/lit/ - Literature

Few books are worth $50. Just go on bookzz or get the PDF legit if you want for $10 from his Patreon.

>>9467366
ah, didn't know about the patreon deal. Have you read it personally?

>>9467366
pretty sure you can get it for free on his website

>>9467354
I was looking at this yesterday. I don't think I could justify spending 50 bunks for a paperback though.

Stop paying attention to meme "philosophers."

>>9467354
>I love watching Peterson's lectures
lol

>>9467354
IT'S FREE ONLINE
http://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf

You can even find it in Russian.

>>9467489
he doesn't prmote himself as a philosopher. he's a psychologist and he's actually really /lit/

>>9467575
Quoting endessly 5 books is not being "really /lit/". Just admit it's one of those 3-4 youtube "intellectuals" you know of. There is no shame in being naive, especially when it comes to appreciating people like JP: what he says is so repetitive, trite and unoriginal that you'll eventually grow out of it, without the meed of any external help.

>>9467354
It's literally a self-help book.
>inb4 "philosophy and psychology is all self-help contnets"
It's one of "those" self-help books.

Pic related: it's exactly like this, but with some dumbed reference from a very small pool of intellectuals

>>9467354
>Is it worth 50 dollars?

>>9467354
I wanted to but it is too expensive... Whatever people say, I unironically find Peterson comfy.

>>9467747
Everyone does think he's comfy though, its extremely apparent he's comforting to the naive and under-read

>>9467515
What the fuck is this autism

>>9467768
Its the work of a "scientist"

>>9467768

Does it make sense now, retard!?

>>9467853
it's always so embarrassing when humanities and social science people try to make their bullshit seem "scientific" by making a bunch of stupid charts and equations and shit, and i say that as a proud humanities fag

>>9467860

oh man it gets worse as you get further in

>>9467876
Lmao, how do people respect this guy. It's memes all the fucking way down.

>>9467354
Yes and yes. It's actually quite /lit/. Probably a bit too /lit/ for /lit/.

>>9467888
>It's memes all the fucking way down.

Mein gott!

>>9467757
BTFO'd

>>9467768
>>9467853
>>9467876
...so what do these charts mean?

>>9467983

Nothing, it's an attempt to give a scientific feel to his unverifiable claims about spooky shit that he says goes on in the unconscious mind.

Can you retards really not wrap your head around these charts? Its simple as dirt, they only help you visualize the progress of the progress.

Not sure if you know this as its kind of an occult secret but...

visual aids help people understand

>>9468028
But his diagrams are literally occult bullshit.

>>9468028
If they're so simple I'm sure you'll be able to explain them specifically and concisely in laymen's terms, instead of vague bullshit like "le progress of le progress."

>>9467768
Seems more like schizotypy. The guy took drugs maybe that's why

>>9467354
>>9467366
pdf is free on his website, lads

>>9467768

Why does it do the inception thing?

>>9467741
This.

Don't give this tenured meme any more space to breathe. He's everything wrong with the North American academic profession.

>>9467354
So, noboy has read it in this thread. That's good to know.

>>9467366
The pdf is free on his website

>>9470826
Hes tedious just read Jung

>>9467741
>>9470667

the undergrad sense of superiority is strong with these two.

>>9470969
>when community college tier uses undergrad as an insult

>>9470969
Not that anon but literally none professors I've met in my phil department has anything good to say about him.

>but muh Neo-Marxism
Uh-uh, they're all analytics, and the few continentals that are here are post-existentialists, that deals more with individuals rather than communities and their politics.

He's a laughing stocj for actual academics, regardless of their political leaning. Also, since nothing he has said is original in the slightest, people don't even feel the need of answering to his statements in peer reviewed journals: he is that insignificant (unless you're a guy on 4chan who needs a internet paternal figure).

>>9471018
I'm only surprised they knew of him at all

>He's a laughing stocj for actual academics, regardless of their political leaning

Firstly, the term 'actual academic' is meaningless.

Secondly, studies have repeatedly shown academia to be overwhelmingly liberal. So no wonder those useless fucks don't like him, they are almost certainly opposed to his beliefs and they are probably also jealous that he is getting the exposure he is.

>>9471025
Undergrads always quote pseudo-intellectuals, so everyone ends up knowing who people like JP, Sam Harris, Molyneux or Shapiro are, and what are their arguments (in the aforementioned cases it's easy, since their bibliography is either non-existent or trivially small).

>>9471038
Not that anon but

>it's another " I can't trust academics but I'll trust other people on 4chan" episode

Literally anti-intellectualism

The only reason people like Peterson is because he shits on trannies and SJWs. He really has some shit0tier loony ideas such as "Frozen is propaganda" and "postmodernists think that literally nothing exists and gave rise to SJWs."

>>9471038
>they are probably also jealous that he is getting the exposure he is.

>implying he is getting exposire for his academic merits

lol

>>9471048
He has been famous for how much now? 1 year? Well, in 1 year I still have not heard him make a coherent statement on postmodernism, nor I have ever seen him actually quote a pomo philosopher.

I'm pretty sure this guys is playing a long con on naive anti-SJW kids on the internet. He's in for the money.

>>9471048
>"Frozen is propaganda"
frozen is propaganda in the sense that it is not based on fairy tales like older disney movies were. the writers imagined up their own scenario that is not consistent with the themes in fairy tales which jordan holds up high as actually factual.

>>9471038
>Firstly, the term 'actual academic' is meaningless

You know something spicy is coming when this is how he begins

>>9471053

Oh look, another triggered Frozen-loving manchild.

>>9471018

Not this anon but literally every professor I've met in my phil department had something good to say about him.

>>9471057
Frozen? Thats the angle you want to go with?

>>9471053
>Well, in 1 year I still have not heard him make a coherent statement on postmodernism, nor I have ever seen him actually quote a pomo philosopher.

This is probably why he does not take debates with people who hold a different opinion than his.
I'm sure he has no follow-up for his arbitrary, all-encompassing judgements: he's just saying that, but he does not really know why Derrida should be criticized, or if he should do so in the first place.

>>9471059

Meant to reply to >>9471048

>>9471058
I imagine in the same way everyone has something good to say about a senile dottering old lady

>>9471058
>literally every professor in my department has good things to say about internet self-help daddy with no academic record and a fraudolent career that stemmed from the misreading of law texts that have been enacted for years

Are your professors 19years old kids who don't know how to sort themselves out?

>>9471059

I don't care about Peterson very much, but there are a few recurring caricatures that pop-up during debates about him that people should beware of:

1) The guy who thinks that Peterson is just some hack who's banking-in on the anti-SJW hysteria, as if SJWs (or whatever you want to call them) aren't a legitimate and growing problem in university/colleges campuses & political discourse/etc. What started Peterson off was that the Canadian govt. wanted to make it literally compulsory to address people by their chosen pronouns, and ergo illegal to 'misgender' them.

2) The guy who shits on his Jungian/psychoanalytical spin whilst giving Žižek/etc a free pass. This guy is almost invariably a Freudian.

3) The guy who shits on Peterson for having 'superficial' critiques, blissfully unaware of the fact that to have a meaningful media present (that is to say, reach a meaningfully significant audience), it doesn't pay to talk beyond their IQ range. Again, see above - what Žižek says in public is hardly ground-breaking either.

4) The guy who associates (and ergo dismisses) Peterson with /pol/, just because he happens to share their POV on several issues - and even then, with much more nuance.

>>9471072
>Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art.

>>9471084
>I don't care about Peterson very much
>but here's my long attempt to try dismiss every criticism of him

Kindly fuck off

>>9471072
>>9471072

He's right, you know.

Again, funny that people shit on Peterson for this whilst giving Disney a free pass for pushing the "strong independent woman who don't need no man" narrative.

>>9471091

>I care about Peterson very much
>But here's my attempt to shit on another attempt that sought to add balance/nuance/etc

Kindly fuck off

>>9471093
I do care about Peterson, I care about his stupid culty followers like you keeping far away from any places aimed at serious discussion

>>9471092
t. Jordan

>>9471097

What you responded to was far better than your shitpost response.

>>9471101
It isn't its trite and tiresome. Strawma framing every valid criticism of him in the flimsy pretense of an objective observer is both disingenuous and non-constructive.

>>9471091
>can't argue the statements, comes up with something random

It's 4 fucking statements. It's not a fucking essay.

>>9471105

Seemed objective to me tbqh.

>>9471084
>Canadian govt. wanted to make it literally compulsory to address people by their chosen pronouns, and ergo illegal to 'misgender' them.

Nope, you fell for his misinterpretation of that law, which has been enacted for years now and has resulted in zero people going to jail/paying fines/having to deal with the legal system in general.

>2) The guy who shits on his Jungian/psychoanalytical spin whilst giving Žižek/etc a free pass. This guy is almost invariably a Freudian.

Too bad that, at the very least, Zizek is doing original philosophy, Peterson just quotes Nietzsche and Jung without ever putting anything of his own.
Zizek would never answer to someone by saying "about that Lacan said *insert here what Lacan said*".
>The guy who associates (and ergo dismisses) Peterson with /pol/, just because he happens to share their POV on several issues - and even then, with much more nuance.

No one in this thread has done it, at best people have associated him with youtube anti-SJW

>tfw a tenured professor has done an interview with fucking Sargon of Akkad 3 weeks ago, and treated him as a peer

>>9471086
here's where pleb learns the meaning of propaganda while looking like a retard

>plebed yourself

>>9471112

>Nope, you fell for his misinterpretation of that law

It's in black and white.

>has been enacted for years now and has resulted in zero people going to jail/paying fines/having to deal with the legal system in general.

Just because a law is not enforced, does not mean it doesn't exist.

>at the very least, Zizek is doing original philosophy

Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.

>>9471092
>having a strong female protagonist is now propaganda
>respecting in any sort of way the autonomy of a young woman finding her place in the world (ending up in a fairly traditional position in the end) is propaganda

You guys are completely divorced from reality. It was not sexualized and it was not androphobic: what's your problem with it? Care to expand? Because JP hasn't.

>>9471110
>>9471084
Fine in short order. 1. Him being a parasitic opportunist on what may be a legitimate issue doesn't make him any less of a vulture.
2. Freudians are in the best position to deconstruct the pseudo-mystic nonsense that is Jungianism as they're well acquinted with the structures and language of the thinker.
3. His critiques are superficial regardless of context from his laughable book to his "academic" lectures to when he decides to cry on a webcam
4. He's associated with /pol/ because of his following on /pol/, a following he has actively courted through including making a vlog about fucking pepe

>>9471072
Holy shit, I already thought Peterson was stupid but how the literal fuck did he ever get a position in academia. Fuck.

>>9471123

>a strong female protagonist
>the autonomy of a young woman

These things are themselves political/ideology. There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

>>9471119
>It's in black and white.

Try to read it, maybe, and hear a second opinion about it, since you apparently know only JP's point of view (which, as I've said earlier, is fallacious).

>Just because a law is not enforced, does not mean it doesn't exist.

The law has been enforced for years, it simply does not work in the way described by Jordan.

>Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.
His costant, written interpretations and critics on ideological contemporary structures.
You may say that they are irrelevant, but at the very least they're not straight-out quotes by academics who have lived 100 years ago.

>>9471119
>Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.

Synthesizing the Marxist conception of ideology as a constantly produced hegemonic narrative with the functions of subconscious thought.

>>9471129
>having strong women in your art is propaganda
>having weak women in your art is not propaganda

*sniff*

>>9471129
>These things are themselves political/ideology. There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

There is ideology in all art. So what? Frozen was hardly Triumph of the Will. It was a fairly innocuous children's movie.

It isn't propaganda.

>>9471129
>There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

By that point there is no apolitical/default when it comes to literally any presentation of a person. Hence why his statement that any work with a political function can't be art is middleschooler retarded

>>9471134

>which, as I've said earlier, is fallacious

Without explaining how/why.

>The law has been enforced for years, it simply does not work in the way described by Jordan.

See above.

>His costant, written interpretations and critics on ideological contemporary structures.

These are not contributions, but interpretations.
>>9471138

This was done long before him. See: Lukacs/etc.

>>9471128
keep your 2-digit IQ to yourself in the future, please
it's for the good of our board and humankind as a whole

>>9471145
>>9471146
>>9471149

You are now realizing that all art is propagands. Congratulations, Peterson is right.

>>9471154
>Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art.

>>9471145
>having women presented unnaturally for political gain isn't propaganda
>having women presented naturally to facilitate artistry is propaganda

*snort*

>>9471150
>This was done long before him. See: Lukacs/etc.

Yeah yeah, literally any contribution by a philosopher can be reduced back through antecedents. Zizek was still the first to attempt to develope it as an analytically structural and coherent project

>>9471153
Geez you really showed me, m8. I bet you're really smart.

>>9467489
>varg

>>9471158
>having women presented naturally

Ideology at its purest

It's funny that peterson fans and zizek fans are always the ones arguing with each other. of course zizek fans think peterson is a hack because zizek is a marxist. however, the "discussion" never goes anywhere because zizek fans are only looking at peterson through the lens of a marxist and never actually explaining their position. it's just a "this is what" rather than a "this is why, which is why these threads are always the same

>>9471169
>fans.

Can a "Peterson fan" please give us some of Peterson's thoughts in clear terms. Like what are some of his most important arguments? What are his contributions?

Moreover: Why does he think political motivations prevent something from being art? Why does he think there was a political bent to Frozen?

