Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Peterkin]

Just now, koti said:

So you would consult your wife and the guy how to resolve the situation in a calm discourse ?

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. 

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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. 

It is clear now, thank you for clarifying. 

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, koti said:

Peterson is making a statement, a claim, an observation, he’s not modelling a model. You on the other hand seem to be doing the very thing which you are accusing him of - taking an observation made by Peterson and implying that he’s making a model. Plus hes not claiming that male interactions are fundamentally a posturing where we asses the level of violence, we do it as only a part of our personality.

Sorry, I was putting into a broader context. I started the discussion with MigL in which I referred mostly to his first chapter, and what he was discussing in the interview was something that he also stated in his book. I.e. I am trying to find a consistent argument in his philosophy. Of course, it is possible that all his ideas are unrelated and perhaps even allow for contradiction. But then I think a discussion on his views would be pretty moot as they might be anything at any given point.

So if we talk about the fundamental aspects he is explicitly saying in his book that the posturing and jostling for dominance is hard-baked into our brains and that depending on where you are in the hierarchy, it will affect all aspects of life. I.e. in your example the male with low serotonin would probably abandon his wife and the dominant male would take over your wife. If you have enough serotonin you would push back and then inevitably a struggle for dominance would ensue. In the book he states that these need not be violent but as he expounded further they require the underlying threat of violence. 

In fact, I do not think that he actually made a claim that it is part of our personality as such, rather that this is the basis, and personality outcomes are based on that. I.e. if you lose the struggle for dominance, you will be diminuitive, stressed and unhealthy (again, from his book). So either he claims it is a fundamental aspect and that justifies his hierarchical dominance model (which in turns is used to justify a link to happiness, drug abuse, self-worth and other issues), or it is not fundamental at which point I am not sure what then his reasoning in the book are then really is meant to convey.

 

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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. 

I think in a way that Peterson worked his way backward here. He sees that men are seemingly more frequently involved in physical violence (there are some big caveats here, which we again are forced to ignore) and from there builds up a male-centric viewpoint of interactions, specifically to separate them from female-female or female-male interactions. 

I.e. he starts with the conclusion and tries to use the biggest (in his view) separator to justify it. Men are more violent and that colours their interaction. Men are forces of order (sounds weird, but it is a theme he repeats quite a bit with the imagery of feminity as the forces of chaos, which goes back to I suspect Jungian archetypes). Therefore any civil engagement needs the threat of violence to be orderly (and orderly escalation, if you will)

Quote

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical."

Now anything that breaks this perceived mold is not seen as a viable alternative, but rather that somehow breaks order. I.e. you can beat up a woman and therefore civil discourse breaks down. I.e. confronting a man perhaps in the context in a joust for dominance, that is orderly that has rules that you as a men somehow are clear about and can adhere to. But if a woman enters the same context, she is a "crazy woman" and cannot be controlled.

Fundamentally of course, it is more of a worldview and kind of fringe philosophy. But then he uses his clout to somehow sell us that idea as kind of a real explanation of human behaviour. At which point anthropologists and real philosophers probably writhe in anguish. 

[koti]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, I was putting into a broader context. I started the discussion with MigL in which I referred mostly to his first chapter, and what he was discussing in the interview was something that he also stated in his book. I.e. I am trying to find a consistent argument in his philosophy. Of course, it is possible that all his ideas are unrelated and perhaps even allow for contradiction. But then I think a discussion on his views would be pretty moot as they might be anything at any given point.

So if we talk about the fundamental aspects he is explicitly saying in his book that the posturing and jostling for dominance is hard-baked into our brains and that depending on where you are in the hierarchy, it will affect all aspects of life. I.e. in your example the male with low serotonin would probably abandon his wife and the dominant male would take over your wife. If you have enough serotonin you would push back and then inevitably a struggle for dominance would ensue. In the book he states that these need not be violent but as he expounded further they require the underlying threat of violence. 

In fact, I do not think that he actually made a claim that it is part of our personality as such, rather that this is the basis, and personality outcomes are based on that. I.e. if you lose the struggle for dominance, you will be diminuitive, stressed and unhealthy (again, from his book). So either he claims it is a fundamental aspect and that justifies his hierarchical dominance model (which in turns is used to justify a link to happiness, drug abuse, self-worth and other issues), or it is not fundamental at which point I am not sure what then his reasoning in the book are then really is meant to convey.

