Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

Much of JPs argument is based on evolutionary psychology. Which is contentious in itself.

He views hierarchies within that, the evolutionary context, and part of that is a male dominance hierarchy based on the threat of physical aggression, which exists at an unconscious level, even though due to the veneer of civility we have now developed , this is rarely explicit ,or carried out, even between men. But it is still there.

The idea that males used physical strength to establish dominance hierarchies, and that this still exists within their DNA at some level, is just a theory, but seems to be a plausible one.

I think what he is saying is that when debating a women those underlying aggressive instincts behind the debate are confusing to men, as it is both socially unacceptable within social norms, and has a less strong evolutionary basis for aggression to establish dominance (as the knowledge of superior strength in itself was usually sufficient in itself to suppress male/female physical conflict) so open conflict in professional settings between male and females who are equal, is incredibly new in evolutionary terms and still being figured out by the sexes.

It's interesting to consider that view point I think.

Also it does seem to chime with what we as feminists often say when observing media discourse between men and women where we note the differences in more aggressive male behaviours which are uncomfortable to view next to a more passive female. Some men are more aware of this than others. JP seems very aware.

I guess the difference is he's just saying there may be an evolutionary basis for this.

That seems likely, and socialisation emerges from an evolutionary development, which then enforces the biases which may have been there, on individuals for whom it is damaging.

I don't think it's incompatible, I just think it's a different lense.

He is definitely not one to be letting men off the hook for their behaviours. He is hard on men, and his message is individual responsibility and not the 'ah men, they can't help it because of biology' which it gets twisted into, by some MRAs who love that message, and some feminists who love to hate it, but both are failing to understand what he is actually saying.

I don’t hold men and women to different standards on this.
I don’t think it’s a mans job the defend his family any more than it’s a woman’s.
I wouldn’t lose respect for a man who wouldn’t physically fight no. I don’t think that’s part of what makes a man a man.

I fully respect you saying that women have just as much duty as men in these scenarios. And that's a legitimate criticism. I don't think what JBP said is wrong, but I agree with you pulling the statement up on why he referred to men only.

I think where he's coming from, and you will agree with this part I suspect, is that men are typically larger and more aggressive. You've been arguing that case with me for several pages now. ;) What JBP believes, I think, is that with that comes an onus to use it well when duty called. Or to put it another way: With statistically greater average power in a defined attribute, comes statistically greater responsibility.

JBP is very big on men fulfilling their moral and social obligations. I think he emphasises these things because he feels that men in particular, in our society, have lost their way. I don't think he's denying that a woman should defend her child or that a woman can defend her husband. Only that men need to shape up; which is a common theme throughout his interviews.

If a man threatened me and my husband stepped in I’d be absolutely mortified to be honest. It’s far more likely to escalate the situation and I’m pretty good at diffusing situations on my own.

That's an individual matter and outside the remit of statistics. I know neither of you. This may be entirely appropriate for you both.

What would JP think about choking women porn I wonder?

He is anti- porn and has told men to stop using it.

What would JP think about choking women porn I wonder?

A question for you, PPB. What on Earth prompted you to ask such a question and why do you think it is relevant?

Great post, BabyIt'sAWildWorld!

I agree men need to shape up.

Don’t think they should be more violent though, I don’t think the answer to Male violence is more Male violence.

I've tried to make this point elsewhere, but showing you are willing to defend yourself, showing a small amount of aggression, doesn't increase the likelihood of violence, it decreases it. That's true of dogs and it's true of humans. The possibility of violence if you throw away civilized discourse (talk->argue->push->physicality) is an incentive to maintain civilized discourse.

He doesn't counsel being more violent, he does counsel being stronger. What he rejects, and what I think upsets some people, is this distinction. It's the acceptance of the use of power that bothers people who think power should not be invested in the individual.

And my point is how does this affect the 50% (and actually more because physical violence is not an option for all men) of the population of whom violence is not an option.

