Fun fact, our instincts are against monogamy. We're socially monogamous, not evolutionarily so.
Quick article that runs through it from a Psychologist's perspective: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/not-born-yesterday/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings
From a Zoologist's perspective, I'll take issue with one thing in that when he talks about the "benefits of Polyandry not being obvious" - he's wrong. It allows females of species that practice it (lots of bird species practice polyandry whilst still having 'monogamous' mating pairings) to ensure a wider spread of genetic outcomes for their offspring, maximising odds of some surviving - i.e. is a sop to the idea that just because someone "won" the mating game, their genes might not actually be the best. (Survival of the Least Inadequate and all that)
^Is it social monogamy when females of yore became faithful to a provisioning male?
Right, so we agree he is clearly saying something should happen. He gives two options, and shoots down one of them as unlikely to happen, and the other as forbidden (although he quotes his wife saying they should do it, and says it himself as well). In any case he is thus presenting 'men standing up to crazy women', where 'standing up to' means potentially fighting, as a valid option. He does present it as positive, as shown by this quote: "if you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect". In other words he thinks that respect necessitates the threat of violence. And by logical extension, by the way, he thinks that women cannot have respect for men, unless the rules are changed.
I actually have no fucking clue what this guy is talking about
Again, just because he feels like it's unlikely, doesn't mean that it isn't his preferable option.
I'm also pretty sure these are subconscious behaviors he's referring to. As in it's (in part) an involuntary reaction, to lack respect for another a man who would under no circumstance fight you. Now, I don't know if this is an absolute truth or not, but this doesn't necessarily mean its positive. The benefit is the cap to the escalation of an out of control altercation. I think this is what he sees as a positive.
I do agree though, that the idea, that you could never respect a man that wouldn't fight you under any circumstances, seems a bit ludicrous. I'm sure it's a major factor, but obviously not the only one. It would also completely defeat the purpose of his sane sisters solution.
Don't feel bad it took 5 pages of discussion and an esoteric lexicon to decipher just one of his statements
If they're subconscious behaviors, why didn't he use the word 'subconscious'? Why did you have to dig out the word 'subconscious' when he's using clearly conscious phrasing like 'the techniques I would use', 'the parameters for resistance are clearly defined', etc? What difference does it even make whether the feelings are triggered subconsciously? Shouldn't that make it worse, since it implies that we're hardwired to be regulated by the threat of violence, and that women subconsciously can never respect men if they're not allowed to fight back? I don't think respect is a feeling that can be triggered subconsciously, so I think we're more likely talking about a type of men who already have no respect for others, and their behavior toward other people are regulated by fear, rather than respect. He literally says that the 'undermining of masculinity' is 'fatal' because he is defenseless against insane femininity, so I don't see where you get the 'not necessarily positive' part from.
The choice of techniques he would use isn't necessarily a conscious decision, though it could be partly conscious and partly subconscious, as I think most decisions are.
You don't think we're hard-wired to be regulated by the threat of violence? I find that hard to believe.
As I said I don't support his all or nothing approach to gaining respect, and I don't think he's thought that through as it undermines his own suggested sane sisters solution.
It's the cap on the level of escalation, I think that he finds positive. I'm sure he'd prefer having to reason (or rather have someone else reason) with these insane people, than having to rely on the mutual reluctance to reach a physical level of escalation.
We're hardwired to kill, fuck, and eat, but we also consider ourselves civilized men and women, not caveman savages.
Peterson is proposing social mores that were supposedly left behind by a civilized society. We have moved beyond honour duels and using your fists to make a debate argument, but Peterson seems to yearn for that era. It's socially regressive to give in to the urge to commit violence as a problem-solving technique.
I agree on why he finds the threat of violence positive, it's to 'keep things civilized'. Yes I think people are hard-wired to be regulated by the threat of violence - through fear, not respect. If anything, I think the threat of violence has (and should have) a negative effect on respect. I don't understand why you're banking so hard on the 'it's subconscious' interpretation which requires you to twist his words ("technique I would use" is not something you say about a subconscious reaction, nor does it make sense for a subconscious reaction to be 'forbidden' since following a rule requires a conscious decision.), what difference does it make? Keep in mind that his alternative solution of having sane women stand up to insane women also requires the threat of violence - he's saying that men can't do it because getting physical is forbidden, so the reason it would work for women must be that it isn't forbidden for them. Whether conscious or subconscious, he's still saying that masculinity is being fatally undermined, and the threat of violence is required from somebody, either men or sane women, to stand up to crazy women.
