Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Hans de Vries]

What do you think about the ideas of Jordan Peterson? More precisely the idea that history of human society is that of dialogue between conservatives and liberals and that if conservatives and liberals can agree on something, then it's likely a good thing to do. In other words too much conservatism is bad and too much liberalism is also bad

[iNow]

What do I think? I think it’s too simplistic to be useful and likely wrong as a direct result of that fantasy level simplicity. 

[TheVat]

Peterson is an expert in many areas that are not his field and in which he has no training and has done no scholarly work submitted for peer review.   IOW,  just another opinionated guy with a YouTube channel and some half-baked ideas.   And he seems to make the RW bigots happy with his arguments that treating NB and trans people with respect is some Maoist plot that will force us into reeducation camps.  Ironic to me is that his bestseller is titled 12 Rules for Life.   

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

What do you think about the ideas of Jordan Peterson?

I dislike many of them, especially when he blames the rise of toxic masculinity on feminists trying to "feminize" men. It's a LOT like the argument that men can't help themselves when it comes to "being men" and having to control themselves around women. Men like Peterson seem to argue that people are just animals while also profiting from his intellectual pursuits. He has the cake, he eats the cake, and women everywhere suffer for his POV. He doesn't even believe women merit equal pay for equal work. 

And in general, I see calls from the right for a more balanced approach as hypocritical. We need a LOT more than just a gentle course correction towards the center, we need a fairly massive push if we're going to address the problems we currently have as a planet. To me, the right and its extremists have declared they're tired of losing the intellectual battle and just want to win no matter what. They don't care that their hatred and bigotry has been marginalized, that so many people see their dwindling numbers, and they've decided they deserve to be the majority so they just ARE. It doesn't matter that they're losing elections, they just deny it and threaten to take over local legislatures where they lost, with force (like animals) if necessary. 

We're supposed to be growing as a species, but men like Jordan Peterson claim we'll lose our inherent humanity if we change. In fact, he believes we can't change our basic nature, so he enables toxic male attitudes and defines masculinity and femininity as "order" and "chaos". Me personally, I wouldn't listen to a thing this asshat says.

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

too much conservatism is bad and too much liberalism is also bad

Too much of anything is always bad. The difficult part is agreeing on the right mix.

As for J Peterson, his ideas are certainly well thought out, and the fact that he has a large following, from all parts of the political spectrum, allows certain people to bring up his large RW following as proof that he is evil/incompetent/opinionated/etc.
He is not just another opinionated guy with a YouTube channel, he is actually a tenured profesor at the University of Toronto in the field of Psychology.
He is not right wing at all, as a matter of fact, his notoriety began when he opposed a law that would have forced Canadians to use people's preferred pronouns, which is totally absurd. In your own fantasy, and sometimes demented mind, you can use any pronoun you wish, but forcing others to do so , and live in your reality is something not even G Orwell considered.
If I should want to be referred to as, "His exalted royal highness", should people be jailed if they don't do so ??
He has no problem complying with requests to use preferred pronouns, and has often done so in interviews and debates; he has a problem with being forced by law to do so.

I suggest getting less information from YouTube.

[Phi for All]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

He is not right wing at all, as a matter of fact, his notoriety began when he opposed a law that would have forced Canadians to use people's preferred pronouns, which is totally absurd. In your own fantasy, and sometimes demented mind, you can use any pronoun you wish, but forcing others to do so , and live in your reality is something not even G Orwell considered.

He resists change, he claims transgender folks are mentally ill, and matches up with most definitions of conservatism I know of. And your own Canadian Bar Association (chock full of lawyers who know the law, with zero psychologists) disagrees with him about the law you're talking about. His absurd notions are addressed in a letter from them to one of your Senators: https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

He openly battles against a monolithic left wing he feels is too chaotic, calling himself "classically liberal". I think instead he's positioning himself as a liberal chastising liberals for being too liberal. Taken with the rest of his POV, I think he's firmly conservative and lying about it.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Too much of anything is always bad. The difficult part is agreeing on the right mix.