 

Okay so I haven't read the book and you seem to have read it so I am not equipped enough to comment on this. I do remember a few years back though, you and me having a chat about that documentary "The Red Pill" and it seemed to me back then that we've been either watching two different films or we have a fundamentally different aparatus for digesting concepts and events which took place in that documentary so by crude interpolation I suspect we might be having a similar situation here.

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Now anything that breaks this perceived mold is not seen as a viable alternative, but rather that somehow breaks order. I.e. you can beat up a woman and therefore civil discourse breaks down. I.e. confronting a man perhaps in the context in a joust for dominance, that is orderly that has rules that you as a men somehow are clear about and can adhere to. But if a woman enters the same context, she is a "crazy woman" and cannot be controlled.

This is exactly what I'm refering to, frankly it is beyond me where you got the above because that's very much not what Jordan Peterson is saying in that video short.

Edited October 7, 2021 by koti

[CharonY]

Just now, koti said:

"The Red Pill" and it seemed to me back then that we've been either watching two different films or we have a fundamentally different aparatus for digesting concepts and events which took place in that documentary so by crude interpolation I suspect we might be having a similar situation here.

It could be. I think my main criticism of the movie is that the documentarist has highlighted too much the weird fringe of men's right activism rather which diluted the overall message. But in all fairness, I do not remember much of the details, I generally just did not find it very enlightening.

However, I think where there is some intersection is basically the definition of masculinity which we struggle and where folks such as Peterson find their selling points. In many (including Western) societies masculinity is or was often defined in the context of strength, dominance, independence, self-sufficiency and so on. 

The man is the provider and that is how it should be. They are considered the builders of civilization, the mover and shakers and they should be listened to because of that. Peterson's view and some of those I consider fringe among men's advocates is a desire to uphold that worldview. Unfortunately, it has at least two consequences. One is a certain desire to keep women out of male spaces as they just not fit the established mould. And two, it puts an enormous burden on men, which not everyone can fulfil (not everyone will be rich) and certain folks use that and try to explain those who are unsuccessful how to deal with it while still keeping the traditional view on masculinity as a banner of how things should be.

They can score a lot of points by blaming feminists for their misery, for example. At the same time they lack introspection to figure out whether it is not the adhering to the perceived ideals of masculinity. Looking back at my youth and personal experiences that is something that at some point rang a bell for me. I still have trouble doing certain things that are not considered manly as instilled to me in my youth. Asking for help, for example. 

There are in my mind absolutely toxic elements in the ideals we grew up with and learning how to change that to make our lives better and happier is IMO a much better way they struggling in some weird dominance game that some insist on playing. I think Peterkin had the right idea, either leave (or perhaps call security if such exists) but something to not escalate it further. I wished my younger self had thought that way.

18 minutes ago, koti said:

This is exactly what I'm refering to, frankly it is beyond me where you got the above because that's very much not what Jordan Peterson is saying in that video short.

Yes but again, that already implies a natural order of things were posturing and underlying violence are a necessary part of the discourse. Again, he fills a couple of pages of it in his book where goes back and tries to make a kind of evolutionary argument about this behaviour. But doesn't it strike you as odd that he explains human behaviours from an exclusively male perspective? I.e. couldn't it be that how women resolve conflicts is the normal and civilized way and we are just want to break faces and are therefore forces of chaos? I.e. if a woman behaves like what Peterson thinks a man should do is chaos, does a man behaving like a woman (which I don't think he ever defined properly other than that they seek providers) create order or double-chaos?

Simply put that concept does not make any sense whatsoever and if I try to make sense out of it by looking at his other thoughts, I arrive at the point that I posted earlier.

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There are in my mind absolutely toxic elements in the ideals we grew up with and learning how to change that to make our lives better and happier is IMO a much better way they struggling in some weird dominance game that some insist on playing.

QFT.

[koti]

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It could be. I think my main criticism of the movie is that the documentarist has highlighted too much the weird fringe of men's right activism rather which diluted the overall message. But in all fairness, I do not remember much of the details, I generally just did not find it very enlightening.

However, I think where there is some intersection is basically the definition of masculinity which we struggle and where folks such as Peterson find their selling points. In many (including Western) societies masculinity is or was often defined in the context of strength, dominance, independence, self-sufficiency and so on. 

