If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[Dak]

https://qz.com/1294096/most-kids-ar...-many-dont-learn-enough-and-we-dont-know-why/

The world has made tremendous progress in raising global education rates since 2000. About 90% of primary-school age children are enrolled, and the total number of primary- and secondary-school age who are not enrolled has been cut in half (pdf, p.1). And more girls than ever go to school—and fewer drop out.

But “going to school isn’t the same as learning,” says Girindre Beeharry, the director of global education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Beeharry says even after years of going to classes, far too many kids leave school with very limited skills.

Well, there aren't that many variables specific to schooling to address. I'm glad someone is willing to say the emporer has no clothes though.

In addition to the country-level work, the program will sponsor a more international endeavor to find ways to harmonize data on a global level. The goal is to improve our ability to compare education across borders, which should enable improved knowledge-sharing between countries with similar conditions: Tanzania, for example, is unlikely to be able to replicate models that have worked in Finland, but could perhaps import lessons from Nepal.

This is a ridiculous assertion for a liberal outlet. Why, right here in the US we are constantly assured that policies in any cherry picked country will work just as well in the US no matter the differences!

 

[rms]

Mutually Nonconsensual Sex


“Male and female student have a drunken hookup. He wakes up, terrified she's going to file a sexual misconduct complaint, so he goes to the Title IX office and beats her to the punch. She is found guilty and suspended.”

 

[Dak]

Obviously there's been a mistake. Males can't be victims.

 

[The Ozzman]

Muh cishet male privilege

 

[Dak]

Wonder if Mort worked here.

 

[The Ozzman]

Wonder if Mort worked here.

Probably why xhe moved to Wyoming or wherever to open xhis own franchise

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Come on guys, Mort would never work there. Don't you know the difference between collectively run businesses and asking the asparagus for consent?