If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

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/.

You might find this an interesting read by an anthropology student at UC Davis.

http://quillette.com/2018/02/24/behavioral-ecology-male-violence/

However, when looking at the most common causes of lethal conflict across cultures, we can see a clear relationship between a male’s fitness interests and killings. Homicide often occurs in the context of revenge, fights over status, and sexual jealousy.25 Competition for territory and resources also plays a strong role, particularly in the context of coalitionary killings, such as in gang violence and warfare. Cross-culturally, revenge often occurs in the context of seeking vengeance for a relative that was killed, which may act to deter future attacks on the killer’s relatives, and thus increase his inclusive fitness. Revenge is also often related to fights over status against rival males. Furthermore, having high-status and being able to control desired territory and resources can often increase a male’s reproductive success, through mechanisms beyond just force, such as female choice, or by being a preferred partner in marriages arranged by a potential wife’s parents.26

As for homicide due to sexual jealousy, this often occurs in the context of the (real or perceived) threat of infidelity.27 This might be a male killing his wife’s lover, or his wife, out of a belief that she is cheating, or fears that she will leave him.

As these patterns indicate, male violence in humans often occurs in contexts where a man’s reproductive success is threatened, or where he may derive greater reproductive success from engaging in violence. Due to our evolutionary history, even in modern contexts where specific violent behaviors may not be fitness maximizing, such as in an armed robbery or gang violence, we can consider these behaviors to be, in part, a byproduct of a greater propensity among males to aggressively pursue status and gain resources in ways that would have increased their reproductive success in the past.28

 

[Omni]

The root of the word does relate to marriage. But enforcement of marriage isn't forced marriage, and doesn't have a root in the state as we conceive it, and currently usage has been separated from marriage to strictly sexual relations. Which, if you want, could be support for your claim he was using language which could easily be interpreted in a way in which he could claim he didn't mean it. But again, that merely shows your leaning rather than his in jumping to assume the worst about someone you haven't bothered to investigate in any real way otherwise. The correct response to something you weren't sure of as to the meaning, in an intellectually curious fashion is to go "That's an odd turn of phrase, I wonder what he meant by that" and get clarification. Not what you and the twitterverse et al just did.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/



But you aren't interested in reading what he has to say or listening for clarification, only complaining when the snippet that slips across your social media feed isn't in precisely in the verbage you would like, and that he bothers to clarify it is more proof that he was acting in bad faith to begin with.

I actually did wait for him to clarify what he meant before commenting about it here or anywhere else. Please stop lying in order to advance your argument by claiming that I did otherwise. You are clearly very incorrect in your assertions and I find it hard to believe that it's not deliberate exaggeration of my behavior since, while I tend to find you fairly ridiculous at times, you are not that stupid.

My criticism of him is solely due to the fact that he is a professional speaker who made a comment using uncommon terminology that was obviously going to be taken a certain way and offered a very well-crafted explanation only after he was misinterpreted, despite it being misinterpreted being an obvious outcome for anyone who has even a modicum of foresight. I feel that he did this purposefully.

Interestingly enough, you keep claiming that I said or felt things about his statement that are unrelated to my sole criticism of this situation.

 

[Einherjar86]

With what you're taking issue with more generally though, you're mostly arguing with Jung, and Peterson is a just a contemporary disciple.

Seeing as Freud's ideas are considered subpar for contemporary psychological standards, I can't imagine that Jung represents a higher standard of practice. Do psychologists really take seriously people who call themselves "Jungians"?

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.

Do we need absolution? Have we trespassed for reacting a certain way? You talk of meaning like it can be managed (which I assume Peterson believes too), but that's neither reasonable nor realistic. When the general sentiment is that women are better off when they're married, and that they're whiny, thankless witches for complaining about the state of marriage, then I'll go so far as to say I don't care if there is some obscure anthropological consensus on "enforced monogamy." Even if Peterson is claiming that that's what he meant, it isn't the only meaning at play here. Another one is that men and women should be married; and another one is that some degree of institutional "redistribution of sex" (to borrow the interviewer's language, not Peterson's) is necessary for a society to maintain stability of marriage.