The man is the provider and that is how it should be. They are considered the builders of civilization, the mover and shakers and they should be listened to because of that. Peterson's view and some of those I consider fringe among men's advocates is a desire to uphold that worldview. Unfortunately, it has at least two consequences. One is a certain desire to keep women out of male spaces as they just not fit the established mould. And two, it puts an enormous burden on men, which not everyone can fulfil (not everyone will be rich) and certain folks use that and try to explain those who are unsuccessful how to deal with it while still keeping the traditional view on masculinity as a banner of how things should be.

They can score a lot of points by blaming feminists for their misery, for example. At the same time they lack introspection to figure out whether it is not the adhering to the perceived ideals of masculinity. Looking back at my youth and personal experiences that is something that at some point rang a bell for me. I still have trouble doing certain things that are not considered manly as instilled to me in my youth. Asking for help, for example. 

There are in my mind absolutely toxic elements in the ideals we grew up with and learning how to change that to make our lives better and happier is IMO a much better way they struggling in some weird dominance game that some insist on playing. I think Peterkin had the right idea, either leave (or perhaps call security if such exists) but something to not escalate it further. I wished my younger self had thought that way.

This is where we differ, I have never had problems with asking for help when I needed it and when I knew there is a chance I could have received it. I'd also not call security in that situation, it seems that one man's toxicity is another man's bliss, I much rather have some broken bones and my 'masculine' conscience clear than resolve through security/cops. This attittude  actually prevents and/or de-escalates any potential violence before it can happen and I'm willing to bet that JP would agree that this is exactly what he was trying to convey. Plus theres also the most likely scenario where my attitude leads to no violence and my wife telling me how much she loves me for deffending her and that she feels safe with me. Remember the times when it was ok for a woman to feel safe alongside a strong, dominant male?

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

QFT.

🤣

Edited October 7, 2021 by koti

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Many men hide like cowards behind a double standard that gives them an excuse to choose violence when they're too intellectually challenged, and then they want to be forgiven for being "real men". They see the use of reason, diplomacy, compromise, and fairness as weak, and while your Jordan Peterson might deny identifying with men like this, he's giving them LOTS of encouragement to continue behaving in ways they see as masculine.

I have only heard JP twice and since this thread, read more on him. My dislike of him, stems from his archaic views and rhetoric over a wide range of the political and societal spectrum, rather then just his "real men" nonsense.

Again, not sure though I totally agree with your masculinity concept in all respects. What I'm saying is that one can be masculine and still be a courtious male. Let me give a  real life example. Around 4 or 5 years ago, I decided for the sake of the environment to use my car less and more of public transport. Anyway I hopped onto a bus to go to one of our old boys reunions and sat down. Eventually the bus got packed and people were standing. A woman around 40ish hopped on and I immediatley stood up and offered her my seat...something I learnt to do as a good young Christian lad. She was astounded and at first wouldn't accept it. Eventually she sat down and she remarked that she had never ever had that happen before and thanked me for my kindness. To me it was nothing, although much older then her, and something that I impulsively just did. 

Let me offer another real life example of not only a lack of masculinity, but a lack of sympathy and reasoanble kindness as well. A few years ago while waiting to cross a busy thoroughfare I noticed on the other side of the street, a woman in a wheelchair. Eventually the walk sign started to flash and as I commneced to cross, I noticed her in her wheelchair, caught and tilted slightly in the gutter and unable to move. 5 so called men and a couple of women simply brushed by her without offerring any assistance for her predicament, until two indigenous rather large ladies, grabbed her wheelchair, one either side, and lifted it and carried it all the way across. I then meeting them halfway offerred more assistance and congratulated both girls.

1 hour ago, koti said:

It's not that. Some men tend to be much more stubborn and explicit in those kinds of situations than women and despite the wife standing up for herself the guy might not give up and keep on hitting on her. It does happen in the movies youre right but I got news for you - it does happen in real life too.

I would think the best way out of that would be to approach your Mrs and make some excuse to drag her away. If he persisted during the course of the night, and the woman was visibly uncomfortable and had expressed being uncomfortable with his advances, then I might try engaging him in deep conversation and letting the Mrs off the hook, so to speak. If he was drunk, then we may have a problem on hand and security would be the obvious step. In saying that, and if he actually insulted or assaulted the woman [drunk or sober] then this may trigger an undesired, impulsive but expected action by the husband. 