As for J Peterson, his ideas are certainly well thought out, and the fact that he has a large following, from all parts of the political spectrum, allows certain people to bring up his large RW following as proof that he is evil/incompetent/opinionated/etc.
He is not just another opinionated guy with a YouTube channel, he is actually a tenured profesor at the University of Toronto in the field of Psychology.
He is not right wing at all, as a matter of fact, his notoriety began when he opposed a law that would have forced Canadians to use people's preferred pronouns, which is totally absurd. In your own fantasy, and sometimes demented mind, you can use any pronoun you wish, but forcing others to do so , and live in your reality is something not even G Orwell considered.
If I should want to be referred to as, "His exalted royal highness", should people be jailed if they don't do so ??
He has no problem complying with requests to use preferred pronouns, and has often done so in interviews and debates; he has a problem with being forced by law to do so.

I suggest getting less information from YouTube.

That is a fairly bad representation of that person. He is (or was) a prof in psychology, his notoriety is in areas where he has got zero expertise. Legal scholars have explained to him why his interpretation of the law was wrong. Folks have not been punished for using the wrong gender pronoun. The fact that this stance managed to get him more money from his followers than his professorial salary should make you wonder a bit.

If a person changes their gender and name you would not be forced by law to acknowledge it. However, you clearly would be an arse if you insist on using the false pronoun. Your "royal highness" strawman is what folks keep bringing up (as well as attack helicpoters) and I think such a line of argument is beneath you. No law or even social convention allows that (role-playing groups aside). Even after the outrage machine started by folks like Peterson, the law has not resulted in threats to freedom of expression and as legal scholars have pointed out.

Going back to Peterson, he uses a lot of obfuscating and vacuous language and strange metaphors from areas far outside his expertise (his attempt to translate badly understood lobster behaviour to human interactions is bizarre, to say the least). If he wasn't a professor in an entirely different field, he would be considered one of the neo-web conservatives pandering to a male, mostly young crowd. By mostly avoiding specific claims, he fuels the outrage machinery while at any given point gives himself an out by calling himself whatever political or other position he thinks would gain traction. As such he exhibits the behaviour of typical self-help gurus and sells similar products. He gives professors a bad name.

[MigL]

Jordan Peterson's qualifications ...

'After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature,^[17] studying to be a corporate lawyer.  During this time he read The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, which significantly affected his educational focus and worldview.^[17][3] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in political science in 1982.^[15] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe, where he began studying the psychological origins of the Cold War; 20th-century European totalitarianism;^[17][18] and the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,^[10] and Fyodor Dostoevsky.^[18] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.^[19] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill's Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier."

and career ...

"From July 1993 to June 1998,^[1] Peterson lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard University, where he was hired as an assistant professor in the psychology department, later becoming an associate professor.
While still at Harvard, he switched his primary area of research from familial alcoholism to personality. After the change of focus, he has published extensively.^{[24][25][26][27][28][29]} Author Gregg Hurwitz, a former student of Peterson's at Harvard, has cited Peterson as an inspiration of his, and psychologist Shelley Carson, former PhD student and now-professor at Harvard, recalled that Peterson's lectures had "something akin to a cult following", stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore."^[30] Following his associate position at Harvard, Peterson returned to Canada in July 1998 and eventually became a full professor at the University of Toronto.
Peterson's areas of study and research within the fields of psychology are psychopharmacology,^[32][33] abnormal,^[34] neuro,^[35] clinical, personality,^[36][37] social,^[37] industrial and organizational,^[1] religious, ideological,^[17] political, and creativity.^[38] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers^[39] and was cited almost 8,000 times as of mid-2017; at end of 2020 almost 15,000 times.
 

All from          Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia

While I don't doubt that his popularity provides a large revenue stream that has allowed him to quit his teaching and clinical duties, I really don't think you can accuse him of over-reaching his area of expertise.
My opinion is that your comment about him giving professors a bad name, as well as Phi's penchant for labelling people, is out of line.