I piss people off with claims like this because I'm suggesting something is at play in Peterson's language despite the fact that he's not explicit about it. But that's how meaning works. Peterson's not some pinnacle of meta-semantic wizardry who's in control of the language he uses. Whether he weaponizes information or not, whether he sets the trap or not--he's completely misguided about how meaning works, which is too bad for a guy who wrote a book called Maps of Meaning.

I quote Cavell:

What needs to be argued now is that something does follow from the fact that a term is used in its usual way: it entitles you (or, using the term, you entitle others) to make certain inferences, draw certain conclusions. (This is part of what you say when you say that you are talking about the logic of ordinary language.) Learning what these implications are is part of learning the language; no less a part than learning its syntax, or learning what it is to which terms apply: they are an essential part of what we communicate when we talk. Intimate understanding is understanding which is implicit. Nor could everything we say (mean to communicate), in normal communication, be said explicitly--otherwise the only threat to communication would be acoustical. We are, therefore, exactly as responsible for the specific implications of our utterances as we are for their explicit factual claims.

 

[Dak]

I actually did wait for him to clarify what he meant before commenting about it here or anywhere else. Please stop lying in order to advance your argument by claiming that I did otherwise. You are clearly very incorrect in your assertions and I find it hard to believe that it's not deliberate exaggeration of my behavior since, while I tend to find you fairly ridiculous at times, you are not that stupid.

My criticism of him is solely due to the fact that he is a professional speaker who made a comment using uncommon terminology that was obviously going to be taken a certain way and offered a very well-crafted explanation only after he was misinterpreted, despite it being misinterpreted being an obvious outcome for anyone who has even a modicum of foresight. I feel that he did this purposefully.

Interestingly enough, you keep claiming that I said or felt things about his statement that are unrelated to my sole criticism of this situation.

You (claim you) waited for clarification before commenting. Assuming that is true (that you specifically heard of the quote, then waited for him to clarify it), that doesn't mean you didn't assume the negative interpretation. Would you have been happy if he meant something other than forced marriage? No. So what we have is a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. You're making the implicit argument Peterson must bend over backwards to try and correct the perspective of a smear piece. I'd counter "Why waste the effort?" He's quite verbose in his speeches and lectures and whatnot. You could have gone there.

Seeing as Freud's ideas are considered subpar for contemporary psychological standards, I can't imagine that Jung represents a higher standard of practice. Do psychologists really take seriously people who call themselves "Jungians"?

Not really, which is why it doesn't enter into his published work that I know of. Obviously this is because it's not testable. It falls in the philosophical realm moreso than the psychological realm in that sense. Of course, this doesn't stop a not-insignificant amount of Yankees from utilizing the psychoanalytic services which cluster around NYC, at least if I am recalling correctly. To be fair,, "common factors" theory and research has asserted psychoanalytic therapy has equivalent long term outcomes for common mental health issues like depression or anxiety, and potentially PTSD at least. However, it does not have better short term outcomes, with psychoanalytic therapy often requiring years, as opposed to a 12-16 week course which is typical of CBT and related approaches.

Do we need absolution? Have we trespassed for reacting a certain way? You talk of meaning like it can be managed (which I assume Peterson believes too), but that's neither reasonable nor realistic. When the general sentiment is that women are better off when they're married, and that they're whiny, thankless witches for complaining about the state of marriage, then I'll go so far as to say I don't care if there is some obscure anthropological consensus on "enforced monogamy." Even if Peterson is claiming that that's what he meant, it isn't the only meaning at play here. Another one is that men and women should be married; and another one is that some degree of institutional "redistribution of sex" (to borrow the interviewer's language, not Peterson's) is necessary for a society to maintain stability of marriage.

