Holla Forums reads: 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote To Chaos by Jordan Peterson

So I bought a copy of Jordan Peterson's new meme psychology book, where he compares society to Randian lobsters and tells you to clean up your room.

Now normally I would pull an all-nighter reading this and post the various gems I found. However, that's a bit anti-democratic. Instead, I'm going to hand over the means of meme production to everyone else.

When I post the index in full, quote the index entry and page number or numbers as follows:

Other urls found in this thread:


First half of the index. Sorry if they're hard to read. I'll try and get my scanner working for the pages themselves…

Adorno p. 179
Also I wanna see a paragraph from page 69 and page 420

I like this plan. Good picture quality, seems to be going well.

Lenin p. 307 & 310

Second half. Will start pulling pages after a quick break

entry marx, karl 189, 309

Did Peterson really ruffle any feathers here? He seems pretty sensible to me and to most people I imagine.
I also thought you people weren't liberals.

Also, this is promotional material and won't show up in the index. I've already posted these in the trash thread, but I might as well collect them here with the other pages

please do page 306 first, then maybe 302.

we don't hate him because of his opinion on queer pronouns, we hate him because he's dead retarded and strawmans marxism constantly.

What is this cuckery?!!

We're laughing at how the magasphere has appointed a grifter like Peterson as their intellectual heir. Look in the trash thread - someone else posted excerpts of his book where he misquoted the fucking Bible

Depeche Mode gives better fucking advice than this hack
If you want good advice stop buying this shit and buy a Depeche Mode LP.

I hate motivational speakers so fucking much

p.s. I'm doing these first-come first-serve, so hop in line and try not to quote more than four or five pages

really? that's frightening.

he's a compulsive pseud who preaches trashy jungian and protestant cliches who evidently hasn't read any of the foundational philosophical texts he opines about to get money from his naive ignorant fanboys. still he doesn't merit any attention except for being a lolcow

As Depeche Mode said, I give in to sin because I like to practice what I preach.

Unlike Peterson.

He's really nothing new or original, and offers no insights I couldn't get off of reddit. The only difference between him and an aut-right shitposter is that he takes the time to write out what he says in a more rational tone.

How can we brainwash people into thinking capitalism is the source of all their problems if they get motivated to fix their own life and realize they were their worst enemy all along? This guy is the absolute worst.

Sandy Hook Elementary School, 147

In fact, from the pen of Martin Gore, I shall summarize the entirety of Peterson's work here

Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer

Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess
I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver

Reach out, touch faith
Reach out, touch faith

Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer
I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver

Reach out, touch faith

Your own personal Jesus

Reach out, touch faith

peterson and his ilk are the equivalent of the priest telling the peasants that their problems are their sinful souls and not the material conditions of their lives.

Oh, Lord forgive us, we do not know what we do!

isn't that pretty much the definition of a tautology


Nice sarcasm/false flag. They are brainwashed for somehow thinking things necessitated by society are their faultss.>>2384124

I'll take you to the highest mountain
To the depths of the deepest sea
And we won't need a map
Believe me

12 Rules for Life, Jordan Peterson, pg. 420


OP, when are we getting those pages?



if only people worked harder to be better. they're just so fucking lazy

With people like this, I just want to be fucking lazy out of spite

Absolute cocksucker yuppies

Adorno, pp. 179-180

Sorry for the wait. A lot of these paragraphs span two pages, and since we have a few logic pedants in the audience I figure that in the spirit of The Discourse I quote the whole argument to avoid bitching about taking Peterson out of context

I'm seeing a lot of requests for the same pages and am going to group them together in the next post


So it's just literally unstructured walls of text. Thanks Jordan.




I wonder where he's getting these titles from


Theodore Adorno, Student of Satan, Seed Carrier of the Anti-Christ, Anti Capitalist, Anti American, Anti God, Anti Jesus, Anti Jordan Peterson, deeply triggering and problematic and Anti Man Anti Fascist, Anti Mod, He is the Authoritarian Dictator God

So what has been said in these two pages?

so, did this guy not have an editor?

feels > reals
"the worst of the concentration camp guards were human, all-too-human, too." Sounds like a soft apologism for the Holocaust. Jordan Peterson is like the Modern day equivalent of Evola but with less hallucinogens and more Jesus

If he had one and he got critiqued, he'd fall on his knees and sob about responsibility like he always does

So I doubt it. Any editor would just stop working with him.

Apparently not because the text is full of fucking rivers.

That just sounds like something from a fucking cheap horror novella

he's basically just explaining how the God-Satan dichotomy has psychological meaning. it's nothing that crazy, actually, but it's funny that he found a way to mention Ardono.

Gotta shove Adorno in there to remind everyone that Cultural Marxism is making him cry every night

that pic is beautiful

usually I hate the phrase "pseudo-intellectual" but that is just what this is


Thanks. Without a functioning scanner, it's a pain in the ass to get steady shots with my normiephone which is what's taking these pictures so long (that and scrubbing metadata)


No better lyrics to give Peterson than this

You wear guilt
Like shackles on your feet
Like a halo in reverse

I can feel
The discomfort in your seat
And in your head it's worse

Does this man know how to fucking format properly jesus where is the fucking editor


good shit




You'd think that, being the intellectual powerhouses that they are as Aryan Supermen, that the hacks like Peterson talk a lot about these writers and theorists and ascribe a lot of things to them, but they practically never excerpt and of their actual work. You'd think it would make these cognitive colossi would be a little bit suspicious that, despite having such a large body of work, none of it is ever cited or sourced.

Yes, Jordan, tell us about Vietnam.

Isn't he a psychologist? Like shouldn't the shit he's writing at least have nominal basis in scientific thought? This is just religion very thinly disguised as something else.



PDF seems to have been converted from the EPUB or the AZW3 so it's a bit ass.

Wait.. but he doesn't mention anything relevant to communism here? its just opining on christianity and how hierarchies aren't always bad and patriarchy is a myth

Page 69. Book only goes up to 415 or thereabouts
Actual spoiler: Chris goes crazy from too much marijuana and commits suicide. The whole story is six pages long

Thank you user

Should I keep posting blurry phone pics or what

It's easier to screencap from the files, isn't it?


holy hell this is difficult to read

Oh yeah, I mentioned this in the trash thread but this book comes with illustrations

Yeah I suppose. I was hoping that I didn't have to spend all night taking pictures of a book tbh

holy shit that is one exploitable image

just post page 324, let's read about Frozen

holy shit

oh fuck forgot about Frozen

this oughta be good

He and Molymeme are obsessed with that dumbass movie.

oh god he's talking about the oedipus complex and Jung
I can't do this justice without posting the whole section, hold on for a few minutes


imagine having your ideas raped for more than a century after your death



Part 1

stop being a faggot

Self help mixed with a complete ass raping of Oedipus

Only shit his stuff is so flat and devoid of any deeper meaning. Sounds like a stoner rambling "duuuuude his truck was a metaphor for his messed up liiife mannnn"

here's the long and short
This, like the golden ratio, is one of the greatest pieces of evidence in my mind that mathematics can't be popularized like the sciences can be.

Part two. He calls Frozen propaganda and writes pages of psychoanalysis on The Little Mermaid

t. no fun brigade more like it

man, you guys hate everything, even common sense
it's kinda funny

Start being a faggot.

It's not even that, it's a flat-out nonsensical but authoritative-sounding statement followed by completely unrelated, shameless evangelizing.

Are you one of the guys in my screencap?

