Jordan Peterson interview on C4

kubjones

Redpatio wrote: »

Heterosexual marriage was a clever way to make sexually unappealing men productive and help build civilisation. Most men are not sexually appealing to women in general, so by creating marriage it allowed men to work to earn a wife, who more than likely wasn't attracted to him sexually.

An interesting argument.

Do you mind if I ask why monogamy is also evident in other species, such as chimps, penguins, Gorillas, different species of Lizards, Wolves, Cranes, etc. to name a few?

Would you regard the fact that there is a deeper reasoning behind simple mating practices of humans and other species as well?

kunst nugget

Redpatio wrote: »

Heterosexual marriage was a clever way to make sexually unappealing men productive and help build civilisation. Most men are not sexually appealing to women in general, so by creating marriage it allowed men to work to earn a wife, who more than likely wasn't attracted to him sexually.

Are you the dude who keeps getting banned for posting about how most men aren't raising their own children because all the good looking men are shagging their wives?

xckjoo

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'd be critical of what he says in that youtube video but the point you're making here is a nonsense. He can give an endorsement of heterosexual marriage because it has existed for thousands of years and a mountain of research on it, he can't can't do the same for gay marriage as it has only existed as a legal entity since the Netherlands legalised it in 2001 and it's still outlawed in the vast majority of countries in the world.

What annoys me is I'm critical of what he says too, but because we have to be all for or against/left or right/black or white, I can't discuss it because the thread gets swamped with people fighting to stick you in one camp or the other so they can preach to you about how you're wrong and they're the only ones that can see the truth.

Redpatio

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are you the dude who keeps getting banned for posting about how most men aren't raising their own children because all the good looking men are shagging their wives?

I certainly have never made such an argument. The rates of non paternity are about 3 percent I believe, way off "most men".

Redpatio

kubjones wrote: »

An interesting argument.

Do you mind if I ask why monogamy is also evident in other species, such as chimps, penguins, Gorillas, different species of Lizards, Wolves, Cranes, etc. to name a few?

Would you regard the fact that there is a deeper reasoning behind simple mating practices of humans and other species as well?

I don't believe it is evident, most species are not monogomous.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Some of the concepts he communicates are complete guff. Such as ‘you can’t quit smoking without having a mystical experience’ which in turn is evidence for god. There’s not much to grasp with that statement. It’s theist apologist nonsense.

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

No, we really don't.

But his marketing has certainly done a job on you.

kubjones

Akrasia wrote: »

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Certainly not.

I think if you watch some 10 second clips in a 2 minute Guardian Youtube video of parts of a two hour interview, you basically know all there is to know about him.

Obviously.

Doctor Jimbob

Redpatio wrote: »

I don't believe it is evident, most species are not monogomous.

Most species don't have cars or smartphones. Should we do away with those too?

kubjones

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Most species don't have cars or smartphones. Should we do away with those too?

Not the best argument.

Noteworthy to know however, that animal species that are monogamous have a much lower aggression rate within their hierarchies, across the board in fact.

Redpatio

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Most species don't have cars or smartphones. Should we do away with those too?

Like everything you have to weigh up the pros and cons. If we introduce something unnatural with net negative effects then perhaps we should do away with them. Monogomy has awful effects on people, it kills their soul, figuratively speaking, as does sitting at a desk all day.

kunst nugget

Redpatio wrote: »

I certainly have never made such an argument. The rates of non paternity are about 3 percent I believe, way off "most men".

Fair enough, there's a dude constantly being banned. His rates of non paternity are up at two thirds or thereabouts.

Just in relation to the point you make about marriage being created for ugly men because women find most men unattractive, I think you're applying a modern interpretation of sexuality and attractiveness to our past.

Also, how would you explain the notion of dowries in that context?

Doctor Jimbob

kubjones wrote: »

Not the best argument.

Noteworthy to know however, that animal species that are monogamous have a much lower aggression rate within their hierarchies, across the board in fact.

I'm only trying to highlight how pointless it is to take cues from what other species do.

Redpatio wrote: »

Like everything you have to weigh up the pros and cons. If we introduce something unnatural with net negative effects then perhaps we should do away with them. Monogomy has awful effects on people, it kills their soul, figuratively speaking, as does sitting at a desk all day.

Not so sure about monogamy, but I completely agree with you on the desk part

Redpatio

kunst nugget wrote: »

Fair enough, there's a dude constantly being banned. His rates of non paternity are up at two thirds or thereabouts.

Just in relation to the point you make about marriage being created for ugly men because women find most men unattractive, I think you're applying a modern interpretation of sexuality and attractiveness to our past.