I piss people off with claims like this because I'm suggesting something is at play in Peterson's language despite the fact that he's not explicit about it. But that's how meaning works. Peterson's not some pinnacle of meta-semantic wizardry who's in control of the language he uses. Whether he weaponizes information or not, whether he sets the trap or not--he's completely misguided about how meaning works, which is too bad for a guy who wrote a book called Maps of Meaning.
I quote Cavell:

Well, I operate in environments where meaning is at least more managed, although not entirely, so I have to remember that. That's obviously not the broad social situation. Similar to my comment about Trump and Peterson revealing some religious like preferences, what we're seeing in the taken meaning of words or phrases are implicit value structures (religious-ish) and assumptions. Rather than "dog whistle" claims, I mean that these aren't one sided hints, but words or phrases that can conversely sooth or enrage, with a lack of complete consistency in a purely logical sense. Say redistribution and conservatives start to scowl, "of international trade" after and they perk up. Say redistribution and liberals perk up, "of sex" on the end and the proverbial knives come out. Peterson could have clarified (and did) what he meant, and it didn't lessen in antipathy for his position. Even if someone opposed engaging in gotcha tactics (like Omni or you suggested), you stated above you aren't happy about his clarified position, and I have no reason to believe Omni is either. That's the real discussion, and getting upset about his ripostes with antagostic journalists and those who take them seriously isn't treating with the issue or why he has the sway that he does. It's not merely that he gets a rise, but more importantly why - whether a good or bad rise.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You might find this an interesting read by an anthropology student at UC Davis.

http://quillette.com/2018/02/24/behavioral-ecology-male-violence/

I don't really disagree with that portion or anything else in the article, but it's not really enough to defend Peterson's claim. There's no doubt that reproduction is the defining event that animals compete over alongside food/water, and no doubt that males compete in a usually-violent way. That doesn't prove, for example:

1) that sexual satisfaction is lacking in men (porn and masturbation substitute fine for many)
2) that a significant number of sexually unsatisfied men resort to violence (for the animal angle, look at any defeated male in sexual competition: they simply become insignificant members of the herd/pack and die without offspring; for the human angle, look at any statistics indicating that violent men often have more children than non-violent men, indicating that cause and effect are reversed)
3) that marriage was instituted to provide sexual satisfaction for more men for the purpose of reducing crime (when there are plenty of other factors like the development of more complex societal roles to better aid in war vs manufacturing, as well as the role of religion)

 

[Dak]

I don't really disagree with that portion or anything else in the article, but it's not really enough to defend Peterson's claim. There's no doubt that reproduction is the defining event that animals compete over alongside food/water, and no doubt that males compete in a usually-violent way. That doesn't prove, for example:

1) that sexual satisfaction is lacking in men (porn and masturbation substitute fine for many)
2) that a significant number of sexually unsatisfied men resort to violence (for the animal angle, look at any defeated male in sexual competition: they simply become insignificant members of the herd/pack and die without offspring; for the human angle, look at any statistics indicating that violent men often have more children than non-violent men, indicating that cause and effect are reversed)
3) that marriage was instituted to provide sexual satisfaction for more men for the purpose of reducing crime (when there are plenty of other factors like the development of more complex societal roles to better aid in war vs manufacturing, as well as the role of religion)

I think those are superficially reasonable counter arguments, but that they don't hold up under scrutiny. First of all, that violent men have more children is an issue which traditional monogamy was, at least in part, trying to contain. Violence involves an expenditure of energy, and successful violence (until recent times with equilizers or maximizers like guns) required power which was more socially useful in productive capacity (outside of war contexts). Furthermore, limiting violent/powerful males to one woman, even if the "top" sort, allows for more equitable sorting. This somewhat addresses 2 and 3.

1 is probably reasonable insofar as we don't have thousands of instances of incel violence, and VR and sexbot technology would probably only enhance this. However, while this might help prevent violence, it's not a broad prosocial or prospecies solution, and doesn't get at the human connection, commitment, or "romance". Again, while polygyny isn't something feminists explicitly endorse, heterosexual feminists promote the sexual equivalent. 100% of women competing for 20% of the men (hattip to dating surveys; although really only about 40% have a reasonable shot at a pumpndump from that 20%, and about 5% have a shot at locking the guy down). That realtalk is abrasive but it's a dynamic taking place across dating apps, bars, universities, etc as we speak. Pumpndump also describes the exact same act as a "empowering consensual one-night-stand", or whatever. Perspective. Values. Meaning. Romantically (or maybe specifically just sexually) unfulfilled men who aren't content with porn or masturbation can erupt in violence in highschool or at college. Romantically (or maybe specifically just sexually)unfulfilled women who aren't content with porn or masturbation erupt on twitter, HuffPo, or whatever. Or they sexually prey on highschool boys. I've lost count of the highschool female teacher predators lately.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're treating humans like cheetahs which have 30 seconds to catch that gazelle before they suffer exhaustion and increased risk of starvation. Food was of course not as abundant at any time in the past as it is now, but for human men beginning their sexual primes, it wasn't really a huge issue outside of famines afaik, once the agricultural revolution began. Societies grew relatively slowly and sustainably thanks to high child mortality rates, there was a lot more land to divide between families, and there were higher degrees of self-sufficiency necessitated by the short distances one could reasonable move their crops without spoilage. If Gallus wanted to fuck Aelia and had to fuck Titus up in order to do so, it wasn't difficult to lick his wounds when beaten and try again later. Those videos of penguins gouging out each others eyes during the one month of the year where they get horny, though? It's all or nothing. The time scale in which human males may hone their violence is orders of magnitude greater than that of many animals, not to mention the capacity of learning how to do so.

