Jordan Peterson on real time with Bill Maher

[MiniCraque]

Proximal vs ultimate explanation.

Still doesn't explain women using those props in situations where sexual availability is irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

O

 

[RubberGuard5]

Still doesn't explain women using those props in situations where sexual availability is irrelevant.

There are two separate arguments here. First one is why are high heels and red lipstick sexually arousing to men. Evo psych explanation is pretty good here, I think. High heels create a pelvic position that females make when they are available for mating, and red lipstick simulates sexual arousal.

The other part is why women use these props. Proximate explanation is that it makes them feel good. It's intrinsically rewarding. But the real question is why they evolved such a mechanism. It's simple, it increaces the chance to be selected and to pass down their genes.

Which of these 2 arguments you find problematic?

 

[Deleted member 263856]

I didn't get offended, but you certainly seem to feel that way. Also the way this exchange went wasn't much different than the one with the previous poster, it's just that you have soft skin.

btw, I couldn't care less about whether people draw inspiration from him. His self-help work is nothing to be amazed at, but I have no qualms about it. It's whatever. It's when he starts yapping about the postmodern cultural Marxist ***NOT JEWISH AT ALL*** conspiracy that I think he sounds like an idiot. Also the same people who feel inspired about his "clean your room" schtick end up taking those words to heart which just spawns more idiocy.

Oh so you're a shitty conversationalist in general. Good to know. I don't buy the Frankfurt School BS either. I do find it worrying though that universities are pretty much solely liberal institutions without a conservative viewpoint but I think it's simply a matter of like-minded people hiring more like-minded people. It's still a bad way to go. I'm not easily offended but I also don't like being misrepresented.

 

[Bald1]

Please show me a source for this assertion, because I have seen no indication that this is true.

Listen to his long form interviews with Rogan, Rubin and Gad Saad. Only 10 hours or so of audio.

 

[MiniCraque]

There are two separate arguments here. First one is why are high heels and red lipstick sexually arousing to men. Evo psych explanation is pretty good here, I think. High heels create a pelvic position that females make when they are available for mating, and red lipstick simulates sexual arousal.

The other part is why women use these props. Proximate explanation is that it makes them feel good. It's intrinsically rewarding. But the real question is why they evolved such a mechanism. It's simple, it increaces the chance to be selected and to pass down their genes.

Which of these 2 arguments you find problematic?

Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.

Now, for women "evolving" a mechanism: that's ludicrous. I'm not even against the idea that those props became standard exactly because then enhance certain characteristics. That's a fine argument to make. It's when people start saying that women in general use them with that in mind (or even in some deep deep evolutionary urge) that they stop making sense. I repeat: when a girl buys high heels and wears them the next day, it's not some deep-rooted mating call. It's downright confusing how people will have long arguments about how human beings reason and their thinking process, then look at a woman with red lipstick and say "nah it's not that she likes the color, or it goes well with her skin and/or clothes... deep down, bitch is dtf."

Also, context matters. Peterson brought it up directly after being asked about sexual harassment in the work place. Not a single word about that, let's jump straight to high heels and makeup, out of the fucking blue. Then saying that doesn't mean women invite innapropriate sexual advances nor that it should be prohibited... ok, so why would anyone bring it up in the first place? It's like you argue that a cop was unjustified in shooting an unarmed black male. I say black males comit a disproportionate ammount of crimes. But I'm NOT saying the shooting was right. I'm just "saying." Tehehe.

That's a tactic Peterson shares with people in this forum. They'll bring up all sorts of arguments, stats, news, whatever... all in support of what can only be one point. And then they refuse to make that point because they know how they would be seen in return. Plausible deniability and all.

 

[Chris Kyle is a liar]

Bill Maher is a leftist shill who isnt loyal to america and Jordan Peterson is an opportunistic canadian trying to benifit off of Trumps wave.