>>9471169
Where would you have me begin?
On why archtypes are a stupendously flawed backwards reading of historically constituted symbols?
Why his dismissal of post-modernism is at the same time both flacid and misrepresented?
Or why his opposition to structuralism in the favour of a creedence to esoteric commitments is ironically predicated on the very contributions of the post-modernists he apparently opposes?

>>9471124
1.If you do anything for personal gain you are a parasite and a vulture. Fuck me.

2. I have determined that you are not allowed to speak because you don't have my qualifications or my knowledge.

3. So? Why can't they be superficial? And, yes, crying on cam is a bitch move.

4. Would you rather he courted a group of people that are not his following? The best way to explain and teach is through conduits that are popular. Pepe is one such so why shouldn't he?

>>9471172
by expecting people to give you his positions you are setting yourself up for a horrible discussion. if people do respond to that request they will mostly like not provide his thoughts as clear as peterson himself does or represent him entirely accurately. this gives you the opportunity to attack the crude representation of his views and allows you to leave the thread satisfied without having learned a damn thing. actually read/listen to him to gain an understanding of him, don't take someone else's word. that seems to be the common practice here unless peterson is the topic. "so you want to learn about x? start with the greeks! then read y by z!" ... "so I want to learn about peterson, and I have all these reasons why I think he's wrong... explain him to me!"

>>9471178
well this post is more "this is what" rather than "this is why", so go ahead and provide any "why"s you can.

>>9471181
1. It is if you are intentionally manipulating what you know is a non-issue for exposure
2. What I said is why Freudians would be in a prime position to read and criticize Jung not that its not possible otherwise.
3. They can be superficial all he likes and we can criticize him for being superficial all we like.
4. My preference is irrelevant. The point is why an association is legitimately drawn not whether it is respectable

>>9471184
>"so you want to learn about x? start with the greeks! then read y by z!" ... "so I want to learn about peterson, and I have all these reasons why I think he's wrong... explain him to me!"


kek what a fucking persecution complex. Even the most time tested monumental figures in the Western canon get shit flung at them every day here.
Of course some in vogue meme thinker will get an even harsher treatment.

>>9471184
I have heard him speak about things. And I have read some of his writings. They seemed to be meandering and devoid of actual arguments. Rather, they were cleverly disguised rhetoric which seemed to be aiming at appealing to the emotions of his disgruntled "fans"

The fact you use the term "fans" to refer to people who agree with his positions is disconcerting.

>>9471150
>Without explaining how/why.

You could, for a starter, read the actual bill, instead ofnpretending you've already done so.

>These are not contributions, but interpretations.
Not really, since Zizek is using his own philosophical and analytical system, which was not stolen from other philosophers. That's a contribution,mwether you like it or not.
We can debate over the value of this contribution, but it's still better than the contributionless career of Jordan Peterson.

>>9471146
If you really believe that anything currently coming out of the Disney corporation is "art" and not a cocktail of hundreds of hours of market research, merchandising projections, calculating headlines in MSM and so on, then I just feel sad.
It's not like they're secretive about it either, they very openly talk about how they mix the ingredients of the feminist heroine, strength through diversity, and so on.
Of course you can say the main motivation is money and it's private, so it's not propaganda - but the message is so blunt and it's so closely tied to a loop of mouthpiece media, forcefeeding to millions of children and so completely opposed to the idea of the single "autor" who just expresses his personal ideology that I cannot see how anyone misses the propaganda effect.

It's in fact the very same way it worked in the Third Reich (since you mention Triumph of the Will): Private companies would create "art", the government would make-or-break this art through media and activists that were on the party line, and the rarely-subtle-message would get eaten up by millions. I doubt you'd argue that wasn't propaganda.

Sorry for tl;dr but it pains me that even /lit/ people would show their children modern Disney movies and think it's proper art.

>>9471220
That's not the objection JP made, though.
He was not railing against corporative cinematography.

>>9471202
except this isn't just about shit slinging. people asked questions about him here and wanted them answered by others and refuse to take the initiative themselves, as you are doing now.

>>9471210
>I have heard him speak about things. And I have read some of his writings. They seemed to be meandering and devoid of actual arguments. Rather, they were cleverly disguised rhetoric which seemed to be aiming at appealing to the emotions of his disgruntled "fans"
like I said, this is more "what" while leaving out all the "why". this doesn't get a discussion going at all. you're just describing something, who knows what talk or what writings, and giving no indication of what it was exactly you heard/read. there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about. also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

>>9471225
>like I said, this is more "what" while leaving out all the "why". this doesn't get a discussion going at all. you're just describing something, who knows what talk or what writings, and giving no indication of what it was exactly you heard/read. there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about. also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

Not him, but all of his philosophical content is utterly worthless. Since my statement is that absolute, you can prove me wrong by linking to me a single istance of philosophically valide, well researched and well sourced content made by Jordan. I'm waiting.

>>9471225
>also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

kek. Fan: literally a fanatic.

>there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about.

No one was trying to prove anything. Do you not know Peterson's arguments well enough to recount them with clarity? Many thinkers arguments are given here many times a day. People talk about their views etc etc. Why should Peterson's arguments be omitted? Are they too precious to hold up to a little bit of 4chan scrutiny?

>>9471220
That's not Peterson's argument. What you're saying is completely tangential.

Further, Disney obviously isn't trying to instil a particular political ideal into its viewers. It's simply a business reacting to market demands. They want to make money. There's nothing propaganda about it. How are disney movies dissimilar to most films? Most films are financed and produced by film companies, with certain agenda for the creation of their films, to be commercially viable or to express a certain point of view. They are all made by a multitude of people. Surely if one film is propaganda, then all films are, with the above in mind.

>>9471233
Another game of expecting someone else to provide you with something rather than taking the initiative. Also, I'm not a peterson fan, I'm just saying what I've observed in all these fruitless discussions about him, so I can't help you with that request.

>>9471238
>kek. Fan: literally a fanatic.
Actually fan does not mean fanatic. Fan is used to mean someone who admires, appreciates, supports, respects, etc a person. it doesn't have the negative association that fanatic has. Also, like I told the person above in this post, I'm not a peterson fan, so those sorts of questions you asked shouldn't be targeted at me. However, I'll take the time to say that you are playing the same game that the other person I'm responding to in this post is playing.

>>9471172
If you're serious:

1. He's not a philosopher so people pitting up the two against each other or looking for philosophical credentials are already disqualifying themselves. He's mostly a clinical psychologist and I think his insights as well as his help on that field are amazing. He also designed a self-help program with another professor and I've read from countless people how it turned their lives around (in addition to helping thousands in school) - so in my book, that's a decent contribution and better than a youtube video on hermeneutics of some obscure shit.

2. >>9471220

3. If you put in the time to clear up what the pronoun debate was about, and if you listen to his position vs. his opponents, I guarantee you come out agreeing with him even if you're a Marxist unless you're on the Stalinist side.

4. His arguments around free speech, equity, merit, the university system, bettering yourself instead of trying to better the world, the ties between feelings of resentment and political movements and many more are really worth listening to. Sometimes it's not original (and he doesn't claim to be), it just blew up because he put those words into action and risked his job, got protested and that struck a chord with a lot of people.

I don't like being a "fan" of anyone but I honestly cannot grasp how anyone can dislike this man. I have never seen any valid criticism.

>>9471253
>Another game of expecting someone else to provide you with something rather than taking the initiative. Also, I'm not a peterson fan, I'm just saying what I've observed in all these fruitless discussions about him, so I can't help you with that request.

I've asked for ONE example: is it asking too much? If you can't give a single example of him being a actual coherent and original thinker, then maybe he does not deserve praise at all.

Well, at least you have not posted his high schooler-tier reading of that aphorism from BGE

>>9471253
>Also, like I told the person above in this post, I'm not a peterson fan, so those sorts of questions you asked shouldn't be targeted at me
>Another game of expecting someone else to provide you with something rather than taking the initiative

The point is that Peterson's rabid supporters don't seem to be able to actually give his arguments. And Peterson's arguments seem to amount to not much at all. Can you point people in a good direction then?

>>9471256
>If you put in the time to clear up what the pronoun debate was about, and if you listen to his position vs. his opponents, I guarantee you come out agreeing with him even if you're a Marxist unless you're on the Stalinist side.

I've listened to that and tbqh I wasn't particularly impressed with him, even though I sympathise with his position.

Anyway, what you're saying more or less is that he's a self-help guru.

>>9471253
>Actually fan does not mean fanatic

uhh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)#Etymology

>>9471256
Not that anon

>He's mostly a clinical psychologist and I think his insights as well as his help on that field are amazing. He also designed a self-help program with another professor and I've read from countless people how it turned their lives around (in addition to helping thousands in school) - so in my book, that's a decent contribution and better than a youtube video on hermeneutics of some obscure shit.

Most of his contents are philosophical in nature (2/4 pure political philosophy, 1/4 existential/epistemological philosophy, 1/4 psychology applied to philosophy).

Given the fact that he mostly talk about philosophers while using arguments made by either psychoanalists and other philosophers, it makes sense for us to put him in that context.

Also
>he's good because he authored a non-free self-help program
/lit/, ladies and gentlemen

>>9471256
>I don't like being a "fan" of anyone but I honestly cannot grasp how anyone can dislike this man. I have never seen any valid criticism.

I dislike the man because he doesn't have any valid arguments. All of his points are based on emotion. He argues from positions of ignorance. He's arrogant. He misunderstands postmodern philosophy and marxism yet feels compelled to argue about them (among other topics)

Yes, he knows he Jung. But he's propelled himself into the public sphere quite opportunistically.

>>9471258
I literally just told you that I am not a peterson fan and that I can't help you with your request. And you just respond with your post as if I never said that. You just repeated yourself and claimed how easy it should be for me.

>>9471260
Can you point people in a good direction then?
If you're asking for tips that could help his supporters get across his arguments on 4chan I think It would be good if his supporters always mentioned the lecture or piece of writing that they are referencing so that others may look at it themselves. A lot of the time peterson gets discussed its in the sense of referencing his work as a whole and no one can go check out a specific instance. That wouldn't help people clarify his argument but it would allow others to see if they represented him well.

If you're asking for tips on what direction people who haven't bought into his arguments should do I think taking the initiative is the biggest change that should occur. This would allow them to actually reference his work themselves to provide arguments against specific instances. Of course, they do this with his ama answers and twitter posts already. But those are on the fly and 150 (I think) character limited mediums. Of course his best work isn't going to be located there.

>>9471267
etymology is about how worlds evolved, it's not saying that a new word means the same thing as the thing it evolved from.

>>9471072
Someone responded by asking him if Dostoyevsky's work was art and he didn't reply. Funnily enough I think Dostoyevsky's political moralising was one of the main things about his writing that triggered Nabby's autism.

>>9471267
you should read the last paragraph of the section you linked. I meant fan as a synonym for supporter just as it says there.

>>9471178
>On why archtypes are a stupendously flawed backwards reading of historically constituted symbols?
I'm not a big fan of the whole Jungian/"esoteric"/archetype stuff he goes on about either, but it's usually because he doesn't try to not appear weird and I think doesn't realise how a lot of his language puts off people. Most of the time, there is some valid concept behind it all that is linked to empiric psychology, evolutionary biology or at least a historical pattern. He'll rant about the forces of chaos fighting in us but then just mean a scientific fact like the temperament open vs. closed.

>Why his dismissal of post-modernism is at the same time both flacid and misrepresented?
Yes, I'd like to hear you explain that one.

>Or why...
He doesn't generally "oppose" post-modernists and he openly grants them being right on many things or having furthered discussions and developments. He just disagrees with specific points and especially, goals.

>>9471124
To 1.: Calling him an opportunist is honestly pathetic. All of this started from him standing up for something when it had nothing but personal risks and disadvantages.

To 4.: He speaks out against young men turning to the right, turning to misogyny, and tells them pretty harshly when they're pathetic, why people don't like them, to fix their own mistakes etc. He's much more a social worker in that regard than fuelling any actual /pol/ beliefs and I think that's the best way to stop the divide in the US.

>>9471276
>etymology is about how worlds evolved, it's not saying that a new word means the same thing as the thing it evolved from.

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/68000

First thing it says "fanatic" in modern English

>>9471282
see: >>9471279

also stop being such a fucktard. words have more than one definition and the definition I'm using is right there in that link you used as well

>>9471284
>also stop being such a fucktard. words have more than one definition and the definition I'm using is right there in that link you used as well

Have a cry. You're the one that said "Fan doesn't mean fanatic."

It does mean fanatic. And that is the primary connotation of the word.

People being fans of academics is worrying, because it implies tribalism and devotion without critical thought, hence why "fan-boy" is used to refer to consumers who are dogmatic about particular video game consoles to the point where they slander the competition.

>>9471264
I don't know which you've listened to, I'll grant that he is a fairly terrible speaker and rarely brings his points across properly so with half of his stuff, I can see that happening. Have you seen the debate with him and (among others) the female law professor where it was actually about that law and it's consequences?
That one contained the points properly, many others were then just building on that.

And yes (well, not a guru because he's a professional and none of his advice is far out there) but I think it'd help if people looked at it through the lense of a clinical psychologist trying to help people, and not as philosophical matter or even much of a political one. When he gets political, it's usually about the underlying pyschological pathology behind it.

