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

[EgoDeath]

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.

[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)

[Rev. Rye]

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.

I figured that pretty early on. Unfortunately, still it's at best just a band-aid over the real problem, and at worst, a pipe dream no more realistic than a return to the Garden of Eden. It's not simply not getting laid that makes an incel an incel; it's the toxic rage at women and society. I can't get laid, but I know better than to treat women as a terribly dangerous other as a direct result of that (honestly, it's our similarities that we really need to watch out for more than our differences). If, say, Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian actually got their dicks wet, do you think they'd actually get better? Here's a true (so far as we know) story of what happened when someone who fits the incel typology actually got married. And it ain't pretty. To be fair, there are stories of a happier incel marriage on r/incelswithouthate, but they aren't the guys who commit terrorist attacks because they can't get laid.

[bennyboy]

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.

I figured that pretty early on. Unfortunately, still it's at best just a band-aid over the real problem, and at worst, a pipe dream no more realistic than a return to the Garden of Eden. It's not simply not getting laid that makes an incel an incel; it's the toxic rage at women and society. I can't get laid, but I know better than to treat women as a terribly dangerous other as a direct result of that (honestly, it's our similarities that we really need to watch out for more than our differences). If, say, Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian actually got their dicks wet, do you think they'd actually get better? Here's a true (so far as we know) story of what happened when someone who fits the incel typology actually got married. And it ain't pretty. To be fair, there are stories of a happier incel marriage on r/incelswithouthate, but they aren't the guys who commit terrorist attacks because they can't get laid.

There will always be dysfunction, hatred and so-on.  That's because men in particular have an instinct for power, and when they have a particular lack of power, there's a dissonance there that can lead to extreme frustration.  Rape and terrorism have much the same message: "Ignore me now, I dare you!  I fucking matter, and I will force you to acknowledge me!"

In the end, it has to be understood that the power of evolution is nearly absolute.  Our baser instincts tend to subjugate our agency, often without us even knowing it.  Rationalizations about the inferiority of this or that race or nation (or football team or color of bandanna) are really just the tribal instincts of chimpanzees with a better vocabulary.  "Just the tip" is spoken by people with the illusion of free will, not understanding that a billion years of evolution are trying to trigger another act of reproduction.

[EgoDeath]

It seems some people have solidified their views on Peterson and now seemed to have fixed belief(s) about him. It is what it is, I suppose. I will continue to find value in all kinds of reading materials, including 12 Rules. It doesn't mean I have to like Peterson as a person or agree with everything he says. It's bizarre how some people have painted this guy as some sort of villain. I think he's incredibly disingenuous when it comes to religion and god and there's plenty of political views he's expressed that I don't necessarily agree with. But some hateful, right wing bigot who is just in it for the money? Um, no. I'm definitely more left-leaning than right, but jeez. Some people take things too far, even when they have good intentions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Um..YEP.

[bennyboy]

It seems some people have solidified their views on Peterson and now seemed to have fixed belief(s) about him. It is what it is, I suppose. I will continue to find value in all kinds of reading materials, including 12 Rules. It doesn't mean I have to like Peterson as a person or agree with everything he says. It's bizarre how some people have painted this guy as some sort of villain. I think he's incredibly disingenuous when it comes to religion and god and there's plenty of political views he's expressed that I don't necessarily agree with. But some hateful, right wing bigot who is just in it for the money? Um, no. I'm definitely more left-leaning than right, but jeez. Some people take things too far, even when they have good intentions.

It's not just that they want to voice their opinions of certain people or ideas, about which they already have strong opinions.  They quite deliberately go into this kind of discussion with the intent of interfering with any kind of dialogue or interest, as a tactic of making sure memes they don't agree with can't be considered-- the shit that this thread has become being a pretty clear case in point. This is not coincidental or accidental. Basically, it's "You have complete freedom to agree with us unconditionally, or to stay quiet, or to be drowned out by irrelevant rants and ad hom attacks." Civil and measured dialogue about specific ideas (for example, limited in scope to the text of a book) is not one of the options they are willing to extend.