Repeating that traditional monogamy "tried" to do anything doesn't make it so. Defend that claim. You've consistently ignored other societal advantages I've previously mentioned of the implementation of such a system. Further, you completely missed the point I was making. That you can believe traditional monogamy was a system of reducing sex-driven male violence, while also acknowledging that it doesn't in practice stop sex-driven men from committing violence, is a pretty obvious hole in your logic. The more obvious explanation is that human individuals are rather diverse in their behaviors, significantly owing to biological reasons, and that willingness to compete is associated with traits as diverse as extroversion, tolerance for violence, and desire for sex/pleasure. How did society ever get off the ground if all it takes is an angry unsexed male majority to thrive in numbers and kill their sexually-successful superiors in order to gain access to women? There are far too many social inputs that govern human behavior, and those that do have a natural predilection towards sex-motivated violence are going to do it no matter the system (and the real solution to that problem is execution, something that we know has been applied to violent criminals for many millennia).

Define the need for a "broad prosocial or prospecies solution", as well as the social problem requiring a solution. What makes pornography not a social solution? It exists in and is a part of our society. It undoubtedly solves some kind of problem for a significant portion of our society. I don't know what you mean by species either; is there evidence of this . Dating app statistics are meaningless; obviously young women have greater access to sex than young men, owing to young men being more sexually-driven than young women, and programs which exist purely to satiate an urge for quick sexual relationships are going to show that bias. At the same time, in practice, most men and women alike have no problem finding sex. Half lose their virginity before graduating high school, ~90% lose it before graduating college (or reaching the equivalent age). Polyamory is extremely common on college campuses. iirc, the recent uptick in male virginity started a fair bit after the sexual revolution, and if anything is probably more caused by easier access to sexual outlets like porn, which are cheaper than sex both financially and socially, and allow men that prioritize other biological impulses (e.g. accumulation of resources, something associated with sexlessness when it reaches the stage of hoarding). In the long run, regarding any broad social/demographic issues, most young women eventually feel maternal urges grow and find some man to settle with so it's a moot point anyways.

 

[Einherjar86]

Rather than "dog whistle" claims, I mean that these aren't one sided hints, but words or phrases that can conversely sooth or enrage, with a lack of complete consistency in a purely logical sense. Say redistribution and conservatives start to scowl, "of international trade" after and they perk up. Say redistribution and liberals perk up, "of sex" on the end and the proverbial knives come out.

This may be so, but it's not inconsistency. Redistributing funds is not the same thing as redistributing sex; accusing someone of inconsistency because they maybe support redistribution of funds but not sex is a false equivalency. Simply repeating the word "redistribution" doesn't magically make these two things analogous.

Peterson could have clarified (and did) what he meant, and it didn't lessen in antipathy for his position.

Right, because as I've already said--the meaning is still there. There's nothing he can do about that now.

 

[Dak]

You're treating humans like cheetahs which have 30 seconds to catch that gazelle before they suffer exhaustion and increased risk of starvation. Food was of course not as abundant at any time in the past as it is now, but for human men beginning their sexual primes, it wasn't really a huge issue outside of famines afaik, once the agricultural revolution began.

Why are we talking about food availability now? Otherwise you're talking about time preference or more generally conscientiousness. I wouldn't be surprised to find incels to be low in that department. But this still seems to be quite the aside.