Also, how would you explain the notion of dowries in that context?

I don't necessarily men unattractive physically, some ugly men have a profound effect on women sexually. Our sexuality hasn't changed, we are still sexually attracted to the same fundamental markers. Men to youth and fertility, women to status and dominance.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Well considering he stated Peterson was against gay marriage but in the actual video of him discussing it he states he's undecided, it doesn't exactly scream of doing due diligence. Minor levels of research to back up your claims isn't asking for a lot.
It's a bit like watching a YouTube video that claims that climate change is a conspiracy and then just assuming it's true

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The questions could equally be put to heterosexual marriage. But hetero marriage gets his explicit endorsement at the end of the video without any qualifications. It’s not an equally critical evaluation of gay and heterosexual marriage.

Jordan Peterson hates 'equality of outcome'. Constantly goes on about it. The implication of this is that people should be allowed to make their own bad decisions and we should allow them the freedom to fail as well as succeed.

But when he is asked if he will support gay marriage, he wants to see what the outcome is before he would support people to have the equal opportunity to marry?

He did the same thing in his Joe Rogan interview when he was asked why he wants 'enforced monogamy', and he basically said that it's better for society that there is a more equal access to sexual partners.

He wants equality of 'sexual outcome' rather than equality of 'sexual opportunity'

kubjones

Redpatio wrote: »

Like everything you have to weigh up the pros and cons. If we introduce something unnatural with net negative effects then perhaps we should do away with them. Monogomy has awful effects on people, it kills their soul, figuratively speaking, as does sitting at a desk all day.

This is your personal experience with monogamy, which is unfortunate.

Important to note that it CAN absolutely have negative effects on couples, but also important to note that there is no law forcing couples to be married and that there are many avenues in which a couple can exit their existing marriage should it go south.

Also important to note, however, that there have been various studies that show children born into broken marriages have a higher average of aggression and are more likely to be involved in crime.

This has been known since the 60's. This knowledge was utilized against black families during this era in an attempt to increase crime in majority black areas, thus keeping the black population poorer.

Your argument against marriage seems to be completely anecdotal and I sympathize if this is the case, but none of your arguments hold much substance.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

Well considering he stated Peterson was against gay marriage but in the actual video of him discussing it he states he's undecided, it doesn't exactly scream of doing due diligence. Minor levels of research to back up your claims isn't asking for a lot.
It's a bit like watching a YouTube video that claims that climate change is a conspiracy and then just assuming it's true

He's an 'intellectual' who can't make up his mind on one of these most basic moral questions of our time? He never thought of it when his own country was having it's gay marriage debate in 2005?

Do you really believe that?

My mother in law was 'undecided' in the gay marriage referendum because she was actually opposed to it, but felt she should be in favour of it. I think JP is refusing to support gay marriage because he is actually opposed to it. When he was given a tenuous reason to oppose it, he leapt onto it without a moments hesitation (What? cultural marxists support gay marriage? then it must be wrong!)

Redpatio

kubjones wrote: »

This is your personal experience with monogamy, which is unfortunate.

Important to note that it CAN absolutely have negative effects on couples, but also important to note that there is no law forcing couples to be married and that there are many avenues in which a couple can exit their existing marriage should it go south.

Also important to note, however, that there have been various studies that show children born into broken marriages have a higher average of aggression and are more likely to be involved in crime.

This has been known since the 60's. This knowledge was utilized against black families during this era in an attempt to increase crime in majority black areas, thus keeping the black population poorer.

Your argument against marriage seems to be completely anecdotal and I sympathize if this is the case, but none of your arguments hold much substance.

I don't practice monogomy so it's not my personal experience of it. I have open relationships with women, and the sex is amazing, it's invigorating.

I never argued that broken marriages are optimal for children. I believe the best scenario for children to be raised communally as would be done by a tribe.

Studies have shown that depression and mental illness is almost unheard of hunter gatherer societies around the world.

Outlaw Pete

Akrasia wrote: »

He did the same thing in his Joe Rogan interview when he was asked why he wants 'enforced monogamy', and he basically said that it's better for society that there is a more equal access to sexual partners.

He wants equality of 'sexual outcome' rather than equality of 'sexual opportunity'

Access is opportunity... not outcome

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

He's an 'intellectual' who can't make up his mind on one of these most basic moral questions of our time? He never thought of it when his own country was having it's gay marriage debate in 2005?

Do you really believe that?

My mother in law was 'undecided' in the gay marriage referendum because she was actually opposed to it, but felt she should be in favour of it. I think JP is refusing to support gay marriage because he is actually opposed to it. When he was given a tenuous reason to oppose it, he leapt onto it without a moments hesitation (What? cultural marxists support gay marriage? then it must be wrong!)