Knowledge is serious, fun must be destroyed for ensured survival of intelligence SuckDom.


Sweet Jesus Christ himself that Tumblr layout.

afraid not

Oh yeah, this reminds me, the illustrations were made by a comic book artist called Ethan Van Sciver. He had his name misspelled as Scriver both times it was mentioned in the book wew lad

I had to fit all those posts in the screencap somehow.


Even if I am my statement stands.

So is he trying to use Jungian and Freudian psychoanalysis and apply it to pop culture with a biblical twist. What type of convoluted shit is this?

I wonder if Peterson realized he's quoting Lenin here btw
The illustrations are fucking weird, it's mostly these two kids looking at Stalinist-sized classical art


Why didn't the interviewer ask him about that? It's SJW-tier and makes him look like an absolute tool.


it's called pop psychology

The Little Mermaid and Frozen have better fucking morales of the story than anything Jordan Peterson has basically ever shat in his entire career.

Maybe I'm a brainlet but I find no problem with this, except the mythical-related stream of consciousness in the middle of the whole thing.

You're a brainlet

In Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is terrorizing the city dwells, and Enkidu terrorizes the rural farmers. It's only when they become friends that things return to normal, and they accomplish great things together.

Before that happens, Enkidu has to be civilized, and Gilgamesh accomplishes that by enticing him with a temple concubine/holy prostitute, who has sex with him for a solid week, until Enkidu is too exhausted to continue. It's promiscuous, no-strings attached sex that civilizes Enkidu and saves the city from Gilgamesh's tyranny.

It's really strange that Peterson wouldn't mention that.


I skimmed parts on the bus and
Is basically a succinct review of the book in one sentence. He takes folksy anecdotes which totally aren't made up (he also writes about his kids a LOT), bits of pop culture he obviously hates and then mashes it together with theories and citations grabbed at random to dress them up and make them look coherent at first glance. There's no real common theme to his writing, there's no actual structure to his thought beyond his self-help snake oil, it's just nonsense thrown together in such a way that it makes his reactionary boomer ideology appear intellectual to people who don't read.


Do you think this is correct?

Jesus, all you have to do is pressure him on what is the antidote to nihilism and do you really think that answer will be anything other than bs? There is no need to slander him or turn him into a folk hero, try challenging him to flush out what he claims he hasn't flushed out yet. His lectures are a pseudo drama of uncertainty when he damn well knows the truth. He will be responsible for change whether anyone here likes it or not, idpol is the death of the leftist and the universities' indoctrination factory isn't pumping out people who can even challenge someone who should be making his fortune on late night infomercials – he is doing us a favor, why get in the way? Let's get real people.

To be fair, Lenin popularized it, but took the name from a Chernyshevsky novel. It was extremely popular with socialists and anachists. I guess I should ut it in my reading list.

Peterson is, without exaggeration, the worst way to introduce someone to Jung, archetypes, comparative studies etc. that I have ever seen.

More than about lobsters?

I fail to see how is this incorrect.

The part in parentheses can be perfectly applied in favor of revolutionary socialism, even.

Peterson pisses me off so fucking much and considering my life isn't going anywhere fast I'm considering just shooting the bastard I don't care if he's martyred I just want him to stop pumping this stupid shit out

I want to kill Jordan Peterson and these excerpts have not made my lust to kill him any worse. The world would be better if nobody stopped me.

Wonder how much brain matter would splash.

There are thousands of better targets. Kill zucc or Macron instead.


Try imagining a world without Peterson. That's a world I want to live in.

That's not how debate works. You've made a statement. Support it with some evidence

See for yourself

Hi FBI, how's weather in DC?

you sound a bit unsorted, tb

I'm not FBI, I legitamately hate him so much I would rather someone just merked him out of my periphery.

His voice, his work, how much of a soppy bitch he is, how many teens are falling for his shit

Nah if not me I'm hoping someone else. I hate Jordan Peterson and I wish he was dead and buried and nobody had to talk about him ever again, except how we talk about David fucking Foster Wallace

It looks like he had a stroke.

You know what. I probably don't even have to. He's probably going to commit suicide.

Do you really think his audience actually cares about the exchange of ideas? Reasoned debate? Look in this thread, half of the Holla Forumsyps who wandered in just yell "no u"-tier arguments.
This is all spectacle.

yes and no, but for sure they want a hero to beat back the idpol cancer infesting the universities and entertainment and he is giving them what they want and getting wealthy because of that effort. he is slandered and threatened and yet it just makes him more money…

ok cool

To add to this, I want to ask you: if his strategy for arguing is to just toss together statements, evidence and theories at random and then claim that he's refuted you with his brain genious tier arguments, why should I think that pressing him on his statements would suddenly make him change strategies and play fair?

I like to imagine Zizek is eagerly awaiting his copy of this from Amazon, giggling to himself in childlike excitement at how much fun he's going to have reading this idiotic nonsense.

He probably has a sex scandal brewing. I can feel it in my bones and my gut. This guy is a sex pest. He's a perv.

He's sexually harassed students probably.

And he's going to give a crying confession about how irresponsible he was or some shit loaded with the term responsibility in every sentence.

That's how this ends. I'm betting on it, I would bet money on this.

It's impossible to slander him because he stands for nothing. He's not under threat, he's in the same danger that Zoe Quinn was when internet retards made mean posts about her on the Internet. Worst thing that happened to Peterson is that someone put glue into the lock of his faculty door. Big deal. He got millions of dollars in return.
So? How does this support the idea that we should try and engage with these people?

Peterson is absolutely going to get metoo'd by the end of the year

or Elon Musk

I'll let you think that one through

and I believe he knows that

let it run its course, you've said it yourself, he has no answers for them.

hes a professor

what if he raped a tranny lol

He's not the type. He probably tried to force a relationship awkwardly on a girl in his course. And then not understand the rejection and make some convoluted excuse for his inappropriate actions as a instructor.

That's Peterson. He's a wormy weasel, there's no way this hasn't happened before

You really think he'd risk making your mother jealous like that?

Tell me this isn't the face of someone who tried and failed to have an affair with a student in his class.

It's only a matter of time before this all floods out

Yes and Hitler was a politician.

You should probably listen to the recording of Hitler speaking privately to a foreign dignitary. One of the worst consequences of the demonization of nazi regime has been the portrayal of Adolf and his compatriots as inhumanly evil and thus something outside our own communities. Peterson has a fair point here and listening to Hitler being charming and affable should drive it home for you.

That looks like the face of someone who he he sleeps with students looking to pass afterward they give him an F.

To quote the much more fun to read Molymeme, "not an argument."
The point of this thread is not to challenge him, it's to make fun of him. It's to point out how much of a ridiculous pseud he is, and to mock his fans for thinking that his bullshit is somehow profound.
I mean I can open his book at random and find him citing Skinner and Sleeping Beauty (the Disney movie) to claim that it's normal to beat your kids as punishment and make them conform to the societal pressures of their superiors by the age of four (pp. 130-135)

If that's peterson's take it's so cold it's approaching absolute zero.

For visiting polyps that don't know how to argue and that would like to play along at home:

Just found this little piece. It's funny how even the mild-mannered reactionaries still think predominantly with the reptilian complex.

Dunno, he strikes me as a sincere prude. And he probably would already have been dennounced by now.

Reading him some more, I realize how little work he actually put into this. Here's an excerpt a couple of pages after the Adorno citation:
This is pure bafflegab. Any master's student who would dare to turn this into an examination committee would have a third of this sentence crossed out or rewrote.
More than anything else, Peterson is an excellent argument against meritocracy. He's simply an awful, shitty academic who got to where he is by being a con artist preying on thousands of failsons alienated by capitalism.