Repeating that traditional monogamy "tried" to do anything doesn't make it so. Defend that claim. You've consistently ignored other societal advantages I've previously mentioned of the implementation of such a system. Further, you completely missed the point I was making. That you can believe traditional monogamy was a system of reducing sex-driven male violence, while also acknowledging that it doesn't in practice stop sex-driven men from committing violence, is a pretty obvious hole in your logic. The more obvious explanation is that human individuals are rather diverse in their behaviors, significantly owing to biological reasons, and that willingness to compete is associated with traits as diverse as extroversion, tolerance for violence, and desire for sex/pleasure. How did society ever get off the ground if all it takes is an angry unsexed male majority to thrive in numbers and kill their sexually-successful superiors in order to gain access to women? There are far too many social inputs that govern human behavior, and those that do have a natural predilection towards sex-motivated violence are going to do it no matter the system (and the real solution to that problem is execution, something that we know has been applied to violent criminals for many millennia).

What I see you doing here is demanding that this motivation be reponsible for 100% of the norm development, and be 100% effective. It's a nice argumentative ploy, but that's not how these things work. I agree that there are other inputs. That's not an argument against it. Up until relatively recent history (and currently even depending on the lack of western norms), the less sex or unsexed angry males were allowed rape as a normal course of behavior in war. The idea is to reduce the intracommunal threat in either case. Piggybacking off the article I linked, there's a reason for most violence coming from males between the ages of approximately 15-35, and don't just respond with "duh Testosterone". Sure, that's a biological driver, or input. And what other behaviors does this biological input contribute to?

Define the need for a "broad prosocial or prospecies solution", as well as the social problem requiring a solution. What makes pornography not a social solution? It exists in and is a part of our society. It undoubtedly solves some kind of problem for a significant portion of our society. I don't know what you mean by species either; is there evidence of this . Dating app statistics are meaningless; obviously young women have greater access to sex than young men, owing to young men being more sexually-driven than young women, and programs which exist purely to satiate an urge for quick sexual relationships are going to show that bias. At the same time, in practice, most men and women alike have no problem finding sex. Half lose their virginity before graduating high school, ~90% lose it before graduating college (or reaching the equivalent age). Polyamory is extremely common on college campuses. iirc, the recent uptick in male virginity started a fair bit after the sexual revolution, and if anything is probably more caused by easier access to sexual outlets like porn, which are cheaper than sex both financially and socially, and allow men that prioritize other biological impulses (e.g. accumulation of resources, something associated with sexlessness when it reaches the stage of hoarding). In the long run, regarding any broad social/demographic issues, most young women eventually feel maternal urges grow and find some man to settle with so it's a moot point anyways.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We have all of these is's so who needs an ought? Virginity is actually on the uptick for men and women that last I looked. So what?

This may be so, but it's not inconsistency. Redistributing funds is not the same thing as redistributing sex; accusing someone of inconsistency because they maybe support redistribution of funds but not sex is a false equivalency. Simply repeating the word "redistribution" doesn't magically make these two things analogous.

I could easily analogize these things. Not that I'm saying that they should be, but there are enough commonalities to be found that the screeching in either direction says more about the inability of the opponents to understand the words used than respective moral failings.

Right, because as I've already said--the meaning is still there. There's nothing he can do about that now.

Maybe so, but my point remains that the attack on using that language is misguided. In addition to my other comments, why does he not have the right to advance other meanings? The NYT has et al have been advancing questionable meanings of words like "Fascist" for some time now.

 

[Einherjar86]

I could easily analogize these things. Not that I'm saying that they should be, but there are enough commonalities to be found that the screeching in either direction says more about the inability of the opponents to understand the words used than respective moral failings.

Well, aren't you special?

I'm sure you could analogize them to the extent that an analogy is a figure of speech, a metaphor; but in fact we'll quickly discover that there are differences between redistributing money and redistributing sex that demand philosophical distinctions (logical and ethical).

Maybe so, but my point remains that the attack on using that language is misguided. In addition to my other comments, why does he not have the right to advance other meanings? The NYT has et al have been advancing questionable meanings of words like "Fascist" for some time now.