I acted impulsively yesterday. While shopping at my local supermarket, wearing a face mask and practising social distancing, I was in the meat department picking out a leg of lamb for a Sunday roast. Then this woman brushed beside me, also after some lamb, and as I looked up, I see she also had no mask on...Impusivley and being quite annoyed I said aloud, ' WTF!! wears your mask Lady? she gave me the finger and I quickly moved away [having regained some self control] and went straight to a supervisor. As the female supervisor spoke to her, she became aggresive and security was called and she was thrown out without her leg of lamb. I then received an apology for the slip up in allowing her in, in the first place.

Edited October 7, 2021 by beecee

[CharonY]

Just now, koti said:

This is where we differ, I have never had problems with asking for help when I needed it and when I knew there is a chance I could have received it. I'd also not call security in that situation, it seems that one man's toxicity is another man's bliss, I much rather have some broken bones and my 'masculine' conscience clear than resolve through security/cops. This attittude  actually prevents and/or de-escalates any potential violence before it can happen and I'm willing to bet that JP would agree that this is exactly what he was trying to convey. 

And that is probably because your view of masculine ideals differed from mine and you might not have accepted certain toxic elements freely as I did. Remember, it is not masculinity in itself that is toxic, but rather certain elements *if* they are to your detriment. In my case I can clearly identify aspects that influenced me and where detrimental to me, though the same might not be detrimental to you. It depends a lot also on the environment, including how isolated you are in society and so on.

Many of the more harmful elements are simply limited if you have sufficient exchange with peers who can help modulate your behaviour in a positive way (if you have good friends). I freely admit that I was really dumb in my youth. I would not have asked for help (though calling security would be asking for help...?) and I might have thrown the first punch or otherwise escalated the situation as I would find myself unable to back down. 

I am also utterly unclear how threatening violence actually manages to de-escalate situations. Perhaps it is a cultural/societal thing, but I cannot remember a time where threatening violence actually successfully de-escalated a situation. But that is the thing, isn't it? It means that if we are in a conflict situation we should start puffing up and bring deterrents to the table. Americans claim that open carry is therefore a great idea to deter violence. Looking at the actual numbers I simply don't think that is true.

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

This is where we differ, I have never had problems with asking for help when I needed it and when I knew there is a chance I could have received it. I'd also not call security in that situation, it seems that one man's toxicity is another man's bliss, I much rather have some broken bones and my 'masculine' conscience clear than resolve through security/cops. This attittude  actually prevents and/or de-escalates any potential violence before it can happen and I'm willing to bet that JP would agree that this is exactly what he was trying to convey. 

I think your concept of "masculine conscience" interferes in other people's lives to a far greater extent than most who hold the POV are willing to admit. You may not care, and indeed that's the attitude that seems prevalent. Those who have to put up with violent men do so partly because you and JP want to be held blameless when you feel the need to break some bones to sooth your masculine conscience. 

Personally, I think masculine aggression is being used against men. It's easier to legally manipulate a man with a violent record, but that's probably a whole different thread. 

4 minutes ago, koti said:

🤣

It's OK to cry. Or are you laughing at my pain? I've dealt with some childhood ideals and the toxic dilemmas they can create. It's often difficult to see them even after a lifetime, but learning to throw out the bath water while keeping the baby is an ongoing, ever-changing process. At least it is for me. If it's not something you're interested in, so be it.

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 Remember, it is not masculinity in itself that is toxic, but rather certain elements *if* they are to your detriment.

Bingo!

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 I freely admit that I was really dumb in my youth. I would not have asked for help (though calling security would be asking for help...?) and I might have thrown the first punch or otherwise escalated the situation as I would find myself unable to back down. 

Who wasn't? Well some certainly, but like you I may have also have thrown that first punch. I once had this big blonde give me a slap on the arse! 😁 I didn't call security or punch her though. I hope god forgave her for her temerity.😉

Edited October 7, 2021 by beecee

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, not sure though I totally agree with your masculinity concept in all respects. What I'm saying is that one can be masculine and still be a courtious male. Let me give a  real life example...

The part you quoted wasn't my "masculinity concept". I'm not sure I've stated one. And I don't need examples of courteous males secure in their masculinity. I'm well aware it exists and is actually thriving (though it's being drowned out by the bigger profits that surround hate and aggression; decent men don't make the headlines much).

