If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Enforced monogamy, primarily. The rest invites degrees of argumentation.

 

[Dak]

Enforced monogamy, primarily. The rest invites degrees of argumentation.

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Peterson's a light-weight who doesn't have a modicum of understanding on most of the social/historical issues he pretends to be an authority on. He's this generation's Ayn Rand, but without the facade of profundity. Now go clean your rooms, incels.

 

[Dak]

Now go clean your rooms, incels.

Well he is probably right about that at least. Incels most likely have dirty rooms full of cum socks.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Well he is probably right about that at least. Incels most likely have dirty rooms full of cum socks.

Maybe, as a means of pulling these insecure yet self-righteous types out of their dirty little rooms and into spaces of social interaction, instead of enforced monogamy, we should have enforced monocumsockogamy. Only one sock for you!

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

Is there evidence that sexually-frustrated violence was lower in the 1950s and before than after? Does Europe, a continent which generally practices "free love", suffer from sexually-frustrated violence at a rate comparable to ours?

Polygamy existed primarily under a patriarchal world in which a wife was effectively the property of her husband. People don't approve of it largely because it generally entails some form of abuse between the man and his women (see: most religious cults, R Kelly, etc). It had nothing to do with free love outside of both entailing one man having sex with multiple women under the same roof, so there is no irony in opposing polygamy while condoning people of either sex to have sexual relationships with whomever they want to.

Peterson is just regurgitating MRA/MGTOW/incel memes because he knows those are his greatest financial supporters. I respect the hustle on his part, but I haven't seen much to support the claims he has made.

 

[Dak]

Is there evidence that sexually-frustrated violence was lower in the 1950s and before than after? Does Europe, a continent which generally practices "free love", suffer from sexually-frustrated violence at a rate comparable to ours?

Polygamy existed primarily under a patriarchal world in which a wife was effectively the property of her husband. People don't approve of it largely because it generally entails some form of abuse between the man and his women (see: most religious cults, R Kelly, etc). It had nothing to do with free love outside of both entailing one man having sex with multiple women under the same roof, so there is no irony in opposing polygamy while condoning people of either sex to have sexual relationships with whomever they want to.

Peterson is just regurgitating MRA/MGTOW/incel memes because he knows those are his greatest financial supporters. I respect the hustle on his part, but I haven't seen much to support the claims he has made.

Doesn't Europe generally allow prostitution? Prostitution is the solution for the args of the world in a world that doesn't frown on extramarital sex. Allowing "free love" but generally disallowing sex work is going to leave a not-insignificant number of men SOL. I'm still trying to figure out how the parents didn't "know their son to be someone like that" or whatever, when he's wearing trench coats to school and posting it on FB with cthulu and commie pins on it (if the interwebs is to be believe).

In other news: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/corporate-social-responsibility/

Moral licensing might explain inconsistency in virtue signaling behavior vs actually being a good person. Why you get a feminist calling the police on a black woman over nothing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

"Free love" isn't the extent of sexual consciousness post-World War II, and I don't think it's accurate to chalk it up to that.

I think we also need to specify what Peterson is arguing for. He wants all single men to have partners. Enforcing monogamy doesn't mean outlawing polygamy; he means that all single men should have wives. This translates into some kind of regulation that forces women to marry single men. In other words, both men and women should have one partner; but it's more important that men have partners (according to Peterson), and women should be forced to accommodate this. It's proto-Handmaid's Tale, but with quasi-religious fundamentalism masquerading as some kind of weird mytho-philosophy.

This is where I think Peterson puts his foot in his mouth. Any modern opposition to enforced monogamy doesn't have to do with free love; it has to do with the women's movement and advancement of women's rights since the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The whole concept of enforced monogamy should be an absurd declaration.

 

[Dak]

"Free love" isn't the extent of sexual consciousness post-World War II, and I don't think it's accurate to chalk it up to that.

I think we also need to specify what Peterson is arguing for. He wants all single men to have partners. Enforcing monogamy doesn't mean outlawing polygamy; he means that all single men should have wives. This translates into some kind of regulation that forces women to marry single men. In other words, both men and women should have one partner; but it's more important that men have partners (according to Peterson), and women should be forced to accommodate this. It's proto-Handmaid's Tale, but with quasi-religious fundamentalism masquerading as some kind of weird mytho-philosophy.