A couple responses, and some confusion:

1. How is a critique of language misguided when what is being critiqued is Peterson's inarticulate and fairly superficial use of language?

2. What other meaning is he "advancing"? As far as I can tell, he's not advancing anything since he's not really in control of the meaning of his words.

2a. He is saying that enforced monogamy means something specific, but he's not advancing a meaning since, for his intents and purposes, that specific meaning is the meaning of the term.

2b. He has every right to say what he's saying, but he doesn't have the right to mean only what he says he means.

 

[Omni]

You (claim you) waited for clarification before commenting. Assuming that is true (that you specifically heard of the quote, then waited for him to clarify it), that doesn't mean you didn't assume the negative interpretation. Would you have been happy if he meant something other than forced marriage? No. So what we have is a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. You're making the implicit argument Peterson must bend over backwards to try and correct the perspective of a smear piece. I'd counter "Why waste the effort?" He's quite verbose in his speeches and lectures and whatnot. You could have gone there.

I wasn't even aware of the issue until after he had already offered an explanation of his commentary. I don't really have any issues with Peterson other than finding him relatively overrated and undeserving of the attention and accolades that he receives. Even so, I've not commented in any way shape or form about having an issue with what he said at all, despite your repetitive attempts to pin viewpoints on me throughout the discussion and your explicit (and false) claims that I misinterpreted him and attacked him because I didn't understand what he said.

As a professional speaker, I expect him to adequately anticipate how comments that he makes in an interview will likely be understood and clarify them at the time. He is clearly capable of doing this. The fact that he did not do so until later makes me feel that he was behaving in an opportunistic fashion in order to gain attention and please his supporters. You can disagree with me if you want.

The Federalist article that you linked in support of your viewpoints even says that it is not unreasonable to expect that he should have explained his commentary at the time rather than retroactively doing so.

Please refrain from falsely accusing me of being offended by overrated old men who can't even explain what they're talking about half the time without referencing fairy tales. I merely feel that he is an overrated speaker who chose not to clarify himself so that he could exploit the situation later.

If you actually read my first post here, you'll see that I said in the first place. You projected a bunch of anti-Jordan Peterson viewpoints onto me because you can't talk to multiple people at once without losing focus. I'm not Ein. Don't confuse me with him.

 

[Dak]

Well, aren't you special?

I'm sure you could analogize them to the extent that an analogy is a figure of speech, a metaphor; but in fact we'll quickly discover that there are differences between redistributing money and redistributing sex that demand philosophical distinctions (logical and ethical).

You too easily assume that it's easy to demonstrate it's ethical to redistribute money but not sex.

A couple responses, and some confusion:

1. How is a critique of language misguided when what is being critiqued is Peterson's inarticulate and fairly superficial use of language?

2. What other meaning is he "advancing"? As far as I can tell, he's not advancing anything since he's not really in control of the meaning of his words.

2a. He is saying that enforced monogamy means something specific, but he's not advancing a meaning since, for his intents and purposes, that specific meaning is the meaning of the term.

2b. He has every right to say what he's saying, but he doesn't have the right to mean only what he says he means.

Isn't meaning created and spread by usage? So by taking a particular usage, and clarifying it, is doing the same thing as anyone else with language, which advances a meaning either implicitly or explicitly (if one were to state "I want to advance this meaning"). It appears he overstepped saying it was "common usage", but guess what - he begins to make it so by entering it into the public eye. Point 2b makes zero sense to me. You can mean what you want; one has no control over the infinity of potential subjective interpretations.

I wasn't even aware of the issue until after he had already offered an explanation of his commentary. I don't really have any issues with Peterson other than finding him relatively overrated and undeserving of the attention and accolades that he receives. Even so, I've not commented in any way shape or form about having an issue with what he said at all, despite your repetitive attempts to pin viewpoints on me throughout the discussion and your explicit (and false) claims that I misinterpreted him and attacked him because I didn't understand what he said.

As a professional speaker, I expect him to adequately anticipate how comments that he makes in an interview will likely be understood and clarify them at the time. He is clearly capable of doing this. The fact that he did not do so until later makes me feel that he was behaving in an opportunistic fashion in order to gain attention and please his supporters. You can disagree with me if you want.