>>9471269
You're just wrong there. His material is definitely not half political philosophy, and for the rest you're probably basing it mainly off of the recent lectures he held. That'd leave out all the rest of his work. It's not like he puts his empirical research or his clinical work on his youtube, for example.

"he's good because he authored a non-free self-help program"
Someone asked for his contributions. It was given free to thousands of people, and he still gives it to you for free when you email him. Not like it's expensive either.
My argument was simply that he probably had a bigger positive impact on peoples' lives than Zizek. That's all, I didn't say that's where his scientific merits lie.

>>9471274
>I dislike the man because he doesn't have any valid arguments. All of his points are based on emotion. He argues from positions of ignorance. He's arrogant.
Sorry but that's 100% projection on your side and you probably don't even see the irony of it.
But I'll gladly listen to you explaining how he is wrong on postmodern philosophy and marxism.

>>9471297
seriously fuck off. oh wait, is it wrong of me to say fuck in that sentence. doesn't fuck mean to have sex with someone? oh wait, that's right. words can have more than one meaning! it's a good thing I remembered that, if only you fucking would.

>You're the one that said "Fan doesn't mean fanatic."
and given all that I've said after that you should obviously have taken this to mean "Fan doesn't mean fanatic all the time"

>>9471297
Do you have any idea how autistic you sound?

We use "fan" as a lesser word for "admirer" and even "admirer" is well below "fanatic".
I know this is 4chan but if you cannot grasp how someone being a "fan" of Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't have to have a shrine in his bedroom and try to convert people on the streets, then you should go to a therapist.

>>9471282
Stop being pedantic. The real problem with his use of the word "fans" is the underlying implication of treating figures like Peterson or Zizek the same way teenage girls treat boy bands, or boys do sports teams.

>>9471297
You've taken one word out of context and described it's meaning. Good job. Now do that with his whole statement and you'll evolve from being a fucking autist into a pleb.

>>9471247

>Further, Disney obviously isn't trying to instil a particular political ideal into its viewers. It's simply a business reacting to market demands. They want to make money. There's nothing propaganda about it.

Mein gott...

He still doesn't realize there is no conflict between indoctrination (instilling particular political ideals/etc) and capitalism.

Tell me, friend, where do these "market demands" come from?

>>9471300
>Sorry but that's 100% projection on your side

Based on what? Peterson often doesn't back up his arguments with anything convincing. That's my own conclusion about the man. It seems like you're overly defensive about him.

>>9471297
I'll add her, that implication of being a fan is
that of placing the focus onto the person themselves rather than their ideas. It seems to be a symptom of the phenomena of youtube intellectuals like Peterson and Zizek etc. The difference between Zizek and Peterson, however, is that Zizek doesn't inform his opinions based on his emotions, even if he isn't always convincing.

>But I'll gladly listen to you explaining how he is wrong on postmodern philosophy and marxism.

GO TO THE SOURCE KEK. Aren't you the same poster that shouted out the idea of summing up Peterson's arguments? Why would I do that for you, then?

Listen to him speak on the subjects, and if you have any familiarity with postmodern philosophy, or the broader writings of Marx, it's fairly obvious Peterson hasn't done any in depth readings.

His reading of postmodernism is basically just "nothing matters and there is no truth."

And his reading of Marx is that "communism = good."

He seems to think all Marxists are communists for one thing. And he seems to think Communism was the thing Marx wrote the most on.

>>9471313
people say "I'm a fan of his work" when referring to authors all the time. How is how it's being used itt any different? I mean I guess you could be understanding "peterson fan" to not be in reference to his work and just to him, but I don't think that is its intended meaning

>>9471303
>>9471308
>>9471316


Nice samefagging btw. That was not the point of what I said.

I was basically saying this: >>9471313

>>9471325
shut up already

>>9471325
you're such a fucking retard

>>9471322
The recurring use of phrases like "peterson fans vs zizek fans", and your insistence that you are not a "Peterson fan". What does that mean here? Either you dislike or are ambivalent about him and yet spend the whole thread arguing in favour of him (such a person I think would make their point in bold, clear points and leave, rather than linger and react emotionally to all criticism), or more likely you are just distancing yourself from a group identity akin to barracking for and having loyalty to one sports team over others which is really not the best attitude to have with regards to philosophy.

>>9471330
>>9471332

Being a fan of an intellectual is fucking retarded. And so is denying that fan = fanatic. That's what the word means.

>>9471280
>>Why his dismissal of post-modernism is at the same time both flacid and misrepresented?
>Yes, I'd like to hear you explain that one.

Certainly. The most gaping problem in his view of them is that he predominantely speaks about their alleged motivations. Which is that all post-modernists (or post-structuralists as a more accurate term) are setting out to destroy the possibility of truth motivated by their latent Marxist ambitions in the knowledge that Marxism will somehow gradually reign supreme in the absence of any hope for the developement of an agreed universal account of reality.
Without even bothering to engage with his prognosis of their allegience what he misses is the absurdity of how they could render truth as if there was any such agreed truth in the world before they arrived, that is proceeding from fucking World War 2 and the rise of the Cold War, where the human race was threatened with extinction exactly from the fact that we could not come to any shared agreement of truth.
That rather its clear that all they could possibly be capable of at most with this insipid mission was providing an analysis as to why our attempts to come to a cosmpolitan account of reality had failed.
And if following this he was in turn committed towards reaching universal truth again it would only be from identifying as a post-modernist himself and work towards overcoming the limitations of reason they had raised.

Except he doesn't. All he does is saber rattle in their direction and never once engages with their arguments.
Its the most obvious case in the world of lashing out at the sympthom because you're too afraid to face the problem that caused it.

>>9471337
>Either you dislike or are ambivalent about him and yet spend the whole thread arguing in favour of him
I'm ambivalent but I haven't argued in favor of him at all. I've argued against his (TRIGGER WARNING) fans and those that oppose him here.

Sorry for derailing the thread, I didn't know saying fan for the sake of brevity would stir up such controversy.

>>9471345
Well may I ask why do you actually disagree with him yourself then?
That is why don't you consider yourself a fan

There is no better way to prove that you've come here straight from Reddit if you just openly dislike Peterson without talking about his ideas in a substantial way

>>9471321
>>9471300
>>9471280
>>9471274
>>9471172

also guest starring le epic "i'm above it all xD" man
>>9471169

Jeez this thread is autistic. Both your philosophy daddies are cool guys. No more fighting now okay?

>>9471134

>> The law has been enforced for years, it simply does not work in the way described by Jordan.

How come then, that one of his debate opponents eventually admitted that he's right that it can theoretically get to a point where he's fined and if he refuses to pay he can be sent to jail for it?

Also, his university sent him a warning that what he's doing (by refusing to use the new pronouns) might already be illegal and he should stop talking about the issue just to be safe.

>>9471358
No because Peterson is a fucking retard and has no place on a literature board

>>9471361
>t. tranny neomarxist zizek fanboy/girl/thing

>>9471356
I'm not a fan of him in the same way that I'm not a fan of a band I haven't heard any music from. It's not that I dislike the band it's just that I haven't been exposed to their music.

>>9471321
No, I promise I'm not defensive and I was honest when I wanted you to expand on how he's wrong on postmodernists and Marxists. I like challenging my views and I want to know if I'm on the right side about that one.
I've just never seen any actual explanation of why he's wrong, just insults or "he's wrong" or "his arguments are invalid because xy", never explaining what the supposed correct view is.

And projection because in almost every debate, he is taking the side of empirical evidence, historic analysis and reason over the appeals to emotion from his opponents. Projection because you say he doesn't say what his arguments are based on, then don't give any substance yourself. Your entire post was just "he's stupid and arrogant" when he's very humble and always ready to ask himself whether he isn't wrong on things.

And sorry, the rest of your post here just proves what I said. You said "do you want me to explain why he's wrong?". I say "Yes, please explain". You respond "omg are you kidding just go to the sources, why would I have to explain this to you".

And the guy has read about Marxism for decades, but "it's obvious he hasn't done any in depth readings". Come on, don't be an idiot. You can say he didn't understand it or is wrong, but don't say stupid stuff.

If you're up for the challenge, I'm still waiting on you to explain how he's wrong.
For example, do you think it's wrong that categories are necessary and not just used for the sake of power?
Do you think it's wrong that the free market is more fair at allocating resources than a committee would be?
Do you think it's wrong that postmodernists were a continuation of Marxism by ways other than economics?

I know it's close to ad hominem but I'm also honestly curious how old you are.

>>9471361

Same goes for the sniffling Slovenian.

Hey /lit/.

You don't have to hate everyone who becomes even slightly popular.

>>9471365
Thats a ridiculous metaphor, you're displayed ample knowledge of the man and would have no place speaking about the discourse surrounding him otherwise

>>9471361
>and has no place on a literature board
I agree but neither has any philosopher short of the ones who mixed it with a focus on prose like Nietzsche.

Kind of interesting to see which boards are most attracted to the likes of Zizek and Marxism though.

>>9471373
where have I displayed ample knowledge of the man. I feel that what I've said is general enough to apply to any person without seeming out of place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC1pvjyKYr4

Y'all should watch these first to understand Peterson's positions. He dumbs down his arguments a lot for his popular lectures.

>>9471365
The phrase "I'm not a fan of" is used to mean "I dislike". I know that's not what it literally implies but that is what people mean when they say it. If someone asks if you like a band, or an author, but you're unfamiliar with their work, you say "I haven't heard/read anything by them", you don't say "I'm not a fan" because that implies you have heard/read things by them and you were either nonplussed or actively disliked it.

>>9471387
>He dumbs down his arguments a lot for his popular lectures.

Provide 1 (one) example of this

>>9471361
>angry undergrad criticizes phd over his political beliefs

>>9471387
>5 hours of watching Kermit the frog cry

>>9471392
yeah I guess so

There's two (2) reasons why Peterson gets so much hate here:

1) There's a disproportionate number of Marxists on this board.

2) There's a disproportionate number of trannies on this board.

That's *literally* it.

I wish all Peterson fans were forcibly gender re-assigned

>>9471418
Yeah I'm always surprised by this when I branch out from other boards and need to be reminded.

Worst thing is that it's all 20 year old youtube-Marxists so even when I want to learn about their positions or how an anti-Marxist might be wrong, I never get any answers.

>>9471368
>I like challenging my views and I want to know if I'm on the right side about that one.
I've just never seen any actual explanation of why he's wrong, just insults or "he's wrong" or "his arguments are invalid because xy", never explaining what the supposed correct view is.
This 100%

>>9471395
I've read his book. He delves much deeper into Piaget et al's works in it. Only really skims the surface in his lectures.

>>9471431
Thats not an example, thats a restatement of the question

>>9471430
oh i fucked that up

>>9471430
>I've just never seen any actual explanation of why he's wrong
Pretty typical pomo tactics really; "not giving him a platform" and whatnot.

>>9471430
>they never give any explanation why he's wrong, all they do is explain why his arguments are wrong

>>9471395
His reliance on a small set of mythical metaphors (slaying the dragon, rescuing your father from the underworld, etc.) and invoking Pinocchio and The Lion King all the time is perfectly fine for a pleb audience, but I understand why it's offputting for more erudite people who might parse it as juvenile new-age bullshit.

His ideas are grounded in biology, evolutionary science and quantitative psychology (where he's highly cited and respected scholar btw.). If one takes time to listen to his university lectures or read MoM that becomes clear, but he knows he can't just sperg for hours about cognitive science to laypeople without luring them in with something more accessible.

>>9471427
Why would you self-indulgently appease your assumptions about those that disagree with him? You're not doing yourself any favours young man.

>>9471368
>Yes, please explain". You respond "omg are you kidding just go to the sources, why would I have to explain this to you".

I said that because it's basically your position from earlier. The above is quite hypocritical of you.

>If you're up for the challenge, I'm still waiting on you to explain how he's wrong.

It's all there for yourself from the man himself. I won't sum up any of his arguments or my own, because you can see for yourself. There's no point talking about his arguments, because people on 4chan will nitpick etc etc etc.

>I know it's close to ad hominem but I'm also honestly curious how old you are.

How condescending and arrogant. I'm 27. if you must know my age. How old are you?

You can act all high and mighty, and resort to calling people idiots, but you haven't presented yourself any better than I have myself, and you haven't backed up your positions with anything better than anyone else in this thread.

You come off as defensive and like a Peterson worshipper. You know too much about the man to have any illusion of being impartial.

>He's read about Marxism for decades.
>about Marxism.

I'm sure.

>>9471434
Example: Piagetian assimilation and adaptation. Peterson simply refers to it in terms of frames; the disintegration of the frame into chaos and the reintegration of anomalous information into the frame. Doesn't go into much more detail than that.

>>9471427
You're utterly full of yourself. No one has any obligation on Mongolian fishing forum to expound their views to you.

>>9471461
I asked very specific and short questions in my post that I wanted answers to. You took the time to write a really long post, but ignored all of the substance. That's really telling me everything.

>I won't sum up any of my arguments because you can see for yourself
I'm sorry if I speak to you like you're an idiot but that's really how you come across. And do you have no mind of your own? What's so hard about pulling some short, concise arguments from whoever you agree with and showing me what you consider correct if you consider Peterson to be wrong. I don't care about any man, I care about ideas. Peterson makes sense to me. I want to find out how he might be wrong. Post what's correct.

"Peterson is stupid because someone else said so somewhere but I can't really tell you why" just makes you look like a fool, sorry.

