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

[bennyboy]

@Tiz What can I say? Look at my last post, and look at yours. I think I'll be content to leave it at that.

Actually, no I won't. He actually discussed this in one of his interviews with Joe Rogan. He talked about how women with weak male partners are likely to be discontent, and quite a lot of stuff along those lines.

So I'll give you that lead-- listen to the last couple interviews he did with Joe Rogan, and I think you'll find plenty of material to carry on a more erudite discussion about.

[Amarok]

I gotta say, I think the interviewer is doing a good job of both listening carefully and presenting a thoughtful counter-case. Personally, I feel the rest of this thread could be productively spent on this clip. There are certainly plenty of provocative ideas here to mull over. Here are a few that stood out for me:

Now one wonders if you would have praised it earlier ?

1) Makeup and high-heeled shoes are definitively sexualized, and any evolutionary biologist would agree with that
2) Between an environment with a non-sexualized uniform, and a more free environment, he'd choose the freer one.
3) Wearing makeup and high heels makes harassment "more likely"
4) (12:53) There are other solutions to harassment than limiting freedom of dress.
5) Tizheruk is a gerbil-hating Nazi.

Nobody disputing their sexual that does not make women responsible in the least for sexual harassment and nope i checked not a  gerbil-hating Nazi.

My first question, right off the bat, would be-- is it really a slam dunk among evolutionary biologists that makeup and high heels are sexualized? If so, and if he's stating a position considered fact in that field, then he's really said very little to be upset about. If, on the other hand, he's pulling that out his ass-- then it looks like grandpa making stuff up, and is very likely a misogynistic jerk (as Tiz claims). I googled it, and pretty much straight away found this, which involves an actual experiment involving not only attractiveness but even gender attribution:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...ttractive/

 I never said Peterson made it up and the fact high heels are sexual does not help his case and yes he can appeal to consensus that high heels are sexual and use that in a  misogynistic way.

The following link is an except from a seemingly female author, which talks about both high heels AND makeup in a single page:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2XH0...es&f=false

Jordan taking a conclusion from female author on something nobody was denying is aside the point 

Obviously, I haven't really gone into it much yet, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that evolutionary psychologists do hold these beliefs in general, and they are not specific to Peterson.

Never said it was just Peterson 

So the fact that he talks about this very forthrightly, whereas most of us never would, seems to be that he simply is more educated in that field (remember he is in fact a reasonably renowned psychologist even without all the hubbub), and feels safe saying things that he feels are known to be facts, which to many not familiar with those fields would definitely be taken as misogynistic.

Or he is  misogynistic and uses biology too back it up .And the fact he's a renowned psychologist does not give this much more credence .

---

@Tiz What can I say?  Look at my last post, and look at yours.  I think I'll be content to leave it at that.

Actually, no I won't.  He actually discussed this in one of his interviews with Joe Rogan.  He talked about how women with weak male partners are likely to be discontent, and quite a lot of stuff along those lines.

So I'll give you that lead-- listen to the last couple interviews he did with Joe Rogan, and I think you'll find plenty of material to carry on a more erudite discussion about.

I have looked at you post and mine and i am content to leave it at that but not in the way your thinking .

Saw that interview and saw him weasel his way out of his comments.

I have listened to all i need too and i have all the content i need .

---

His solution to harassment is a joke .Yes let's allow "flirtation " and it tyrannical to not allow "under lying sexual tension" and no a party and work are two different environments.

[paulpablo]

I haven't been keeping up. I don't even know what Tiz is supposed to be positively claiming.

Someone catch me up real quick.

Specifically it's a claim that Jordan Peterson says that women who wear make up shouldn't complain about sexual assault.

There's evidence that feminists call Jordan Peterson a sexist and that he said make up is a sexual display.
But no evidence that he said women who wear make up shouldn't complain about sexual harassment.

[Amarok]

Accept the fact that he saying women are complacent in their own harassment by what they are wearing

[paulpablo]

Accept the fact that he saying complacent in their own harassment by what they are wearing

Well that's a different claim to what you said.

In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence.

He says "I think the issue of complicitness......"

He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.

[Amarok]

Well that's a different claim to what you said. 

Not really 

In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence. 

He says "I think the issue of complicitness......" 

Accept as Rev points out that's pretty much what he's implying

He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.

Directly no (i'll point out that i didn't say he said it was okay ) but clearly implying in his word salad way he's saying  that she bears some of the blame for being "sexually provocative"

[bennyboy]

Accept the fact that he saying complacent in their own harassment by what they are wearing

Well that's a different claim to what you said.

In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence.

He says "I think the issue of complicitness......"

He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.

The thing is that in order to understand him, you have to listen a pretty long time.  The PC people get triggered by a few sentences, and this makes it very difficult for them to really absorb the full message.

The full message is that much of our problem with sexuality is rooted in our evolution, that clothing and fashion behaviors are closely linked to sexuality, and that it's actually quite difficult to moderate sexual behavior without completely shutting it down in the style of Maoist communism.

He also gave specific examples of corporate attempts to define harassment, things like no eye contact more than five seconds, which as a psychologist he finds laughable.

The problem from the left PC is that as soon as you don't just say "Of course everything's fine, and X should always be blamed completely for behaviors toward Y," you shut down dialogue and prevent getting ACTUAL solutions to problems rather than just knee-jerk ones.

[Amarok]

The thing is that in order to understand him, you have to listen a pretty long time.  The PC people get triggered by a few sentences, and this makes it very difficult for them to really absorb the full message.

Yeah no you really don't you can distill 99% of his word salad and none of it's great .One does not need to be a "PC " person to see that.

