Peterkin

Of-bloody-course it is! In every public appearance, he's scoring points with his target audience, selling books and speaking engagements and raking in the money. He's not so much debating as self-promoting.

I didn't become a Peterson fan. That snide bit about "What percent have I benefited from white privilege?" pretty much scuttled him. (Actually, John Oliver answered part of that question.) "The Left" shouldn't engage in identity politics; you should fight each issue of discrimination individually, without annoying anybody....

Just so. You can consult your own experience in various areas of your life: in each case where a group had a hierarchy of dominance, by what procedure were the leader and top tier selected? In sport, it's usually by contest of skill. In work, it's usually through qualifications and experience. In politics, it's by sponsorship and popularity. In the arts, by talent, skill, luck and marketing. In armies, through some complicated system of merits, which rarely involves actual combat. Even in mating, we do like birds, rather than lobsters.

In what circumstances and environments? We spend relatively little time in barrooms and rowdy parties, compared to the time we spend at work, in the pursuit of self-improvement, hobbies and sports or with family. In none of those environments is aggressive confrontation expected or condoned. Even on the football pitch or ice rink, fights are more like brief clashes, immediately followed by a penalty. So, how much of real life status, success, dominance, or whatever men are supposed to be establishing in these confrontations is actually decided by gladiatorial contest? Women being expected to show weakness is a whole different can of Spaghetti-o's.

I forgot to mentions duplicitous and underhanded. In fact, Ii wouldn't be all that surprised to find humans pretty much all cut from the same cloth, at slightly different angles. I was hoping, though, to steer back to the political Peterson effect. In some of those videos, he sounds to me rather like those Fundamentalists who wail "They're stealing our Christmas!!!" when they mean "They're not letting us push everybody around anymore."

It's not been explained to me why such a huge distinction needs to be made between male and female behaviours, transactions and attitudes. Women can be territorial, jealous, ambitious, prideful and ruthless, with men and with other women. Women can take umbrage as well as men. Women can be confrontational and even physically violent when they are injured or threatened - much more so if their children or mates are threatened - just as men (at least the advanced species with which I'm familiar) are more likely to take desperate measures if their mates or offspring are in jeopardy. I suspect Peterson needs to make this distinction in order to justify his stand on all those people who can't be, or refuse to be, classified as M or F ticked neatly in a box. At least he does seem to protest an awful lot about pronouns he might "be forced by law" to utter sometime when referring to a student. AFAIK, we don't have any laws forcing anyone to address anyone else they do not wish to, let alone send them to jail for using the wrong.... well, most words.

Was I not clear? A "situation" takes more than one person to create. This kind of thing doesn't need resolving; it needs defusing. If someone other than a child is behaving inappropriately, it's not my responsibility to educate or correct them. The more enlightened (?evolved) strategy is remove myself - and any others who want my assistance - from the potentially volatile situation.

Yes. For instance, it does not occur to this man that his wife in this hypothetical situation might have a stake, and ought to be consulted rather than be a steak for two dogs to snarl and fight over. Another kind of man would not address the would-be Casanova at all, but noticing that his wife is uncomfortable, come over and say something tactful, like, "Honey, there's an old friend I'd like you to meet," and lead her away, rather than embarrass his wife, his hosts, the drunk he's offering to punch, and possibly himself if the other guy hits back harder. But, suppose the issue of contention is over some inanimate object, like a Mars rover and two member of the team disagree over the landing gear design. Can they really not respect each other without taking it outside or does the team leader have to step in and separate them, every time this happens? Slow progress, I'd imagine. What if the team leader is older and less physically robust than the juniors who disagree? Can they still respect him? (In my experience of team efforts, there has never been perfect agreement, there has never been less than unanimous deference to an experienced and competent team leader, and there has never been a broken jaw - or even a shoving match - and work got done somehow.) PS I'm too slow!