"that underlying threat of physicality is always there" jesus christ lmao how much of a jackass do you have to be for this to be true

Without even looking at the text, I'd wager he's making a (fairly soporific) point about the ubiquity of the urges which drove the holocaust within human psychology.

Is this better with or without the third note?

i want to do some serious thinking about lobsters

I get the feeling if you went through his internet history just before or even as he was writing this, there would be lots of links to reddit and these would be among them.

He cites quite a few articles on lobsters


Looks like the digital copies don't have that index. Could you please take a pic of the entry for "lobster"?

The index listing, or the pages that have lobster content? I've posted the entirety of the index in the first couple of pages.

It's right here in the last picture (filename "398-399.png")

I just find it retarded that he calls a Disney movie propaganda while simultaneously trying to argue that Road to Wigan Pier is proof that most socialists are just jealous of successful rich people.


is that OC?


His sloppy interpretation, while it has a few insights, like the 40 years/days makes me think that I could do a better job.

Here's my take: Jesus's time in the desert demonstrates the human impulse to self-destruct. He goes to the place to starve himself and is constantly tempted to kill himself. Then he hits bottom and goes back to civilization. Pretty straightforward.

God this shit is awful. Jung and Eliade are way better and much more interesting honestly.

I'm just glad I bought this out of points and not cash


Thanks for the thread. Have some OC.

Imagine unironically paying money for it

What the fuck is this shit.

Oh rite, sorry.

It's a healthy attitude regarding computers tho, tbh. Never trust one you can't defenestrate.


this "professor" can't write for shit

Chin held high, signaling his justified pride and authority. The stoic and determined facial expression combined with black and white photography is signaling his rationality and the seriousness of the matter at hand.
His gaze is fixed on a point in the distance beyond the reader, probably staring at the future or some other important thing.
The composition feels like a cross between the cover of a superman comic and a selfie shot by a tween girl in her bathroom.
This is not a man, but a icon of visionary thought and heroism.
I cannot help but be in ave.

The whole book is just his personal collection of quotes: his personal replies to quotes, using quotes to complement or prove wrong other quotes, irrelevant quotes, quotes in Latin followed by its English explanatory quote, a quote at the beginning of every chapter, a quote at the end of the chapter to conclude. A true pseud.

This will probably be the best thread this month. Thanks, user.


Psueds shitting on the graves of great scholars.

Every quote at the beginning is more debasing than the last.

Merely looking at his book bio fills me with the urge to display a fear grimace and expose my hindquarters to signal submission.

He's like me when I'm writing a paper and struggling to reach the word count.

A new era of social sciences have dawned with this book.

Publisher: Jordan, we can't publish a twelve page book you know…
JBP: just make the font larger and increase the margin size.
Publisher: Jordan, we can't go lower than 150 pages.
JBP: *sigh*

Fairly smart of him to co-opt the criticism that's he's a surrogate father figure to disenfranchised altists.

It's appropriate, because his whole "work" consists of regurgitating Philosophy 101 in a way that paints Christianism in a good light, without even adding anything of his own. He's a philosophical kulak.

Well he already single-handedly transformed the psychology of religion with his now-classic book Maps of Meaning. It says so at least twice, so it's enough for one instance to quote the other i.e. it passes the Wikipedia test.



Can you imagine a Badiou / Peterson talk?


t. level 40 book burner


The Dunning–Kruger effect must be strong in the professor extraordinaire.

the what now?

Oh, so inequality is great, unless it's pronounced!
oh, noes! ;_;

My new favorite sentence from him:

"Dostoevsky, one of the great literary geniuses of all time, confronted the most serious existential problems in all his great writings, and he did so courageously, head-long, and heedless of the consequences."
^ this is clearly an attempt to produce a longer text by inserting needlessly convoluted and synonymous qualifiers that add nothing to the broader context. It's hilarious, really.

Peterson's daughter is actually quite hot. Does anybody have her Instagram?

He's a pervert, for sure, just don't narrow it down to harassment. He could be a scat fetishist or into S&M. Imo the biggest threat to him is his kids growing up and turning up against him, revealing the juicy bits of the sensei's life.

lmao. What a fucking asshole. I some of my friends are smaller than me and always treat them with respect. Imagine what an absolute dick Peterson would be if you'd meet him in a bar if he was a huge-ass powerlifter or something.

This, ho lee shit, this!

Obviously if anyone ever meets him in real life the only reasonable course of action is to assault him to establish your lobsterlike dominance.

Holla Forums here, this thread was a laugh and a half.

BRB, gotta do some walking.

holy jesus

What the fuck


You know, what pisses me off the most is him getting compared to McLuhan.


we're hitting levels of reification that shouldn't be possible

I mean he's pretty much invited people to beat him up. What was the point of that retarded rant anyway? You can't defend yourself when a women assaults you?

I'm interested in

menstruation 304, 305
revolution and, 12
and marriage, 37
friendship with children, 123
terror of children, 119
Popper, Karl 194-195
Plato, 102
Mussolini, Benito, 309
Nuremberg Trials, 197



Has this comedy gold been posted yet?

of children, 129-30, 134-35, 138-41, 144

lack of, 318-19
Reasons for crying, 128
and equality, 186-87
Hobbes, Thomas, 177
Dawkins, Richard, 116
in conversation, 249
and single axioms, 211
truth telling vs, 230
to enemies, 364-65
and straw-man arguments, 247
to crowd/public opinion, 242-43

Shouldn't he have made his daughter kick that little fucker's ass or is he capitulating to the feminizing influence of cartural marxist society in not lobstering up on him

The full book has already been posted

It’s funny how dude who likes the wind might snap him like a twig cares so much about how strong another man. Sounds really low-key homo tbh

*looks like


I’m going to say this to Peterson dweebs from now on

This reads like something out of infinite jest


Congrats, OP. This is some of the worst pop psychology I’ve seen, and I’ve read two Sam Harris books

So basically these two should be able to own him in a debate and not respect him?

I love the little admission at the end there that nobody actually gives a fuck about his gay debate club garbage



>dirty room
top lmao

Something seems off about her body


Come on dude, she is not that bad

She looks like a trap tbh maybe it's the shoulders

she'a a fucking IMVU character

He's making a bit of a point but burying it under piles of autism.

…that's what my "breeeeeeehs" was implying. She looks very cute, imo. And that outfit is phoar.

Does he actually?

She has a severe autoimmune disease that affects her joints. She had a hip and ankle replaced by the time she was 16.

Here have a (you), you've earned it with your Francis E. Dec reference.

don't insult a decent writer by comparing him to this clown!

It's not an amazing point, but he's trying to say that in any serious debate where people have something significant at stake invested in their position, there has long been understood to be a level of escalation from civil debate and ending with actual physical violence. People don't usually like it but it is a socially "valid" avenue of action.
However, there is a very strong feeling that Violence Against Women is verboten in most western society, there's no accepted means to escalate any kind of debate against retarded feminists pulling shockingly misandrist shit and getting away with it.

are you seriously crying cause beating up women isn't acceptable in polite society

Can you read or what

So in short, women and children are getting out of line because they don't fear the rod?
It's not socially acceptable to resort to violence because you are losing a debate, no matter what gender you are. In some instances you can attack your opponent to protect your "honor" if they are being sufficiently disrespectful, but that is way past the norms of civil debate. The idea that this is what keeps a debate civil seems pretty far fetched to me, and I don't have the impression that women in general lack respect for mens opinions, which would be the case if Peterson was right.

yes I can, I can also infer and read between the lines
what the fuck does "escalate a debate" mean other than going from verbal to nonverbal AKA physical

it's society's fault neither your nor Peterson knows how to be intimidating around a woman

I didn't make an argument for any of those points.

you kind of did

I didn't say that I don't know how to be intimidating around a woman. It's that being intimidating towards a woman at all is not acceptable in the way it is towards other men.