The threat of violence as a deterrent only works if the other person is capable of being violent back, if not it’s just control.

Also, sorry to butt in here, but, OldMan

If it helps, I once knocked a man out for punching his girlfriend.

I'd far rather hear you say you called the police and made sure she got home safely, tbh. Did you do that, after you floored the guy?

That's true of dogs and it's true of humans.

I’m not 100% sure that is true of dogs. Dogs are most likely to snap if they are frightened and that’s usually when there is an undercurrent of a threat of violence. The alpha pack theory has been debunked for domestic dogs.

But let’s pretend it hasn’t, and it is true of dogs.

That doesn’t mean it’s true of humans. Dogs communicate in very different ways to humans as they don’t have language or a complicated society which relies on dogs not just randomly attacking each other to keep order.

What bothers me is when men assert women copy their ways of staying safe in their dominance game with other males - when they have zero experience of being a woman.

Some guys will retaliate if a woman asserts herself with him- they don't back off but escalate and target the woman, often unrelentingly. They expect deference from women and appeasing behaviour and interpret any other behaviour from a woman as a challenge

It's been said before on here - seemingly to wilfully deaf ears - it's impossible to tell which men will escalate and aggress against women and which won't. In addition some play a very long game of hunt and destroy.

So instead of telling us how to change - why not accept the problems lies with men?

So instead of giving inappropriate advice - why do t those men listen to us - because that would mean deferring to women - and they won't

It's all in what they don't say and do t do that the clues lie

I've listened to him a lot and whilst I have intuitive reservations JP does seem to think men should behave better and doesn't think women are responsible for individual men's behaviour.,

according to that transcript he seems to think women are responsible for other women's behaviour though:

it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’

Useful feedback from JP that the female gender (ugh) is in disgrace too.

New BBC interview, she starts off with the "do you think trans women are real women" in the context of c-16.

Frustrating to go down that route because it's a misunderstanding of his position - it was always about gender neutral pronouns rather than M2F transsexuals

The threat of violence as a deterrent only works if the other person is capable of being violent back, if not it’s just control.

The % of the population who are not capable of violence is very, very small. Nothing is universal. Again though, you seem to be arguing over whether or not you approve of something, rather than whether or not what Dr. Peterson observes is accurate. That's a very different thing.

I'd far rather hear you say you called the police and made sure she got home safely, tbh. Did you do that, after you floored the guy?

She didn't want some strange man who'd just had a fight with her boyfriend following her home, I'm sure. I made sure she wasn't obviously injured and let her do whatever she wanted, which was to leave. No, I didn't call the police. I was there, they weren't. He was punching her in the stomach. I believe I did the right thing. More to the point, aggression can counter aggression.

That doesn’t mean it’s true of humans. Dogs communicate in very different ways to humans as they don’t have language or a complicated society which relies on dogs not just randomly attacking each other to keep order.

I don't know what the alpha pack theory is but I'm talking about a very basic behaviour common to males of nearly all mammal species. Aggression is displayed to ward off threats. Frankly, that's so basic and obvious it shouldn't be contested. And it works. I really don't see what is contentious here. We are a risk avoidant species. We are less inclined to approach something that is dangerous than something that is not. Unless you want to get into pathologies such as psychopathy or suicidal tendencies. The display of aggression to cause people to back off is not subject to doubt.

according to that transcript he seems to think women are responsible for other women's behaviour though:

He's saying that members of a community are responsible for how that community is perceived and for speaking out against others of that community who misrepresent them. And yes, that should be members of the community. You presumably don't like Lily Madagain speaking on behalf of women. And why should you? It is obviously more effective when criticism of self-appointed spokespeople for a community comes from within the community itself by people the self-appointed spokesperson pretends to represent. That's what he was asking for.

The point isn’t whether aggression exists, the point is whether using aggression should be a litmus test for whether you extend respect to a man or not.
Whether aggression is the only way to keep society civil, and if it’s something that should be encouraged within males.