>>9471434
>>9471467
In his book he goes into far more detail. He outlines Piaget's ideals in whole and expands upon them; explaining the bootstrapping of anomalous information into matter and spirit etc.

>>9471384
>People who don't like Peterson are obviously indoctrinated Marxists.
>People who don't suck off Peterson and hang off his every word obviously do so for Zizek. There can exist no one who doesn't idoloise a glorified self-help youtuber.

Peterson fans are like people who like Kim Kardashian or something.

I read an interview of Peterson once. He claimed gender discrimination didn't exist. Just outright. It didn't exist at all. There was no gender discrimination anywhere. It was ridiculous.

Then he goes and says things like that image in here that political motivations preclude something from being art.

He's a baffoon. His opinions, such as his christian beliefs, are just about how he 'feels' and then he works backwards to justify them.

>>9471489
>And do you have no mind of your own? What's so hard about pulling some short, concise arguments from whoever you agree with and showing me what you consider correct if you consider Peterson to be wrong

This is literally what you were asked to do earlier, but you refused. Nice one.

>>9471368
>For example, do you think it's wrong that categories are necessary and not just used for the sake of power?
No act in life is intrinsically "necessary", be specific. In general though categorization is a fundamental facet of cognition and you'll be hard pressed to see someone propose or even think possible it can be abolished. Categorization as act of reason as part of how we asserting an account of reality, its inherently an act of power to assert or deny or particular categorization.

>Do you think it's wrong that the free market is more fair at allocating resources than a committee would be?
Fair is a subjective value determination. The Marxist critique of Capitalism is based on analysing the mechanism through which surplus value is produced. Whether you want to see it as fair or not is your own perogative.

>Do you think it's wrong that postmodernists were a continuation of Marxism by ways other than economics?
No thats fucking retarded. Marx was an economist, its totally insensible to talk about Marx's work detached from economics.

>>9471494
>I read an interview of Peterson once. He claimed gender discrimination didn't exist. Just outright. It didn't exist at all.
Source?

>>9471470
An obligation?

If you're taking part in a discussion and say "xy is wrong but don't ask me why or what I believe to be right" then no, I'm not going to sue you but you'll understand why you'll look stupid and not exactly convince any of your opponents in the debate.
I don't consider myself a genius but certainly superior to someone just autistically screeching when challenged about their Marxist views.

>>9471494
>He claimed gender discrimination didn't exist
Source?

>>9471498
No, no one asked me to do that. I gladly would have. Maybe you're confusing me for another poster. If you want anything clarified or explained, feel free to ask.

>>9471505
>>9471510
There is no source; he's lying. Typical pomo tactics really.

>>9471505
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

He literally says that the idea that women have ever been discriminated against (throughout history) is appalling.

"Are you denying the existence of discrimination based on sexuality or race?

I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument"

He doesn't back this up with anything convincing.

>>9471507
So what the fuck is he then, is he criticizing without revealing his own position or is he a Marxist?
Holyshit the mental gymnastics you're putting yourself through

>>9471516
>>9471518

He says stupid shit all the time, with no evidence. Just based on his feels and ideological convictions.

> Typical pomo tactics really.

No one mentioned pomo anything you fucking retard.

The whole point of peterson is that psychology/science has replaced philosophy. That's why Peterson is based and is actively making the world a better place (being a therapist, futur authoring program, etc) and Zizek is just a meme spouting Hegelian.

>>9471518
>I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument. First of all, do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. When George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, the coal miners he studied walked to work for two miles underground hunched over before they started their shift. Then they walked back. [Orwell] said he couldn’t walk 200 yards in one of those tunnels without cramping up so bad he couldn’t even stand up. Those guys were toothless by 25, and done by 45. Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane.

Christ he really is a /pol/tard. I've been giving him more credit than he deserves

>>9471526
>That's why Peterson is based and is actively making the world a better place

By telling people platitudinous self-help bullshit. He's a meme. His name is Memerson

>>9471018
Why does he even need to say something original?.

I feel like any professional who would regard a man with such a volume of work as a "laughing stock" rather than "someone I disagree with" needs to sort themselves out.

>>9471535
>If I write a ton of horseshit I am entitled to respect

Jungianism is garbage, its all downhill from there

>>9471518
>Men and Women are different. The historical circumstances of the sexes reflect these differences.

Not exactly radical stuff anon.

>>9471545
>I'm just going to completely ignore the clear statement he referred to

You chickenshit

> What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

This is /r9k/ tier insanity

>>9471554
>Biological truths are sexist

You biological non-essentiallist

>>9471568
Yeah I think biology shouldn't decide whether a functioning grown adult should have the right to vote. Call me an evil Marxist if I think its oppressive otherwise

>>9471504
To 1:
Fair enough - "necessary" in the sense of an efficiently working society or even survival. We categorize animals as dangerous or not dangerous and this is (mostly) necessary - but it's certainly not about power or discrimination. And the point about power isn't that it is an act of power (by that definition, everything we do is an act of power, e.g. we do or do not empty that glass of water) but whether the underlying motivation behind it is to gain power over others. When an employer categorizes applicants as competent or not competent, he does not do so out of a craving for power or to discriminate, but for a very practical purpose. Yet there is a view who will see that as "ableist" and as primarily a power game and want to do away with categories like that.
And that is what Peterson was against.

To 2:
It goes beyond the production of surplus value. Even if we just go a little beyond - who gets to benefit from it? In our current society, that would be for example the investor. The reasons here are the risk he took, his intellect at analyzing the market, maybe his entrepreneurial spirit, and so on. Nowadays people want to replace that with equity. Everyone should benefit equally. Of course issue this goes beyond just the original economic questions but so does the reality. There will always be resources to allocate which we do by the way of a mostly free market and which all socialist countries do mostly by way of party loyalty, ideas of equity, and humans deciding instead of market mechanisms. And Peterson explains how the latter is much more dangerous and only fair as far as humans are fair and free of bias, resentment and so on. Venezuela is the best example of this. It might not be what Marx had in mind, but it's certainly what most modern Marxists welcomed, especially on university campuses.

To 3:
I agree that it makes no sense but do you really deny that Neo-Marxists, Frankfurt School, campus SJW Marxists etc. combine them? Or that "cultural Marxism" simply doesn't exist as a current?

I think you're very sensible in your answers (not sure if you're the same guy) but I think you'll agree that the divide between the two sides nowadays really isn't so much along the economical issue - especially among post-modernists or the groups of people Peterson is confronted with.

Since you seem like you're serious about the economic side of Marx - do you consider his work outdated? And do you think a modern, self-employed person or someone taking out a loan to start a business and then becoming rich fits into Marx's ideas?

>>9471567

>a medicine that radically changes basic female biological functions can have psychological and sexual impacts on individuals and society at large

woah, get a load of this complete loon

>>9471578
Reducing all disharmony between the sexes on the basis of one extremely recent and relatively benign element is pretty fucking whacko yeah

>>9471540
You seem very narrow-minded friendo and that ain't cool.

>>9471575
The essentiallist position regarding voting is that functioning adults should have the right to vote. So I cant say you're an evil Marxist just yet.

>>9471567
Hm I'm curious, leaving out the matter of the last sentence, do you actually consider that insanity? Why? It seems to be based on empirical science. So just because the implications are controversial?

>>9471584
>"so based on this scientific evidence it's possible that a lot of"
>REEEEEEEEEEE my safe space

>>9471567
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(09)00263-8?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534709002638%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=

>>9471584
>Reducing all disharmony between the sexes on the basis of one extremely recent and relatively benign element is pretty fucking whacko yeah
>>9471567
>so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill.


Fuck off.

>>9471584

He didn't say "all", he said "a lot". C'mon, sort out your arguments. I'm not going to learn anything from a fucking idiot.

>>9471357
>Public intellectual who espouses a lot of ideas outside his field of expertise.
>Constantly appeals to muh how rational muh viewpoints are
>Slightly edgy

Peterson is the Richard Dawkins of psychology. He's reddit-tier as they come.

>>9471545
The point is that he denies gender discrimination ever existed. He denies it has ever been a thing. It's just lunacy. He's clearly an ideologue.

>>9471520
>Holyshit the mental gymnastics you're putting yourself through
That's rich coming from someone pretending "revealing the vague term you associate with" is the same as "providing an argument for your case".

Calling myself an Antipetersonianist isn't enough to explain why Peterson is wrong.

>>9471609
perhaps it was a good thing

>>9471600
>>9471597
Right whatever, its still frankly a bit nauseating to see someone claiming to be not merely an intellectual but a scientist applying from a single small contributing factor to apply this much significance on what is an unfathomably complex world based on all of human history between the sexes to a form of birth control.

>>9471609

Yes, it's just "lunacy", no person can think those things, in fact, it's so crazy that we don't even have to have that discussion.

Everyone just put your computers to sleep, I'm getting a little tired myself.

>>9471616
Marxism is hardly a vague term to anyone who uses it as anything more than a boogieman

>>9471518

That's unfair, - read what he says right after that quote. I think he's correct about how gender roles were just practical common sense before material affluence allowed for a more bourgeois lifestyle for a larger segment of the population, but he ignores the harsh and unjust nature of the patriarchy among the upper classes. Still I think he has a point that the whole "women were oppressed" argument as it's often presented is very one-sided and lacks perspective.

>>9471625
Are you going to start talking about how the Jews control everything now?

>>9471595
Just curious. How can psychology claim to be a legit science.

How do you quantify, "more masculine" or "more feminine" in any sort of objective way. Then, how do you draw conclusions about real female sexual selection preferences with any sort of certainty just from surveys?

Do women always know what they want? Are they completely conscious of everything about their own desires? Even if they were to have a very thorough process, and suspend certain questions, there are too many variables.

Even thermal imaging of the vagina, and brain imaging, raises more questions than it would answer.

>>9471620
There is scientific evidence that something so "small" as taking the pill completely alters your partner selection, who you fall in love with, whether you stay in love with your husband of 10 years.

From that he extrapolates that it is POSSIBLE that it has A LOT to do with issues between the sexes.

And you find that - a complete non-issue and the most logical conclusion - to be "nauseating" because it doesn't align with your completely unscientific social opinions.

That's nauseating to me, I hope you're not enrolled anywhere.

>>9471615
>perhaps it was a good thing

Perhaps it was. Perhaps not. But it clearly existed.

>>9471625
If you're going to claim something that so clearly goes against the historical record, then you have to back up your statements. Peterson doesn't.

>>9471631

I'm actually something of a Jewish supremacist. I believe the Jews are over represented in positions of power and influence because of a combination of genetics and a strong scholarly tradition.

>>9471620
>mate selection and reproduction
>a single small contributing factor
You're embarrassing yourself anon. Please leave the biology to the biologists.

>>9471634
>as taking the pill completely alters your partner selection

Oh please "Completely"? In the same way watching titanic the day before could completely change your partner selection. Be real you fucking orc

>>9471630
It's just historically wrong. The idea that most men lived under completely insufferable circumstances prior to the industrial revolution is just plain wrong. Most people were farmers. There was gender discrimination. If a woman tried to take on certain roles, such as writing, or whatever, she would undoubtedly be prevented from doing so in almost all instances. There is plenty of evidence to attest to this.

>>9471609
No he just denies that it was the product of malevolent intent.

>>9471630
>Women couldn't take part in or do a plethora of things both by social coercion and outright law
>Yeah but men's lives were shitty back then

>>9471648
No he literally said it didn't exist. Please limit your double think for a few minutes

>>9471626
Yep, all Marxists have read Marx, all Marxists have the same interpretation of Marx (wait, didn't even his closest friend get him completely wrong?), and Marxism has never been applied throughout history in different ways. There certainly aren't any Neo-Marxists. Let alone people like the Frankfurt School connecting it to more than economic issues. There definitely are no socialists describing themselves as Marxists, and there definitely are no socialists leaving the boundaries of Marx.
Your average campus Marxist is just a pure economist trying to explain surplus value to people.
Zizek had nothing to add to Marx, you can just say you're a Marxist or a Zezikist.
And if, in a discussion, you say you're a Marxist, that should be enough to prove any issue on the matter wrong. I mean, they can just go to the sources, right?

>>9471632
This reply reeks of ideology.

Objective psychometric tests have been around for a long; it's all about predictive validity.

>>9471575

Women were given the vote almost right after the Overton window allowed for universal suffrage. Also, the arguments were less about the rights of men vs. women and more about whether the individual, or the property-owning nuclear family was the atom of the polity.

>>9471658
How does it reek of ideology?

It just seems to me like the methodology of most psychology studies are completely bonkers and shouldn't really be able to be called science.

>>9471652
Discrimination in the colloquial sense of the word my man

>>9471640
Yes, completely. In a way that it will make you find the person you loved for years suddenly unattractive because you're taking the pill. In a way that is replicable and reliably predictable on a big scale.
So, completely unlike your example. But whatever, you're already set in your opinion and mix morals with science.

>>9471653
Dude I don't even know what it is you're trying to argue against here.
Yeah Marxist may not be specific enough to explain every single notion a person has but no statement of position ever will be.

>>9471668
>In a way that it will make you find the person you loved for years suddenly unattractive because you're taking the pill.

Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy

>>9471668
>Yes, completely. In a way that it will make you find the person you loved for years suddenly unattractive because you're taking the pill

Just anecdotally. This seems completely false to me. I've been with several women while they've been both on and off the pill, and I haven't noticed any differences in their sexual behaviours or arousal levels.

