and women are naturally hypergamous).

It doesn't take a lot of research to find out that there is considerable overlap between base animal behavior and human behavior.

>He imagines that a great deal of our morality is way more ancient than when early Homo sapiens lived on the African savannah, which presumably it is, given that the life form that is now called human is vastly older than a couple of hundreds of thousands of years.
How is that new? Primatologists, such as Frans de Waal, already have done research on fairness and primates. Or are you talking of more specific morality?

We live in a cynical world.

What's wrong with that?

love watching two pseud manchildren argue.
as much as i dislike harris i like that he's making peterson look like the new-age nutjob he is.

>it's easy to look smart to pseuds when you argue against sincerely held beliefs when you believe in nothing

Peterson believes in a sort of platonic Evil and Harris believes logic is god

The way you write makes me think you're an angsty teenager

"Religion is just failed science."
- Sam Harris

Jesus christ, where does one even begin with this guy.

Her spelling and grammar seems to be above the average of most people nowadays, at least.

It's also possible that the normal looking dude has some kind of intellectual disability that doesn't present as obviously.

It's not new at all, and he uses Frans de Waal's research in his own ideas.

tl;dr
On the Israel podcast

>Israel isn't perfect
>but Muslims are worse than Jews
>so Israel is ok
In other words a kike being a kike

I'm about halfway through this podcast. I didn't bother listening to the first one. This is complete nonsense. Sam Harris is the model pseudo-intellectual. All of his ideas are based on supposed 'logic' and 'science' but does not think deeply about anything at all.

jordan peterson seems pretty full of shit, so much so that it's not even interesting to listen to him

youtu.be/CwcVLETRBjg

That's the best critique you could muster?

He's an entry level philosopher but it's still a bit of a leap understanding the lexicon
Nothing he's saying is that radical or bizarre

seinfeld?

Don't really enjoy Harris or even Peterson that much but I like what they're doing with these podcasts. I just wish more academic philosophers would have discussions about these broad topics and great unknowns rather than only jerk each other off about super esoteric topics. If anything I'd just like to hear what they have to say and for them to get their ideas challenged publicly and have to defend them. I know philosophy was never really for the common person, but it's nice to see these two bringing it into a more public light.

>you deem it
It's not a subjective thing, though. It's either beneficial from an evolutionary stance or it's not. I think you misunderstood the question you fucking autist

Yup

>But I do think he should've admitted that Peterson's approach to religion is a vast improvement.

Why would he not admit that? It's true

Harris is against fixed rules of behaviour layed out in old books.
Peterson proposes some sort of natural story (e.g. bible) guided existentialism. A very soft form of what Harris is afraid from.
I think they are at the end of their interactions. They don't seriously cross each other, but they also won't turn closer to the others opinion.

I agree with the user above, tho, it's great to hear people talk. There's no point in some people here complain about the one or the other, attacking their views without engaging in the conversation and so on. As long as they don't provide podcasts or videos with equally civilized compelling discussions, this is the second best thing to books that we have.

>Says the dude who probably takes time tested and widely influencial thinkers seirously

Holy... I want more

Lenin is a widely influencial thinker too

I turned it off after 10 minutes because Peterson seemed to be talking about nothing at all and it probably would have taken another 3 hours to get to the point. Should I bother with the rest?