(August 14, 2018 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, I've done some superficial searching and I can't find any mention of "women saying no" being a cause of our large brain sizes. I've seen plenty of possible explanations, but not this one. I don't see how it's any more significant in (pre) humans than other animals, nor how this would be any kind of cause of big brains. If anyone has any knowledge about this, I'd be interested to know!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

As I already said, just look around.  Do some women strongly prefer highly intelligent men, especially those with verbal intelligence?  Absolutely.  That's one of the axes on which a human male may hope to attract a human female. Now, flip this over. What are the women who prefer very intelligent men going to do when they are approached by some fucking derp with a pick-up line that HE thinks is clever, but only because he's too unintelligent to know better? She's pretty likely to tell him in no uncertain terms that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere with her.

That's selection in action.

---

(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)robvalue Wrote: I just noticed the front cover has the subtitle: "An antidote to chaos".

If that isn't a dead giveaway to his blatant mysogny, I don't know what is. Even if what he was saying in the paragraph I quoted is accurate, which I highly doubt, I don't think I could write it in a more offensive way without simply calling women cunts.

So you've picked up on the word chaos, which in the title he's not applying to women, and assumed that it's evidence that he thinks women are cunts?  The title isn't "rules for men in avoiding the chaos that women inevitably bring."

I'm a little suspicious that in typing out that excerpt (thank you very much for that effort, by the way), you may still not have cast your net wide enough.  I doubt the chapter is mainly about women being a force for destruction.

I have been saying that what women really want is a short funny looking geeky guy for a while now.

(August 14, 2018 at 9:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have been saying that what women really want is a short funny looking geeky guy for a while now.

haha

I think Woody Allen has completely cornered that market.

(August 14, 2018 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, I've done some superficial searching and I can't find any mention of "women saying no" being a cause of our large brain sizes. I've seen plenty of possible explanations, but not this one. I don't see how it's any more significant in (pre) humans than other animals, nor how this would be any kind of cause of big brains. If anyone has any knowledge about this, I'd be interested to know!

 Issue i have always had with the Brain size idea is the assumption the issue stems from 

1. That even between species brain size does not equal intelligence as exemplified by the fact  neanderthals had larger brains then ourselves and i that despite having a smaller then most mammals they have as many  neurons as an average  mammal  

2. Between humans there is a correlation between intelligence and size as (the number of Neurons etc) What's more important is the number of connections  between Neurons . While this tend to be found in people  with large brains it's not in fact the brain size  that's key it's the efficiency of the brain which of course can also be found in small brains .

3. Another from evolutionary perspective is the issue of big brains. Big brain are resource heavy while small ones are less so and even though a larger brain has a larger processing power most of the is noise. If a small brain can be just as efficient as a large brain and by this metric be just as intelligent why did selection choose a large brain rather then a more efficient less resource hungry brain ? And why did this not translate through sexual selection .

4. Lastly i will point out that our brains are shrinking and have been for some time

You poor fuckers are both putting way too much thought into this.  Peterson is speaking directly out of his anus, about his political anxieties. 

(August 14, 2018 at 9:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 9:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have been saying that what women really want is a short funny looking geeky guy for a while now.

haha

I think Woody Allen has completely cornered that market.

I think that it's about to catch on!

You can't wait for it to catch on, Road.  Sometimes, you gotta take the pussy, like Pepe does.

Shameless rip ftw!

(August 14, 2018 at 11:27 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You poor fuckers are both putting way too much thought into this.  Peterson is speaking directly out of his anus, about his political anxieties. 

Yeah, I was just trying to give him a chance in case I was missing something.

There is a quote in the introduction in which he gives away that he's "up to something". He just can't help himself. I'll fish it out later.

(August 14, 2018 at 11:27 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You poor fuckers are both putting way too much thought into this.  Peterson is speaking directly out of his anus, about his political anxieties. 

Well, I can't speak for his motivations, but I can speak for mine.

I like liberal values more than conservative ones, for the most part.  Technology is changing, and the world is getting smaller, and conserving the status quo seems unlikely to aid us in moving forward.

However, when liberal memes are used to prevent free speech, to manipulate the values of the population, or to establish legal or financial policies that cannot possibly succeed, then I feel it's my responsibility as a free thinker and as a western-educated human being to resist it going too far.

Some of the semantic and identity issues these days are stupid in my view.  WAY too much linguistic and legal consideration has been given to what to call a man in a dress, or a completely white woman who goes around telling everyone she's back.  When words are forced through social pressure to mean what they not-mean, then I'd say the society is insane, and I see this as extremely dangerous. 

This is because the rules guiding behaviors are predicated upon a language which is precise enough for people to call things what they are. Sentences like "My daughter was shocked because that woman didn't cover her penis in the locker room" need never be uttered in any sane society.

(August 14, 2018 at 8:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, I've done some superficial searching and I can't find any mention of "women saying no" being a cause of our large brain sizes. I've seen plenty of possible explanations, but not this one. I don't see how it's any more significant in (pre) humans than other animals, nor how this would be any kind of cause of big brains. If anyone has any knowledge about this, I'd be interested to know!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

As I already said, just look around.  Do some women strongly prefer highly intelligent men, especially those with verbal intelligence?  Absolutely.  That's one of the axes on which a human male may hope to attract a human female.  Now, flip this over.  What are the women who prefer very intelligent men going to do when they are approached by some fucking derp with a pick-up line that HE thinks is clever, but only because he's too unintelligent to know better?  She's pretty likely to tell him in no uncertain terms that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere with her.

That's selection in action.

---

(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)robvalue Wrote: I just noticed the front cover has the subtitle: "An antidote to chaos".

If that isn't a dead giveaway to his blatant mysogny, I don't know what is. Even if what he was saying in the paragraph I quoted is accurate, which I highly doubt, I don't think I could write it in a more offensive way without simply calling women cunts.

So you've picked up on the word chaos, which in the title he's not applying to women, and assumed that it's evidence that he thinks women are cunts?  The title isn't "rules for men in avoiding the chaos that women inevitably bring."

I'm a little suspicious that in typing out that excerpt (thank you very much for that effort, by the way), you may still not have cast your net wide enough.  I doubt the chapter is mainly about women being a force for destruction.

I appreciate your efforts to make the case, and I know what you're saying, but it's rather a specific claim and I don't think the current status establishes cause and effect so cleanly.

He refers to women "as chaos" routinely once he's brought it up. There's loads of parts all about it, and how they're so unfair to the poor males. It's painful to me reading the book, I wanted to give you a clear example. If you don't find the style he's using there offensive, I doubt more examples would convince you. All I can say is get the book for yourself and come to your own conclusions.