[TheVat]

I think there may be some misunderstanding of what expertise means here.   I have no doubt that,  as @MigL thorough listing shows,  JP has read many many books and meandered through many topics en route to his PhD in clinical psychology,  focusing on familial dynamics and alcoholism.  

But when he critiques identity politics or attacks SJWs as "weaponizing compassion, " to me it looks like someone who is offering some rather vacuous opinions that do not flow from his actual expertise in psychology or from much grasp of social justice.    I find them rather hard to pin down and often they seem little more than clever aphorisms he came up with while studying his navel.   

I don't really care where he fits on some political spectrum,  and so I don't much care how he labels himself.   More interested in real content and shrewd analysis,  which I don't get from him.  If he wants to go about saying he's a free thinker and an iconoclast, that's great, and I hope that's true,  but that doesn't mean he can convincingly gripe about cancel culture and suppression all while he and other "classical liberals" can keep shouting at us through their media bullhorns.   

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I dislike many of them, especially when he blames the rise of toxic masculinity on feminists trying to "feminize" men. It's a LOT like the argument that men can't help themselves when it comes to "being men" and having to control themselves around women. Men like Peterson seem to argue that people are just animals while also profiting from his intellectual pursuits. He has the cake, he eats the cake, and women everywhere suffer for his POV. He doesn't even believe women merit equal pay for equal work. 

I also dislike near all of what he has had to say...in fact going on the couple of rare times I have listened to him, I disagree on all he has had to say. My only proviso with your above is that "sometimes" men really cannot help themselves in being men, or more correctly larrikinism, but that does not always equate to having to cotrol themselves around women. Having personally being labelled a larrikin [I actually see it as more an easy going attitude with an Aussie undertone] I have absolutely no trouble in treating women as equal and withall the respect that I give any human being...at least until they give me reason to retract that respect, be that men or women.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And in general, I see calls from the right for a more balanced approach as hypocritical. We need a LOT more than just a gentle course correction towards the center, we need a fairly massive push if we're going to address the problems we currently have as a planet. To me, the right and its extremists have declared they're tired of losing the intellectual battle and just want to win no matter what. They don't care that their hatred and bigotry has been marginalized, that so many people see their dwindling numbers, and they've decided they deserve to be the majority so they just ARE. It doesn't matter that they're losing elections, they just deny it and threaten to take over local legislatures where they lost, with force (like animals) if necessary. 

Couldn't agree more!! In Australia as a personal example, we have a PM who sees the need to lock up children as illegal immigrants, and does it with some sort of pride... https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/morrison-confirms-innocent-children-will-remain-in-detention/...while flaunting in the limelight of his Sunday escapades with his favourite church 

And even closer to home, our Premier of NSW, or actually former Premier, has been forced to resign after investigations commenced with our ICAC [Independent Commision Against Corruption] and has been replaced with a church going conservative  Catholic, named Dominic Perrottet, who abhores gay people, who hates abortions, and has opposed laws in our country to force priests to disclose child abuse confessions. He has also in the past, claimed that Australia's realsitic welfare payments are far to generous and often leads to rising divorce rates and single parent families. One can only hope that at our state elections next year, that the electorate recognises the hate and bigotry dripping from this bloke's mouth, and gives him his just desserts and throws him and his party out on their ear. No, I havn't yet heard his opinions on Perterson as yet, but his bigotry certainly appears to align with his.

 

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

More precisely the idea that history of human society is that of dialogue between conservatives and liberals and that if conservatives and liberals can agree on something, then it's likely a good thing to do. In other words too much conservatism is bad and too much liberalism is also bad

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.

9 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

What do you think about the ideas of Jordan Peterson?

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.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Peterkin
poor construction

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think there may be some misunderstanding of what expertise means here.   I have no doubt that,  as @MigL thorough listing shows,  JP has read many many books and meandered through many topics en route to his PhD in clinical psychology,  focusing on familial dynamics and alcoholism.  