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that many men (like you, like me, like koti, like JP) have done something overly aggressive that they'd like forgiveness for, that they're not willing to admit might have crossed a line. They want to be judged in context, and not lumped together with the men who are OBVIOUSLY toxic and wrong. And I think that tacitly gives a lot of power to those obviously toxic men, and allows them to play whataboutist games that continue to get them off the hook.

[koti]

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

I would think the best way out of that would be to approach your Mrs and make some excuse to drag her away. If he persisted during the course of the night, and the woman was visibly uncomfortable and had expressed being uncomfortable with his advances, then I might try engaging him in deep conversation and letting the Mrs off the hook, so to speak. If he was drunk, then we may have a problem on hand and security would be the obvious step. In saying that, and if he actually insulted or assaulted the woman [drunk or sober] then this may trigger an undesired, impulsive but expected action by the husband. 

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am also utterly unclear how threatening violence actually manages to de-escalate situations. Perhaps it is a cultural/societal thing, but I cannot remember a time where threatening violence actually successfully de-escalated a situation. But that is the thing, isn't it? It means that if we are in a conflict situation we should start puffing up and bring deterrents to the table. Americans claim that open carry is therefore a great idea to deter violence. Looking at the actual numbers I simply don't think that is true.

It's not the threatening of violence, it's projecting confidence and fearlessness with grains of humour, knowledge  and intelligence which dissolves those situations. I've had numerous situations like this in my life and I've never had to resolve them through violence - the weak attack the weak.

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's OK to cry. Or are you laughing at my pain? I've dealt with some childhood ideals and the toxic dilemmas they can create. It's often difficult to see them even after a lifetime, but learning to throw out the bath water while keeping the baby is an ongoing, ever-changing process. At least it is for me. If it's not something you're interested in, so be it.

I thought you sarcastically replied "Quantum Field Theories" as a reply to CharonY's toxic elements and I found it hilarious. What QFT's are we talking about here Phi and I'm sory for the faux pas.

Edit: Found it - Quoted For Truth. Facepalm at self.

Edited October 7, 2021 by koti

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The part you quoted wasn't my "masculinity concept". I'm not sure I've stated one. And I don't need examples of courteous males secure in their masculinity. I'm well aware it exists and is actually thriving (though it's being drowned out by the bigger profits that surround hate and aggression; decent men don't make the headlines much).

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that many men (like you, like me, like koti, like JP) have done something overly aggressive that they'd like forgiveness for, that they're not willing to admit might have crossed a line. They want to be judged in context, and not lumped together with the men who are OBVIOUSLY toxic and wrong. And I think that tacitly gives a lot of power to those obviously toxic men, and allows them to play whataboutist games that continue to get them off the hook.

Agreed. I mentioned earlier I don't need self control to be a courteous respectful male. But I must admit that I certainly need a heap of self control, when I see toxic behaviour in all its forms, even though its obvious [at my age] that I would be getting in over my head If I did resort to violence. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by beecee

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, koti said:

I thought you sarcastically replied "Quantum Field Theories" as a reply to CharonY's toxic elements and I found it hilarious.

OK, that's pretty funny.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think in a way that Peterson worked his way backward here. He sees that men are seemingly more frequently involved in physical violence (there are some big caveats here, which we again are forced to ignore) and from there builds up a male-centric viewpoint of interactions, specifically to separate them from female-female or female-male interactions. 

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.

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

In relatively recent times, we had a case in Sydney where a good samaritan stopped to help a woman with car trouble. He spent time getting her going again, she thanked him [they embraced quickly] then went to the Police and had him charged with assault. He spent 2 weeks in jail, lost his job, his marriage ended and then she admitted she made a false claim....

 https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-in-court-over-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/6afe58fe6bff5f65b302778ae3d5f48d

 

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-sentenced-for-knowingly-making-a-false-statement-against-kenan-basic/news-story/4a4c9cae521751b9a5c58a05d2ad8b32

 

IMO she got off way to lightly.

[Peterkin]

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."

