The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

It is a way to look more attractive to men. Just like wonder bras and such.
Not necessarily. It can be that, doesn't have to be. It definitely doesn't mean that every women that wears make up to work wants to be sexually attractive to men.
 
Not necessarily. It can be that, doesn't have to be. It definitely doesn't mean that every women that wears make up to work wants to be sexually attractive to men.
Maybe not all women are consciously aware of it, but it is deeply ingrained into their subconscious.
 
Maybe not all women are consciously aware of it, but it is deeply ingrained into their subconscious.
Must feel good to think women do everything to be sexually attractive to you.
 
Not necessarily. It can be that, doesn't have to be. It definitely doesn't mean that every women that wears make up to work wants to be sexually attractive to men.

That is the effect it has though, which is the point. The point isn't what any single person is thinking.

It's just a way of trying to understand social dynamics, when these sorts of variables are in play and are being considered from an analytical perspective.

Sort of like saying "We have 50 men and 50 women in our experiment, and we are going to study what happens when we introduce behaviors that invoke sexual attractiveness in women, as compared to without them"

And then you can incorporate those sorts of findings into a larger understanding of social dynamics.
 
That is the effect it has though, which is the point. The point isn't what any single person is thinking.

It's just a way of trying to understand social dynamics, when these sorts of variables are in play and are being considered from an analytical perspective.

Sort of like saying "We have 50 men and 50 women in our experiment, and we are going to study what happens when we introduce behaviors that invoke sexual attractiveness in women, as compared to without them"

And then you can incorporate those sorts of findings into a larger understanding of social dynamics.
Exactly. Induction.
 
That is the effect it has though, which is the point. The point isn't what any single person is thinking.

It's just a way of trying to understand social dynamics, when these sorts of variables are in play and are being considered from an analytical perspective.

Sort of like saying "We have 50 men and 50 women in our experiment, and we are going to study what happens when we introduce behaviors that invoke sexual attractiveness in women, as compared to without them"

And then you can incorporate those sorts of findings into a larger understanding of social dynamics.
Who's point is it? I haven't seen anyone take a look at it this way.

And that's a weird experiment. Are you referring to anything in specific? What is the hypothesis?

It's all an attempt to take the blame away from men who harass women at the workplace. Which is why "can men and women work together?" is a not a sincere question and the assumption that women put on make up to be sexually attractive to men solely is already present.

As if whether or not women wear make up at work is relevant in the harassment discussion in any way.
 
Actually, the majority of the type of make-up applied by woman is not a sexual marker. Eyeliner, foundation, contouring, eyeshadow are used much more often than lipstick. Not all lipstick is red either, so an enhancement of sexuality is not implied.

Same with blush. It's more to recreate the look of someone that is healthy, like a person that has a natural blush from being well nourished and being outside, for example.

It's a one sided view he is presenting.

Just cause Peterson didn't mention eye-liner, contours, and foundation doesn't mean those cosmetics aren't part of the process of creating an attractive face for a younger feminine portrayal.

Also, if you're a male and looking for a mate, wouldn't you want that mate to look young, healthy, and natural?

You haven't refuted Peterson's point. But yeah you make a valid argument that it's not JUST sexual. But it still holds that women who use makeup in the workforce are possibly and unknowingly tapping into an unconscious ritual that is based on courtship, as much as it's based on other factors.
 
Who's point is it? I haven't seen anyone take a look at it this way.

And that's a weird experiment. Are you referring to anything in specific? What is the hypothesis?

Features that men find attractive in women and how women can augment them artificially maybe?
 
Just cause Peterson didn't mention eye-liner, contours, and foundation doesn't mean those cosmetics aren't part of the process of creating an attractive face for a younger feminine portrayal.

Also, if you're a male and looking for a mate, wouldn't you want that mate to look young, healthy, and natural?
There is a difference between creating an attractive face and putting on make-up with the goal of being sexually attractive to men. He failed to mention the absolute majority of make-up because he doesn't have an evo-psycho explanation for it at hand.

The larger point he was trying to make is that part of the blame for sexual harassment at work lies with women.
 
Features that men find attractive in women and how women can augment them artificially maybe?
How is this in any way related to sexual harassment at work, which was the larger issue? The hypothesis is "features that men find attractive and how women can augment them artificially"? That's not a hypothesis, period.
 
Who's point is it? I haven't seen anyone take a look at it this way.

And that's a weird experiment. Are you referring to anything in specific? What is the hypothesis?

It's all an attempt to take the blame away from men who harass women at the workplace. Which is why "can men and women work together?" is a not a sincere question and the assumption that women put on make up to be sexually attractive to men solely is already present.

As if whether or not women wear make up at work is relevant in the harassment discussion in any way.

That is the point Peterson was making, as I understand it. He predominately takes a scientific approach to things.

It was a hypothetical experiment I made up to illustrate this perspective.

No, it has nothing to do with blame. Just observation and learning about social dynamics and human behaviors. Things to consider. If you want to engineer environments in order to produce desired behaviors then it is important to take these sorts of things into consideration I think. Of course there are many variables though.
 
That is the point Peterson was making, as I understand it. He predominately takes a scientific approach to things.

It was a hypothetical experiment made up to illustrate this perspective.

No, it has nothing to do with blame. Just observation and learning about social dynamics and human behaviors. Things to consider. If you want to engineer environments in order to produce desired behaviors then it is important to take these sorts of things into consideration I think. Of course there are many variables though.
I don't think that's his perspective, but that's my interpretation.

If you want to look at the social dynamics of the work-place, and more specifically the way women dress, it's better to examine the reward system that exists for women who wear make-up, high heels and present themselves in a "feminine" way.

I don't think it's very relevant why women wear make-up voluntarily unless you're trying to shift the blame from men to women. It seems like a verbose way of saying they kind of asked for it.
 
There is a difference between creating an attractive face and putting on make-up with the goal of being sexually attractive to men. He failed to mention the absolute majority of make-up because he doesn't have an evo-psycho explanation for it at hand.

The larger point he was trying to make is that part of the blame for sexual harassment at work lies with women.

No, the point he was making is that women in the workforce is still a relatively new phenomenon. And that rules for workplace harassment are still an ever-changing debatable issue.
 
No, the point he was making is that women in the workforce is still a relatively new phenomenon. And that rules for workplace harassment are still an ever-changing debatable issue.
How are the rules debatable? Which rules are unclear or being contested? Most companies have guidelines, in my country government mandated ones.
 
How is this in any way related to sexual harassment at work, which was the larger issue? The hypothesis is "features that men find attractive and how women can augment them artificially"? That's not a hypothesis, period.
The more attractive the harder it is for some men to control themselves?

You can change the phrasing to "artificially augmenting certain female features increases attractiveness to men". It is very simple to derive test implications from this.
 
The more attractive the harder it is for some men to control themselves?

You can change the phrasing to "artificially augmenting certain female features increases attractiveness to men". It is very simple to derive test implications from this.
Good luck with getting support for shit level study like that lol.
 
Back
Top