That is exactly it and this misunderstanding is at the core of why I think that he is giving Profs a bad name. Professors are experts in a given area and it erodes trust in us, if we start talking nonsense in areas where our understanding is at best on a layperson's level. It is like if I try to create grand philosophical frameworks (as Peterson does) or start disputing concepts in physics. You also see it in their followers. If they talk about academics they disagree with, even if the academic in question is an expert, often they "forget" the title. However, if someone like Peterson talks about anything, it is always Dr. Peterson.

He is is using his academic credentials but basically is selling what youtubers for self-help junkies are doing. It has elements from a cult (i.e. talking to a follower is almost like someone trying to interpret scripture)  from which he makes money and as such he is giving actual experts a bad name. He is basically a Dr. Oz or Phil and self-help gurus with simple rules for life (only that uses more complicated sentence structures).

Beside that, and this is in turn outside my expertise, but I found it odd that in modern times there are seemingly still psychologists adhering to Jungian concepts. Based on what colleagues tell me it is a bit like being full-on Lamarck as a biologist, but I probably digress. 

As to OP, the whole concept is  a bit silly as iNow mentioned. Concepts like liberalism and conservatism are fairly modern. Likewise the modernist idea of grand theory of human history is usually not really supported. Past attempts, such as Marxist theories of viewing history almost exclusively as class struggle have always some elements that make sense. But as a holistic explanation they are far to shallow to be meaningful.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

My only proviso with your above is that "sometimes" men really cannot help themselves in being men, or more correctly larrikinism, but that does not always equate to having to cotrol themselves around women.

Sorry, but as long as you continue to hold men unaccountable for some of their actions because they "really cannot help themselves in being men", you'll always provide grounds for those who want to do whatever they like, watering down any censure they should rightly receive. Are you seriously telling me you've done things for fun that you couldn't have stopped yourself from doing?

You're defining "men" in such a way that the loophole for being a wildling is always there. You're claiming that the essence of being a man entails insensitive behavior that you shouldn't be punished for because you're not really responsible and only having a bit of fun. Because man.

You may have plenty of control, but you're enabling those who don't by claiming real men are naturally going to be men. This is actually what Jordan Peterson is claiming, that we can't change, that men are agents of order dealing with feminine chaos, and that it degrades our personalities to fight against those traits. 

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You may have plenty of control, but you're enabling those who don't by claiming real men are naturally going to be men. This is actually what Jordan Peterson is claiming, that we can't change, that men are agents of order dealing with feminine chaos, and that it degrades our personalities to fight against those traits. 

I treat women as I treat all people..equal, fair and with respect. It doesn't need any control. The same applied to Bob Hawke. And no certainly not all "larrikins" or men acting like the sterio type male, are respectful. If that was what I conveyed, then blame my poor vocabulary. 

I'm saying simply that being a larrikin does not necessarily mean disrespect, sexism, misogyny or any of the udesired traits towards any human, as I listed with NSW new Premier. Sometimes it does, yes, just as sometimes a haughty, poshy conservative Catholic can be a misogynist or also more refined and progressive in his or her thinking. The previous Premier, a female named Galdys Berijiklian, while being on the right, was also progressive in her thinking and opposite to the conservative nut we now have. Just a shame she was being investigated by the ICAC and her tendancy towards corruption. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but as long as you continue to hold men unaccountable for some of their actions because they "really cannot help themselves in being men", you'll always provide grounds for those who want to do whatever they like, watering down any censure they should rightly receive. Are you seriously telling me you've done things for fun that you couldn't have stopped yourself from doing?