This is where I think Peterson puts his foot in his mouth. Any modern opposition to enforced monogamy doesn't have to do with free love; it has to do with the women's movement and advancement of women's rights since the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The whole concept of enforced monogamy should be an absurd declaration.

Nowhere in that article is there a quote specifying enforced monogamy meaning forced marriages. Furthermore:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”

He also includes some research links on the subject.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nowhere in that article is there a quote specifying enforced monogamy meaning forced marriages. Furthermore.

I know, that's always the point, isn't it? He doesn't use the phrase "forced marriage" so he can't be talking about it.

"Enforced monogamy" isn't "well-established anthropological language." It's telling that the source for this claim is fucking reddit. Just do a search for the phrase "enforced monogamy." When anthropologists write about it, they often use it to refer to socially-regulated marriage. Peterson cherry-picks three or so sources. That doesn't constitute "well-established language."

It's fine if Peterson means it in the way he claims, but this is just another example of him having, at best, complete disregard for the language he uses--at worst, he's being willfully dishonest.

 

[Dak]

I know, that's always the point, isn't it? He doesn't use the phrase "forced marriage" so he can't be talking about it.

"Enforced monogamy" isn't "well-established anthropological language." It's telling that the source for this claim is fucking reddit. Just do a search for the phrase "enforced monogamy." When anthropologists write about it, they often use it to refer to socially-regulated marriage. Peterson cherry-picks three or so sources. That doesn't constitute "well-established language."

It's fine if Peterson means it in the way he claims, but this is just another example of him having, at best, complete disregard for the language he uses--at worst, he's being willfully dishonest.

The source is reddit? Are you talking about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPete...enforced_monogamy_defined_for_us_by_the_ncbi/ ?

The article in question here was written by a Harvard EvoBio professor and has been cited 243 times. I don't know the degree to which the term "enforced monogamy" is an actual term within anthropology etc., or if it is, the degree to which it describes what Peterson claims he meant. I've found use of the term in EvoBio in relation to genetic monogamy with non-humans. In most of these articles, the abstract starts off with some sort of mention of the following:

An evolutionary conflict often exists between the sexes in regard to female mating patterns. Females can benefit from polyandry, whereas males mating with polyandrous females lose reproductive opportunities because of sperm competition. Where this conflict occurs, the evolution of mechanisms whereby males can control female remating, often at a fitness cost to the female, are expected to evolve. The fitness cost to the female will be increased in systems where a few high status males monopolise mating opportunities and thus have limited sperm supplies.

Reproduction has classically been viewed as a predominantly cooperative process. However, over the last 20 years this concept has steadily yielded ground to one of continual conflict in which the interests of the sexes are typically discordant. Within this framework, males and females are seen to be locked into a perpetual arms race, each adaptation by one sex promoting the evolution of countermeasures in the other sex. However, under strict genetic monogamy, the interests of the sexes become congruent, and hence antagonistic coevolution does not occur.

I also found this from 1914:

The article reports that monogamy will be enforced in the U.S. as the law of the land. The U.S. government considers bigamy a crime and is allegedly determined to enforce the law on monogamy. The state of Utah is the object of lesson as its statehood was made conditional on its acceptance and enforcement of the law. The realization of the danger of polygamy allegedly prompted Senator Joseph E. Randell to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in relation to divorce and the right to remarry.

Unfortunately we don't have any anthropologists lurking here that I know of who could shed more light on the matter, and otherwise our reading still can run into this other problem:

While I think that vitriol Peterson gets is outsized for any particular thing he says, that comes with the territory of fame with people the Cathedral despises or ignores. If I wanted to be critical here of where he might be going outside of his area of expertise, I think Peterson might suffer to some degree from "the Autodidact's Curse". From Bryan Caplan: https://flightfromperfection.com/caplan-on-audodidacts-curse.html

For me, what I do is so interdisciplinary so I’m always worried about this autodidact’s curse, where you’ve read a ton of stuff but you still haven’t actually talked to anyone who knows what’s going on. This is one of the things that I try to do to deal with especially the wisdom of a field. Oftentimes there’s wisdom in a field, where it’s known to people who have thought about it for a long time, but they don’t write it down.