The Federalist article that you linked in support of your viewpoints even says that it is not unreasonable to expect that he should have explained his commentary at the time rather than retroactively doing so.

Please refrain from falsely accusing me of being offended by overrated old men who can't even explain what they're talking about half the time without referencing fairy tales. I merely feel that he is an overrated speaker who chose not to clarify himself so that he could exploit the situation later.

If you actually read my first post here, you'll see that I said in the first place. You projected a bunch of anti-Jordan Peterson viewpoints onto me because you can't talk to multiple people at once without losing focus. I'm not Ein. Don't confuse me with him.

Three points I see to respond to here:

1. JP is overrated.

I didn't know his "rating" was a topic here. Where I would "rate" him is certainly lower than the people that line up to see him in person or donate to his patreon. But based on all of the testimonials out there, and his 12 Rules sales, he's helping out a substantial number of people, regardless of his other faults.

2. JP should have clarified himself at the time, and chose not to for the reactions from his base.
3. I'm mistaking you for Ein/I'm pinning viewpoints on you that don't apply.

These two kind of go together.

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.

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.

So you both had a similar issue with his choice of language. Pardon me for assuming you would have been happy had he explicitly clarified either meaning up front. If you can state that you would have been, or at least would have been neutral on those positions (either forced marriage or socially normative monogamous marriage), I'll concede being way off base about you.

I'll submit (again) that if he chose his language for its potential ambiguity it was to rile his antagonists, not excite his base. I don't see anything anti-intellectual in that given the context. At least there's a legitimate point in criticizing him for claiming it's a common term or whatever in anthropology.

On a totally different subject: Taleb & Caplan on education. Closing statement by Taleb:

https://medium.com/conversations-wi...r-cowen-higher-education-college-fc4b845fe30e

The problem is, as society got rich, everybody wanted to reach education by imitating the aristocrats, with the illusion that it’s going to help them get rich.

When in fact, it’s the kind of thing you do when you’re already rich. This is where Alison Wolf and Richard come in to discover that these educational things are effectively the product of societies that are rich and definitely not causative to wealth.

 

[Einherjar86]

Point 2b makes zero sense to me. You can mean what you want; one has no control over the infinity of potential subjective interpretations.

You can intend whatever you want. But as I've repeated many times, your intentions aren't your meanings. We often say "that isn't what I meant"; but the actual meaning here is "that isn't what I intended." What you mean isn't yours--it never is.

Case in point:

You too easily assume that it's easy to demonstrate it's ethical to redistribute money but not sex.

This isn't what I intended, but clearly it's a meaning you've intuited. And even if I clarify what I intended, it's unlikely you'll be able to see past this meaning given that you find its traces in the combination of words I chose.

Isn't meaning created and spread by usage? So by taking a particular usage, and clarifying it, is doing the same thing as anyone else with language, which advances a meaning either implicitly or explicitly (if one were to state "I want to advance this meaning"). It appears he overstepped saying it was "common usage", but guess what - he begins to make it so by entering it into the public eye.

Ah, I see. Yes, he's advancing a particular meaning; but seeing as he also obscured his meaning in suggestive language, it's likely that he's also tainted the term to which he wants to apply meaning. Too crafty for his own good, perhaps?

 

[Dak]

You can intend whatever you want. But as I've repeated many times, your intentions aren't your meanings. We often say "that isn't what I meant"; but the actual meaning here is "that isn't what I intended." What you mean isn't yours--it never is.

Case in point:

This isn't what I intended, but clearly it's a meaning you've intuited. And even if I clarify what I intended, it's unlikely you'll be able to see past this meaning given that you find its traces in the combination of words I chose.

Fair criticism, but also to be fair, we've gone round enough on the redistribution of money subject enough I don't feel I'm too off base on the way at least half of it would go.

Ah, I see. Yes, he's advancing a particular meaning; but seeing as he also obscured his meaning in suggestive language, it's likely that he's also tainted the term to which he wants to apply meaning. Too crafty for his own good, perhaps?