I've been trying to think of a good analogy to illustrate where I am coming from...Firstly, no I absolutely do not hold any man as unaccountable for disresptectful actions and simply blaming, "being a man"...absolutely not! The previous debate we had with regards to larrikinism and that as generally meant in Australia is akin to the following...If you and I were having a few beers together, I may for example when you were not looking, stick a little look-alike plastic fly in your beer. I did this to a bloke many years ago...he turned around, saw the fly, emptied his beer on the footpath, swore, and ordered another beer. The rest of us pissed ourselves laughing, although I lost my plastic fly! 😉That is being a larrikin in Australia. Or perhaps if we were to be away on a camp, or rooming together, and when you were out doing something, I "short sheeted" your bed, and had a good chuckle later that evening watching you trying to get under the covers! That is the definition of a larrikin in Australia.😉 Some may also called such behaviour and similar, as being a clown. But the point is that more often then not, many behave like that where I am, and of both sexes in actual fact. None of that  need equate to the "qualities" and misogynistic sexist behaviour of this Peterson bloke, or our  new NSW Premier. Some as you say most certainly yes, not all. 

Other then that, I value your opinon on this forum on most subjects.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by beecee

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but as long as you continue to hold men unaccountable for some of their actions because they "really cannot help themselves in being men", you'll always provide grounds for those who want to do whatever they like, watering down any censure they should rightly receive. Are you seriously telling me you've done things for fun that you couldn't have stopped yourself from doing?

You're defining "men" in such a way that the loophole for being a wildling is always there. You're claiming that the essence of being a man entails insensitive behavior that you shouldn't be punished for because you're not really responsible and only having a bit of fun. Because man.

You may have plenty of control, but you're enabling those who don't by claiming real men are naturally going to be men. This is actually what Jordan Peterson is claiming, that we can't change, that men are agents of order dealing with feminine chaos, and that it degrades our personalities to fight against those traits. 

 

Leftists, many of them, give JP a bad name in the same manner. They won't debate his arguments, they insult him for not being their version of politically correct. 

 

You think he doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work? He claims he does. In fact this is probably his most famous interview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[beecee]

Thought I would check out his view on covid 19....................

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/police-state-dr-jordan-peterson-slams-australias-approach-to-covid/news-story/215493ad731f07b2cd4669bffc3014e9

Police state’: Dr Jordan Peterson calls out Australia’s approach to Covid

The divisive psychologist has argued Covid presents a “relatively low risk” and is less dangerous than Australia being governed by a “police state”.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Then I found this.....................

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-mysterious-rise-and-fall-of-jordan-peterson/news-story/be72e5ecc722a109ec5ee9d959cd28eb

What the hell happened to Jordan Peterson?

Jordan Peterson has turned out to be the self-help guru unable to help himself.

extract:

That said, he did while in Australia display curious, even troubling behaviours. The obsessive diet, for example. Peterson was eating only meat. Literally only meat, salt and water, to the point where he had taken to carrying a zip-lock bag filled with cold steak on his person, in case he was caught short somewhere without access to meat. He was also keeping an insane schedule — multiple interviews, flights and shows every day — which left him fatigued.

Peterson disappeared from public life soon after leaving Australia. Rumours as to the state of his health since then are legion: he became addicted to prescription painkillers (true); he had to go to detox (true); he’s had pneumonia (true); suffered neurological damage (true); he’s got problems with his relationship with his adored son (true); he contracted COVID-19 (also true.)

The article is dated October 6th 2021:

Edited October 5, 2021 by beecee

[MigL]

So far, CharonY, all you've mentioned is that J Peterson gives Professors a bad name, and preaches nonsense as it is ouside his field of expertise.
Yet I notice you haven't submitted any evidence opposing his ideas.
Maybe you should be held to the same standards as J Peterson.
What exactly is your field of expertise ?

I don't know what J Peterson has to do with the attitude of Australian men that Beecee and Phi are carrying on about, but it seems to be related to something from another thread.

As for Phi, I find this laughable ...