Of course, that’s very hard for the autodidact to find out. “What is the wisdom in your field that you don’t write down?” This is where I try to reach out to people. Generally, I would say I get about a 15 percent response rate for the people saying they’ll at least read something, so I feel like it does give me some good quality control.

Of course a more spergish, more experienced, popular writer like Caplan is probably a bit more cautious with this sort of thing than Peterson seems to be. Peterson likes to say he is very careful with his words, which is true but not enough in the public eye. A clinical psychologist has to be very particular about his/her words at all times for how they might be interpreted by the client. This is easier in a clinical setting than in a broad setting, because the potential interpretations multiply nearly infinitely in a public capacity. Secondly, speaking on matters outside the discipline of psychology or outside the revealed particulars of a client's life is to go well outside of a clinical psychologist's "lane", which is language I've used before. Peterson could likely say that all his personal work on investigating mythos didn't leave him any authors to contact - but he could have read relatively contemporary expositions and contacted those authors for field knowledge.

What Peterson and Trump are doing, in different ways and on different subjects, is further revealing the religious-like nature of liberals and conservatives. We can't get any critique from fans and the critiques from the Never crowd doesn't even make it to the level of accuracy required for a strawman half the time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Perfect.

The reaction to Peterson's language is widespread--from left-wingers who vehemently disagree, and I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of his loyal supporters are disappointed to learn the real meaning of the phrase.

Here's the issue: clearly many people are misunderstanding the phrase, if indeed Peterson is invoking this "anthropological" concept. There's no reason why anyone outside of anthropology (or evolutionary biology, for that matter) would understand the nuances of a phrase like "enforced monogamy." And given the context of Peterson's remarks, it's completely rational to assume he was talking about enforced marriage.

The fact that Peterson didn't bother to define his terms suggests (to me) that he anticipated the misinterpretation so that he could leap at the chance to point out the left's hypocrisy. But it's not hypocrisy; it's a legitimate reaction to suggestive language. He either has no grasp of discourse beyond his discipline, or he's intentionally sabotaging it.

 

[Dak]

Perfect.

The reaction to Peterson's language is widespread--from left-wingers who vehemently disagree, and I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of his loyal supporters are disappointed to learn the real meaning of the phrase.

Here's the issue: clearly many people are misunderstanding the phrase, if indeed Peterson is invoking this "anthropological" concept. There's no reason why anyone outside of anthropology (or evolutionary biology, for that matter) would understand the nuances of a phrase like "enforced monogamy." And given the context of Peterson's remarks, it's completely rational to assume he was talking about enforced marriage.

The fact that Peterson didn't bother to define his terms suggests (to me) that he anticipated the misinterpretation so that he could leap at the chance to point out the left's hypocrisy. But it's not hypocrisy; it's a legitimate reaction to suggestive language. He either has no grasp of discourse beyond his discipline, or he's intentionally sabotaging it.

I'm not sure the degree to which angry incels are in his readership; they probably would benefit from the "clean up your room" talk. If they are missing that part, and only listening to what they think they like, they probably would be upset to learn the meaning isn't HandMaiden's tale redux.

I don't see any reason though to assume that he meant forced marriage. The snide potshots were sprinkled all throughout that NYT piece, so the veracity and completeness of the reporting is in question. I think you're projecting on that issue in tandem with the reporter. It is certainly plausible he agreed to this interview (and has agreed to at least a couple of others I can think of) because he anticipated the breathless taking out of context of very specific sorts of language, whether the language accurately refers to strict, accurate academic jargon or not. "Normative monogamous marriage" or "traditional marriage norms" would have probably been more clear language for the readership - but that would have likely incited the same angry reaction, just with different spin! Instead of "omg handmaiden's tale " we would have some 100 op-eds about the oppression of sexual minorities. I'll agree with you that Peterson has been operating outside of his lane on a number of things, but that's par for the course for almost all public intellectuals unfortunately. What he needs to do is find partners in other relevant disciplines. However, the likelihood of other professionals even of like mind wanting to take on the risk probably approaches zero. There's only enough tenure privilege and patreon dollars to go around.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

So, I feel like Peterson is on his way out (intellectually) for putting his foot in his mouth in interviews like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/...s-for-life.html#click=https://t.co/ZQRGi2qSqr



Of course, he's likely to retain (and maybe gain) plenty of followers in his current internet subcultures.