I didn't say "out of line", I said that they are not being held to similar standards of political practices. I don't mean a "debate' in the sense of a debate club or some other autistic shit, I mean debate in the broader sense of political debate. The western world is right now seeing an escalation of political debate that is going well beyond people attempting to reason with one another and resorting to violence, hence why we're getting actual groups of people engaging in political violence in the streets.
I didn't argue Peterson was right about that. I said a point, not that he's entirely right about everything. And no, I don't think increasing levels of anger, threats, and eventually violence keep debate civil, because that's literally the exact opposite of what happens, they tend to exaggerate a breakdown of civil discourse.


also in case you couldn't tell the actual "point" is
which you probably don't need a chud like Peterson to tell you.

Oh i love DFW, it just reminded about the way those hyperpretentious tennisplayers at ETA talk

completely untrue.
most people would forgive you for yelling at another women or throwing something (in another direction) if it's called for. you don't have to use the threat of physical violence all the time to intimidate people.

Say, me too. I only paid attention and I still feel ripped off. Why, if this stuff made any sense I'd ask it for enough change to hop a bus ride away from it. If you ask me Mr Peterson should clean up his act before he cleans up his room. You'd have to cancel Christmas to get more hanging clauses than this book has. The one good thing about it is that it has enough anecdotal evidence to convict him. I'd say they should give him the chair but after reading this they ought to drop the whole orchestra in him. Maybe the experience will make him a little sharper, I dunno. Maybe then he'll be able to get to the point unlike this book of his.

The book does a lot of meandering and deconstructing but never gets into any solid points or hard hitting stuff. Every paragraph is like a run-on sentence that just drags on and on. It just finishes by saying people are corrupt and not much else. Man, and I thought Das Kapital was a bore to read, this book takes the spot with its flat language and pointless monologues.

"I can beat up a child. Well, I didn't but I should have" - Jordan Peterson

She's qt but something about that face seems a bit too much like Jordan's face so its kinda off-putting

Inferring seems a little much for you. Try intoing instead. In fact if you multiply infer by into you'll insinuate. But I'd be careful if I were you, if you insinuate too much you'll get sick and escalate and I don't get paid enough to de-escalate this place. What I'm saying is keep your excrements your increments, and your developments your envelopements. In fact, why don't we just skip dinner all together and get to the movie, although the darkness will probably make it hard to read between the lines, but if we sit close enough to the screen there might be enough light for you to read by. If not the usher will probably lend you his flashlight while he escorts you out for not keeping your volume down. If you ask nicely though he might rebate your debate, if you're not an ingrate.

Actual quote:
>Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).
I always suspected that when I fuck up at anything, the Female Force of the Universe must be behind that. Now I know that is indeed true thanks to professor Jordan Peterson, and that's why we should legalize punching women.


Damn sjws trying to police my language and censor jokes smh

I'm not sure what you mean by "political practices", but there are differences in how we treat genders, no doubt, but it's not like Hillary could have gotten away with physically attacking Trump or some shit like that. Peterson goes far in insinuating that he is at the mercy of these swastika wielding feminists, but his rise in popularity at the expense of liberal feminism shows that it's not true at all. He loses nothing and gains everything precisely because society grows tierd of and rejects their antics.
Yeah, but it's not like women are immune to that violence. Maybe it gets a more negative reaction to ram your dodge challenger in to a woman than into a man, but it's still happening. And while I'm certain there are exceptions, women generally aren't the ones escalating the situation into physical alterations.



Here's all the images from the epub (1/3)



Thanks bruv



Someone add the signature

like this?


Yes, it's quite hard for me to flip a switch and illuminate my home. It's a trial to have to walk over to my thermostat and heat it with nothing but the press of a button. Many was the day that I would come home with aching feet from having to walk the dozens of yards to my automobile, and then keep my foot enslaved to that wearisome accelerator. My grandmother, poor thing, had arthritis in her withered hands, gnarled from all the time she spent swiping her debit card to purchase clothes for me. She'd look at me with her mouth full of well cared for teeth, absolutely skin and bones from the three square meals a day she enjoyed in the brutality of a sound and sturdy home "provided for," if you'll excuse the vulgarity, by the company pension she earned upon retiring in her fifties.

Truly my life is a living hell. Sometimes I have to wait tens of minutes in order to gave someone ring up my cartload of groceries, and then more interminable waiting for them to bring it to my car and load them in for me. Then I have to suffer in the comfort of my. own. home. with only the limitless resources of the globally spanning internet to educate and entertain myself.

I don't know how I manage to motivate myself to trudge down my cities safe streets, clean as they are of refuse and human filth. "A Description of a City Shower" has nothing on the assault upon all human decency that is watching rainwater flow cleanly and efficiently into well maintained drain and sewer systems to be reclaimed and pumped directly into the home of my fellow citizens. I sometimes ask myself, how can they cope, how can they grapple with the interminable misery that is modern living?

As I sit here, sipping my coffee–that wretched brew straight from the Devil's nutsack itself–eating the dinner prepared with a minimum of effort and heated with the press of a button over the course of a few minutes instead of the endless hours of preparation and cooking previous ages knew, it's all I can do to keep from putting the barrel of my gun in my mouth, knowing that once again, I'll have to drag myself from my warm and comfortable bed to travel in luxury unknown to thousands of untold generations before me to my safe, heated, plumbed, cleanly lit place of employment, where for eight agonizing hours I'll have to sit and press buttons, only to drag myself home at the end of it, subject myself to a hot meal washed down with clean water, and put myself to bed only to do it all again.

Peterson is right. This living hell is tolerable only insofar as the mystery of oblivion keeps me from shuffling off this mortal coil, but with every agonizing second that option grows more attractive.

The problem here is that this life actually is hell psychologically, see

hell yes

The problem here is that Peterson is the last fucking person that should be complaining about life "not being easy."

The real problem here is that psychology, especially cognitive psychology, has a long tradition of marginalizing those who object to any form of societal oppression through pseudoscientific methodology. This methodology boils down into enforcing the views of the psychologists, who, coincidentally, happen to benefit from the legitimization of their snake oil while using their authority to diagnose their opponents as deviants and anomalies to a non-existent, saccharine ideal they hold of the norm. Coincidentally, I'm sure, this norm always happens to reinforce the preconceived ideology of the psychologist; 99% of psychology-in-practice is projection. Peterson, realizing he would never become relevant through his middling knowledge and imagination through work in his field, instead decided to capitalize as much as he could to people who desperately want to become complacent with the social structures which have wronged them.

His intellectual impotence, his complex over this impotence and vengeful nature reverberates throughout his work. Take, for example, his obsession with social status and recognition (the lobsters) or his admitted desire to retaliate violently against a child who hurt his daughter, yet his failure to do anything productive about the situation (his fetish for assertiveness). His lack of any abstract intelligence is reflected both in his inability to publish anything of particular import, and his tendency to play armchair philosopher and theologian within his books reflect his desperate desire to be seen as, rather than be, intelligent.