I'd say the fantastic success of the Peterson vs. Harris debates shows how eager people are to step away from the internet trolls and see discussions that AREN'T done like that. (I'd say overall Harris is the stronger debater and is more prepared for this kind of arena, but they are still very interesting discussions)

[EgoDeath]

It seems some people have solidified their views on Peterson and now seemed to have fixed belief(s) about him. It is what it is, I suppose. I will continue to find value in all kinds of reading materials, including 12 Rules. It doesn't mean I have to like Peterson as a person or agree with everything he says. It's bizarre how some people have painted this guy as some sort of villain. I think he's incredibly disingenuous when it comes to religion and god and there's plenty of political views he's expressed that I don't necessarily agree with. But some hateful, right wing bigot who is just in it for the money? Um, no. I'm definitely more left-leaning than right, but jeez. Some people take things too far, even when they have good intentions.

It's not just that they want to voice their opinions of certain people or ideas, about which they already have strong opinions.  They quite deliberately go into this kind of discussion with the intent of interfering with any kind of dialogue or interest, as a tactic of making sure memes they don't agree with can't be considered-- the shit that this thread has become being a pretty clear case in point.  This is not coincidental or accidental.  Basically, it's "You have complete freedom to agree with us unconditionally, or to stay quiet, or to be drowned out by irrelevant rants and ad hom attacks."  Civil and measured dialogue about specific ideas (for example, limited in scope to the text of a book) is not one of the options they are willing to extend.

I'd say the fantastic success of the Peterson vs. Harris debates shows how eager people are to step away from the internet trolls and see discussions that AREN'T done like that.  (I'd say overall Harris is the stronger debater and is more prepared for this kind of arena, but they are still very interesting discussions)

I'd definitely have to side with Harris as well, though I may be biased because he's much more liberal than Peterson in my opinion and that's more palatable for me. The thing is, I don't know if some liberals are willfully misrepresenting figures like Peterson, but I think some of them are. I think a good number of them don't really realize what they're doing BECAUSE they're so entrenched in particular fixed beliefs. The fact that some people can truly interpret Peterson's words, process them and then say, "This man is a bigot" and ACTUALLY seem to believe it, seems to tell me they're not making a conscious choice to misinterpret things, but rather their lens is skewed.

It reminds me a lot of when Ben Affleck went onto Real Time with Bill Maher and got into it with Sam Harris about Islam. No matter what Harris said, Affleck continued to interpret everything he was saying as racist or "Islamophobic," despite the fact that Harris was simply stating facts and quoting statistics. It's as if they're hearing something different than what is being said.

To be completely fair, this obviously happens on the right as well. I consider myself a liberal and have always voted Democrat. It surprises me how differently many conservatives interpret simple liberal ideas. It happens on both sides.

Also, a lot of Peterson's hardcore fan base seems to fall much farther to the right than Peterson himself. Probably another example of his words and ideas being skewed through crooked lenses.

[GrandizerII]

Never read his book, but have watched several videos of Jordan Peterson, and my overall impression of him based on the stuff he says is that he's overrated and deceptive.

Forget his views on religion. As far as social issues, there's so many things he gets wrong, whether it's about white privilege really being "majority privilege" (South Africa, anyone?), sexism not playing much of a role in gender pay gap, or other views that only serve to foster misogynistic and racist mindsets.

For example, Peterson argues that women don't get into positions of power as much as men because they happen to be more agreeable, on average, than men. Thus, women are less likely to negotiate and compete for higher power and status.

I'll post something on that later. Need to go.

[paulpablo]

Never read his book, but have watched several videos of Jordan Peterson, and my overall impression of him based on the stuff he says is that he's overrated and deceptive.

Forget his views on religion. As far as social issues, there's so many things he gets wrong, whether it's about white privilege really being "majority privilege" (South Africa, anyone?), sexism not playing much of a role in gender pay gap, or other views that only serve to foster misogynistic and racist mindsets.

For example, Peterson argues that women don't get into positions of power as much as men because they happen to be more agreeable, on average, than men. Thus, women are less likely to negotiate and compete for higher power and status.

I'll post something on that later. Need to go.

I've seen him argue against a specific article on white privilege. The article claimed that being able to see your race represented in the media a lot is a white privilege, his counterargument was that the majority race is usually represented most in the media.
The article also states that being able to live where you want is a white privilege, and the counterargument to that is that it's actually more important how much money you have rather than what race you are as to where you can live.