If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

What a fucking sensationalist piece of shit.

Internet dating data has shown that women rate 80% of males below average in attractiveness. Even if women have other metrics than attractiveness, those usually include either criminality, intelligence, or large incomes. All of which exclude the normal middle. He's not wrong.

On a completely separate note, I'm surprised you don't find his interest in fiction and myth as informative as a positive. He puts more stock into those things, as well as Freud, than I do.

 

[CiG]

JP's views on postmodernism are clunky and so everything else he says is horseshit, didn't you know?

If the average woman views the average man as something to fix or improve upon it makes perfect sense that most men are below most women's standards.

 

[Einherjar86]

Internet dating data has shown that women rate 80% of males below average in attractiveness. Even if women have other metrics than attractiveness, those usually include either criminality, intelligence, or large incomes. All of which exclude the normal middle. He's not wrong.

He's not right either. Internet dating data reflects a selected group of people.

On a completely separate note, I'm surprised you don't find his interest in fiction and myth as informative as a positive. He puts more stock into those things, as well as Freud, than I do.

Oh man, this is exactly why I despise him! He mythologizes the feminine into cosmic chaos, or some such bullshit. This is why literature is important, because it has resisted and dispelled such myths. If you think modern fiction is mythical in character, then you're seriously mistaken.

Also, if fiction and mythos is your logic here, then you can't degrade literary criticism in one breath and then praise Peterson's comments the next.

JP's views on postmodernism are clunky and so everything else he says is horseshit, didn't you know?

I think Peterson is mostly a pseudo-intellectual in large part, to be honest.

 

[CiG]

I think Peterson is mostly a pseudo-intellectual in large part, to be honest.

Fair enough. Seems like the lazy kind of criticism people who can't debunk or disprove or defeat an individual and his/her sayings use to me.

He mythologizes the feminine into cosmic chaos, or some such bullshit.

Another one of those instances where it seems like you've not heard anything he's said.

 

[Dak]

He's not right either. Internet dating data reflects a selected group of people.

Yeah, the not-sort of people you think are backwards.

Oh man, this is exactly why I despise him! He mythologizes the feminine into cosmic chaos, or some such bullshit. This is exactly why literature is important, because it has resisted and dispelled such myths. If you think modern fiction is mythical in character, then you're seriously mistaken.

Also, if fiction and mythos is your logic here, then you can't degrade literary criticism in one breath and then praise Peterson's comments the next.

I think Peterson is mostly a pseudo-intellectual in large part, to be honest.

I don't care all that much about modern fiction or ancient fiction, and Peterson's neo-Freudianism is a point of departure as it concerns modern psychology. However, it doesn't overly affect him towards being wrong about prescriptive solutions.

The sticking point is that I and Peterson both find critical theory and post-modernism as a whole to be generally pseudo-intellectual, and people leaning towards critical theory/post-modernism find the opposing views to be pseudo-intellectual. It's a rather formidable impasse.

 

[Einherjar86]

The sticking point is that I and Peterson both find critical theory and post-modernism as a whole to be generally pseudo-intellectual, and people leaning towards critical theory/post-modernism find the opposing views to be pseudo-intellectual. It's a rather formidable impasse.

Agreed. But just know that in academia, he's widely regarded as a hack. In the words of one particular individual on Peterson: "It may just be that I spent enough of my life as an overconfident dipshit libertarian brainlessly repeating potted tropes to know it when I see it. He's at best a high-quality algorithm. Can't actually think."

That's basically what I get from his videos.

Another one of those instances where it seems like you've not heard anything he's said.

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters. … Most men do not meet female human standards.

Reinterpret that for me then, boss.

 

[CiG]

Reinterpret that for me then, boss.

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't watch that right now, but the very fact that it's titled "The Feminine Unknown" is so ridiculous.

Please, explain it in your own words.

 

[CiG]

I know my own expressive limitations so I'm not going to change this into a thing where I have my comment picked apart instead of JP's views on this subject, so I'll just do this.

From Maps of Meaning:



Feminine symbolism and its relation to the concept of the unknown (synonymous with chaos in this context) isn't something JP invented btw, contrary to your earlier implication that he mythologizes it into cosmic chaos. He's referencing thousands of years of symbolism from a multitude of different civilizations.

 

[Einherjar86]

Feminine symbolism and its relation to the concept of the unknown (synonymous with chaos in this context) isn't something JP invented btw, contrary to your earlier implication that he mythologizes it into cosmic chaos. He's referencing thousands of years of symbolism from a multitude of different civilizations.

I realize that. The problem is that he believes it.

 

[CiG]

I realize that. The problem is that he believes it.

Well it's certainly not as convincing as feminism which says that feminine symbolism is powerlessness and oppression.

I love how thick-headed, terse and snotty you become in relation to JP. It really bucks my view of you and it's funny to see.

 

[Einherjar86]

*sigh* Listen man, the fact that you get wet like a little schoolgirl around him really bucks my view of you, and I'd say that it's funny but I really don't like seeing you get all wiggly and shit. It's not becoming of a man.

 

[CiG]

New *sigh* Listen man, the fact that you get wet like a little schoolgirl around him really bucks my view of you, and I'd say that it's funny but I really don't like seeing you get all wiggly and shit. It's not becoming of a man.

Except that's not true because I'm not that smart but thanks for trying. Also nice attempt at holding me to masculine stereotypes, what next, you're going to take my things away and leave me a toy truck?

It's just obvious that the guy triggers your inner zealot and closed-minded biased ideologue or something.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wow, you can't roll with the jokes huh? Looks like you're the one getting triggered dude.

 

[CiG]

Also nice attempt at holding me to masculine stereotypes, what next, you're going to take my things away and leave me a toy truck?

^ That was a joke, I don't actually think you're going to replace all my things with a truck.

You're the guy *sigh*ing here buddy.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right. *sigh*

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Agreed. But just know that in academia, he's widely regarded as a hack. In the words of one particular individual on Peterson: "It may just be that I spent enough of my life as an overconfident dipshit libertarian brainlessly repeating potted tropes to know it when I see it. He's at best a high-quality algorithm. Can't actually think."

That's basically what I get from his videos.

Peterson's videos have a lot of repetition, but no more than any academic would who teaches the same set of classes over and over. Furthermore, critical theory/post-modernism (particularly the pop-culture adjusted versions) are at least as bad. Ever do a control-f on some Feminist theory for the word "oppression"? Your browser memory will be overloaded.

Most academics aren't intellectuals, if we use the word "intellectual" to mean someone who synthesizes a broad amount of information in a very wise/perceiving way. Unfortunately, academics are generally persons who consider an intellectual to mean one who "agrees with the ivory tower accepted views". I have many professors who are at least 1SD above average in intelligence and very knowledgeable within their domains. My personal mentoring professor is absolutely most likely +2SD and knows far more than I will ever know about his niche, and in addition understands the business aspect of his niche as well. He's probably one of the generally smartest and practical people at my university (and holds positions ranking as such), and I'm not sure I would consider him an "intellectual", primarily because he's ignorant of philosophy outside of caricatures of Descartes etc. In short, being judged an "intellectual" is highly subjective, and academia has no monopoly on the term.

Edit: As a side note, the "Chaotic feminine" is, as far as I understand his use of Chaos, is referring to the unknown aspects of femininity, from a male perspective. Chaos is defined as the unknown, so by that definition it follows that for men, women are chaos to some degree.

 

[CiG]

Ever do a control-f on some Feminist theory for the word "oppression"? Your browser memory will be overloaded.