All in all, Peterson is an excellent reflection of the typical bourgeois attitude; it's not terribly surprising that he seems to lean towards Randism except with regards to religion. He supports what benefits him directly, and instinctively uses his social capital to discredit what he is afraid of: everything else.

My dear, how cynical you are. So, you look at a snippet like this one:
and you dogmatically refuse to see that this might be an important piece of information?

It's a vapid truism. Literally anybody with common sense knows that. He's saying nothing.

This is what sickens me when neo-reactionaries say "leftist don't like science". There's not one fucking scientific reference in this crap, its just the opinion of some loon.

That was Dylan Klebold, not Eric Harris. God, this faggot can't even get his basic facts right.

t. edgelord who's read Dylan's diary

Reactionaries never liked or cared for science. They like Science™ where a smart man in a white lab coat confirms all of their dumbass beliefs while beakers filled with purple and green liquid boil in the background

I think it tells you a lot of his professionalism that he takes the popular paraphrase of Adorno 'After Auschwitz there can be no poetry' and changes it to 'After Auschwitz there should be no poetry'. After all it fits more with his narrative that Adorno was a closet authoritarian. (and if Peterson had a scrap of interest in pursuing the truth, he could have checked the actual quote before he put it in his book. The original in german is 'Nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht zu schreiben, ist barbarisch' which is more like 'After Auschwitz, to write poetry is barbaric')

To add to this, the fact that the only Derrida quote he provides is the done-to-death 'There is nothing outside the text', which I think makes the probability that he is critiquing these authors without having read any of them almost certain. (and humourously, Peterson choses to understand the above quote as meaning that any interpretation is equally valid, while also accepting that Derrida has rejected this. So we have the spectacle of a supposed raional and objective person implicitly appealing to the principle that any interpretation is equally valid in order to quash the authoratative word of the author about his own work himself and maintain that Derrida means that any interpretation is equally valid as a point of criticism! If you ever needed any more evidence that Peterson is himself a postmodern hack, here it is.)


stop bullying jordan

Why? Did he help you to sort your life out? Honestly everything he says you can find with every self-help scam artist out there.

You missed the point of the story, he didn't think the kid wanted to hurt his daughter. He thought the kid wanted to hurt his daughter while looking straight at him in defiance and vengefulness towards the 'adults'. Little kid was angry and knows he can't fight Peterson or dad for that matter but thinks he can get away with hurting him by hurting his daughter. The irony of the situation in Peterson's eyes being that the kid is already bitter and vengeful towards this undifferentiated group of 'adults' who've wronged him and yet is doomed to become one himself. He does not just say "I wanted to throw the kid", he says "It would be better FOR HIM" if I did. He thinks the child does not understand adults, does not see their individuality and it would be a shock and an important lesson to the child if he had responded to his individual provocation as an individual and hurled the little bugger. Of course he does not do this, he just removes his daughter from the situation. Which is a perfectly reasonable and productive response to that situation by the way.

That Adorno quote seems like it could very easily just be a difference in how the phrase was translated. Maybe he has an older edition or a different translation of the writing. I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't read Derrida though.

Give that others in this thread have noted how sloppy the overall construction of the book is (rush job on editing, misunderstanding bible quotes, pages upon pages with zero citations) I think it's more a case that a lot of the book was probably ghostwritten by grad students or freelancers, slapped together and sent to the press.

Look at his devoted fans. The people who buy this book, by and large, do not read critically. They interpret any criticism of the book as a politically-biased attack on Peterson from the SJW academia horde. You could list every inconsistency and factual inaccuracy with this book and most people would still think it's this seminal masterpiece in philosophy.

That was sarcasm.

? I don't see how that makes a big difference, unless Theodor "no fun allowed" Adorno had a high opinion of things he called barbaric, which I don't think he had.
For what purpose?

Someone grab me, quickly! My fingers and palms are so violently itching, screaming at me, to grab and crush his trachea or tie his windpipe into a knot. I'm afraid I'll soon be found feasting on his fetid flesh!


And that's why you're here on Holla Forums, because of that pitiful flounder-like thinking, and he's a famous bookwriting alpha-lobster.

Get down to the bottom section making fun of Houllebecq, the whole fictional encyclopedic note is really funny and calls Adorno Super-essential and a Saint (what titles!). We should publish a tract similar to this on Peterson, a sort of condensed refutation of his ideas or just an insulting/discrediting bit. I mean, this book is giving us material enough. Imagine the shit we could write in a history about him. Lobsters etc

They probably pushed the book out fairly quickly to capitalize on Peterson's current fame/infamy. No surprise there.
Misunderstanding the bible is different than not agreeing with his interpretation. He has a whole series on bible interpretation I suspect he has at least read the book.
I flipped through my copy of Man and His Symbols by my desk and most of the pages have zero citations.
You can't possibly know whether the majority of his fans read critically or not. You've at most seen a few guys you thought were dicks online.

Bruh, thats literally what he did. He took his kid and left. He was just talking about wanting to throw the other kid. What are you smoking.

I don't understand the uproar over this fellow. He doesn't say anything that would be considered beyond the pale in, say, the 90s.

Does anyone have a tally on misquotes?

For Peterson, I think it would be more effective to refute his book through a series of infographics instead of a long pamphlet. We'd need a longer compilation of everything with the book, but chopping up the refutations into smaller infographics will help them spread and make them more useful to people arguing against his acolytes.

Sure, but this reflects poorly on Peterson's career as an academic.
Look at in the trash thread. He quotes Matthew in support of his alpha lobster theory:
A few posts later someone else notes:

In the humanities and social sciences, content without any citations is always assumed to be the author's original writing. Typically that means you cite evidence from the literature and then tack on your own interpretation or synthesis of what you just reviewed. There's pages of uncited content in Peterson's book where he writes about a completely different topic that's unconnected to what he was just discussing. For a psychologist, this is incompetent writing and intentionally or not he or his ghostwriter(s) probably committed plagiarism along the way.

And how do you know that?

I'm pretty familiar with the Pareto type distributions, did some research work involving powerlaws at one point. I've heard them referred to using the matthew principle maybe once or twice, its not common academic jargon but it is correct. The phrase "to those who have everything more will be given" is an accurate statement on how those distributions emerge. You can look at the principle of preferential attachment for the parallel with networks. Peterson is correct that productivity in many creative fields follows a Pareto distribution as does wealth. In the case of creative productivity there seems to be a sort of skill compounding effect where the people who are a bit better can learn faster and that new learning lets them learn even faster and etc and you end up with a very few people who are orders of magnitude better than everyone else. For wealth it's mostly to do with interest bearing investments… the more money you have the more you can earn. Same principle, more begets more, so Peterson is correct in identifying both as Pareto / Mathew principal. I have some issues with Peterson falsely equating the two types of accumulation as both emerging from the individuals productivity too. But he is using the term correctly. Full context of the quote is pretty ironic though.

Eh, I mean I know the kind of writing you're referring to but that's really more for journal articles. For a pop sci book which if you're feeling charitable is what this is. Its perfectly acceptable to go on long winded discussions of other people's work and what you think it means then put references at the end. I pulled "the victory lab" off my shelf, pop political science crap and it barely has any citations in text.

First principles. No way he's met half or more of them and I'm just going to go ahead and assume his sampling method wasn't unbiased enough to make a statistical argument from the ones he did meet.

