Jordan Peterson

I have a problem with the idea that people let themselves be bullied, when we had seen time and time again that isn’t true.
Bullies don’t only go for timid people, in fact a lot of abusive men go for feisty women who they want to put back in their place.
Assertive women can still be abused, strong men can still be bullied.
Flipping the responsibility onto the victim for allowing themselves to be bullied is a tale as old as time.

How about we just teach people not to bully other people.
It’s perfectly possible to resolve situations and communicate without aggression at all.

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who does agree with that Peterson quote. I'd really like to know what you think he meant to say.

I think it's broadly shorthand, because there are obviously exceptions including the strawman (Ghandi) but I interpret it as a nod to at least a sizeable majority of the humans that would not respect a man who remains pacifist under extreme circumstances.

Whether he includes women as the hypothetical receiver of this kind of violence doesn't apply to his comment, because he's obviously talking about men who fight other men. As I say, I think it's shorthand.

I do have little respect for someone who would never fight. I enjoy a good ruck-it's possible that's coming over on this thread. But not all fights are physical. There are far, far more effective methods of fighting.

Sure, not all fights are physical. But surely some are. I couldn't respect a man who resorted to violence in the first instance, I'd find him repulsive, but neither could I accept the opposite extreme.

And fms please do feel free to stop discussing this.

You could y'know, contribute by actually telling us what you make of that quote.

God help me, I'm actually quite interested to find out.

What is seen as ‘telling it like it is’ when a man says it is seen as bitching when a woman says it.

Yes, I should have said non violent aggression. As adults in a functional society we are able to pick the mode of our aggression

In order for this ‘fight back against your bully’ thing to work we have to be on a level playing field to begin with.
Do you think it’s a good piece of advice to tell, for example, a young poor black man living in an inner city area to stand up for himself physically when he feels threatened?

What can be seen as ‘standing up for yourself’ when one person does it can be seen as unnecessary aggression when another person does it.

And very interesting points regarding aggression 2rebecca which I largely agree with.

I often expect to be able to have a full and frank exchange of views at work (about computer programming so nothing personal, and no raised voices) which seems to upset some men. I have always assumed the fault lay with them not me.

Fully discussing things is how you check your hypotheses right?

If people are happy with constant logical fallacies then that detracts from the forum as a whole

I smiled at that bit of passive aggression too.

fms is very disappointed in the forum as a whole

Now go away and think about what you've done, otherwise he won't post any more instructive links and the whole class will have to stay in at break time.

Precisely that, Teacup.

In fact he can walk away before she wins, claiming he can't debate any further because he's not allowed to threaten violence.

It's a version of "The ladies, god bless'em".

If people are happy with constant logical fallacies then that detracts from the forum as a whole

So what your saying is.....😁

He's announcing his intention not to debate with me as he would with a man.

Which means that if a woman wins the debate he’s already set out that he had one arm tied behind his back so the woman hasn’t really won.

Post number 423 on logical fallacy.

Either the needle is stuck or it's a weird type of hallucinogenic.

In chapter 1 of his book he talks about the importance of aggression in self esteem. He wrote that people who will never fight back physically or verbally become prey to bullies and lose self esteem and become resentful. He doesn't believe parents teaching their kids to avoid confrontation is doing them any favours.
He thinks people should stand up for themselves to be successful and writes that bullies don't tend to fight people they know will fight back and that aggression is a natural human emotion that should be used appropriately.
I was bullied as a kid and had a strong Christian faith at the time. The bullying was markedly reduced after I snapped in games one day and whacked the girl bullying me on the head with a tennis racket(I actually did an OTT serve with her standing behind me making snide remarks.) She was better after that. I'm much more assertive as an adult and no-one tries to push me around.

@NotDavidTennant

Yes you raise a good point, which is why I later referred to it as a “logical extreme fallacy”. You could also say that it’s a semi reduction to ridicule. Regardless it was a nonsensical extension of the original quote and I don’t feel the need (or that it would be productive) to continue to discuss this.

If people are happy with constant logical fallacies then that detracts from the forum as a whole

That doesn't feel new and fresh to me. It feels like same old, same very old.

Exactly.

It worries me that the reason for JP's popularity among young men is that the idea of a patriarchal society governed by dominance in that sort of brutal way appeals to them.

I think it's more the case that a lot of young men start from the position of already believing this is the way the world is, and the appeal of JP is that he has creates a philosophical worldview that chimes with these pre-existing beliefs.

Peterson's very specific that he's talking about physical violence, not fighting using ideas like Hawking.

If he were fighting with ideas, why would it matter to him whether it's a woman or a man who is speaking the ideas? (He doesn't caveat his words with "because socialisation or different life experiences", just says woman = taboo.)

This is the thing that's bugging me. He's announcing his intention not to debate with me as he would with a man.

What am I to do, hide behind a male pseudonym or hire a bloke to speak for me?

When I get too far out of my box (by his judgement), will he designate me mentally ill?

That doesn't feel new and fresh to me. It feels like same old, same very old.

fmsfms If you'd actually read the wikipedia page on Reducto Ad Absurdum you linked to you would see that it is not a logical fallacy, but in fact has been considered a legitimate technique of logical reasoning since the times of classical Greece.

Not that the argument made was a true example of Reducto Ad Absurdum anyway. While it would cast Peterson in a bad light if true, it is not actually absurd to believe he could have no respect for Hawking or Gandhi. I would say it is more "argument from the principle that he is a bit of a dick if he truly believes this".

Most dominant men are there because they have money, or power, or connections, or education, or intellect.

I think only a very particular type of man sizes up other men to see if they could fight them.

I think we're at cross purposes - I agree

The dominance tactics I refer to are not overtly violent, like squaring up to someone, but are verbally so - i.e. a range of tactics like mansplaining, talking over, dismissal etc where I can often sense in the verbal abuser some latent physical violence. Verbal abuse is very viscerally violent to me

It worries me that the reason for JP's popularity among young men is that the idea of a patriarchal society governed by dominance in that sort of brutal way appeals to them.

If I was a young man it would appeal to me too. It would be much easier if the order of the world was innate and the power men were granted was because physical dominance is the natural decider.
Much more appealing to sit back and not have to question whether the world is unfair.

I think I only question it because I have (the dreaded words) lived experience of being on the other side.

Male violence being innate means they don’t have to change.

You possibly don’t see all the doors when they are all open to you.

you go with the aim of addressing it and resolving it, but if the other person doesn’t back down or admit their wrong or any other peaceful resolution then there’s the possibility of it progressing into a physical altercation

Yes, that's what the law is for. Fisticuffs may be swifter, but it doesn't ensure justice in any civilised sense. It's a regression to animalistic behaviour.

It worries me that the reason for JP's popularity among young men is that the idea of a patriarchal society governed by dominance in that sort of brutal way appeals to them.

He is my age and he presents the male socialisation mind set of his age cohort to me.

Agreed.

I am always surprised he's a clinical psychologist as he has so little insight into himself.

He is very professorial in his manner. Which is a male dominated field with a big pay gap. (29% in the UK).

He is my age and he presents the male socialisation mind set of his age cohort to me.