>>9471664
It depends on the study really. Usually the ones that come to conclusion that no psychological differences exist between two groups are the ones with the bonkers methodologies.

>>9471667
There is no colloquial definition of discrimination that implies its not discrimination if the person in power thinks they're not doing anything wrong

>>9471642
>>Most people were farmers.

Which meant almost constant back-breaking labor with very little free energy or time to spend for anything else. Do you have any idea what that sort of life entailed even in the early 20th century?

>>9471674
>>9471672
>>9471640
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(09)00263-8?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534709002638%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=

Many such studies like it.

>>9471680
>Which meant almost constant back-breaking labor

No it didn't, you realize pre-industrial farmers worked like four days a week

>>9471685
>factor can contribute towards X
>Thus any statement of the magnitude to which it contributes towards X is legitimate

Buddy I think you should go take a walk for some fresh air

>>9471664
That's why it's useful to actually read the studies.. it's all explained.

Here's an example of masculine vs. feminine face for the laughs:
http://www.ehbonline.org/cms/attachment/2000842172/2002624892/gr1.jpg

>>9471650

Outside the upper echelons of society, barely anyone could even dream of taking part in anything. Even at the beginning 20th century, a large number of people (of both genders) were illiterate for example.

>>9471694
>barely anyone could even dream of taking part in anything

Anything? Fucking anything!?

>>9471680
It was hard labour but it wasn't some hell on earth. Have you seen third world farm labourers? They work hard, but they still have time to fuck around and sometimes go slow. And yes, many of them still do things by hand. There are plenty of history books on the daily lives of pre-industrial peoples.

And women worked just as hard as the men, in poor families. But there was still discrimination, especially the richer you were.

>>9471685
>factor has been shown to contribute to X
>that's antithetical to my ideology so it's not true

Buddy I think you should remove that ideology from your rectum.

>>9471678
This post reeks of ideology

>>9471674
I haven't noticed it in my partners either but that doesn't mean I'll just shit on scientific studies. Especially since most girls can tell you that the pill affects their moods and feelings in many other ways that are easier to notice.

>>9471691
You're talking to different people. One less now though since you stand out as quite stupid even in a thread like this.

>>9471693
That doesn't really prove anything. It still seems highly subjective, prone to misinterpreting and/or generalising within all possible variables to reach a conclusion, which seems to happen a lot.

>>9471701
Patterns exist my friend.

>>9471704
>scientific studies

I don't think psychology is a legitimate science.

>>9471700
Oh shut the fuck up pissant. I never said it doesn't alter preferences, only that you're nuts if you think there's many people leaving the love of their life as a result of it

>>9471706
Read the study. The metric has predictive validity. It is NOT subjective.

>>9471712
I did read it.

>>9471717
You may have read it but you obviously didn't comprehend it.

>>9471712
>>9471721
He didn't argue that it doesn't have predictve value, only that you're venturing outside science when you begin to apply ungrounded terminology in order to interpret that predictive pattern.

>>9471723
Thanks anon. Saved me typing something similar.

>>9471723
>ungrounded

That's the thing, it isn't. Let me guess, you guys think IQ tests are a subjective measure of intelligence as well?

>>9471679
I'm not him but I think the point is that e.g. back then, physical strength was still necessary and so was someone staying home with the many children, there was a natural order of things and for the sake of social cohesion and tradition, it wasn't really challenged. This was a time when you could still get killed for challenging something like religion.

So I can see why one wouldn't call it discrimination that women were expected to stay home.
And I also do think that "malevolent intent" plays a role in discrimination. If there is just a tradition in place that men don't wear skirts and get shamed a little if they do, I wouldn't call that discrimination. Some traditions and social norms are simply normal and necessary in a society.

That said, I agree that Peterson went way too far. Maybe he got carried away, maybe he's plain ignorant on that topic, but at the latest when it comes to the suffrage movement, you can't deny discrimination.

I still sympathise with his position though because the modern reading is that only women were ever discriminated against, had it so hard and thus still have it so hard and are the victims. Certainly prefer his reading to that. But he never should've said that sentence.

>>9471669
I'm not that anon, here's my 2c.
What he's telling you is that the contemporary outlook of political theories linked to Marxists are radically different from the positions that were held by Marx himself and the first, traditional Marxist thinkers.

There have been so many contaminations from so many different perspectives that now most people (because Traditional Marxists are certainly a minority in 2017) can only cite Marx as one of their influences, rather than the foundation of their thougt.

To call everyone Neo-Marxist just shows that you're detatched from both the works of Marx and the works of modern leftist academics.

Jordan Peterson makes this assumption COSTANTLY, and to ''protect'' it he avoids mentioning specific works and ideas of post-modernist and contemporary leftist thinkers, at best he will quote for 1 second scarecrows such as Derrida, make a very generic statement about it (usually it's along the lines of ''these guys thinks there is no truth WTF???'' although even scarecrows such as Derrida believed in objective truths; ironically one of his main influences, Nietzsche, was epistemologically a radical skeptic of even the most basic assumed truths: hell, he did not believe in the existence of facts of ANY sort, and explicitly stated so), and then move on on more attacks on the idea of Marxism that is engrained in his silly head.
The fact that he NEVER debates actual academics that disagree wtih him should be considered as a major red flag: at best you will see him discuss with naive undergrad leftists, but he will never go past that.

I honestly have no reason to believe in the intellectual honesty of Jordan Peterson when it comes to actual philosophical stances (which I'm sure he is extremely ignorant of), I for sure can't extract it from his speeches and lectures.

>>9471695
OK, "anything" might not have been the right word to use. But you do realize that even the equivalent of a high-school, let alone college education was only available for a very small segment of the population not so long ago? Large-scale social mobility is a relatively recent phenomenon.

>>9471727
>you guys think IQ tests are a subjective measure of intelligence as well?

Yeah obviously it is. The only thing an IQ test objectively measures is how well people can answer IQ tests. Its certainly highly correlative to intelligence I would agree but if you think how people apply the term intelligent to others will directly correlate with their IQ results you're willfully ignorant.

>>9471685
>. For example, all but one study are based on between-subjects designs, thus not controlling for possible pre-existing differences in pill and non-pill users (Table 1). We thus suggest the need for further studies using within-individual designs, and investigating whether general differences between pill users and non-users account for the effect of the pill on mate preferences. Whether the influence of pill use on mate preferences then interacts with actual mate choice is an open question: first, supporting evidence that mate preferences in normally cycling women are reflected on the choice of real partners is relatively indirect and second, whether the use of the pill when making pair-bonding decisions leads to choose an otherwise (when normally cycling) less preferred partner is currently unknown.

We should probably settle down. If Peterson wanted to comment on the extent to which the pill had an effect on social dynamics between males and females, he should have commented on it contribution to emancipation more than anything. Make what value judgements you will, but this aspect of the pill has changed male-female interaction more than anything. Correlation with mate preferences or mate choice is not as strong and certainly doesn't explain the tensions between sexes.

Is anyone wiling to explain why he thinks that women have not been discriminated against?

>>9471729
>Certainly prefer his reading to that. But he never should've said that sentence.

He claims similar ignorant things all the time. And even if your (generous) interpretation of what he meant is right, it's still overly simplistic. It wasn't just that men were shamed 'a little' for wearing skirts. Women were outright denied from being allowed to read in many instances. And it wasn't simply that women were expected to look after children as a matter of convention (women actually often worked the fields as much as men and rearing children was often a family affair as a fun fact). A lot of the time they were burnt at the stake as witches for not conforming to their gender expectations.

>>9471727
> IQ tests are a subjective measure of intelligence as well?

They are a flawed measure of an indicator of intelligence. They aren't an all-encompassing measure of direct intelligence.

>>9471742
>The only thing an IQ test objectively measures is how well people can answer IQ tests.
I didn't know there were people who still thought this.

>>9471753
Go start with the Greeks and come back when you actually understand what objectivity and subjectivity mean frogposter

>>9471742
>The only thing an IQ test objectively measures is how well people can answer IQ tests

This hasn't been the consensus of the literature for nearly 50 years.

Statements like this are just embarrassing really. You obviously have a very limited background in science.

>>9471753
What he's saying is not that they're completely invalid, rather than it's just an approximation of the measurements you're looking for.
He's doubting the completeness of the approximation, not its existence, and honestly, as an opinion, it's not that controversial, unless you're willing to admit that a good chunk of academics who actually studied these matters are simply stupid and wrong.
In that case you should tell us how have you formed this opinion, and what notions made you agree with only a limited part of the academic consensus. How have you picked that fraction, anon? And are you sure you have explored both sides of the arguments?

>>9471755
>Psychometrics can never attain objectivity
kill me now

>>9471742
>/lit/ tries STEM

Holy FUCK this is embarrassing

>>9471729

I think Peterson is annoyed by how one-sided an whiny feminist discourse tends to be and gone full contrarian. I kinda understand - look at how many hysterical "Trump's America = irl Handmaid's Tale" essays the press churned out just in the last few weeks. I don't think he would stand by it if someone properly challenged him with facts.

>>9471767
You're equating the academic global discourse to the dumb feminists you've seen on tumblr and facebook, and on liberal media, which is anything but supported by the general academic consensus.

That would be like equating all analytic philosophers to clueless conservative people you can find on Fox News, only because these academics tends less often to radical leftist positions.

You're basically talking about nothing.

>>9471758
>>9471765
Literally what possible argument do you think you have against me here?
Intelligence is a subjective term, different people will think different people are intelligent for different reasons up to and including their notions and forms of reasoning that are totally outside the purview of IQ tests.
To even speak of people's cognitive abilities is a dispirate issue with the brain being a varied and dynamic mesh of structures and substructures any of which are liable to promote proficiency in certain forms of tasks.

>>9467741
A lot of his appeal does seem to be about "sorting yourself out" (ie, self-help, motivation and therapy), but people don't want to admit that's what it is.

I think those people would be better off listening to someone like Zig Ziglar, who is a far better motivational speaker and storyteller.

>>9471404
>5 hours of watching Kermit the frog cry
His first video of 2017 involved literal crying. It made me wonder if he's going to pull a DFW on us. He's like a second father to a lot of people now (or even a first father), so people would be devastated.

what did he mean by this?

>>9471730
Okay, it's getting a bit messy so:

1. My original point was only this: Saying you're a Marxist is not the same as providing a Marxist argument as to why someone is wrong. If you tell me my anti-Marxist view is wrong, the onus (in the debate) is on you to explain why/what's right instead.

2. I think your point about the many "contaminations" is agreeing with me as my second point was that "Marxism" now goes far beyond economics, and especially in the scope of the Peterson thing, economics has little to do with it now. And if it does, then when it comes to allocating resources and equity - NOT in a sense of economic classes, surplus value, or even capital.

So being "hurt" as a Marxist when he talks about Marxism isn't too productive because you can't know whether he meant your interpretation. If you're a traditional Marxist and just want to talk about means of production, just ignore the discussion. If you're one of the Marxists who e.g. applies socialist ideas of equity to the university or if you think all categorization is discrimination, then yes he means you and you can get hurt.

This whole meta-discussion is completely useless though which is why I tried earlier to argue actual, small, concise points. For example: When we categorize the world into men and women, is that an evil power game? Is it discrimination? What if we don't recognise wolf-kin in our pronouns?
You can say "he misrepresents postmodernists and modern leftists as the SJW group he clashes with" - and maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, But you will still have to answer: Are the people he opposes in the right, or are they not?
Are they misrepresenting Marxists and postmodernists, or are they not?
Is equity good? Is the absence of objective values good? Is it a discriminatory, ableist power game to categorize people into "able" and "not able" or is it unfortunately the best mechanism available to us for a functioning society?

Those are the practical questions, regardless of what those who argue them call themselves.

(As for debating people: He once did, and fater that he tried to, but no one dared to debate him, so he only once got some stand-in devil's advocate from a law faculty about something and that was it. Mind you, not about philosophy, which isn't his field really. And as you said, Marxism doesn't belong in philosophy either. For views on totalitarianism and psychology, his stances really aren't intellectually dishonest, I don't think you can say that.)

>>9471784
I don't have an argument against you anon, but the entire scientific community for the past 50 years does.

>different people will think different people are intelligent for different reasons up to and including their notions and forms of reasoning that are totally outside the purview of IQ tests.

You really don't know what an IQ test is, do you?

>>9467757
>look, mom, I am cool with my anonymous friends becuase I am the smartest! :)

>>9471800
You want some next brainlet?
Don't worry it'll just hurt a lot

>>9471799
>I don't have an argument against you anon, but the entire scientific community for the past 50 years does.

Oh yeah, lets hear it. Happy to learn something new

>>9467366
>Few books are worth $50
non-academic pleb

>>9471742
>>9471784
>>9471749
>>9471755

Damn this is so pomo

>>9471779

Let's not pretend that the feminist-adjacent parts of academia are not politicized to their very core and are willing to entertain anything outside a very narrow liberal or even far-left interpretation of history and reality in general. The amount of purely ideological drivel published under the guise of "scientific research" in these fields is just horrifying. How long before biological differences become anathema for political reasons even in the natural sciences? It already happened with race. I mean, we have professors(!) proclaiming that that essay lamenting transracialism amounted to "egregious violence" or some shit because it dared to mention "biological sex" in the context of trans issues. The SJWs and journos are downstream from academic feminism I'm afraid.