One of his rules for life is to be precise in your speech, ironically!
He's very precise in the obfuscation of his speech.
The reason I'm chasing the subconscious argument, is because I'm assuming that Peterson thinks this is neither good nor bad, it's just part of our nature so to speak.
And I don't think it's written in stone, that we can't follow rules subconsciously. We have various biological rules, hardwired into us, that we follow subconsciously.
You have to remember that this isn't a direct threat, it's an inferred threat, and yes, assuming the same rule set governs female to insane female interaction, the sane sister solution would rely on the inferred threat of an escalation to physical violence.
Yes, we have biological 'rules' / subconscious reactions, such as the fight or flight response. But social rules are different, and require conscious decision to follow. As for it being neither good nor bad, he states that the threat of violence keeps things civilized, and that masculinity is being fatally undermined because it isn't allowed toward women. He literally says this directly, and I have quoted this, so honestly I think your assumption is unfounded and unreasonable. And, again, if it is 'just in our nature', that doesn't change the conclusion that by his logic, there must be an inferred threat of violence before there can be respect. And you already agreed that he finds the 'cap on escalation' to be a positive thing, so I feel like you're presenting arguments that go against your own words.
So you don't think that men don't have biological hardwired incentive to protect women from physical harm? This comes down to social rules alone?
And yes he says masculinity is being fatally undermined, but he isn't suggesting that the solution is to allow men beat crazy women. When I'm talking about being neither good nor bad, I'm refering to the infered threat of physical violence, not the end result.
Honestly, no. Humans have the hardwired incentive to protect anybody from harm, particularly those that they think are weaker.
Are you sure? Because, speaking purely from a biological perspective, women carry more value, in regards to the continuation of the species (you would only need one man to impregnate multiple women, whereas women can only carry one pregnancy at a time.)
I think that’s why you see the same structure in almost every society in the world, men do the dangerous tasks, such as going off to war, while the women stay home.
Incentive maybe, but that doesn't equate to physicality being forbidden under all circumstances. I think history proves that humans aren't biologically hardwired not to beat women. And again, your interpretation isn't really supported by his words, since 'forbidden' isn't a word normally used to describe something we refrain from doing out of a biological incentive. He even says "So I don't believe that men can control crazy women [...], it's that the cultural...", although he doesn't complete that sentence. And you say he isn't suggesting that, but it sounds to me like he's suggesting that. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he's pretty clearly saying that allowing men to 'stand up to' crazy women is one solution out of two, and he shoots down the other as being unlikely. And as I've also pointed out, his threat of violence is required for there to be respect, so since I assume respect is something we ideally want to have for each other, the best solution must be for the inferred threat of violence to exist between everybody. If sane women stood up to crazy women, that would only be a temporary solution since women would still have no respect for men and could easily undermine masculinity again later or in different ways.
I never claimed it was impossible for men to beat women.
That's purely speculation though, that sentence could go ever which way.
You keep coming back to this, and I don't think you're right when saying he shoots it down. What he says verbatim:
"It seems to me it isn't men who should have to stand up to women, even though they should, it seems to me that it's sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, look, enough of that, enough man-hating, enough pathology, enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender. But the problem there is, and then I'll stop my little tirade, most of the women I know who are sane, are busy doing sane things, right? They have their career, they have their family, they're quite occupied, and they don't seem to have the time or maybe even really the interest to go after their crazy harpy sisters, and so I don't see any regulating force for that terrible femininity."
Tell what you think he seems to say is the preferred solution.
As I've said multiple times now, I don't agree with his all or nothing approach to garnering respect. Also about the situation reverting itself, I think that's speculation. If that happened, then the sane women could just stand up to them again if needed.
I never claimed it was impossible for men to beat women.
