Jordan Peterson

Ah thanks for the reply. I thought you were adding something to the discussion so I was unsure what your sentences meant. It looks like in all 4 cases you were merely labelling the positions? Still not sure why or what that added, but at least I am a BIT clearer now I am already aware of the people and ideas you named, I was just more confused on why you made a post doing nothing but naming them. I was / am not really seeing how it was a reply to me exactly. Or was it that you were just pointing out that Peterson is, at best, merely regurgitating other (sometimes bad) ideas from others and is in no way bringing anything new? If so, then thus far I have to say that is a position I would share with you.

Fathom wrote: »

You quoted ...dominated by males consciously or unconsciously.

Can not say I take either position all that seriously myself. Be it Peterson, Deutsch or Horney. It does not gel with anything I have observed, any evidence I have seen, or any rationale I have seen offered. But the ingroup-outgroup narrative of "You want to be us / like us / envy us" is one I do see often in many partisan contexts. It seems to be a narrative that appeals quite often to the human mentality in such groups.

I am certainly yet to see Peterson offer much in the way of support for such an asserted position, assuming I have described the position accurately. And I guess this thread is about him and his views rather than similar views held by others.

Fathom wrote: »

This is a Nature position in the Nature vs Nurture argument. B.F. Skinner in Beyond Freedom and Dignity challenged this, suggesting that humans were born with a blank slate, and that Nurture was vastly more important than Nature in the making of personality, motivations, etc.

I am somewhere in between. I think only a fool ignores the differences between the sexes. But I also think we have manufactured so many differences at the level of society and culture..... many of which we instil through gendered play, gendered media, and gender narratives..... that we often lose sight of which differences are real and which are artificial.

Certainly time and time again I have seen people appeal to these narratives and then crumble and/or retreat when asked to back any of them up. For example on threads discussing same sex parenting it is often claimed children "need" or "deserve" a parent of each sex/gender. Yet not only do such people fail to explain exactly why that is except to repeat the mantra of "men and women are different"....... but studies (which said people have a tendency to dismiss with narratives like "Ahhh all academia is liberal run with a liberal agenda to justify liberal lifestyles") in fact show children of same sex parents faring just as well if not better than their peers.

But I look forward to finding more details on this from Peterson as what I have read/heard so far was vague on the point. I have not yet heard him describe exactly HOW biology and evolution dictate any such things and I have not yet really heard WHICH roles and behaviours he is specifically referring to or it just a more general assertion with no real substance. The devil is in the details I guess. I am currently listening to the first of two interviews he did with Jocko Willink, perhaps I will get some details there but so far all he has done in the interview is offer seemingly contradictory explanations of what he thinks "evil" is and means.

Fathom wrote: »

Herbert Spencer took Darwin's Theory of Evolution and addressed "some moral and societal" consequences, suggesting that such things as behaviors, norms, morals, and social outcomes were also subject to evolution.

Again not entirely sure what to take from merely naming another person who espouses a similar idea. What I said was "But when it is referred to specifically I merely become justifiably cautious. Because all too often people appeal to evolution to suggest some moral or societal precept they hold to is somehow "objective" or "meant to be" because of some variable or other that evolution has produced." and simply name dropping Spencer does not seem.... at first glance.... to add to this, take from this, or really reply to this in any way. Not meaning in any way to slight you, I just still do not really see what your replies are for or where they are going or what you intend.

But what you do write here is a little different to what I was describing. I too firmly believe such things are subject to evolution. In that I also subscribe to many parts of the general theory of memetics, and memetic evolution. And I believe memes, like genes, both evolve and get selected for and against every bit as much. But this is different from the concern I was raising. There is a chasm of difference between saying societal norms and morals are subject to evolution, and the cautiousness I describe around a move I see made often that somehow evolution validates some moral precept a speaker holds. One can subscribe to ideas and be cautious around them at the same time. Sometimes it is a must in fact.

I had to stop the podcast for awhile that I was listening to, but I will get back to it. Maybe his descriptions of "evil" become more clear later on. But so far they seem to be completely contradictory. I await the punchline and "aha" moment later in the podcast though. It is here and I currently paused at 2:22 into it.

But he seems to assert that "evil" is a real distinct thing that exists in and of itself. I am not clear what he actually means by that. Is he personifying it like in the form of a Satan type character? Is he asserting the existence of an objective morality (and if so where does it come from) for which "evil" is one end of that continuum? Or is it in fact nothing but a "placeholder" term and his calling it "real" is just increasing the signal-to-noise ratio?

It seems when you listen to him further that option 3 is the correct one. As he then goes on to describe many of the worst atrocities in mankind (of course Nazi Germany figures highly here, as do some of the more heinous incidents of mass shootings in the US) and breaks it down into understanable and likely entirely true tit-bits about human psychology and how even good people can be influenced to heinous crimes if done in a particular fashion. Because of how our mind works and our psyche can be manipulated.

And the more and more he speaks on that topic, most of which I agree with, the more and more his "real evil" just seems to become a synonym for the human condition itself. He is just using the word "evil" to describe things we already have perfectly serviceable words and concepts for. And I am seeing no advantage to making that move really. Except possibly to pre-empt the accusation that his perfectly valid descriptions of how good people or vulnerable people can perform egregious and horrible acts are in fact "trivializing" or "normalizing" such acts. Perhaps by hiding behind the concept of a "real evil" he can sell the narrative he wants to sell, but in a form that intends to hamper those that would find his explanations of such evils to be too trivial. THAT would be a perfectly understandable move as it is a problem we see time and time again. I see it often in, for example, the discussions about pedophilia. Where any attempt to foster an understanding of the condition is entirely falsely seen as an attempt to normalize it or excuse it.

But as I said, I have more than an hour left to listen to and there might be a punchline coming that means everything about is me speaking too soon, and in complete ignorance, of where he is actually going with this. I will report back if this is so. Take any silence from me as confirmation that it was not.