>>9471823
Derrida was right about literally everything

>>9471749
>He claims similar ignorant things all the time.
I agree, he often rambles and doesn't watch his words and then gets lured into weird or ignorant stuff. Kind of how a trained politician vs. a newcomer who'll not watch his words and get carried away.

Then: Look at homosexual men in Islamic patriarchies. They get "burnt at the stake for being witches" too, basically. But you wouldn't say men are discriminated against there. The point there being, there are roles and expectations for everyone. You could say men in the industrial age were discriminated against because they were expected to risk their lives in order to bring money home and if they said "fuck it", they'd lose all social standing and not find a wife.
But no one would look at it that way, just because it's not fashionable.

Note that I'm only explaining the sentiment here. It's about not pitting the genders against each other or acting like one has always been the victim of evils. They were just different times. We know better now, and we do it differently.

I completely agree that it was discrimination and it's easy to spot in things like voting rights, but much harder to spot in the general social expectations that both genders "suffer" from but that might simply be necessary.

>>9471826
That's pretty phallagocentric of you anon.

>>9471806
http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

>>9471753
>I didn't know there were people who still thought this.
For any IQ tests that involve those Raven matrices, I think he's right. You can learn how to do those the same way you would for any sort of maths test, and they're pretty simple once you know the standard patterns to look for.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be able to boost your IQ by doing practice tests beforehand.

>>9471839
>2008
2008
>2008
2008
>2008
2008
>2008
2008

>>9471838
Sue me

>>9471798
>1. My original point was only this: Saying you're a Marxist is not the same as providing a Marxist argument as to why someone is wrong. If you tell me my anti-Marxist view is wrong, the onus (in the debate) is on you to explain why/what's right instead.
I'm not advocating for Marxism, rather I'm saying that he is not really talking about the academic community that is influenced by Marxianm Marxist and post-Marxist thinkers. His description of these communities is nothing more than a strawman.

>2. I think your point about the many "contaminations" is agreeing with me as my second point was that "Marxism" now goes far beyond economics, and especially in the scope of the Peterson thing, economics has little to do with it now. And if it does, then when it comes to allocating resources and equity - NOT in a sense of economic classes, surplus value, or even capital.
First of all: is this sort of analysis (Marxist analysis that trascends mere economics) inherently wrong and worthy of criticism?
Secondoy, as I've stated earlier, he is not really approaching this discourse. His thesis refers to an abstract ideal intellectual that does not really constitute the academic consensus. Again, it's like, for example, reducing the entire liberal and libertarian school of thought (and wether you agree with these general stances of not, you can't really say that they're completely devoid of valid thinkers and valid arguments) to the dumb things Paul Ryan says every once in a while.


>This whole meta-discussion is completely useless though which is why I tried earlier to argue actual, small, concise points. For example: When we categorize the world into men and women, is that an evil power game? Is it discrimination? What if we don't recognise wolf-kin in our pronouns?
Jordan's discourse is not based on ideas, rather on a reaction on what he percieves as the new academic common sense, therefore these abstract questions are not really the pretequisite for this discourse: the prerequsite would be to know who are these thinkers Jordan Peterson disagree with, what are the arguments he can't tolerate, and what are his responses to said ideas. You will quickly find out that his polemics are way to vague for us to actually talk about it. This is what most people, me included, are criticizing: not his actual stances, rather his amateurish lack of rigor and coherence.

[1/2]

>>9471798
>>9471848
>You can say "he misrepresents postmodernists and modern leftists as the SJW group he clashes with" - and maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, But you will still have to answer: Are the people he opposes in the right, or are they not?
Who are these people? The ideal Neo-Marxists he depict are what people think of radical tumblr feminists. Again, what I'm syaing is that there is no real, coherent object to his critiques. It's like judging Christianity at large by generalizing the ideas that your 90 years old, barely literate grandma hold.

>Are they misrepresenting Marxists and postmodernists, or are they not?
Is equity good? Is the absence of objective values good?
The belief in the lack of objective value is a fringe position in the academic consensus, countless studies and polls have been conducted on this matter. Most philosophers, even his archnemesis, Derrida, believe in the existence of objective truths.

>(As for debating people: He once did, and fater that he tried to, but no one dared to debate him, so he only once got some stand-in devil's advocate from a law faculty about something and that was it.
lol

>Mind you, not about philosophy, which isn't his field really.
That does not hide the fact that he costantly talks about philosophy. Yes, he may use notions taken from psychology and psychoanalysis, but that's not his main focus, rather they're the tools he uses to analyze these matters. He may have not written any major philosophical work, but most of his contents are inherently philosophical.

>And as you said, Marxism doesn't belong in philosophy either.
I haven't said it, in fact most of what Marx wrote was philosophy. At best you can say that his most recognized works belongs to the social and political sciences.

[2/2]

>>9471839
Thats a pretty little link you have there, now explain to me how it contradicts anything that I have stated

>>9471767
I agree and one thing to add is that from his clinical practice, he often brings examples of men completely ruined by their women through the court system.
So if you have people like that sitting in your room bawling their eyes out, it must irritate you when people adamantly insist that only women have been and still are discriminated against.

I agree that if you put it like "do you think not being allowed to vote was discriminatory?", he wouldn't deny it. Especially since he normally cracks down on any notion of misgonyny when he hears it.

>>9471794
I think many people do admit that's what it partially is, and the other notion is his whole fight for free speech and against SJWs and totalitarianism.
But then the Marxists who kind of sympathise with totalitarianism get butthurt and think he's a philosopher they have to fight.

The whole sorting yourself out thing didn't start as the "clean your room" meme but was about people identifying from which psychological pathologies their political views and activism was born and to work on themselves instead of the world.

>>9471845

The evidence in favor of existence of things like g, only got more convincing since then. Nobody familiar with the scientific literature (not whatever gets picked up by the popular press) denies that general intelligence is something extremely powerful and we can measure it relatively accurately. Hell, basic things like reaction time and working memory capacity are surprisingly good proxies for it.

>>9471372
This is the only reason he's hated. People on here thought he was interesting just when he first came into prominence.

>>9471856
>he often brings examples of men completely ruined by their women through the court system.

This has nothing to do with leftist academics FFS

>>9471857
Which is all totally irrelevant to the matter of whether the metric titled g is anything but a subjective interpretation of what the socially constituted term intelligence represents.
You talk about others having an insufficient understanding of science but its clear the matter is you are clearly out of philosophic depth.

>>9471831
Discrimination isn't bad.

>>9471845
>Origin of Species
>Published 1859

>>9471865
I'm assuming you *identify* as someone with an IQ of 145 anon

>>9471884
I have been verified as having +130 IQ to qualify for a program yes, though the exact number I'm unaware of

>>9471886
Of course

>>9471886
Unfortunately that number is meaningless. Intelligence is merely a social construct.

>>9471856

The thing about suffrage is that women got the vote almost immediately after universal suffrage became an acceptable idea. Keep in mind that mass democracy as we know it is a very radical and progressive idea by historical standards. Actually, the MRAs are not that wrong to point out that women got the vote despite having fewer obligations towards the state as they won't get drafted.

>>9471848
>I'm not advocating for Marxism, rather I'm saying that he is not really talking about the academic community that is influenced by Marxianm Marxist and post-Marxist thinkers. His description of these communities is nothing more than a strawman.
I think this is our main disagreement. I agree that he is not engaging with the "academic community" on that matter - partially because my first question would be: What is that? The Youtube philosophers everyone in this thread refers to? Or the countless professors in the humanities who self-identify as Marxists? Or really only the little core of economists, maybe philosophers?
Because the latter are, sorry, utterly irrelevant to the current discourses in society They influence absolutely nothing. The current discourse is set entirely by the people you call "radical tumblr feminists" - who simply don't stay on tumblr but are your average humanities professor, your provost, your writer of university policies, of funding guidelines, etc.
And here is the crux: Those are the people who pulled him into the debate. Those are the people he actually fought through his lawyer and on campus. He never tried to start a philosophical academic debate, it all was a very practical matter.
It wasn't about Marx, it was about "campus activists" and lawmakers mixing a cocktail of socialist revolution, equity, and postmodernist destructuralism.

So I say: It's not him creating a strawman, it's you. You act like he's in the wrong for not debating the academics, I say you're wrong for expecting him to fight the academics when it's the "non-academics" (who are academics too) who are right in his face and dominating the discourse.

And that's why I try to get you to focus on the concrete matters: Maybe he misrepresents Neomarxists, maybe he reducses Marxism to the this crazy campus cocktail. Whatever the name - debate the actual issues.
E.g.: Is he wrong in drawing a connection between laws that require you to say certain words or you can go to jail (after losing all your money) and between totalitarianism? Is he wrong in drawing a connection between this kind of activism-on-someone-else's-behalf with the attempted class warfare back then?

[1/2]

>>9471865
You can philosophize all you want - there is an astonishing amout of data demonstrating that general intelligence, as measured, correlates extremely well with school and work performance, earning potential, relationship stability and even fucking life expectancy.

>>9471899
>The thing about suffrage is that women got the vote almost immediately after universal suffrage became an acceptable idea.

You mean over half a century after African Americans recieved suffrage?

>>9471896
>meaningless
>social construct
Pick one

>>9471905
The proposition I refuted earlier was that intelligence was objectively represented in IQ not that is strongly correlated with most notions of what intelligence is. Which I never disagreed with. Glad you agree.

>>9471105
lol

>>9471852
>Jordan's discourse is not based on ideas, rather on a reaction on what he percieves as the new academic common sense
I completely agree - and yet in the next sentences, you will call him out for not doing this academically and with publishes papers. Yes, it's an ad-hoc thing. It's not his original field. But you act like the important questions are of academic nature right now. They are not.
You cannot deny the influence of the postmodernists on radical feminism for example. You say that's by accident, he says that's partially what they wanted. And then he stops there and explains why the effects are bad. And that is the important part - not whether Derrida wanted this or wanted that. Talk about how people use him now. And not the scientific papers but the people who want to make discussion about biological differences illegal.

>That does not hide the fact that he costantly talks about philosophy.
He really doesn't too much unless you include the more theological stuff. His arguments when it comes to postmodernists, Marxists, free speech and so on certainly aren't too philosophical and much more about current and historical consequences of developments that he feels he has read about with regard to the Soviet Union.

>Who are these people? The ideal Neo-Marxists he depict are what people think of radical tumblr feminists. Again, what I'm syaing is that there is no real, coherent object to his critiques. It's like judging Christianity at large by generalizing the ideas that your 90 years old, barely literate grandma hold.
See above, mostly. You think these people are the lunatic fringe. But the fringe are the traditional economic Marxists. These "Neo-Marxists" are the reality and dominate academia and the discourse. Yes, it may not be "real Marx" but that's the same excuse people use when looking at "failed socialism that totally wasn't what we actually meant".

tl;dr Look at the actuall issues he and society are dealing with right now, at the connection to Stalinism and history repeating itself, and don't get too focused on whether that's what xy really meant - because one may say so, the next will say so, but the current reality is definite

>>9471896
If general intelligence is meaningless, then everything ever published in the social sciences is meaningless. In these areas, if you firmly establish a correlation about 0.5 between two things you become famous and might as well apply for an Ivy League professorship. The correlations for IQ and its relatives are often much, much stronger than 0.5. IQ denialists are in the same boat as climate change denialists and creationists, scientifically speaking.

>>9471925
>Yes, it may not be "real Marx" but that's the same excuse people use when looking at "failed socialism that totally wasn't what we actually meant".

Except in the latter case those people actively identified as Marxists and acted in what they believed (rightly or wrongly aside) was on the basis of Marx's ideas.
Calling a figure like Derrida a Neo-Marxist despite his theory not only not being predicated on Marx's project but infact in direct opposition to it is absurd.

The irony is he's just as much villified in many Orthodox Marxist circles but they decry him as a product of liberal decadence.

>>9471939

IQ denialists are way worse than climate change denialists. IQ is a pretty fucking simple concept that pretty much anyone should be able to wrap their head around whereas climate change can actually be fairly complicated.

IQ denialism is closer to something like height or weight denialism.

>>9471901
>Or really only the little core of economists, maybe philosophers? Because the latter are, sorry, utterly irrelevant to the current discourses in society They influence absolutely nothing.

How relevant are they is irrelevant: to prove his points he costantly refers to them (never in a specific manner). You may think that they do not influence the society in any sensible way, yet he is not able to let it go.

>The current discourse is set entirely by the people you call "radical tumblr feminists"
On 4chan.

>Those are the people who pulled him into the debate. Those are the people he actually fought through his lawyer and on campus. He never tried to start a philosophical academic debate, it all was a very practical matter.
He literally did, he is probably doing it right now, since he gives talks so often.

>It wasn't about Marx, it was about "campus activists" and lawmakers mixing a cocktail of socialist revolution, equity, and postmodernist destructuralism.
This is what he said. What I'm saying is that he is not referring to anythign in particular: if he were he would be costantly quoting other authors and actual positions on which there is an academic consensus, but he is not. He conjures unreasonable strawmen, and then he attacks them: there is no value in this practice, and the only people who will buy it are those people who have no idea bout what the actual academic discourse actually look like.

>You act like he's in the wrong for not debating the academics, I say you're wrong for expecting him to fight the academics when it's the "non-academics" (who are academics too) who are right in his face and dominating the discourse.
But he never refers to non-academic, instead he costantly talk about actual post-modernism and Neo-Marxists, and now you're pretending that the stances related to these macro-schools of thought have any sort of relevance in the public discourse, and that this is why we should, mentally, replace the philosophy schools he mentions with dumb people we've seen on the internet. This is completely arbitrary, it's an all-mary attempt you're conjuring in order to give a semblance of coherence to his thought, by replacing what he is actually saying with what you actually think about this situation.