 

[Andy Capp]

Listen to his long form interviews with Rogan, Rubin and Gad Saad. Only 10 hours or so of audio.

Or, since you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide evidence for it.

 

[Bald1]

Or, since you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide evidence for it.

Yeah, I'm out. The evidence is in those interviews I said you should listen to.

Not going to sift through 18 months of long form media appearances to come up with 30 minutes of self deprecating humour and admitting to personal faults in an attempt to sway the opinions of those not willing to inform themselves about the person they're criticizing. Instead, I'll just write a run on sentence!

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[kpt018]

What a bogus line of questioning. JP handles himself very well, though.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Bill Maher is a leftist shill who isnt loyal to america and Jordan Peterson is an opportunistic canadian trying to benifit off of Trumps wave.

How is Dr. Peterson opportunistic? Speaking out about the poorly worded transgender bill (which is what launched his popularity in the first place) could have just as easily destroyed him and his career.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.

Now, for women "evolving" a mechanism: that's ludicrous. I'm not even against the idea that those props became standard exactly because then enhance certain characteristics. That's a fine argument to make. It's when people start saying that women in general use them with that in mind (or even in some deep deep evolutionary urge) that they stop making sense. I repeat: when a girl buys high heels and wears them the next day, it's not some deep-rooted mating call. It's downright confusing how people will have long arguments about how human beings reason and their thinking process, then look at a woman with red lipstick and say "nah it's not that she likes the color, or it goes well with her skin and/or clothes... deep down, bitch is dtf."

Also, context matters. Peterson brought it up directly after being asked about sexual harassment in the work place. Not a single word about that, let's jump straight to high heels and makeup, out of the fucking blue. Then saying that doesn't mean women invite innapropriate sexual advances nor that it should be prohibited... ok, so why would anyone bring it up in the first place? It's like you argue that a cop was unjustified in shooting an unarmed black male. I say black males comit a disproportionate ammount of crimes. But I'm NOT saying the shooting was right. I'm just "saying." Tehehe.

That's a tactic Peterson shares with people in this forum. They'll bring up all sorts of arguments, stats, news, whatever... all in support of what can only be one point. And then they refuse to make that point because they know how they would be seen in return. Plausible deniability and all.

So I'm not sure what are you actually disagreeing. First part is about proximate explanation. It's naturally rewarding to feel pretty and attractive. Therefore, any action (like makeup) that improves one's looks is also going to be rewarding. That's hardly controversial.

The second part is about ultimate, darwinian explanation, that is to say, why is it naturally rewarding to improve one's looks. Why this trait exists in population? Is it to increase your chance of survival? Well, it's not going to help you in getting food. It's obviously there because it helps in sexual selection. Again, hardly controversial.

 

[helltoupee]

I do find it worrying though that universities are pretty much solely liberal institutions without a conservative viewpoint but I think it's simply a matter of like-minded people hiring more like-minded people. It's still a bad way to go. I'm not easily offended but I also don't like being misrepresented.

When will people start to realize that education inherently lends itself to a more liberal view of the world?

 

[Striderxdj]

Im on the left on many issues but still agree with a lot of what Jordan says. The far left extremists have the biggest mouths so they get used as the "face" of everyone on the left, when the vast majority of us on the left just want them to shut the *uck up, too.

Both political parties use far left extremists in different ways. The "clintonesque" dems attach themselves to those types so they can seem liberal despite voting for war and every neocon pro-corporate policy, and they know their ideas are laughable and will never become law.

The right uses them as a boogieman to scare conservatives into voting against their financial interests, using idiotic (but effective) one-liners about impending marxism, sharia law, gun bans and christian persecution.

 

[Bald1]

When will people start to realize that education inherently lends itself to a more liberal view of the world?

Liberal views are great.

The willingness to explore ideas. Relying on facts and science over feelings or dogma. The openness to others ideas and opinions along with the desire to debate said ideas and opinions in an effort to find the truth. Oh, and tolerance, not just for diverse appearances that only go skin deep but also for a diversity of thought. That one is pretty important as well.