I want to chime in on this briefly. I am someone who was helped immensely by Peterson's lectures. Roughly a year ago I started watching his "Maps of Meaning" lecture series and they have been more beneficial to me than any therapist I've been able to see in person. That particular lecture series was fairly apolitical, aside from the occasional ranting about marxism, so I feel that I was introduced to him as a psychologist first and a political pundit second. Maybe that has made his more political output more palatable to me as I don't exactly align with him politically. Later on, I watched many of his other lectures and interviews including many of a more political nature, basically up until I reached a point of saturation where I felt that his every talking point was something I've heard him go over before.

My point is, I think I know his views fairly well at this point and I largely see him mischaracterized in media. I think there are legitimate grievances to be had with him; as far as I can tell, his understanding of marxism/post-modernism (and by extension, his conspiratorial ravings about an all-pervasive "post-modern marxist" agenda) is really derived entirely from one old obscure book on the subject no one considers authoritative. His calling for marxist professors to be censored is terribly dissonant with his advocacy for free speech. There are other things, too. But his critics usually seem to call him out on the wrong points. For instance, a common mistake is that they think he's being prescriptive when he's not. So they'll accuse him of being against the birth-control pill for simply discussing its societal impact, or of promoting outdated hierarchical structures ("So you're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?") just for trying to explain hierarchies through something other than a lens of marxist theory. I'm not accusing you or anyone else on this site of making this mistake, I just think this is the line of thinking many journalists follow when they go on to characterize him as some radical traditionalist.

This nytimes article reads to me like a hit piece. What little of it is quoted directly from Peterson seems to have been handpicked to portray him as either an extremist, or a lunatic (such as the parts where he talks about witches and dragons being real) and most of the article just describes the author's own interpretation of Peterson's character and views. She clearly wants to portray him as the patron saint of alt-righters, men's rights activists and other deplorables. I don't think it's grounded in reality, and I don't think Peterson should be discredited as an intellectual because of how he is presented in an article this slanted.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see any reason though to assume that he meant forced marriage.

All we can ever do is assume what someone means, and in this case I wasn't aware of the obscure anthropological meaning that he supposedly "intended."

My point is that, based on what you've linked, I'm convinced that he didn't clarify what "enforced monogamy" meant because he expected his opponents to jump all over it. And granted, this is what I was talking about by "putting his foot in his mouth." Now he reveals that he was referencing an obscure idea in anthropology and/or evolutionary biology (and some of his supporters are calling it "well-established" language, which is ridiculous).

The entire situation reeks of a public figure drawing out his opponents in order to smack them with knowledge they shouldn't have been expected to have in the first place. He's weaponizing information.

I want to chime in on this briefly. I am someone who was helped immensely by Peterson's lectures. Roughly a year ago I started watching his "Maps of Meaning" lecture series and they have been more beneficial to me than any therapist I've been able to see in person. That particular lecture series was fairly apolitical, aside from the occasional ranting about marxism, so I feel that I was introduced to him as a psychologist first and a political pundit second. Maybe that has made his more political output more palatable to me as I don't exactly align with him politically. Later on, I watched many of his other lectures and interviews including many of a more political nature, basically up until I reached a point of saturation where I felt that his every talking point was something I've heard him go over before.

My point is, I think I know his views fairly well at this point and I largely see him mischaracterized in media. I think there are legitimate grievances to be had with him; as far as I can tell, his understanding of marxism/post-modernism (and by extension, his conspiratorial ravings about an all-pervasive "post-modern marxist" agenda) is really derived entirely from one old obscure book on the subject no one considers authoritative. His calling for marxist professors to be censored is terribly dissonant with his advocacy for free speech. There are other things, too. But his critics usually seem to call him out on the wrong points. For instance, a common mistake is that they think he's being prescriptive when he's not. So they'll accuse him of being against the birth-control pill for simply discussing its societal impact, or of promoting outdated hierarchical structures ("So you're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?") just for trying to explain hierarchies through something other than a lens of marxist theory. I'm not accusing you or anyone else on this site of making this mistake, I just think this is the line of thinking many journalists follow when they go on to characterize him as some radical traditionalist.