How is an interview, freely (gleefully?) given by the subject 'out of context'? What larger context of a staged debate should one consider when listening to the debate? If the author of a pop- sci book cannot be taken to task for its content, by what can he be judged? The man presents a persona and a set of very strong views to the audience. The audience responds. Where is the injustice?

It seems to be my speciality. Not confusion regarding pendulums, which, in my limited experience swing back and forth, not sideways or up and down. Back and forth can be east to west, left to right or nave to chancel, but never win or lose. Therefore I doubt as to the validity of the metaphor. There is nothing about a pendulum that indicates political direction, nor about political aspirations that indicate a pendulum. I realize that. Only, you did not clarify what you mean by 'politics' (I had been led to believe it was carried out by the polity) and 'government' (in a democracy, that, too, is purported to be driven by the voting population) or who, precisely, is doing the necessary simplifying for those of us [citizens, voters] who fail to understand the complexities of what we ourselves want and how the fruits of our labour are to be allocated and whether our children are drafted, imprisoned or employed. It seems to me the strength of dichotomies is to reduce reality to sound-bites and world-views to flags. All right, I won't try to. (Though, of course they do! Amoeba understand hot/cold, prey/predator, wholesome/poisoned. And of course there are never just two kinds of people or two kinds of zebra or two kinds of alligator, divided along some simple this/that distinction - not even male/female - but I'm not sure about amoeba.) Equally, no. Nor are the interpreters and simplifiers and dichotomizers all equally capable of understanding what they're telling us about. If that capacity divides us into only two kinds of people, the two are : insiders and outsiders; those who lie and those who are lied-to. Otherwise, the governing classes would make an effort to disseminate accurate factual information to the voters - on the expectation that next year, a larger percentage understand it than last year. Is it then your absolute conviction that there are two - and only two - poles in political decision-making and that all governance must have begun with swings from one extreme to the other, at predictable intervals - no divergence, no change in speed, no hesitations - each swing decreasing in amplitude, until it finally comes to rest at the point of equilibrium? That theory has a beautiful symmetry and inevitability, but history does not seem to bear it out. ... unless there is an external force to give it a push from time to time. I am aware of many different positions taken and many different - often quite divergent -descriptions of these positions, but not of a consensus as their definitive meaning. Beecee was able to able elaborate his version; I merely wondered what your version might be. It was not.

Must be. It's the damn intrusive thing that keeps jumping up in my face when I turn on the new computer, and wants to educate me about the screen picture du jour. First on this list, so maybe I'll give it a second chance. .... but we digress... Bing gave me this, first try: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html Actually, that's not a bad site for information.

What - like Bing?

It shouldn't be that hard to find out. However, while you are speculating, factor in the number of electrical and electronic devices per household, as well as their efficiency of power use. Factor in the relative size and capacity of the washing machines, refrigerators, water heaters, etc. Factor in the extra features in household appliances that require them to keep drawing on stand-by, when the owners think their microwave, television or stove is turned off. Factor in climate change: the extensive use of heating units in regions that are ill-equipped for cold weather, and air conditioners during unprecedented heat waves.

Isn't that what armed forces are for? A single male - who is dominant by virtue of an insignia, not physical, mental or hormonal superiority - can force a large number of other males to control their aggression - with a single word. Nowadays, and in some olden days, a female might also hold that dominant position and issue commands to a large number of strong, armed males. A monarch - by birth, not virtue - male or female, however feeble, can force all the submissive and dominant, low and high ranking males to do his or her bidding - however contrary to their own interest or inclination. Shouldn't a 6000-year [documented] history of armies indicate that men can control their instincts when they're motivated to do so? But, really, any modern office or factory could serve to illustrate the same point.