Edited October 7, 2021 by Peterkin
more

[TheVat]

More food for thought than I can digest or address.  On the whole issue of harassing horndogs at parties,  I fall back on the great Dr.  Asimov:  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."  I don't live in 1870's Deadwood,  or wherever Koti  lives, so my view is through a certain lens of time and geography.  Perhaps I've been fortunate to live in parts of the US where a woman,  encountering an unwanted Romeo,  can simply respond to any offer with "that's flattering but I'm not sure my husband/boyfriend would go for it, " or something equally gently deflating.   Deflations allow the miscreant to slink away without provoking an escalation (like,  say,  a beer tossed in the face might)  and neatly underline the situation of being in an exclusive relationship.   Competent people appeal to reason and give reality checks,  they don't need to punch faces in.   

I have to wonder how many actual fights, starting from this situation, were theatrical displays that carried both men farther along than they wished.  A lot of "masculinity" is performative.   That was my experience with a friend who called my then-GF a bitch.  I invited him outside,  we proceeded bravely out into the yard, then as we lost an audience we realized neither wanted a fight,  and so he apologized and we shook hands.  

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I have to wonder how many actual fights, starting from this situation, were theatrical displays that carried both men farther along than they wished.  A lot of "masculinity" is performative. 

I think that is the part which certainly dips into the toxic part. Due to social expectations backing down would appear weak and showing weakness is not something that is allowed to show in men (but is expected in women). 

 

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Due to social expectations backing down would appear weak and showing weakness is not something that is allowed to show in men (but is expected in women)

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.

[CharonY]

Just now, Peterkin said:

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. 

The circumstance are those outline by TheVat and Koti, essentially situations that culminate in possible physical altercations. While I agree that those would or should be outliers in behaviour, in the context of Peterson's theories that would actually be at the basis of civilized behaviour. I.e. if the threat of violence is gone, we won't have a functional ordered system of interaction (so to speak).

And I agree that regular social interactions actually do not appear to be that way, which is one of the criticisms to Peterson's assumptions. So in whole I think we mostly agree, and for the most part are just highlighting what Peterson has been writing (and talking about) does not seem to mesh with how society actually works. 

 

[MigL]

Since we all seem to have differing interpretations of what J Peterson says, I shall present my interpretation.

we have different methods of dealing with each other socially.
For men dealing with men, these interactions span the range from civil discourse on one end, all the way to the physical on the other end.
The 'physical' end of the interactions is usually limited to dealing with anti-social men. The 'crazy' men, if you will.
In modern society, that end of the interaction spectrum is no longer available for men dealing with women, as anything even approaching the physical is severely frowned on.
Since there are also anti-social women in this world, the 'crazy' women, if you will, the problem is then, how do you deal with them ?

 

Having never been married, I cannot comment on what my reaction would be to a persistant/annoyingsuitor to my wife. As for girlfriends, I've always preferred very assertive women, who would quickly tell an unwanted suitor where to go, and i've only ever needed to step in if there was the threat of violence.

 

But getting back to J Peterson, I especially liked this debate ...

It is kind of long, but very interesting.
I was particularly impressed by Stephen Fry, just an actor/director/comedian, but very sharp.

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So in whole I think we mostly agree, and for the most part are just highlighting what Peterson has been writing (and talking about) does not seem to mesh with how society actually works. 

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. 

[naitche]

The site is not allowing me to quote for some reason.

On the O.P, I think its less a dialogue between Conservative Vs Liberalism than objective Vs Subjective values, which we tend to  apply arbitrarily (dependent on the subject) and not confined to  either a liberal or conservative mindset but more closely to the bell curve model.

For this reason I think its presumptuous to assume political affiliation based on how those values are applied to specific subjects. ie If he doesn't agree we are on the right path he must be other than we. Objective to we.

On the subject of Hierarchies being natural, It seems  they are essential to selection and evolution, if there is to be selection. Otherwise what are we selecting from or for?

A universal state of being, or universal direction?

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

  I fall back on the great Dr.  Asimov:  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."  

I.M.O Competence is what J.P is arguing most strenuously for, to avoid conflict.

Most here seem to have lead lives of 'privilege' where real bodily threat has not been a common  issue.

Where you realize you  are about  to be hurt, is it going to be fight, flight or surrender?

Competence to make the choice and live with the result.  In my experience when flight is not an option, even the illusion of competence can be what diffuses the situation to avoid violence if you can make clear you  can stand, without surrender.

I may not agree with all J.P has to say, that doesn't mean I think he he has nothing of value to contribute or that its value is lessened because I don't objectively share a box with him.