Obviously, limited by your very uncrusteacean-like intellect, you can't read between the lines. It's not your fault. You've been feminized by years of cultural marxism and post modern Derrida-inspired coca cola ads. Your masculine energy is perverted and now your brain is inefficient and irrational, like some kind of womanly fish, like a flounder or tuna. It's tragic, but I'm afraid you'll never know the masculine dominance of the lobster. Condolences.


One's inner lobster is a powerful totem not to be taken lightly. Julian knows this. Only someone with the lobster's inherent Wille Zur Macht could survive locked up in that embassy, sanity intact. Your garden variety tuna could never hope to match such a feat or strength of will, womanish and neurotically Freudian as they are.

I don't get it… so this guy is working a dead end job that brings him no enjoyment whatsoever for mediocre pay. I'm supposed to feel sympathy for him why exactly? I know plenty of people who absolutely love there jobs, just like how I know plenty of people who loved college (even though I absolutely hated it). All this diatribe tells me is that this moron either needs to: a) retrain into something he actually enjoys, even if it means a temporary pay cut, OR b) get his fucking life outside of his job in order so that the time he has off is actually fulfilling enough to make up for the time sync. Honestly, the way the author talks about work indicates to me that his perspective on work is a latent effect of general depression.

Citation needed. Also, working 40 - 50 hours a week is hardly working too hard.

Good worker.

Remember, I bought the book. I flipped through the endnotes. There just aren't any citations at all for large swathes of it.
I don't think anyone is going to invest the money required to conduct a statistically significant sample of Peterson readers who get into arguments on social media. In the absence of that evidence, I'm going to go with my own experiences, which is that his fans can't read critically.

working at all is working too hard

You know the lobster meme is probably not far off from the Raccoon Mindset bit that virgil made up during one of the table top game theory episodes to make fun of Cernovich

Life truly does imitate art

How about a real response! I'm legitimately looking for some edification. Btw, I'm not currently working, instead opting to ascend above my brain dead service job by attending a university. Granted, given the overall state of tertiary education this is a serious gamble at best.

How do you define working? Can you give a single example of a society where the average individual didn't have to toil as a means of sustaining themselves forever at all?

A society where you can make a ton of money through market speculation and then spend the rest of your life living off the interest, and then pass your fortune off to your failson to live off of as well

How are you paying for your education? Are you receiving any assistance? Living with friend or parents rent-free? Are you in debt?

So yes, it's too much work to actually have any sort of valid sample so you guys have decided to just assume your limited and almost certainly biased set of experiences are representative. Which really makes my point that you guys can't possibly know what you're claiming. You're alright though Karen, availablity heuristic is a helluva drug, I can't even be mad. It's not like this nasty little cunt over here



Hey, if you're willing to pay the $50,000 or so dollars required to hire Gallup or Ipsos to conduct a survey on that narrow a subset of the population then be my guest. I'm going to work with the available data until I have something better.

Well of course, raccoons are commonly known in New England as land lobsters. They're very similar animals.


Yeah you're right, it really is easier to just take refuge in your preconceived notions instead of seeking to educate yourself or explore beyond your knowledge base.

It could be argued through this pathetic "source" (anecdote) that bullet 5, "I wish that I had let myself be happier," serves as a rebuttal for nearly every other regret mentioned in the article, given the reasoning included in the rest of the statement: "Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called 'comfort' of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again."

It seems to me that this quite easily supports my initial assumption–that the reddit dude bitching about the years counting down as he slaves away in toil at some shit job really needs to either fix other aspects of his life to mitigate the sacrifice he makes to earn a professional wage OR take a risk and retrain into another more personally fulfilling profession.

Try this one for size: people can be resentful because they have been wronged and are actually powerless in significant ways. You are not "being taken advantage off" and just have to look for a practical solution, you might in fact be exploited with no way out (except perhaps killing the fuckers and reorganizing society, but apparently that's utopian thinking and bad).

At the pub maybe. Not in any kind of formal debate - there you only weapon against sophistry is ever only your own, better sophistry.

More succinctly: any psychoanalyst who at the end of the session admits that what ails you are structural societal factors and that there likely isn't anything in your psyche that would fix it, would put himself out of a job.

What you have is awful and you've already admitted it. So like I said in the first place, user saying Peterson fans "by and large, do not read critically" cannot know that. At best he is guessing based on his own experiences and may happen to be correct. But he does not KNOW it. He's full of shit. I don't know if the majority of Peterson fans have good reading comprehension either but you won't see me going around making claims about it I can't possibly back up.

I literally spent the last several posts calling people out for going by their preconceived notions and making claims they can't possibly support.

I personally think Peterson has gotten a number of things fundamentally wrong and would like to see him taken to task for them. So it's been really irritating to see the response from liberal media and the online leftists be the most vapid bullshit. "Hurr the idea of an inner lobster is silly" Except it's actually an excellent metaphor for lower brain function and similar metaphors "lizard brain" are used constantly in pysch and neuroscience you uneducated fucks.

Clickity clack, fellow lobster. I'm glad you didn't fall into the leftist trap of trying to produce any evidence of your own. These leftist tunas are always trying to trick us lobsters, but we know what's up. Keep on scuttling, brobster.

Evidence of my own for what? The idea of an inner lobster? That's pretty well known neuroscience there are lower and midbrain areas that look basically identical in people and animals such as lobsters with a much older evolutionary origin. The interconnection between these areas and the cortex are fairly sparse and their functioning is generally not under direct conscious control. Things like hunger or pissing etc. can effectively be thought of as controlled by a set of submodules in our brain which are operating independently and unconsciously from our conscious cortical self. These submodules are basically what would be the entirety of the brain of a fish or amphibian, hence the lizard brain thing, inner lobster is just taking this a step further as lobsters have extremely primitive invertebrate brains that are basically just what would be considered the lowest brain areas in humans. Them's the facts.

For any of the retarded things you've said you massive cunt. Glad to see you've been enjoying your intro to psych class my dude.

Could you give me an example? I don't know which things I've said that you would think are retarded.
Yah, its correct and pretty basic stuff. That's why I'm kind of surprised people have been making fun of the inner lobster thing so much.


Questioning your own beliefs is generally a good thing to do yes. Particularly I think its valuable to never state falsehoods or make statements you don't have evidence for to defend your own position. Not all the things I believe are facts, I'm as irrational as the next person but I keep that in mind and make an effort to make my ideas explicit and seek out evidence that would prove or disprove them when possible. What standard of evidence would you like to hold me to for the lobster brain thing? I really don't know what you think is wrong with the idea so I'm not sure what kind of evidence I should be providing. There's obviously a lot more to the comparative anatomy than I've brought up but I'm guessing neither of us are experts on that so I don't know how useful that would be. And you're literally engaging with me right now. If we did a (You) count I'm at least in the top 3 so you're clearly incorrect that no one will engage with me.

No wonder you people fall for grifters like Peterson, you can't even spot a basic cherry-picking fallacy and yet you consider yourselves """enlightened"""

Bruh, a cherrypicking falacy is when you select a specific example of something that supports your argument when the general case may not. Lobsters are not some special case that just happen to be a lot like human lower brain regions. Literally any animal with a brain would be as good or better example of the commonalities between human and animal brains as lobsters. How is this in any way a cherrypicking fallacy? Like what the fuck?

You don't know a whole lot about animal behavior, do you

Observe fellow animal behavior experts, we have been lucky enough to observe today, in the wild, a special display. A rare user, colloquially known as the "bitch ass nigga", is putting on a display in an attempt to drive away a predator. Having been caught in the open he first attempts to appear much larger than he actually is, using many long and impressive sounding words and phrases. The predator is unimpressed and while initially thwarted, the brave B.A.N. is undettered and quickly deploys his deadliest weapon. Smug assertions that if the predator was really as smart as he thought he was he would already know some undisclosed fact. Truly a deadly art. If pressed on the nature of this undisclosed fact the BAN will refuse to answer and continue to smugly assert that any smart person would clearly already know it. Truly nature is breathtaking.

