Ah but that’s not true if you actually listen to what he’s saying, and that’s why people don’t like him.
No he isn’t. He runs this program https://selfauthoring.com/ which encourages people to solely to develop their own individual definition of what success and meaning are for THEM and to work towards them.
But again, that’s not what he actually says in interviews or in his tweets and stuff. He promotes one really strict way of living.
I revert to the tweet wwwwo posted. He suggests marital structures would prevent sexual assault.
With both his comments about sex within marriage and women wearing makeup, the problem is essentially the timing and the fact that we think it detracts from what we see as a clear, solvable issue. Take it out of that context and they are both interesting subjects of discussion. I guess it is a shame that ideas can’t really be isolated from their context.
One to consider is probably the lobster and the dominance hierarchy, he mentioned that lobsters, like humans, have a nervous system that’s very sensitive to serotonin and the further up the perceived dominance hierarchy a lobster climbs the better they’d feel due to more serotonin being released and crucially the less stressed they’d feel.
This he links to hegemonic structures that exist in society when he says “the idea of hierarchy has nothing to do with social-cultural construction”.
However, serotonin actually has an entirely different effect on vertebrates and mammals which wouldn’t actually lead to the same behaviour.
It’s almost as if he’s intentionally confusing science and his own bigoted attitudes to further his own ends?
I don’t think he does. He majors on being responsible and engaging in activities which make life meaningful as bulwarks against bitterness, resentment and vengefulness etc. Nebulous and loaded they may be, and it’s clear he’s a social conservative, but I don’t have a problem with the backbone of that.
Uhmmmm again, I revert you to the tweet wwwo posted. I wouldn’t have a problem with him if he didn’t make wild assumptions like if people were married they wouldn’t be sex offenders/be assaulted, and then go “oh but science” and then not provide any
Or perhaps “according to his experience as a clinical psychologist”.
yeah but again things like promoting getting married aren’t mainstream psychotherapy
for a goddamn good reason
Like actually I’m already sick of that, he can’t play that card and just expect a pass. It’s hiding.
Oh absolutely - I don’t agree with the content of those tweets and that passage from the Vice interview either. What they are is the logical extension of his “take more goddamn responsibility” vibe which ends up taking “women are culpable in sexual harassment” in with it, which is observably wrong.
Yeah I mean to understand why he’s drawn to that line of thinking, you’d probably have to delve into his Bible lectures on YouTube and… I don’t think anyone deserves that level of Peterson metaphysical pounding (PMP).
Yes, women on average are more agreeable than men but this generally doesn’t impact how much men are actually paid at the highest percentile whereas it does with women. Factor in already existing discrepancies in pay, i.e that CEOs are paid upwards 160 times the average worker’s salary in the UK and a slightly more complex picture emerges
“The impact on men of appearing agreeable was insignificant, giving them a significant wage advantage.”
Isn’t he just promoting the notion of ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’? Which by implication is suggesting that people in difficult situations are themselves to blame - this chimes with his tweet about marriage which is the kind of terrible argument that you’d expect of a 15year old gamer gater or something.
not really no.edit: and this is why he finds it easy to refute people. stop trying to sum it up into a short paragraph. as bullshit as some of it may be.
Ok, I’ll go and write a dissertation on him.
can’t really believe we’re still having to argue about whether sexism is a structural problem that’s able to change rather than innate
like have people left their fucking houses in the last ten years
Rationalists don’t need to leave their houses. In fact it’s counterproductive for them to do so. Then they might find out how complex the practical reality of an idea is compared to the simplicity of the abstract. This is why we have toxic masculinity embracing rationalism and personal responsibility being championed by the entitled - because in physically and philosophically closed communities their ideas seem perfectly reasonable.