Too much = bad. Sounds plausible enough. As applied to the history of human societies, it's a bit facile. Unless ''conservatism' and 'liberalism' are defined with a high degree of precision, the statement can mean anything you want it to mean. Moreover, the concepts would have to be defined within the belief-system and circumstances of each different society under consideration, their historical advocates named and the actions of those advocates shown as serving conservative or liberal agendas, and discussed with reference to the outliers, lunatic fringes and heresies on either side of the conservative-liberal divide for each historical period and locality, the entire statement is vacant. From what I've been reading recently, not much. It's possible to be a brilliant psychologist and still come up with incorrect theories; it's possible to be a mediocre psychologist and still come up with correct ones - or vice verse, or both or neither. My impression is that political science has not been advanced here.

That must be the point I missed.

There is no need to be humble about that: you stated your definitions very clearly. I understood your position to be that those are not necessarily the only two choices. Do you subscribe to the notion that political decisions must alternate between those two polar opposites - no admixture, no compromise, no third or fourth alternative?

I don't accept that as true, of any species. Politics and government are complicated, but people are too simple to understand them. Who, then makes politics and government? So, the two possible destinations are "win" or "lose" the next election? In which case, government is merely a matter of the more persuasive presentation, and the only political directions are up and down? Well, then, the pendulum doesn't apply, since it can only go back and forth, and two parties trading places every four or five years could be accomplished with less expense and noise. Yes. So what, in concrete terms, are "left" and "right", conservative and liberal? What are they for and against? Why does it matter, anyway, if the more things change, the more they stay the same? (which seems a self-nullifying aphorism... Does anyone ever ask what it means?)

Are there only two possible choices? If so, what are they? That's an earnest question. I'm not asking for a compass point, or a hand-signal.* I'm asking whether political direction is chosen with some ideal situation or accomplishment as its ultimate destination. And if there are only two, what are those ultimate destinations? * I never understood exactly what was meant by the pendulum, TBH, but everyone else seemed to know.

Here's a by-the-way that's not specifically about running, but shows a very strong genetic component. Have you looked at the top ranking tennis players lately? Have you looked at the most successful American football players and compared them to the darlings of FIFA? Or the stars of basketball, gymnastics and weight-lifting? All the international elite of any given competitive sport are of similar size and shape. That's not a coincidence: each sport makes demands on the body; in each one, a particular physical characteristic provides and advantage. Like evolution, international and professional sport selects for greatest fitness. That doesn't mean that 99% of the other people with the same gene will ever score a remarkable number of goals or a win a highly publicized race, or that 99 people without the gene can't run and kick very well, though though not quite as well as the one guy with the gene, so they'll never come to public notice.

Keep in mind that Africa is a large continent, with a large number of very different ethnic groupings. Also that magazine may have been referring to Americans of African descent, the majority of whom came from West central Africa and wouldn't have shared recent common ancestry with the peoples of north-east Africa. But they would, by the 1980's, carry a good many genes from European forebears.

Exactly! Plus the relative value a culture places on physical activity in general; whether a talent is valued, whether a skill is fostered. The genetic factor there may be the ethnic groups that have traditionally dominated in the region: both the Massai and Kikuyu peoples tend to long limbs and low body fat ratio - genetic types very well adapted over many thousands of years of migration and nomadic herding to foot travel over long distances. Of course, as people are increasing confined to smaller geographical areas and mingle with other populations, that genetic advantage will fade.

Running, or any other athletic activity, is made up of many components. You inherit genes for minor variations in skeletal structure and musculature, lung capacity and metabolism; maybe even some of the mental proclivity for self-discipline and perseverance. Beyond that, I suspect it's just desire, dedication and drill. A supportive environment and early self-esteem building would help. Probably less than you hope. Too many variables. You might look at this: https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/93/1/27/306419

It was also engineered. By non-stupid, non-simple-minded strategists like Boris Johnson. This is a quote from a an article in Politico, in June of 2016.

[assess a candidate's intelligence or competence from their public performance] That's true of any job interview and marriage proposal. I wish there were some more reliable method of deciding who should be entrusted with the care of our children, the condition of our highway overpasses and the nuclear arsenals of the world.