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

He resists change, he claims transgender folks are mentally ill, and matches up with most definitions of conservatism I know of. And your own Canadian Bar Association (chock full of lawyers who know the law, with zero psychologists) disagrees with him about the law you're talking about. His absurd notions are addressed in a letter from them to one of your Senators: https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

That 'chock full of lawyers' association is chaired by the Honourable Bob Runciman, a provincial politician for about 30 years before being appointed to his Senate position. The very funny part is that B Runciman is a CONSERVATIVE.
( a canadian conservative, but nonetheless, conservative )

Does disagreeing with a conservative, now  make you conservative ??

( notice I used 'the Honourable' when addressing B Runciman; I didn't want to be charged under Bill c-16 )

Edited October 5, 2021 by MigL

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

So far, CharonY, all you've mentioned is that J Peterson gives Professors a bad name, and preaches nonsense as it is ouside his field of expertise.
Yet I notice you haven't submitted any evidence opposing his ideas.
 

The fact that he is prominent for a wide range of issues all unrelated to his specific area of clinical psychology makes it close to impossible to address all the issues. Moreover, he argues things complicated enough that it is is very hard to figure out the actual point, which is to me a weasel tactic. 

But let me give one example that I had to discuss in class because of him. He argues that human brains work like lobsters. In lobsters serotonin correlates with aggression and Peterson asserts that this creates natural hierarchies. And since lobsters have it in a primordial way, obviously the same is in humans. More aggressive folks are more dominant and higher on the social totem pole land since men are more aggressive it is obvious that social structures. Conversely, low-ranked humans have less serotonin and decreased confidence. Conversely folks with high serotonin levels are high in the totem pole and are true alphas. Basically he is saying that a single hormone determines social hierarchies, happiness as well as illness, lifespan and so on. The basic idea here is that hierarchies are universal biological entities and therefore that human hierarchies are also created that way. 

 

Now this is silly on rather many levels. First the use of lobsters makes absolutely no sense. They are obviously rather far away from humans and while marine biology specialist can probably add more detail about the veracity of his claims about lobsters, but as a whole they are not social and do not have complex social structures nor do they even have a proper brain. Between lobsters and humans there are a lot of different other social animals who show a huge range of different behaviour aside from the more agressive -> more dominant -> healthier and more successful axis. Dominance in many mammals are based on familial ties for example, where we find  parents to be dominant in a particular group (also that we do have both matriarchies and patriarchies as organizational elements). It does not mean that agressive behaviour does not play a role, but simply that the situation is very complex in many animals and we cannot take a random species (especially one that is so far away form humans) and then use that to explain human behaviour (at least not in a meaningful way).

Finally if we want to look at sertonin specifically, in vertebrates low (not high) serotonin levels are associated with aggression and poor impulse control. Also animals with these deficits rarely have high social status. This is especially true for humans as violent behaviour is not typically rewarded.

There is a lot more that could be discussed on that, but I already did it once and it was a tremendous waste of time. I am not certain that I want to do that again. But fundamentally what he did here (and he does it on many other occasions in areas such as law, anthropology, philosophy and so on) he takes a data point (behaviour in lobsters) and then builds a huge overarching grand theory that is supposed to explain the totality of human hierarchies and social behaviour. Yet in truth neither elements are really connected in a meaningful way (he could have chosen and other animals and gotten exactly the opposite outcome). And this strategy is exactly what Oz and others have been doing to peddle simple rules that somehow are going to change your life. In Oz's case it is being healthy and fit and in Peterson's case it is, I dunno some kind of manly man? I am not sure, I have not asked my dragon yet. The big issue is that by being that far outside his realm of expertise he is doing what a lot of folks on this site (typically banned) are doing. Take something half understood and extrapolate it to the max. View everything from this specific point of view and ignore existing bodies of knowledge. And there are many other examples, where folks with relevant expertise in, say philosophy, might chime in. That being said, I don't think that it is really worth the time.

And with regard to my own expertise, I think I have made it frequently clear that my main expertise is mostly in the area of molecular biology, especially with relation to cell physiology, though I have also got a smattering of bioanalytics (in certain areas) and biomarker-related research.  Incidentally, these are the only areas where I have authored publications or got money for consulting. I also believe that I have not at any point make grandiose claims of expertise in areas that I have only read things out of interest but where I am not actually doing active research. I have no idea how one connects with the other, however. Are you perhaps suggesting that I should actually start peddling my miracle cure for diabetes and stupidity?