So you're observing yourself? Neat.

Paul King, fmr UC Berkeley Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience

The human brain does indeed have older “preserved” brain structures for basic survival functions (e.g. the “reptilian brain” and/or “paleomammalian brain”) and also more recently evolved structures that support cognition (the “neomammalian brain” or neocortex)
There is, to some extent, competition for control of behavior across “more primitive” and “more modern” circuits, with limbic system reflexes being more core and instinctual, while the prefrontal cortex is the highest level, most flexible, and goal oriented.
The idea of the “limbic system,” also introduced by MacLean and somewhat related to the Triune Brain model, has remained a core concept in modern neuroscience and is widely referenced (although now seen as simplistic and misleading).

The layering proposed by MacLean has not stood the test of time. For example MacLean included the basal ganglia in the lowest “reptilian” layer whereas this would now be seen as a middle layer. A more modern model might have 4 layers: brainstem & hypothalamus (basic survival functions), limbic system (amygdala, etc., complex automatic behavior), basal ganglia (adaptive behavior sequence optimization), prefrontal cortex (goal-oriented learning, behavior, & reasoning); but these are subsystems within a larger systems and not true layers.
The brain did not evolve by adding layers, as MacLean’s model implies. Rather, the core circuits of the whole brain have reorganized over time, with certain circuit elements and regions expanding and becoming more complex. Even reptiles have cortex-like structures, just smaller and less complex.
The “competing brain area” aspect of the Triune Brain model is simplistic and inaccurate. At a broad conceptual level, cognitive circuits do play a larger role in humans, whereas “limbic circuits” take over in moments of threat (fight-or-flight). However the brain is a whole system and all circuits are engaged and collaborating all the time. The prefrontal cortex requires the rest of the brain to function, and fight-or-flight responses engage circuits in the basal ganglia and cerebral cortex.
In general, the brain as a whole has proven to be highly complex and intricate, with deep interconnections and cross-connections. Circuit elements and brain regions are part of a complex dynamic system that does not easily separate into independent modules. For example the limbic regions do not really form a coherent system, and the limbic subregions, like the amygdala or hippocampus, are better understood in relation to the brain as a whole rather than to other limbic system elements.

the "muh human nature" of pop neuroscience



I am rubber you are glue.

Much better! I would take issue with a couple things the authors of that article said though. While the Fodor modularity thing has been beaten to death a billion times over when they say "does not easily seperate into independent modules" that generally means something like, its not modular in the sense of no recurrent feedback. There are fairly extensive recurrent feedback loops between the lower and upper brain areas buuut the interconnections are an order of magnitude less dense than the interconnections within those regions. So one's "lizard brain" if you want to call it that is not a "true module" like a programming object that only interacts on inputs and outputs but it is relatively more modular than say cortex areas. So as the author says its a good intuitive explanation that captures several core findings about psychology but if you're not familiar with the specifics it might give you a false impression about the nature of modularity in the brain, how it evolved etc… which is a fair point.

When you say "human nature" do you mean the traits and biological dispositions that people have that are distinct from non-human creatures? Because we absolutely have those.

Oh god this meme. If you want to be an obnoxious philosopher you can't even confirm that another human feels pain. Invertebrates have nocioceptors and react to avoid painful stimuli. What else do you want?

ughhh I'm so mad you're making me read this. Ok so his main argument is that humans have more complex brain structures than lobsters and serotononin has different effects on serveral of these areas such that serotonin can be inhibitory of violent behavior in humans because of increased transmission between the frontal lobes and amygdla. I think he's trying to equate violence and dominance here? But there's no real evidence that dominance and violence are one in the same in humans and this guy does not make a good argument for that. Also he claims serotonin effects lobsters but does not make lobsters happy. How the fuck would he know that? Did he give them a survey? Then there's this.

His point is literally that if people choose to believe that everyone is unique and equal people will be better off so we ought to believe that because it would be hurtful for anyone to think of themselves as inferior. No argument for whether it's true or not. Literally just, I think society would be better if everyone chose to believe this instead. This is some Santa Claus level shit. Hey everyone, things would be better if we all believed in Santa Claus so why not just say its true? What a trash article.

Where did I admit this? Please quote the exact sentence or paragraph.
It's perfectly valid to make a claim based on qualitative, but not representative, evidence and then wait for others to disprove you by testing your theories.

As it stands, there's more evidence on the "Peterson fans don't read critically" side of the scale than on whatever the opposite claim is. My citation is most social media chatter hovering around Peterson's mentions. Until someone pays a year's wages to prove that wrong (or confirm it) it's the data we have. If that doesn't meet your standards for evidence, then go out and find the opposing data.

You don't need them to be one and the same for there to be a hard causal link between the two.
That's not his only point and I think you're purposely ignoring that to avoid having to deal with it. His first point is that it's harmful for people to think that some people are natural-born losers, based on observing the behaviour of a shellfish [which we don't bother to kill before we cook –ed.]
False equivalency. Santa Claus isn't real. It's true that people are unique and equal.

Like I said, you've got no unbiased evidence and you admit it, anecdotes are trash. I've watched for instance Peterson's biblical lecture series including the question sections afterwards and with a few exceptions the people asking questions were at least above average in terms of being well read and intelligent people. This is of course a very biased sample since its always a minority that's going to be asking approved questions. But my perception of it based on the mental availability of examples is that Peterson fans are above average. Your perception based on the mental availability of examples is that they are below average. Either of us is free to make the claim based on our personal experiences but if I just said Peterson (rick and morty) fans are all smarter than average based on my experience you wouldn't take me seriously. So why should I take you seriously when you claim their reading comprehension is worse than average based on your experience?

So does violence cause dominance or dominance cause violence if there's a hard causal link between them? From everything I've seen violence tends to happen in cases where some form of oppressive dominance is threatened. You beat the kid when he's disobeying, you go to war with the country when they refuse to pay up. In cases of absolute dominance there is little need for violence as the dominance can not be threatened. As for whether some people are natural born losers, that's just objectively true. I'm a natural born loser at pro-basketball, too fucking short. I'm good at other things so I'm not too buttblasted about it but if you suggest I'm not at a huge disadvantage in basketball you're just wrong. Peterson's argument for dominance hierarchies in humans is that unlike lobsters there is no single hierarchy but a plurality of different ones. So a person can be extremely dominant in one field and shit in many many others and that's typical but ignoring the differences would be foolish. People are and should be unique and equal under the law. But are people equal in terms of physical ability? aptitudes? personality? absolutely not.

I'll be the first to criticize Peterson for suggesting these differences are the root of economic inequality, which is total bullshit. Capital is at the root of that, but they do exist.

I also find this argument unbelievable, given that society does choose to believe in things even if they are false, since we benefit anyway from the collective assumption. Our justice system is forced to assume that all people accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty, no matter how obvious it is that the criminal is guilty. Even if he's a murderer who uploaded video of himself merking a dude onto liveleak, the system has to assume that's he's guilty until a judge and jury is sufficiently convinced beyond a shadow or a doubt that guilt has been established. This assumption benefits everyone since it protects the wrongly accused, even though we may have to now and then force ourselves to treat a guilty man as innocent until proven guilty.