>Is he wrong in drawing a connection between laws that require you to say certain words or you can go to jail (after losing all your money) and between totalitarianism?
Yes, since he gave a false rendition of that law to the general population: the bill C-16 is nothing like what he has described.

[1/2]

>>9471946
>IQ denialism is closer to something like height or weight denialism.

Come on now. He's a fool to call it meaningless but you vastly overstate its reach

>>9471940
I don't think Peterson or I have called Derrida a Neo-Marxist. May have grouped him in since I was talking about Marxists (of any sort) and postmodernists at the same time.
Like I said earlier, the whole thing is very vague. To me, it is obvious that there are people who a) want a new class warfare that is not based on economic classes (whether you call it cultural marxists, neomarxists, or insist it's unrelated) and b) people who believe we can do away with objectivity for the most part, that experience and emotion is just as important as an argument, etc. (whether you call them postmodernist or whether you deny any influence).

Look at the people acting right now, look at wher it led in the past when people like that acted like they do. That's what I care about. I don't care much what they identify as although personally I think the analogies to Marx and postmodernists are obvious.

>>9471794
>He's like a second father to a lot of people now (or even a first father), so people would be devastated.

This is dangerous. He has developed a cult following.

>>9471824
>Let's not pretend that the feminist-adjacent parts of academia are not politicized to their very core and are willing to entertain anything outside a very narrow liberal or even far-left interpretation of history and reality in general

You do know there are right-wing feminists and communitarian feminists and libertarian feminists right?

>>9471925
>I completely agree - and yet in the next sentences, you will call him out for not doing this academically and with publishes papers. Yes, it's an ad-hoc thing. It's not his original field. But you act like the important questions are of academic nature right now. They are not.

Is it too much to expect a coherent polemic on a very complex subject? I'm not expecting him to write a 2000 pages series of books in which he scientifically dissect every major thinker of the last 40 years, rather I'm expecting at the very least the most basic level of rigor that is required to have an actual meaningful debate.

The fact that is uncapable of EVER being specific in his polemics, by either quoting at least 1 or 2 authors' actual points, is a red flag. This happens because he is not really making references to something that actually exists.
Also notice that I've never attacked him for not publishing on peer reviewed papers: this kind of polemic is available even in a monologue form, and even easier to attain in a actual, serious debate. In my opinion the first case would be enough for him to prove his worth in the public discourse.

>You cannot deny the influence of the postmodernists on radical feminism for example.
I can deny the prominence of radical feminism in academia, which is nothing more than a fringe.

>And then he stops there and explains why the effects are bad.
The effects are not prominent in the actual global academia: radicalism is WAAAAY less common than you might think, most of his polemics are based on the first istances of radicalism (fueled by the fact that these people are young and prone to misreading and misinterpretation) of philosophy undergrads. Should we really be really lose our mind over that? Should I really lose my mind over the fact that most STEM undergrads are complete ignorants on epistemology, even if most of them end up refining these positions and reconsidering those first istances of edgyness?
If you're framing his work on this ground, then he is nothing more than a old grump who rants all day long about trends that he has misinterpreted and miscontextualized.

>. His arguments when it comes to postmodernists, Marxists, free speech and so on certainly aren't too philosophical and much more about current and historical consequences of developments that he feels he has read about with regard to the Soviet Union.
At this point I'm doubting you even know what pertains philosophy and what doesn't. This is a guy who mostly talks about postmodernism, free speech, the human condition, the concept of truth and meaning, using usually a Jungian-mythological framework. These subjects are all inherent to the field of philosophy, the means he uses are only a surplus.


[2/3]
FFS mods, give us a 5000 characters limit. If there is one board that can benefit from this, that board is /lit/.

>>9471282
Please stop being obtuse. If you dont have anything to contribute to the discussion, dont reply

>>9471858
>This is the only reason he's hated. People on here thought he was interesting just when he first came into prominence.

Or maybe it's just that he's a rogue self-help guru that has a variety of fedora-tier lapdogs.

>>9471925
>You think these people are the lunatic fringe.
Radical feminists and radical postmodernists ARE a fringe.

>These "Neo-Marxists" are the reality and dominate academia and the discourse.
Any proof for it? Academic communities are costantly subjected to polls: can you identify some of the main beliefs of these Neo-Marxists? I'll search the related polls on those beliefs for you.

>Yes, it may not be "real Marx" but that's the same excuse people use when looking at "failed socialism that totally wasn't what we actually meant".
Do you think that most leftist academics are still hung on Stalinism and the USSR? Where are we, in the 1969 École normale supérieure?
I'm not saying that you HAVE to educate yourself on what the actual contemporary global philosophical discourse looks like, but if you're unwilling to do it, you should at the very least abstain from talking about it.

>Look at the actuall issues he and society are dealing with right now, at the connection to Stalinism and history repeating itself, and don't get too focused on whether that's what xy really meant - because one may say so, the next will say so, but the current reality is definite
This is what he is talking about, what I'm questioning is the reality of the object of his polemics, and to be honest there is no proof for it. It is as valid as me starting to rail about most academics being literally nazi. Maybe there are some nazis, maybe nazism should be met with hostility, but it surely would not be a insightful and coherent polemic, since it is so detatched from reality.

>>9471901
>humanities professor
Sick of this meme. Most humanities professors are not marxists.

Only a small percentage of humanities professors are.

>>9471920
This thread is so full of straw men its actually ridiculous.

>>9471953
>How relevant are they is irrelevant: to prove his points he costantly refers to them (never in a specific manner). You may think that they do not influence the society in any sensible way, yet he is not able to let it go.
Again, he may or may not use the wrong labels and possibly should make it clear whether he is talking about traditional marxists, cultural marxists, people like Adorno, people like Zizek, etc.
Because of all these differences, it makes much more sense to just look at the positions he is attacking, such as the position of replacing class warfare on the back of a class that doesn't even want to join and where this forced class divide leads with very similar current developments.
I would consider them Neomarxist but I wouldn't insist on calling them that. I don't think anyone has a specific right to these labels.

>On 4chan.
I think here we fundamentally disagree and cannot understand each other until we agree. If you think this is an issue of tumblr vs. 4chan, of radical fringes - that is such a huge misconception that you cannot understand what Peterson is doing.
For one, the whole thing started because these "radical tumblr feminists" are writing policies and laws now and sit in the administration, resulting in him being threatened to get fired and sued. This isn't a 4chan issue somewhere up in the air, it's very, very real.
And second, his whole point is that smallish (and I wouldn't call this small) infringements and developments like this pick up pace really quickly and that from his studies on the Soviet Union, this is how much of it started and that is why he doesn't want to be a part of it.
So I feel for you there is the honest, serious academic discussion and then there is the worthless, emotional 4chan kind of discussion. For me, the latter is what current reality and politics deal with whereas the other one might be more honorable but is happening in an ivory tower and just completely irrelevant to our argument outside of which labels we are allowed to use.

>He literally did, he is probably doing it right now, since he gives talks so often.
No.. you are simply wrong about how it started. He didn't blow up because of anything philosophical, he blew up because of his refusal to say some words and then later debating and explaining why, and even then it didn't get very philosophical. His stuff like Maps of Meaning has nothing to do with this argument about Marxism. (And the talks he gives are to my knowledge exclusively interviews and nothing academic)

[1/2]

>>9472041
>such as the position of replacing class warfare on the back of a class that doesn't even want to join

I'm not the person you're talking to, but can you please explain what you're referring to here?

Why are Peterson threads always so on fire?

>>9471978
>I don't think Peterson or I have called Derrida a Neo-Marxist.

Ok but if not Derrida then who?

>>9471567
Have you ever been with a woman? It completely does change their preferences. If you are intimate with one, just ask her

>>9472052
HRT causing tranny brains to malfunction.

>>9471953


>and the only people who will buy it are those people who have no idea bout what the actual academic discourse actually look like
Once again: Maybe - but you don't get that it's not about the academic discourse and you are unable to understand the effects of developments that are absolutely real and not strawmen. They might be academic strawmen because no "respected academic" holds them - but the policymakers, media people, students who block debates and so on, they hold them. So it's not a strawman at all.

>But he never refers to non-academic, instead he costantly talk about actual post-modernism and Neo-Marxists, and now you're pretending that the stances related to these macro-schools of thought have any sort of relevance in the public discourse, and that this is why we should, mentally, replace the philosophy schools he mentions with dumb people we've seen on the internet.
This is somewhat correct but you didn't read all I said. I'm saying we can replace these schools of thought with the "dumb people we see" (i.e. real, acting people) because that way we don't have to argue about whether he misrepresents those schools or not by focusing on the actual issues. It's just meant as a shortcut to get to the issues. I completely agree with you that it would be nicer if there was academic research on things like the intentions of postmodernists or whether the Frankfurt school identified as Neo-Marxists and he would cite that because without it, it's kind of hanging in the air. My point is that I find it believable but that in the end it doesn't matter whether these "dumb people" act based on legitimate or perceived schools of thoughts, but whether they are right or wrong.
I can see though how as a postmodernist, that would offend me if I had pure intentions. But I feel like the research on those things is fairly biased, given how big of a taboo things like cultural marxism are.

>Yes, since he gave a false rendition of that law to the general population: the bill C-16 is nothing like what he has described.
Please explain how since I keep seeing this repeated, even in the debate he held, and he proved everyone wrong.

>>9472015

The radicals might be "fringe" in some technical sense of the word, but are also extremely influential in the polity. Even if most people are not 100% on board with the extremists, barely anyone dares to speak up against them and choose to tacitly support them for the sake of progressing social justice. The kind of stuff that's being pushed by mainstream outlets regarding gender, race and LGBT issues would've been unimaginable outside of academic circlejerks just a decade ago.

>>9471806
literally >tfw to smart: the poster

This trainwreck of a thread is proof that /lit/ knows nothing about STEM.

>>9472111
Psychology isn't STEM

>>9472115
Depends on the type of psychology my man.

>>9472055
I don't remember Peterson calling anyone a Neo-Marxist but he does lump in a lot of people under the umbrella Marxist: For example both the original Marxists and then the people who realised that Marx outlived himself economically but still liked the idea of class warfare and revolution.
I agree with the other anon discussing with me that he should name these and cite them, but he doesn't argue this stuff in lectures, only in interviews, where you don't exactly give sources.

As a Marxist scholar you might ask yourself "so who actually says this stuff" but it's fairly clear that there are Marxist key elements in modern developments like white people protesting on the behalf of BLM.

>>9471054
He said that Propoganda and art are mutually exclusive and used Frozen as an example. Yet this goes against his own recommended books.

>>9472111
STEM doesn't know anything about /lit/

>>9472115
Someone in this thread literally said that IQ tests only test the ability to take IQ tests. It can't be denied any longer; /lit/ knows nothing about STEM.

>>9472125
>MUH STORIES

>>9472118
>but it's fairly clear that there are Marxist key elements in modern developments like white people protesting on the behalf of BLM.

I don't know what you mean by this unless you're straight up /pol/. Are you implying white people supporting increased scrutiny on Police use of force on behalf of black people is anything intrinsically Marxist?

>>9472128
* IQ tests only OBJECTIVELY test the ability to take IQ tests

Learn to read retard

>>9472135
>The metric metre doesn't objectively measure height

This is what you're saying here.

>>9472140
Except it isn't, since the term height has a clear geometric meaning as spacial metric. While Intelligence has no such clearly defined definition and the fact is there are total dumbasses out there who can get a fairly high IQ score because their stupidity comes from something outside neurological potential.

>>9472115
That might be true for a huge chunk of the field, but Peterson is one of the people who take the biological and evolutionary underpinnings of psychology fairly seriously. That's why he dislikes Marxism - it's presuppositions about human motivation and behavior are just unscientific. I don't think that invalidates all of the Marxist analysis capitalism and economics in general though.

>>9472146
>it's presuppositions about human motivation and behavior are just unscientific.

If Marxism does then practically all of economic does. Marx takes the same assumptions of what motivates people as everyone from Adam Smith to Maynard Keynes. I suspect you have a very flawed imagination of Marxist theory to state otherwise.

>>9472145
>While Intelligence has no such clearly defined definition

Except it really, really, REALLY does though anon. It almost has the same predictive validity as the metre or kilogram.

>>9471995
I'll kind of shorten things because the character limit ruined the order of replies.

>Is it too much to expect a coherent polemic on a very complex subject?
I would wish for this too but it's not what his lectures etc. are about. It's just a completely unrelated thing that happened because of the bill and that he now does interviews about.
I also would like if he pointed to specific authors more on the side of the people he opposes, I will grant you that. I just feel like he is mostly opposing those real-life actors like the SJW among students and administration he encounters as well as the Marxists from the Soviet Union era as opposed to Marxist scholars (whatever that is, since again, the economical questions are almost irrelevant now).