[Intoscience]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but as long as you continue to hold men unaccountable for some of their actions because they "really cannot help themselves in being men", you'll always provide grounds for those who want to do whatever they like, watering down any censure they should rightly receive. Are you seriously telling me you've done things for fun that you couldn't have stopped yourself from doing?

You're defining "men" in such a way that the loophole for being a wildling is always there. You're claiming that the essence of being a man entails insensitive behavior that you shouldn't be punished for because you're not really responsible and only having a bit of fun. Because man.

You may have plenty of control, but you're enabling those who don't by claiming real men are naturally going to be men. This is actually what Jordan Peterson is claiming, that we can't change, that men are agents of order dealing with feminine chaos, and that it degrades our personalities to fight against those traits. 

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way. This doesn't mean that some of this behaviour should be acted out or indeed be acceptable in society. What he is saying is that these urges to do certain things should be channelled in more productive ways so that men who suffer from strong urges, or at least difficulty in controlling them can be helped. 

For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. 

Ultimately modern society expects a certain level of behaviour (rightly so) which means that some males have to control or supress urges/instincts "men being men" that come natural to them them in order to maintain a safe and healthy society.

This is my interpretation of what Peterson suggests.       

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution.

Everything is down to evolution; for instance, some men have grown up.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way. This doesn't mean that some of this behaviour should be acted out or indeed be acceptable in society. What he is saying is that these urges to do certain things should be channelled in more productive ways so that men who suffer from strong urges, or at least difficulty in controlling them can be helped. 

For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. 

Ultimately modern society expects a certain level of behaviour (rightly so) which means that some males have to control or supress urges/instincts "men being men" that come natural to them them in order to maintain a safe and healthy society.

This is my interpretation of what Peterson suggests.       

You and Peterson seem to claim evolution is forcing men to remain animals, and there's no hope of them being able to intellectually overcome this "sometimes uncontrollable aggression". Like evolution is at odds with what society needs, so we have to understand that men can't be held to societal norms the way women are. This is part of what gives some men a license to act out whenever they feel like it, and you give them a scientific excuse to rely on brawn over brain, on aggression over compassion, on constantly competing rather than cooperating. 

I don't think evolution is keeping humans behaving like animals. I think that's on you and others with this mindset that we need to be lenient on aggressive men because they can't help themselves. You may not be saying it that way, but that's how it's being abused. Y'all have been giving toxic men just what they've needed to perpetuate the social atrocities we keep hearing about. 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. 

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.

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way

Except all he is doing is espousing grand theories without scientific backing. Evolutionary psychology is in trouble as the methodology often lacks data and reproducibility to support hypotheses. Peterson is entirely skipping the data part, picks up random stories (as e.g. behaviour in lobsters) and spins out a huge narrative how evolution shapes human behaviour without providing or even looking at available data or having expertise in the relevant research which, again, suffers from a replication crisis, even if looking at data. It is pure extrapolation based on a narrative he likes and just cherry-picking half-understood concepts to support them. And that is pure pseudoscience akin to other postings we have got on the forum which are rightfully criticized. The issue IMO is not that so much that there is pseudoscience, but that one engages in while being an academic who should know better. Of course academics are not immune the pseudoscience disease (do folks remember the gyre guy?) but they should be held to a higher standard.

If folks start eroding those standards, it undermines the whole profession. At some point one could legitimately ask why we need scientist at all, if all they are are basically youtubers with big words.

[MigL]

Getting back to J Peterson, somebody is going to have to post a clip where he says males are competitive and aggressive due to evolutionary factors, and their behaviour should be excused because they can't control themselves.

Every interview/debate I've seen involving J Peterson, it is the people arguing against him who are aggressive, and tend to lose their shit, while he remains calm and collected.