Right, my point was just that a biological incentive is different from something being strictly forbidden, eg. by being more general, primal, and less controlled. In any case, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) use the word 'forbidden' about a subconscious incentive because an incentive does not automatically become a rule. We have a biological incentive to sleep every night, but you wouldn't say that people are forbidden from pulling all-nighters.
That's purely speculation though, [...]
I'm using his literal words as evidence to counter your totally unfounded interpretation about subconscious and biological incentives. If anything is speculation, it's your interpretations.
Tell what you think he seems to say is the preferred solution.
The sane women fixing it one, absolutely. This doesn't change that he's outlining both as viable solutions and implying a fundamental view of masculinity that is violent and threat dependent for peace. And further, as you can see in the part you quoted, he also says "it isn't men who should have to stand up to women, even though they should" which is something he earlier said his wife had said. Coupling that with him saying that the preferred solution isn't going to happen, it's very easy to come to the other conclusion. I feel like I should clarify, I don't necessarily think that this is truly what he believes - I'm saying that's what his words are implying. I think that he either really believes it, or he is riding a probably years long high on realizing he's good at sounding convincing to some people when he rambles ad lib, without really thinking that much about what he is actually saying.
If that happened, then the sane women could just stand up to them again if needed.
Sure, but the women could never have respect for men, because the inferred threat of violence is a requirement for respect. I know you don't agree with this, but he said it very clearly.
I think this is the crux of the discussion and also why it mainly started in the first place. He very clearly says that he believes that women should stand up to other women, even if he thinks men should stand up as well. He definitely isn't saying that that solution is impossible. In fact his whole rant could very easily be seen as a call to action for the "sane" women to start reining in their "crazy" harpy sisters, even if they think they have better things to do, and I think this interpretation is way more reasonable and realistic, than what the original paraphrase seemed to infer, especially coupled with the other paraphrases and the motivation to label him as a fundamentalist isis cleric.
My problem with all this isn't whether you think that he's right or not, it's that people clearly don't want to acknowledge underhanded tactics when they're being applied against people their disagree with.
If it was a call to action, it was a very lousy and unenthusiastic one. The fact that we've been able to discuss what he meant for so long is a testament to how bad he is at making a point, and I think that explains why people, especially people who don't listen to the words 10+ times, can reach different interpretations. I don't disagree that it can be interpreted as a call to action, but then so can the other option because both he and his wife say that men should take action.
I also think it's a bit unfair that we've spent so much time now interpreting Peterson's words where you have done I think a lot, to get to a non-controversial interpretation, while we have afforded ASParkle's post no such benefit. I don't think ASparkle's paraphrase implies that men should be allowed to beat women any more or any less than Peterson's own words, it should be just as easy to claim "they were just stating a fact about subconscious incentives" etc, in both cases. And maybe it should also be considered whether the labeling as a fundamentalist isis cleric wasn't serious, but was a term used for comedic effect instead of something more tame like 'nutter', or 'conservative idiot'.
Very lousy and unenthusiastic? How so? Are you talking tonally? Or is it because he notes the problems with his solution afterwards?
Or it could be stubbornness (from either side)
"I used the term "white ISIS" for comedic purposes, but in truth quite a lot of his views and statements sound like the type of shit radical islamist clerics would say. Such as (and this is by no means an exhaustive list):"
This is the direct quote from ASparkle. There can be no doubt that the intention of the paraphrases was to compare Peterson with a radical islamist cleric, even if the original off-handed remark was intended as "comedic". When you then read something after that opening line like:
"Arguing that men "can't control crazy women" because they aren't allowed to beat them"
How do you think ASparkle meant for that to be interpreted? Do you think it was either:
Peterson wants sane women to rein in their out of control feminist sisters, because men are unable to, due to the fact that the inferred threat of an escalation to a physical level of altercation isn't there in male to insane female interactions
Or
Peterson wants men to be allowed to beat crazy women, because they are out of control
You cannot be serious if you think it was meant any other way than the second one.
I could give ASparkle the benefit of the doubt if it was just one bad example, but when you do it multiple times, to not speak of the birth control example. Man, that example alone should be proof of that ASparkle is acting in bad faith. It's such a ludicrously egregious attempt at making Peterson look bad. And when this is pointed out to ASparkle, and I think in realizing the mistake, instead of admitting fault, he/she doubles down, claiming that the wording was appalling, which is insane because it's one short paragraph, that you cannot possible have overlooked the second part. Do you seriously not see how disingenuous this is?