:facepalm:
He read out a question from a viewer who stated they were against it because "cultural marxists support it" and said "well if that was the case, I'd definitely be against it, but.....". So he actually dismissed it as being a "cultural marxist" agenda. Granted he didn't spend long denouncing the statement, but you're clearly misrepresenting what he said. Presumably unintentionally.



He's didn't approach it as a moral question so that might be the issue. He touches on the moral side near the start when he says (paraphrasing) that he's in favor of things that'll bring homosexuals in from the fringes and be more welcomed within society, but the majority of the talk was focused on trying to decide if it would be positive of society in the long run. I think it will be, but he's not sure, but he seems risk averse to rapid social changes.

xckjoo

Redpatio wrote: »

I don't practice monogomy so it's not my personal experience of it. I have open relationships with women, and the sex is amazing, it's invigorating.

I never argued that broken marriages are optimal for children. I believe the best scenario for children to be raised communally as would be done by a tribe.

Studies have shown that depression and mental illness is almost unheard of hunter gatherer societies around the world.

That's because they're too busy trying not to starve to death

Redpatio

xckjoo wrote: »

That's because they're too busy trying not to starve to death

One would expect homeless people on the streets to not suffer from mental illness, not sure if that's the case.

xckjoo

Redpatio wrote: »

One would expect homeless people on the streets to not suffer from mental illness, not sure if that's the case.

Like porn stars and sex workers!

Akrasia

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Access is opportunity... not outcome

Access engineered by redistributing resources, not encouraging competition.

I didn't phrase it properly, he was talking about how its bad for society if there are lots of men with no access to sexual partners, so society should be reordered to redistribute female sexual partners so that they aren't monopolised by a small elite group of sexually desirable men.

"You tilt the society where it serves the interests of...."

DickSwiveller Returns

Akrasia wrote: »

He's an 'intellectual' who can't make up his mind on one of these most basic moral questions of our time? He never thought of it when his own country was having it's gay marriage debate in 2005?

Do you really believe that?

My mother in law was 'undecided' in the gay marriage referendum because she was actually opposed to it, but felt she should be in favour of it. I think JP is refusing to support gay marriage because he is actually opposed to it. When he was given a tenuous reason to oppose it, he leapt onto it without a moments hesitation (What? cultural marxists support gay marriage? then it must be wrong!)

I don't think gay marriage is an important moral question of our time. You must really live in a bubble if you think it is.

kunst nugget

xckjoo wrote: »

:facepalm:
He read out a question from a viewer who stated they were against it because "cultural marxists support it" and said "well if that was the case, I'd definitely be against it, but.....". So he actually dismissed it as being a "cultural marxist" agenda. Granted he didn't spend long denouncing the statement, but you're clearly misrepresenting what he said. Presumably unintentionally.

'Well I would be against it too if it was backed by cultural marxists. It isn't clear to me it will satisfy the ever increasing demand for an assault on traditional modes of being.'

He then goes on to give his own muddled views on gay marriage after that.

He doesn't dismiss it as being part of a cultural marxist agenda in the audio.

kunst nugget

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't think gay marriage is an important moral question of our time. You must really live in a bubble if you think it is.

In terms of social liberalism, it's been a big topic in western countries and surely one that should be of interest to a psychologist with a keen interest in anthropology.

Outlaw Pete

Akrasia wrote: »

Access engineered by redistributing resources, not encouraging competition.

I didn't phrase it properly, he was talking about how its bad for society if there are lots of men with no access to sexual partners, so society should be reordered to redistribute female sexual partners so that they aren't monopolised by a small elite group of sexually desirable men.

"You tilt the society where it serves the interests of...."

NO, you are misrepresenting what he is saying.

As pointed out on other threads, Joe put this very point to him, and he clearly said that you encourage / reward 'monogamous standards'. THAT is the point he is making.

When it comes to quotas in Boardrooms for example, equality is not merely "encouraged" it is engineered and forced.

To have 'equality of outcome' would mean marrying people off, but that is not what he is advocating at all.

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Don't you mean, 'If you don't like him because you distrust all people you consider right wing, you're going to have to wade through tons of his literature and lectures to find something to discredit him?'

I googled smoking Jordan Peterson. This was the first result to come up. I took a look at it (sped up, I don't have all day). It seemed eminently reasonable. Religion got mentioned briefly at the end, but not in a way that could be used against him. El Duderino would have to move onto several more videos before he could find some smoking gun to make him look like a religious nut, which is why he can't be arsed doing it at all.