All great liberal values.

 

[emax]

This is probably the only left wing analysis of Dr Peterson that I've seen that wasn't just pettiness and resentment over Peterson getting more exposure than them. Still wouldn't concur with everything he said but at least he doesn't have the toxic attitude about Peterson's success as Seder:

 

[Phelly2]

Bill Maher is a leftist shill who isnt loyal to america and Jordan Peterson is an opportunistic canadian trying to benifit off of Trumps wave.

I don't know much about Bill Maher, but that's a very odd characterization of Jordan Peterson. I'd call myself a fan of his--I've watched probably 50+ hours of his videos--but I've only ever heard him talk about Trump once or twice(for a total of about 5 minutes), aside from the Bill Maher appearance. And even then, only when he was directly asked.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.

Now, for women "evolving" a mechanism: that's ludicrous. I'm not even against the idea that those props became standard exactly because then enhance certain characteristics. That's a fine argument to make. It's when people start saying that women in general use them with that in mind (or even in some deep deep evolutionary urge) that they stop making sense. I repeat: when a girl buys high heels and wears them the next day, it's not some deep-rooted mating call. It's downright confusing how people will have long arguments about how human beings reason and their thinking process, then look at a woman with red lipstick and say "nah it's not that she likes the color, or it goes well with her skin and/or clothes... deep down, bitch is dtf."

Also, context matters. Peterson brought it up directly after being asked about sexual harassment in the work place. Not a single word about that, let's jump straight to high heels and makeup, out of the fucking blue. Then saying that doesn't mean women invite innapropriate sexual advances nor that it should be prohibited... ok, so why would anyone bring it up in the first place? It's like you argue that a cop was unjustified in shooting an unarmed black male. I say black males comit a disproportionate ammount of crimes. But I'm NOT saying the shooting was right. I'm just "saying." Tehehe.

That's a tactic Peterson shares with people in this forum. They'll bring up all sorts of arguments, stats, news, whatever... all in support of what can only be one point. And then they refuse to make that point because they know how they would be seen in return. Plausible deniability and all.

Looking through your criticisms of Peterson, I don't think you're actually understanding what he's ever said. And he communicates pretty simple messages in pretty simple language.
You should feel pretty bad.

Also, Lol @ you sounding like a neanderthal in that earlier post where your disagreement with established and sound biological theory causes you to call Peterson a neanderthal.

 

[MiniCraque]

Looking through your criticisms of Peterson, I don't think you're actually understanding what he's ever said. And he communicates pretty simple messages in pretty simple language.
You should feel pretty bad.

Also, Lol @ you sounding like a neanderthal in that earlier post where your disagreement with established and sound biological theory causes you to call Peterson a neanderthal.

You see, I've gotten a lot of this over the course of this thread. "Oh you don't understand him, that's where your criticism comes from". The fact that he communicates in such a simple manner (in fact one of my criticisms is that at times he's overly reductionist in attempts to find a "bazinga") is precisely what allows people to criticize him. "You don't understand him" followed by nothing is tantamount to "well you're wrong" and I don't take it seriously. This is kind of an emotional aspect of discussion in this place, people will weave together lazy rebutals and then get frustrated when you don't magically come around to their side.

Also", lol @ "sound biological theory". I know that there's sound biological theory about a lot of things, my argument is that people will misinterpret them and derive their own theories. Looking at all sorts of things humans do in everyday life and attaching a "real" evolutionary reason behind it isn't Darwinism, it is reductionist nonsense of evolutionary psychology (which is a much less "settled" field and what Peterson constantly references instead of actual biology). A desperate attempt at filling the gap between animal and human behavior that leaves human agency sidelined entirely. Anyone who obssesses over that kind of scientism and then has the audacity to talk about free will should be punched in the head.