It actually makes me feel sorry for men. I keep thinking of women giving white feathers to men who wouldn’t go to war in the First World War.

Frustrating to go down that route because it's a misunderstanding of his position - it was always about gender neutral pronouns rather than M2F transsexuals

True. But I quite enjoyed that interview. She did try to challenge him (and there was no "So what you're saying..." like the Cathy Newman interview). Yes, it's rather rude to ask someone if maybe they have bigoted ulterior motives for their position, but it can also be viewed as a chance for him to say "no, that's not the case" and she seemed to accept that. And I also have to give her points for picking up on the other guests "Of course I'm a feminist - that's why I'm wearing pink." :D

I found that interesting. But like most interviews these days, it's far too short to be of use.

@OldmanOfTheWeb3

I only had time to watch the first 5 minutes.

I did watch the entirety of the c5 Wright Stuff, whilst there was some disagreement and standard SJW/PC nonsense from Sophie Walker, she was generally quite respectful and the conversation was fairly dignified.

I actually found a JBP tweet in reference to the 2minute compliation of their discussion quite disrespectful towards her

"it's rather rude to ask someone if maybe they have bigoted ulterior motives for their position"

That's interesting. You're characterising the female interviewer as not being civil.

The point isn’t whether aggression exists, the point is whether using aggression should be a litmus test for whether you extend respect to a man or not. Whether aggression is the only way to keep society civil, and if it’s something that should be encouraged within males.

Well I believe the discussion was the merits or otherwise of Dr. Peterson and what he says. Criticism of what is, differs from criticism of his observing what is. You can post a hundred times that you don't like the American invasion of Iraq, but that's not a criticism of anyone saying that it happened and is real. And there seems to be some unacknowledged seguing from one to the other. We can debate the utility of aggression back and forth as much as you like but it only has a little bearing on what we think of Dr. Peterson. (That being the implication the possibility of violence can keep conversation civil).

But that said, I think it's a fascinating topic to discuss and outside the bounds of it being a determiner for whether Dr. Peterson is right or not, I'd enjoy having it.

So you question whether aggression is the only way to keep society civil. Are you okay to keep this in the sense of "physical force is a possibility"? If so, then let me ask you if you think society would remain civil if there were no possibility of resorting to physical force? And if so, what would keep it so?

Whether aggression is the only way to keep society civil, and if it’s something that should be encouraged within males.

I believe, and this is the pattern in my experience, that the physical confidence of being ready for violence, reduces the actual chance of violence. It's more often the weak men who snap or get into fights. Your confident guy, your karate black belt, they're less prone to get into fights, ime. Conversations are more civil when you both feel the other could hurt you if you pushed it into a fight.

It actually makes me feel sorry for men. I keep thinking of women giving white feathers to men who wouldn’t go to war in the First World War.

The sad part being many of those men would have fought bravely to actually defend their loved ones or their country. But didn't want to go out and die for someone else's cause.

That's interesting. You're characterising the female interviewer as not being civil.

It's not very nice to accuse someone of lying, but sometimes it makes for good interview. You obviously don't have a problem, by the way, of characterising me as sexist. I'd have said the same of a male interviewer.

I don't think I did characterise you as sexist. You may be sexist, you may not be, it's not germane to the point I was making.

I was alluding to Peterson's comments, which have been well repeated on this thread, about "civil discourse". In this context, it's very interesting to see where people draw the boundaries of "civil discourse".

Peterson claims that a great deal is resting for him on these boundaries of civil discourse, since when he decides someone has transgressed them, he feels he should apply the underlying threat of physical violence (if he's talking to a man) or that he doesn't know what to do (if he's talking to a woman).

So it's very interesting to observe where people draw those boundaries of civil discourse.

Meh, editing fail. Sorry for semi-repetition.

He's saying that members of a community are responsible for how that community is perceived and for speaking out against others of that community who misrepresent them

I can assure you that I do not consider myself to be in a community with Nadine Dorries.

I accept no responsibility for what that individual gets up to.