This nytimes article reads to me like a hit piece. What little of it is quoted directly from Peterson seems to have been handpicked to portray him as either an extremist, or a lunatic (such as the parts where he talks about witches and dragons being real) and most of the article just describes the author's own interpretation of Peterson's character and views. She clearly wants to portray him as the patron saint of alt-righters, men's rights activists and other deplorables. I don't think it's grounded in reality, and I don't think Peterson should be discredited as an intellectual because of how he is presented in an article this slanted.

I appreciate this. I'm sure I link to unfair pieces about Peterson, and the NYT is likely no different. I felt that since the NYT was an interview, it was at least a bit more of Peterson's own voice coming through; and I feel like he could have been more eloquent or transparent about some of his claims. This is often my objection to him, and I know that Peterson doesn't care about being linguistically conscious. I have difficulty with that position. I don't want to attack any one person's individual response to Peterson's ideas, especially if those ideas were helpful in the past. Mostly, I just need to stop posting things about Peterson; I disagree with him, and that's that.

The following is a lengthy attempt to clarify my disputes so that no one's under the impression that I'm simply lashing out at Peterson for political reasons (because it goes well beyond politics):

When Peterson argues that hierarchies are found in nature, I balk because the very language/construction is completely contradictory to me. What we mean when we talk about hierarchies isn't--and can't be--found in nature. Hierarchies are our ways of organizing and systematizing the patterns we observe, and in human societies they also become ways of perpetuating particular behaviors and values. Hierarchies, in the sense that humans institute them, don't appear in nonhuman species because such species don't appeal to the existence of hierarchies as justification for their existence (this is part and parcel of hierarchical meaning in human societies; it's basically the linchpin of conservatism). Gazelles don't rise up in revolt against lions, beta chimps don't rebel against the alpha chimps (by which I mean, they don't organize collectively--obviously beta males do challenge alpha males individually).

I understand the point Peterson wants to make: that nonhuman species exhibit particular kinds of organized behavior, and that these behaviors have emerged in hierarchical form in human societies as well. The fact that we can trace these systems back to nonhuman species justifies their existence in human society, and their longevity throughout human history is further evidence that we shouldn't change them. I do grasp the common sense behind this claim; I just don't find it convincing on an intellectual level. It appeals to the nonhuman, or natural, as the ground (i.e. basis) for human behavior and social organization. Such an argument assumes "the human" to be largely unnatural, or descended from nature, and that we need to get back to nature, so to speak (for Peterson, this is his claim that we need to look back to ancient myths, which are somehow closer to nature). This argument assumes a myth of origins--that there's some primeval truth of natural existence that humanity has lost because we're so far from it.

The way I see it, there's nothing less natural about the way we behave today than the way dinosaurs behaved millions of years ago. There is no secret formula in ancient myths or in the behavior of nonhuman species. There are only patterns of behavior--alternatives and variations, repetitions and mutations. When we impose a hierarchical structure onto the way other animals behave, we project some natural or pre-given reason for that behavior into the distant past, as though it existed prior to the emergence of that behavior. But there are no reasons that predate behavior in any intentional or directed sense. The universe didn't have a plan for all living things when it came into existence. That's what I think, anyway. That's my (non-)myth.

If there's one positive thing I can say about Peterson, it's that he's an entertaining literary critic; but he mistakes hermeneutics (i.e. meaning-making, interpretation, a la "maps of meaning") for a code that unlocks reality. Interpretation doesn't unlock hidden meanings. It produces new meanings.

 

[Omni]

The entire enforced monogamy situation basically proves that Jordan Peterson is a hack, at least as far as politics are concerned, since the only plausible reasons why he would have used that language without clarification are that he meant it at face value or that he planned for people to misunderstand him so that he could push back on their criticisms and act like he was being misrepresented. I believe that the latter is true, which means that he is intentionally trying to exploit a situation that he caused expressly so that he would have a reason to act like his critics are unjustified.