Or is it because he notes the problems with his solution afterwards?
Yes, because of immediately following up with "But the problem with that is, [...] so I don't see any regulating force".
Or it could be stubbornness (from either side)
Alright, but it wouldn't be possible if he spoke clearly.
I'm not really interested in going through what we've just done for Peterson's words with ASparkle's words, but I am pointing out that doing so would be like the reverse of our previous discussion. By and large I can agree with you. But it wouldn't be impossible to dismiss some of the quotes and interpret some other parts to interpret it as not being serious, just as you have done for Peterson's words. Thus I think that if you are willing to interpret Peterson's words to the point that he's implicitly talking about subconscious incentives without even using those words the whole time, I think you should also be willing to give ASParkle's the benefit of the doubt. I will point out that your two options are wrong, though, as ASparkle's quote doesn't even mention the sane women part. The two options should be:
Peterson simply states as a matter of fact that he doesn't feel like he has any control due to the fact that he can't employ violence against women, showcasing insecurity and a violent mindset.
Peterson wants men to be allowed to beat crazy women, because they are out of control.
I could give ASparkle the benefit of the doubt if it was just one bad example, but when you do it multiple times,
Didn't someone make this exact point about Peterson, too? I actually thought ASparkle's list of examples was in part to support that point, but I can't seem to find the post at this time.
How do you edit quote boxes?...
The difficulty in understanding Peterson seems to lie more in the bias of those against him than in his actual words. People go into a Peterson video, article, or blog post with the goal of finding something that they can mock or disregard, and they are very effective in finding what they're looking for.
Anyone who actually thinks Peterson wants a society where men are allowed to beat women in order to control them is either massively ignorant or dishonest. There is no alternative. This isn't some gray area where he might have meant one or the other. He obviously doesn't want men to beat women based on the context of his life, his family, his other views, his massive library of work, etc. It's not a hard conclusion to make.
While it isn't hard to deduce what Peterson doesn't mean, as you have, if one follows most of what he says and writes, the fact there is such a large margin of interpretation in every statement the man seems to make is quite an issue - It still isn't easy to figure out what he does mean, and he seems content on not making this work any easier.
Peterson is hard to understand even for people who aren't looking to mock the guy (a category to which I consider myself to belong, as I've actively listened to many of his lectures and read some of what he writes in attempts to really understand) and that is problematic for anyone seeking to address laymen primarily, as opposed to fellow experts, unless one is less concerned about accurate interpretation than one is about attention and monetary support.
I will not go so far as to call the guy a con-man, but people calling him a hack aren't entirely wrong, in my opinion.
The only position that I've found him vague about is religion. I honestly can't think of another issue where he hasn't been clear enough to have a clear understand of where he lies on the issue.
Premise 1, you must be able to fight someone before they can have respect for you: "if you are talking to a man that wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you are talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect"
Premise 2: men cannot fight women: "I am defenseless against that kind of crazy femininity, because the techniques that I would use against a man are forbidden to me"
Conclusion: women cannot have respect for men unless men can be allowed to fight with women.
Excuse my quotes, they may be inaccurate because I'm not going to go back and listen to them again.
I agree with you that he probably doesn't actually want that, but he's shit at getting a point across. It's not 'bias' that leads his words to be controversial, it's his words. Do you think Peterson thinks it's okay for a strong man to attack a weak man if the weak man unfairly trespasses against him?
You start right off with a false premise by equating "someone" with "a man."
Umm, no. The 'someone' in my premise isn't the 'a man' in the quote. The 'someone' is the person who would be getting attacked (i.e. "you" in the quote), while 'a man' is the person who would be attacking. You can replace the first premise with something like: a man must be able to fight someone ("you") under some circumstances, otherwise someone ("you") cannot have respect for that man. Wouldn't it be a fair assumption, anyway? Otherwise, how can it be that a woman can have respect for a man without the threat of violence, if a man can't? And please answer the last question, too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