>I can deny the prominence of radical feminism in academia, which is nothing more than a fringe.
>The effects are not prominent in the actual global academia: radicalism is WAAAAY less common than you might think
>Do you think that most leftist academics are still hung on Stalinism and the USSR?
I will actually look for polls, the problem is that most of those polls are on how the people vote, whether they identify as left-wing or conservative, and so on - not whether they are actual Marxists (whatever that means now).
So to make it more clear, again, I will focus on the actual issues: People who believe in equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. People who believe it is okay to jail someone for not using the right pronoun. People who think it is okay to stop critics of feminism from holding their speech at the university. People who think Trump voters are nazis. People who believe "real socialism has never been tried, the millions of deaths had nothing to do with the philosophy behind it. And so on. (Not saying all of those are Marxists, just saying those things are having a revival and are not a tiny fringe).

>I'm not saying that you HAVE to educate yourself on what the actual contemporary global philosophical discourse looks like
Please, I keep repeating myself. Can you make an attempt to understand me. IT DOES NOT MATTER what the global contemporary philosophical discourse looks like. Those scholars did not write the bill that Peterson protested. Those scholars are not the people who pull firealarms during debates. Those people are not the law professors who stand in front of a classroom and say a Man's Right Activist is violating free speech when questioning a rape or wage gap statistic. And I'm not making this stuff up. That is the actual discourse taking place. That's the discourse Peterson goes on about, not what Habermas may or may not write about for the 0.001% who read him.

I'll refer to my other posts for now, this got so messy.

>>9472146
>presuppositions about human motivation and behavior are just unscientific

Fuck me. What are the "scientific" ideas about human motivation and behaviour then that can inform a sociological/economic theory?

>>9471632

Although male masculinity is associated with health benefits, it is also associated with negative personality traits and behaviors. For example, high-testosterone men are less likely to marry, more likely to divorce and have more marital problems than lower testosterone men (Booth & Dabbs, 1993).
Men with higher testosterone are also less likely to feel a need to respond to infant cries than men with lower testosterone (Fleming, Corter, Stallings & Steiner, 2002). Masculine male faces are also ascribed antisocial traits, such as low warmth, low emotionality, dishonesty, low cooperativeness and poor quality as a parent (Boothroyd, Jones, Burt & Perrett, 2007; Perrett et al., 1998). Masculine men are also perceived to have more interest in short-term than in long-term relationships (Kruger, 2006), and masculine men have more short-term, but not long-term, partners than feminine men do (Rhodes, Simmons & Peters, 2005).
Attraction to masculinity is a function of the tradeoffs between the benefits of greater genetic health and the costs of lower investment in relationships and children (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Little, Jones, Penton-Voak, Burt & Perrett, 2002).
Factors that affect the relative importance of these costs and benefits affect this tradeoff. For example, the benefits of genetic health for offspring can only be attained when women are able to conceive and preferences for masculine traits are accordingly greater when conception risk is high (for reviews, see Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Gangestad & Thornhill, 2008; Jones et al., 2008). Additionally, the paternal investment costs associated with partnering with a masculine man are less important in short-term relationships than in long-term relationships. Accordingly, women prefer more masculine men for short-term than for long-term relationships (Burt et al., 2007; Little et al., 2002; Little, Cohen, Jones & Belsky, 2007

>>9472156
Define intelligence in an all-encompassing way, please.

>>9472160
The Dominance Hierarchy.

>>9472156
Slow down and listen to what I'm saying dipshit.
Do you honestly believe there is a 1:1 ratio between the likelihood at which someone would be described as smarter than another individual by selection of people as the likelihood of someone would be described as taller than another individual?
If not then shut the fuck up because this is what you are arguing here. You're repeating in circular logic that IQ is intelligence and intelligence is IQ without considering that the concept of intelligence has a far broader scope.

>>9472159
>People who believe "real socialism has never been tried, the millions of deaths had nothing to do with the philosophy behind it.

There is nothing wrong with this argument.

> People who believe it is okay to jail someone for not using the right pronoun.

These people don't really exist.

>>9471632
Fwhr, 2d:4d digit ratio, midface length. Of course also surveys where women rate men's masculinity on a likert-type scale.
If you are genuinely interested, I can post lots of studies. But be warned, you wont be liking this if you are narrow-shouldered basement dweller

>>9471575
>functioning grown adult
But you are defining worth/rights by biology right here, both by biological fact of age and of physiological and mental standards you consider "functional"

>>9472162
That which IQ tests measure.

>>9472166
Pseudoscientific bullshit.

>>9472145
IQ measures something which correlates extremely well with a lot of directly measurable outcomes. That might not be a clear-cut, incontestable definition like that of height, but it's better than almost anything else defined by social scientists and it's not that far from how most "scientific facts" are established in practice. The idea behind general intelligence is exactly that competence in seemingly unrelated tasks show an extremely high correlation - while we can argue whether the underlying common factor should be simply called "intelligence" instead of something else, that's not really what's most important here.

>>9472162
No. Try again.

>>9472183
>Darwin is pseudoscientific bullshit

>>9472168
>Do you honestly believe there is a 1:1 ratio between the likelihood at which someone would be described as smarter than another individual by selection of people as the likelihood of someone would be described as taller than another individual?

YES. I'm not saying this though, the scientific consensus is. IQ tests have THAT MUCH predictive validity.

>>9471640
You are embarrassing yourself.

>Male and female faces differ in their shape. Mature features in adult human faces reflect the masculinization or feminization of secondary sexual characteristics that occurs at puberty. These face shape differences, in part, arise because of the action of hormones such as testosterone. Larger jawbones, more prominent cheekbones and thinner cheeks are all features of male faces that differentiate them from female faces (e.g. [70]).

From an evolutionary view, extremes of secondary sexual characteristics (more feminine for women, more masculine for men) are proposed to be attractive because they advertise the quality of an individual in terms of heritable benefits; they indicate that the owners of such characteristics possess good genes. In other words, such traits advertise the possession of genes that are beneficial to offspring inheriting them in terms of survival or reproduction. One explanation of the importance of these facial traits is that they represent a handicap to an organism [71] and the costs of growing the trait means that only healthy individuals can afford to produce them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/

>>9472186
Yeah so you agree intelligence isn't an objectively representable metric, only something which can be descriptively correlated.

>>9472194
You're fucking retarded. Have a juice box then read that sentence again slowly.

>>9472161
>male masculinity

I thought testosterone was associated with earlier deaths and immune deficiencies which mean men get sick more often, and the more test you have, the more likely you are to get sick.

I've read a lot of psych studies like this. The evolutionary psychology ones often tend to suffer from confirmation bias.

They should have stuck to Freud. Not this halfway to science stuff.

Neuroscience I can understand. Psychologists need better training in argumentation and/or methodology, because their conclusions suck.

Why do the studies conflate masculinity with high testosterone btw? The set of masculinity encompasses more than the physical characteristics brought on by high levels of testosterone.

>>9472132
I'll use the example that actually motivated Peterson:

His point was that "gendertypical" (or whatever) people made a huge deal of trying to get him fired over the pronoun thing while he never once got a single negative feedback from an actual trans person.
He goes on to explain the psychology behind trying to take on the victimhood of another class and how to utilize it for your own self-righteousness and revolution, and further expands on how that is connected to postmodernist hatred of categorization (pronouns) and totalitarian mechanisms of using this whole cocktail to enforce speech rules, silence people, get rid of values, etc.

That is how Marxism (or Stalinism) ties it together.

As for the BLM thing, I'm not talking about police scrutiny, but there's a lot beyond that along "giving these people voices" and "shut up and listen" etc. and the fervor with which people take on the victimhood of another group to silence their political opponents - that definitely reminds me of the Russian Revolution, for example.

>>9471707
This

>>9471709
Coping mechanism

>>9472177
I'm broad shouldered and naturally muscular, but I still reckon evolutionary psychologists are full of it.

>>9472202
Describe to me slowly in your own words, what is the proposition you believe you are attempting to contradict here and then reference that propositions with the post you are responding to.

The lack of reading comprehension ability of /pol/tards in this thread is astounding. Fukcing like a pre-school teacher here

>>9472203
You really are scientifically illiterate. You have a B.A., don't you?

>>9472187 was meant for:
>>9472181

>>9472220
Yeah and let me guess you don't so I wouldn't suppose you would understand basic concepts like objectivity and subjectivity

>>9472188
The way Peterson employs it is pseudoscientific. And Darwin is extremely outdated and he was wrong about many things.

>>9472171
>There is nothing wrong with this argument.
This is the very crux: In theory, purely logically, you're right, it's a non sequitur. But to people who studied the underlying mechanisms from Marxism to Stalinism and who write about how one inevitably must lead to the other, your sentence is horrifying. Of course it still depends on which side you believe. You cannot disprove your side just like you can't disprove god. You can only make a good case for the other side and implore people to understand the causes.

>These people don't really exist.
That's put into the very law Peterson was opposing..

>>9472183
>>The most obvious fact about primate behavior is "pseudoscientific bullshit".
>> We know how the navigation of hierarchical relations is biologically regulated in most animals all the way back to lobsters 100s of millions of years ago, but it's "pseudoscientific bullshit"

>>9472211
>postmodernist hatred of categorization

Postmodernists aren't in any way against categorization.

>>9471798
>Is the absence of objective values good?
N/A

>>9472228
No but I do have a B.S., so I understand intelligence is as objective as height.

>>9472247
>No but I do have a B.S., so I understand intelligence is as objective as height.

Define intelligence.

>>9472236
If you seriously think human behaviour can be explained in mere terms of a desire for dominance in the face of the vast array of emergent motivations that are produced and sublimated in modern civilization then you belong in the jungle yourself.

>>9472231
He wasn't wrong about the dominance hierarchy though. And neither were the 100 years worth of evolutionary biologists that followed him.

>>9472252
That which IQ tests measure.

The number one source of strife in human existence is the inequality of looks among the male species.

>>9472253
It can't. But it CAN be explained by dominance over the set of hierarchies over time.

>>9472240
>Drawing upon Jean-Francois Lyotard’s analysis in The Postmodern Condition (1984), postmodernists reject the Enlightenment’s search for "totalizing" theories that offer "universal" narratives of human motivation and experience. Building on the work of Michel Foucault, postmodern theory claims that these "grand narratives" underpinned the Enlightenment’s efforts to "normalize" human beings through the bureaucratic and repressive institutions of "governance" (e.g., both state and nonstate organizations, such as the asylum and the hospital) that "categorize" human beings.

>>9472257
>He wasn't wrong about the dominance hierarchy though. And neither were the 100 years worth of evolutionary biologists that followed him.

If you really were educated on this stuff you'd know that it's not so cut and dry. These things are still very much debated, and the way their interpreted is open for discussion within most areas of expertise. There are a great deal of anthropologists and biologists who dispute the whole idea of assigning dominance as a fundamentally organising principle of human behaviour. Evolutionary psychologists will cling to it no matter the evidence though, because so much of their bullshit is built upon it. Its dismissal would undermine hundreds of careers and a huge swathe of "findings".

You can't objectively measure the human psyche. Deal with it. The best you can do is get an MRI machine or dissect a brain. The real brain scientists are neuroscientists. Not evolutionary psycucks.

Anyway I'm going to bed my pupils. You're welcome for educating you all this day and recommend you check over the notes you gathered regularly

>>9472262
That's circular and obviously retarded. So IQ tests simply measure how good someone is at doing an IQ test is what you're saying.

>>9472253
>> human behaviour can be explained in mere terms of a desire for dominance

That's a horrible strawman.
Also, would you deny that the need for breathing, food, hydration and procreation are fundamental to the understanding of human behavior? Even a minimal amount of life experience can tell you that human males are largely motivated by establishing dominance and status (you can observe it in little children, ffs) and human females find high status males attractive. In it's most general form it's the most clear-cut human universal.

>>9472270
That doesn't contradict what you're replying to.

>>9472289
>That's a horrible strawman.

It is not if you believe dominance theory at all "contradicts" any socio-economic model. If it exists only as a potential motivator among many then the only models it would contradict is any model which is predicated on it never being a potential motivator which you would be hard pressed to find.

>>9472289
>Even a minimal amount of life experience can tell you that human males are largely motivated by establishing dominance and status (you can observe it in little children, ffs) and human females find high status males attractive

You need to have evidence. Not subjective, potentially ideologically driven anecdote. It is not obvious that males all seek to dominate and achieve status. What is 'high status'

This is all very un-scientific.

>>9472285
Define height.

>>9472282
>You can't objectively measure the human psyche

Are you saying the human psyche is not of the material world anon?

>>9472313
If you're going to go down this rabbit hole that all language is fundamentally self referencial and can never objectively represent reality then you're on Derrida's wild ride already

>>9472300
I just mentioned the obvious anecdotal evidence to point out how outlandish and hair-splitting it's denial is. All this is very well-established within biology. We even know it's biological underpinnings (serotonin regulation).

>>9472316
Are you saying everything in the universe is objectively measurable?
Because Schrodinger has a word for you

>>9472313
IQ is measure of intelligence. It isn't intelligence itself. Intelligence as a concept came before intelligence. You can't just say IQ is the measure of intelligence and intelligence is the same as IQ. That doesn't make any sense. Intelligence also encompasses more than what we mean by IQ

Height is a measurement of vertical length.
IQ is an attempt at measuring intelligence.

Height is by definition a measurement, and so is IQ, but intelligence isn't.

>>9472282
>the scientific consensus for the past 150 years points towards dominance hierarchies, but I'm going to go with my sociologist friends on this one

Woah... So this is the power of ideology?

>>9472316
>Are you saying the human psyche is not of the material world anon?

No. I'm saying there's no conceivably realistic way to objectively measure it outside of thought experiments.