Anyone at his level should be able to tell how such a phrase is likely to be interpreted. If he's even half as eloquent and intellectual as his most ardent followers believe, then this situation is clearly his own doing with the goal of being misinterpreted for his own gains.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Doesn't Europe generally allow prostitution? Prostitution is the solution for the args of the world in a world that doesn't frown on extramarital sex. Allowing "free love" but generally disallowing sex work is going to leave a not-insignificant number of men SOL. I'm still trying to figure out how the parents didn't "know their son to be someone like that" or whatever, when he's wearing trench coats to school and posting it on FB with cthulu and commie pins on it (if the interwebs is to be believe).

In other news: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/corporate-social-responsibility/

Moral licensing might explain inconsistency in virtue signaling behavior vs actually being a good person. Why you get a feminist calling the police on a black woman over nothing.

Wikipedia's telling me that prostitution is effectively illegal in Canada, France, Norway, Sweden, and Ireland, but legal in most other Western places. fwiw I don't disagree that prostitution probably does help reduce violence at least among some undersexed men, and off the top of my head I know there was a study indicating that rape went down over the period where prostitution in Rhode Island was legal via loophole, but I don't see it as a significant, let alone primary driver of male violence.

 

[Dak]

He's weaponizing information.

I have a mixed response on this. On the one hand, all of his material is freely available online, and one can spend weeks watching it all probably. I'm not entirely sure he ever used the term "enforced monogamy" before, but it's not like he plays things close to the vest and then springs it all out there. Anyone familiar with him knew what he meant, and anyone not familiar with him can't claim the fault lies with him for not spending time explaining what he thinks. There's even, imo, a relatively quick "saturation point", that VG noted (quicker for me probably with a psychology background).

On the other hand, if we agree with your perspective that he's setting up these journalists (and the readership) for a gotcha, I can't say I'm not sympathetic, when the interviews are almost all antagonistic. Flipping the "gotcha" on the person doing a thinly veiled smear piece probably does provide him some enjoyment. Just as an anecdote as to how this is a bipartisan sympathy of mine, I was amused watching an old Firing Line with Saul Alinsky, specifically at Alinsky knocking Buckley out of his smug reclining position at least once.

When Peterson argues that hierarchies are found in nature, I balk because the very language/construction is completely contradictory to me. What we mean when we talk about hierarchies isn't--and can't be--found in nature. Hierarchies are our ways of organizing and systematizing the patterns we observe, and in human societies they also become ways of perpetuating particular behaviors and values. Hierarchies, in the sense that humans institute them, don't appear in nonhuman species because such species don't appeal to the existence of hierarchies as justification for their existence (this is part and parcel of hierarchical meaning in human societies; it's basically the linchpin of conservatism). Gazelles don't rise up in revolt against lions, beta chimps don't rebel against the alpha chimps (by which I mean, they don't organize collectively--obviously beta males do challenge alpha males individually).

I understand the point Peterson wants to make: that nonhuman species exhibit particular kinds of organized behavior, and that these behaviors have emerged in hierarchical form in human societies as well. The fact that we can trace these systems back to nonhuman species justifies their existence in human society, and their longevity throughout human history is further evidence that we shouldn't change them. I do grasp the common sense behind this claim; I just don't find it convincing on an intellectual level. It appeals to the nonhuman, or natural, as the ground (i.e. basis) for human behavior and social organization. Such an argument assumes "the human" to be largely unnatural, or descended from nature, and that we need to get back to nature, so to speak (for Peterson, this is his claim that we need to look back to ancient myths, which are somehow closer to nature). This argument assumes a myth of origins--that there's some primeval truth of natural existence that humanity has lost because we're so far from it.

The way I see it, there's nothing less natural about the way we behave today than the way dinosaurs behaved millions of years ago. There is no secret formula in ancient myths or in the behavior of nonhuman species. There are only patterns of behavior--alternatives and variations, repetitions and mutations. When we impose a hierarchical structure onto the way other animals behave, we project some natural or pre-given reason for that behavior into the distant past, as though it existed prior to the emergence of that behavior. But there are no reasons that predate behavior in any intentional or directed sense. The universe didn't have a plan for all living things when it came into existence. That's what I think, anyway. That's my (non-)myth.

If there's one positive thing I can say about Peterson, it's that he's an entertaining literary critic; but he mistakes hermeneutics (i.e. meaning-making, interpretation, a la "maps of meaning") for a code that unlocks reality. Interpretation doesn't unlock hidden meanings. It produces new meanings.