Well I would rather he stop giving interviews to plainly antagonistic outlets, because I think he's playing a losing game, perhaps for or by being "too crafty". It doesn't really reach his base if you will, and even were he articulate as possible, it wouldn't change perspectives. I think this is at least one reason the more "respectable" cultural critics in a less progressive direction don't do these sorts of interviews.

At a minimum it would make it easier to defend his beneficial mass psychological practice, which of course has been thrown under the bus for helping "white males". The horror.

 

[Omni]

@Dak

I am neutral towards Jordan Peterson's viewpoints, because he is entitled to have and express any views that he wants to have and I don't find him relatable or problematic so he doesn't concern me one way or the other. I'm neither offended nor threatened by the term "enforced monogamy" in either the literal sense or the sense that he was seemingly using it in based on his clarification. I'm also not offended by any of his other viewpoints or statements and I don't think that he should be censored, silenced or labeled as a malefactor or a bigot.

He still failed as a professional speaker in my eyes, as it is far from unreasonable to expect him to clarify uncommon terminology or at least specify the source from which he drew this terminology in the interest of making his viewpoint transparent. If he is truly trying to spread a specific message, he should always endeavor to make sure that the message is clear.


This particular nuggest warrants a specific reply from me:

I'll submit (again) that if he chose his language for its potential ambiguity it was to rile his antagonists, not excite his base.

This is exactly what I think that he is doing, with the end goal being that he draws further attention to himself and also adds credibility to the fact that he can take on mainstream news organizations. The former helps him in that he greatly benefits from increased exposure and the latter benefits him in that he will look good to people who are already supporting him.

I've not once stated that I believe he intended to appeal to incels with his choice of terminology.

 

[Dak]

@Dak

I am neutral towards Jordan Peterson's viewpoints, because he is entitled to have and express any views that he wants to have and I don't find him relatable or problematic so he doesn't concern me one way or the other. I'm neither offended nor threatened by the term "enforced monogamy" in either the literal sense or the sense that he was seemingly using it in based on his clarification. I'm also not offended by any of his other viewpoints or statements and I don't think that he should be censored, silenced or labeled as a malefactor or a bigot.

Fair enough. Apologies.

He still failed as a professional speaker in my eyes, as it is far from unreasonable to expect him to clarify uncommon terminology or at least specify the source from which he drew this terminology in the interest of making his viewpoint transparent. If he is truly trying to spread a specific message, he should always endeavor to make sure that the message is clear.

This is exactly what I think that he is doing, with the end goal being that he draws further attention to himself and also adds credibility to the fact that he can take on mainstream news organizations. The former helps him in that he greatly benefits from increased exposure and the latter benefits him in that he will look good to people who are already supporting him.

I've not once stated that I believe he intended to appeal to incels with his choice of terminology.

Are you familiar with the concept of the Overton Window?

 

[Omni]

Yes, I am familiar with the Overton Window.

 

[Dak]

Yes, I am familiar with the Overton Window.

Sorry I missed this reply, and it's been a week so I won't be surprised if you're done. I mentioned the Overton Window as a point that it takes saying marginally acceptable things to shift the window.

 

[Dak]

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/randomistas-taught-toms.html

After a visit to Argentina businessman Blake Mycoskie decided he wanted to do something about the lack of decent footwear in developing nations. A talented entrepreneur, Mycoskie had founded and sold four companies by his thirtieth birthday. Now he was affected by the poverty he saw in villages outside Buenos Aires”…”I saw the real effects of being shoeless: the blisters, the sores, the infections.”

To provide shows to those children, Mycoskie founded ‘Shoes for Better Tomorrows’, which was soon shortened to TOMS. The company made its customers a one-for-one promise: buy a pair of shoes and TOMS will donate a pair to a need child. Since 2006, TOMS has given away 60 million pairs of shoes.
........
Six years in, Mycoskie and his team wanted to know what impact TOMS was having, so they made the brave decision to let economists randomize shoe distribution across eighteen communities in El Salvador…
.......
Difference-in-difference and ANCOVA estimates find generally insignificant impacts on overall health, foot health, and self-esteem but small positive impacts on school attendance for boys. Children receiving the shoes were significantly more likely to state that outsiders should provide for the needs of their family.

Surprise surprise surprise.

 

[The Ozzman]

Gibsmedat, America. Come help us while we trash your country in news outlets.