Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[bennyboy]

Do you have any links showing how this is a standard term in psychology? I can't find one.

Actually the term is enforced monogamy, but googling is literally all articles about Jordan Peterson. Most of them clarify the definition, including one from his website. 

If you use Google scholar. 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...orced+mono

You get a better idea of it. I'm not a pychology expert or anything, but I had heard the term before and also common sense tells me that someone is not talking about state sponsored rape.

Well done.  I had the same problem-- there were like a million hits about how Peterson used those words, and about what a horrible thing he must be espousing.  Nice call using Scholar.

I completely take back what I said about the term probably not being a scientific one-- it very clearly is one.  But what field would it be used in?  Maybe. . . clinical psychology?  Now, if only we knew a clinical psychologist.

---

By "enforced monogamy" or whatever the term was he simply meant a society that encourages people to be monogamous by pressure through societal norms. He was NOT talking about any sort of situation where women are forced to sleep with "incels" or anything of the sort.

Watch the Joe rogan Podcast and hear his own words, from his own mouth.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that careful research is really not the strong point of the hysterical left.  It seems to me that that raging makes them feel important (fighting against the powers of oppression, bruh!), and so they are mainly just hoping someone will get anywhere NEAR a trigger subject-- and they'll be perfectly happy forcibly to grab the baton and dash it over the finish line, even if it's the wrong line.

What they definitely do NOT want is to hear the words, "Actually, what X was saying was _____.  Here are 3 sources where you can see that to be true."  Because then not only do they have to walk off their hero rage, which will now go to waste, they might actually have their views of the speaker (who they stereotyped and attacked before they ever watched a whole video or read a whole article) challenged.

What they WILL do is move goalposts, look for some other ad hom attack to make, blame anyone trying to clarify things for "supporting" sexism, or racism, or whatever -ism they think is horrible enough to deflect from the fact that they were just plain wrong.

Short version: Hell will freeze over before anyone who's already decided Peterson is a bad guy attempts to see what Peterson actually thinks (i.e. by watching Podcasts where he very clearly explains what he meant by things he said that people took the wrong way)