The full message is that much of our problem with sexuality is rooted in our evolution, that clothing and fashion behaviors are closely linked to sexuality, and that it's actually quite difficult to moderate sexual behavior without completely shutting it down in the style of Maoist communism.

Yeah that's bullocks even if clothing is tied to sexuality that does not excuse behaviors in a work environment and blaming evolution will not fly and making hyperbolic references to Maoism is nuts.

He also gave specific examples of corporate attempts to define harassment, things like no eye contact more than five seconds, which as a psychologist he finds laughable.

Pointing to the extreme example of Netflix does not help his case . FYI staring at someone in the eye even for 5 seconds can be sexual and even creepy depending on the circumstance .Eye contact is extremely powerful in some cultures staring someone the eye at all is an insult .

The problem from the left PC is that as soon as you don't just say "Of course everything's fine, and X should always be blamed completely for behaviors toward Y," you shut down dialogue and prevent getting ACTUAL solutions to problems rather than just knee-jerk ones.

Yeah too bad that a BS straw man of the "PC left" and Peterson explanations seem more akin to X can frequently be excused from their behavior toward Y and Y is often complacent in X's action toward them and i have yet to hear the "PC left" "proclaim everything is fine"and Peterson solutions are not solutions especially in the case sexual harassment "flirtation " is a vague principle.

[Angrboda]

Okay, Tizh, since you're not going to give an example of what you're mentioning, I will:





About 2:20
"If I was part of an organization that built entire dozens of careers on sexual provocative-Ness I would be very careful about like waiving the ethical flag in the sexual wars."

Admittedly, he hedges his words a bit more than you've outright said, and he does do his trademark backtrack but that subtext really seems to shine through. He doesn't outright say that victims of sexual harassment shouldn't complain, but he does talk a great bit about how they're complicit in their own harassment if they at all sexualise themselves.

Seriously, if your opponent is saying they have any trouble looking up sources they look up, point them in the right direction. If you have to, show them exactly what you're talking about.

Also, I'm not sure about how much of his remarks about not knowing the rules about how men and women should work together is mere sophistry and how much of it is the expression of his being legitimately confused about social interactions (the Bible Reloaded guys hypothesised he was on the autism spectrum in the video I posted of them last night, and now I'm starting to believe it; I can relate to legitimately not knowing what the rules are in male-female interactions, especially in these MeToo days).

I gotta say, I think the interviewer is doing a good job of both listening carefully and presenting a thoughtful counter-case.  Personally, I feel the rest of this thread could be productively spent on this clip.  There are certainly plenty of provocative ideas here to mull over.  Here are a few that stood out for me:

1)  Makeup and high-heeled shoes are definitively sexualized, and any evolutionary biologist would agree with that
2)  Between an environment with a non-sexualized uniform, and a more free environment, he'd choose the freer one.
3)  Wearing makeup and high heels makes harassment "more likely"
4)  (12:53) There are other solutions to harassment than limiting freedom of dress.
5)  Tizheruk is a gerbil-hating Nazi.

My first question, right off the bat, would be-- is it really a slam dunk among evolutionary biologists that makeup and high heels are sexualized?  If so, and if he's stating a position considered fact in that field, then he's really said very little to be upset about.  If, on the other hand, he's pulling that out his ass-- then it looks like grandpa making stuff up, and is very likely a misogynistic jerk (as Tiz claims). I googled it, and pretty much straight away found this, which involves an actual experiment involving not only attractiveness but even gender attribution:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...ttractive/

The following link is an except from a seemingly female author, which talks about both high heels AND makeup in a single page:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2XH0...es&f=false

Obviously, I haven't really gone into it much yet, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that evolutionary psychologists do hold these beliefs in general, and they are not specific to Peterson.

So the fact that he talks about this very forthrightly, whereas most of us never would, seems to be that he simply is more educated in that field (remember he is in fact a reasonably renowned psychologist even without all the hubbub), and feels safe saying things that he feels are known to be facts, which to many not familiar with those fields would definitely be taken as misogynistic.

[Amarok]

I gotta say, I think the interviewer is doing a good job of both listening carefully and presenting a thoughtful counter-case.  Personally, I feel the rest of this thread could be productively spent on this clip.  There are certainly plenty of provocative ideas here to mull over.  Here are a few that stood out for me:

1)  Makeup and high-heeled shoes are definitively sexualized, and any evolutionary biologist would agree with that
2)  Between an environment with a non-sexualized uniform, and a more free environment, he'd choose the freer one.
3)  Wearing makeup and high heels makes harassment "more likely"
4)  (12:53) There are other solutions to harassment than limiting freedom of dress.
5)  Tizheruk is a gerbil-hating Nazi.

My first question, right off the bat, would be-- is it really a slam dunk among evolutionary biologists that makeup and high heels are sexualized?  If so, and if he's stating a position considered fact in that field, then he's really said very little to be upset about.  If, on the other hand, he's pulling that out his ass-- then it looks like grandpa making stuff up, and is very likely a misogynistic jerk (as Tiz claims). I googled it, and pretty much straight away found this, which involves an actual experiment involving not only attractiveness but even gender attribution:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...ttractive/

The following link is an except from a seemingly female author, which talks about both high heels AND makeup in a single page:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2XH0...es&f=false

Obviously, I haven't really gone into it much yet, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that evolutionary psychologists do hold these beliefs in general, and they are not specific to Peterson.

So the fact that he talks about this very forthrightly, whereas most of us never would, seems to be that he simply is more educated in that field (remember he is in fact a reasonably renowned psychologist even without all the hubbub), and feels safe saying things that he feels are known to be facts, which to many not familiar with those fields would definitely be taken as misogynistic.

Good song