Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[robvalue]

Seriously, what is Peterson going on about? He's talking about our modern "dating" as if it's been the way our evolution occurred all along.

His claim about "women saying no" shaping the way our species turned out so amazingly is referenced by this:

Encyclopedia of psychology and religion, pages 35-36

I would have expected a biology reference. Am I being completely thick here? I don't have that book to check and don't seem to be able to look those pages up online.

[bennyboy]

I do not own the book.  Would you mind giving one or two examples?

As I've shown a couple of times in this thread, googling some of the "controversial" things he's said immediately brought up a lot of confirming evidence, much of it written by women in a professional setting.

Are you sure he's not just telling the truth as he has learned it in an academic capacity, and that people aren't comfortable with it?

The book is saturated with it. One of his main themes is to equate chaos with the feminine, and order with the masculine. He starts off talking about symbolism but quickly dives into the literal.

Ah. He's referring to the Apollo/Dionysus dialectic found in literature and to some degree early psychology.

I'll type up most of the second paragraph, from p41:

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness.

...

It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, "No!" For the men, that's a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women's proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Women who says, "Well, Bucko, you're good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation."

As well as being misogynistic tripe, this is also a complete load of balls. The idea of women saying "no" and men respecting that is a very recent concept, so can't possibly have accounted for our evolution in the way he claims.

Mate selection is one of the central features of evolution, especially for mammals. Peterson is saying that women have had a large active role in our evolution as a species, rather than being passive victims through it all. I think you'd find it pretty near impossible to find any evolutionary scientist who wouldn't see it that way. I also don't see how, once such a view is adopted, it could possibly be seen as misogynistic-- rather, it attributes to women their rightful place as important participators in the development of humanity. It is YOUR position that women have been too weak and helpless to do that, so I'd have to say that you come across as the more misogynistic figure.

You can see the power of selection perfectly clearly all around us, where nice girls often end up with perceived bad boys: physically fit, arrogant, confident, charming. Intelligence is chosen over kindness, power over sexual faithfulness, over and over and over again. The pudgy, dull, kind man has very little chance of genetic success unless he has found a way to get power, perhaps by getting rich. There's a conversation going on right at the genetic level which completely subverts and bypasses what people think or say they want, generation after generation.

Don't believe me? Ask single women if they're looking for an asshole or a nice guy, and take a tally. Then see what kinds of guys they actually end up falling in love with and reproducing with. These numbers are going to be light years apart. Why is this? Evolution has only one answer-- that's the behavior that has, throughout history, been successful for the DNA of the females. Choice matters. And sexualized displays, in the context of evolution, have a very obvious goal-- of increasing the pool of interested males from which a discerning female will be able to choose.

[robvalue]

Sure, I'm not saying women had no part in evolution, but I think he's overstating the case here. I'd be interested to say what our resident biologists have to say.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong!

[bennyboy]

Sure, I'm not saying women had no part in evolution, but I think he's overstating the case here. I'd be interested to say what our resident biologists have to say.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong!

I'd say the trick to understanding our evolution is simply to look at our current state as a species, and ask "How does this or that behavior contribute to genetic fitness?  How will it be a successful strategy for the promulgation of this person's genes?"

People often say that they aren't acting according to evolved instinct, "I'm not trying to be sexual, I just like this shade of red.  I just wear revealing clothes because they make me feel good about myself."  It may be true that's their experience of their behavior, but from an evolutionary perspective, it's just far too obvious that a woman is expressing evolved behaviors which necessarily improve her genetic fitness, and that the pleasure center in her brain is reinforcing her in that.

One thing to note is that genetic fitness is not necessarily a benefit to the individual's enjoyment. It may be, for example, that a very attractive woman, especially if she dresses certain ways, does have a higher chance of being raped. This is horrible for her enjoyment of life, but if it leads to offspring, it is still a win for her DNA, especially since those men who are most likely to rape her carry genes that will promulgate THAT behavior, as well as the physical capability (i.e. strength) of carrying it out.

A very interesting point in this regard is how parents treat their children. A very lusty man, upon having a daughter, will do everything in his power to treat her other than he treated his mate upon meeting her. He will put her on a pedestal, build her self-esteem, and groom her to be much more selective than her mother was. A very nice woman, upon having a son, may very well allow and excuse all forms of liberties he takes, with women and elsewise. Despite having spent much of her youth fighting off the advances of teenage and young adult horn dogs, she will be surprisingly understanding of her son's sexual adventures. Her "boys will be boys" attitude would hardly have been shared by her own father when she was dating. That's probably because she has an instinctive understanding-- her DNA will be expressed through the aggressive sexual behaviors of her son-- be it rape, disloyalty, or whatever.

Moralizing will have little effect on harassment for this reason: that the instincts tend to subvert the conscious intentions of all parties involved. It is only through VERY carefully thought-out controls, and through a real understanding of the evolutionary impulses that lead to behaviors, that actual solutions might be arrived at.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's an interesting question.  What is the point of attempting to rehabilitate either peterson, or petersons stated views and opinions of societal hierarchies....when his entire brand is the assertion of those things considered out of bounds?  

Does Peterson hold and advocate for views considered repugnent and horrendously uninformed by "establishment" professionals in the relevant areas of expertise?  Yes.  That's the appeal of the man and his views...that's why the alt right loves him and them (even though he never seems to grasp why, which is something I find incredibly amusing for a clinical psychologist).  Does peterson say and carry water for the things his opponents in thread, online, and elsewhere contend that he does?  Yes.  His fans, advocates, and allies think he's right about those things....that he's on to something no one is allowed to say anymore.  Doesn't it seem counterproductive to contend that he doesn't hold those views or espouse those positions?

[bennyboy]

Does Peterson hold and advocate for views considered repugnent and horrendously uninformed by "establishment" professionals in the relevant areas of expertise?  Yes.

Does he?

I've googled a few of the more "controversial" things he's been called out on, and much of it seems to be common, if not downright canonical, either in psychological circles or among evolutionary scientists.

[The Grand Nudger]

If he doesn't, then he's just part of the rehabilitated crypotmarxist pc identity warring feminist sjw left not actually saying anything that rubs the establishment the wrong way.

The problem, by the by....may be your google filters. He's routinely called out as a crank. This is, ofc, part of the postmodern crypotmarxist plot..but still.....

The man either is, or isn't..a rebel speaking out against the establishment approved views. If you, like he, see a problem with that approved ideology, then what's the point in trying to bring his stated positions in accordance with it?

[robvalue]

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.

[robvalue]

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!

[Amarok]

Does he?

I've googled a few of the more "controversial" things he's been called out on, and much of it seems to be common, if not downright canonical, either in psychological circles or among evolutionary scientists.

Considering the amount of time he spends ranting against the evil evil Neo Marxists who are indoctrinating university students and mainstream academia .I doubt that .