I can agree that appealing to lobsters, while it's made for some meme-material, probably has hurt more than helped, for some of the reasons you just mentioned, and some other more technical ones. With what you're taking issue with more generally though, you're mostly arguing with Jung, and Peterson is a just a contemporary disciple. The degree to which you disagree that there are things like archetypes in the subconscious, or that there are persistent patterns of behavior in accordance with some sort of biological foundation which we may lack the theory or instrumentation to capture, you're not going to find anything interesting in Peterson's broader social positions. I do think there are, broadly, potential norms which larger groups of people will operate best within. But of course there will be minorities and that is where the rub is for liberals in this day and age (and the reality would be the minorities of various types will exist anyway, no matter how society contorts and changes norms and language). As I've also already said, to the degree to which you don't experience clinical levels of anxiety or depression, or even a simple lack of direction or inspiration in life, you're not a Bucko who needs to clean his (or her) room.

The entire enforced monogamy situation basically proves that Jordan Peterson is a hack, at least as far as politics are concerned, since the only plausible reasons why he would have used that language without clarification are that he meant it at face value or that he planned for people to misunderstand him so that he could push back on their criticisms and act like he was being misrepresented. I believe that the latter is true, which means that he is intentionally trying to exploit a situation that he caused expressly so that he would have a reason to act like his critics are unjustified.

Anyone at his level should be able to tell how such a phrase is likely to be interpreted. If he's even half as eloquent and intellectual as his most ardent followers believe, then this situation is clearly his own doing with the goal of being misinterpreted for his own gains.

Monogamy =/= marriage. Subconsciously substituting one for the other is your (and others) fault, not his.That he could have been verbosely explicit doesn't absolve one for substituting meanings.

Wikipedia's telling me that prostitution is effectively illegal in Canada, France, Norway, Sweden, and Ireland, but legal in most other Western places. fwiw I don't disagree that prostitution probably does help reduce violence at least among some undersexed men, and off the top of my head I know there was a study indicating that rape went down over the period where prostitution in Rhode Island was legal via loophole, but I don't see it as a significant, let alone primary driver of male violence.

So what's your assertion? I'll agree that it's not explicitly the primary driver of all male violence. However, traditional norms on family responsibility were at least a partial check against it.

 

[Omni]

Monogamy =/= marriage. Subconsciously substituting one for the other is your (and others) fault, not his.That he could have been verbosely explicit doesn't absolve one for substituting meanings.

1. Where are you deriving the conclusion that I misinterpreted his words? Read my post if you want to actually pass as even remotely in this debate.

2. As far as monogamy goes, the most common usage, the primary definition according to all credible resources, the word's original meaning and the root words that the term is derived from all refer to marriage.

As a professional speaker (and supposedly a psychologist), Kermit the Frog would obviously be aware of these things. He made a decision not to clarify himself, probably with the intent of being mosunderstood so that he could raise an objection to it. Deny it if you want, but it's as plain as day that he went out of his way to use uncommon terminology without clarifying what he meant until afterwards.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So what's your assertion? I'll agree that it's not explicitly the primary driver of all male violence. However, traditional norms on family responsibility were at least a partial check against it.

I'd argue that the institution of marriage has much more value socially-speaking as an instrument of stable households and preventing children from going native. Men commit the vast majority of violence no matter the social status quo, and often a huge chunk of that violence takes form in spousal abuse. Strong social pressures of monogamy and marriage don't prevent violence against women, they just regulate it and, through much of history, legalize it, treating it as a necessary evil so that women continue their motherly duties. Violence and homicide rates fluctuate significantly through history and I've never seen an argument (let alone a compelling one) that "violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners" or that "monogamy emerges [because violent men are] angry". The fact that violence has been on a gradual 200+ year decline with a few bumps and dips here and there would seem to indicate that free love doesn't have much to do with it. Is it the reason one incel goes on a killing spree every five years or so? Sure, but that doesn't make it a social problem, let alone one which needs to be addressed with ancient solutions to a problem already solved. It's a problem of a tiny minority of losers and the solution is probably better policing of places like /r9k/.