Again, where did I admit this? Please quote the exact sentence.
So you (supposedly) have one video with a handful of people (who are self-selecting and therefore above-average) and I have probably over a hundred individual commenters, all of whom treat Peterson's assertion that Frozen is actual propaganda (as opposed to just embodying the values of the liberal system it was produced in).

So it looks like I have to revise my assertion to "Peterson fans, on average, cannot read critically."
Why do you think I want people to take me seriously here? If this was some academic journal and we were engaging in a debate that would reflect well or poorly on my CV then yeah, I'd care. Instead I'm arguing with a guy with horrendously shit taste in aidorus I don't know. I'm doing this purely because I'm enjoying the extent to which I can try and drag this argument out Phoenix Wright-style.
So we're going from "there's no evidence" to "I think the evidence says X." Which is it?
We don't live in this society. Modern technology can upend any bullshit hierarchy. North Korea has basically upended the international hierarchy with a couple of nukes.

OK, though at this point I don't even know why you're arguing except to be a logic pedant.


God I got into this argument once with this reddit data analyst. They'd done some survey about site changes around regulating abusive content and he was saying well yes there may be some bias but we have x hundred responses so its fine. So I asked him what the response rate was on the survey and it was like 0.001% response rate but it was fucking reddit so they threw it in front of 10 million people and got a few hundred responses or something. So I tell him, brosef if you have any response bias there your results are trash, good response rate is like 60% not fucking 0.001%, and he just kept saying his fucking n was good. Like having a good n means anything with a fucking 0.001% response rate….. made me so fucking mad. Point is twitter is a big loud pool so you're of course going to get a bigger n but your response rate is probably even worse than the handful of folks speaking up at talks so its hard to say whose evidence is better. I'm just saying both our sets of evidence seem pretty shit here so its probably not a productive point of discussion. And I mean Frozen was produced by Disney, I think that's good enough evidence that its propaganda question is just propaganda for who.

I think you're wrong about the existence of oppressive hierarchies in society though. Technology is as often used to enforce hierarchies as upend them. If you are a student in a highschool you're not allowed to just upend the dominance of the teacher. You speak up the wrong way you'll be punished, you ditch class enough you'll be arrested, you can try and use technology. Buy a gun and shoot the teacher or something and hey good on you. But good luck keeping that up. Hierarchies are real.

Justice system is a little bit different because it's normative rather than declarative I guess you'd call it. We don't say everyone is innocent we say everyone should be treated as though they're innocent for the sake of the legal process. I think its a much more serious thing to start defining what things ARE based on the perceived benefits of that belief. Humans are extremely bad at estimating the long term consequences of ideas. It's a very serious thing to start regulating allowed truth and discourse based on perceived social benefits. Christians thought we'd have a better world if everyone believed in Jesus and I don't know if that turned out so well. Mother Teresa was a godamn atheist most of her career and was still slinging that shit to people. That's a dangerous kind of hypocrisy.

And you take that shit back, kome is best idol.

Didn't you get rekt hard enough today?

But I'm not sampling Twitter, I'm sampling the mentions of Peterson's account.
That's not what you were saying earlier. You were claiming that no one could really know one way or another. Now it's just "hey, this isn't really productive." What are you talking about anyway?
How so?
Like I alluded to before, is it actual propaganda (with a complete communications plan and an active target audience beyond "customers") or is it just propaganda in that it's the product of a liberal capitalist system?
I said that modern technology can upend bullshit technologies. A single hacker was able to force silicon valley to distance itself from the US intelligence alphabet soup. A single nation is able to keep the world's largest empire at bay with a handful of warheads.
What kind of 19th century English boarding school did you go to? In most schools no one gives a fuck. I know people who openly flaunted the hierarchy, walked out of class, and it didn't hurt them at all because they went on to sell drugs and invest the money in a legitimate business.
Anyway the whole point of what I'm trying to say is that Peterson is pants-on-head retarded for assuming that his lobster example can be applied, in any way, to humans. It can't. Do lobsters respond to the faggot alpha lobster being an asshole by getting together and working collectively to kick the shit out of him?
No, that's not how it's treated. When I went to comms school I was explicitly taught that this was the case and that trying to skirt around this assumption could invite a lawsuit.
OK, but I don't see anyone in this thread actually arguing for that, so I don't know why you're making that argument. The original article just suggests that assuming things would be a better course for society. The author isn't saying that we need to censor people for suggesting that hierarchies are normal.
Literally the only idol from Idolm@ster that's in any way "good" is Anzu, because she's the only character in the series who reacts how people should to idolshit and idol fans: as dumb reactionary failsons who should be scammed out of all their money as efficiently as possible. Literally every other character in the series could be generated by six lines of python code and a random number generator. Including kome who is just "loli char + subculture + edgy moe." Remove the subculture and you have that one mushroom girl. I wouldn't be surprised if they are given the number of idols that are churned out to generate that sweet sweet gacha yen.

Yah sampling mentions has the same issues. I'm still saying the same thing I'm just saying that since nobody has good evidence arguing about whose bad evidence is better probably won't get us very far. And yes I absolutely believe that Disney and similar media companies are not just producing products that are designed and tested to sell as well as possible (which they do) but are also propagandizing in the sense of actively attempting to push the values and framings in society in a direction that will be beneficial for them. They are consciously and actively propagandizing.

hehehe, do you mean publicly claimed to have distanced themselves from alphabet soup while continuing to deepen ties and provide services privately? Nuclear deterrence is real but probably wouldn't have had the chance to make those warheads without backing from China. Not saying tech can never upend hierarchies but its a real double edged thing.

I'm a burger so….. do they really not have truancy officers in Canada? They'll come to your house and fine your parents for not making you go to school here. Might be some differences in how presumption of innocence is treated too, here you're allowed to say someone is guilty all you want it's just not legal to discriminate employment and shit unless they were convicted.

My experience has been that people like article writer who genuinely argue for the social benefits of certain forms of speech and thinking are pretty quick to follow up with ways to force or "encourage" those forms of speech and thinking. Dumb shit like posh British assholes banning best friends in schools. I feel like its worth calling out.

Motherfucker, I'll do it in one, just make everything into a fucking list comprehension. I don't even care I love my, loli char with insert subculture and edgy moe. It's like they used a monte carlo simulation on my heart.

No, whether or not this is what the article in question was trying to say, the point is that the degree of influence something like "brain structure" has on humans, in regards to their behavior/consciousness/kinship patterns/etc., is zero. In contrast to animals, which are purely biological machinery in their essence, humanity is unique in the sense that all pre-existing biological processes are subsumed by the socio-symbolic order. In other words, it is only with humanity that something new, which is to say the structural, linguistic phenomenon of society which characterizes our sense of subjectivity, comes to serve as the determinate factor in our actions and consciousness (fuck, the very fact that we feel as if we have a sense of subjectivity is itself proof of this). As far as how we actively reproduce our existence, which is to say the particular forms of behavior and practices we embody which allow for our present mode of production to continue existing, we are not determined by our biology in any meaningful sense, and to suggest otherwise is to speak the language of ideology, as it has been since humans have existed.

That's the entire point you fucking dolt, "happiness" as it is used by morons like Peterson is an abstraction which is only meaningful in relation to the human subject who speaks it. The fact that it is so ridiculous to apply "happiness" as a category to a non-speaking animal is due precisely to the inarguable truth that to be "happy" is a uniquely human phenomenon, something that has absolutely nothing to do with any biological processes, and everything to do with the fact that all we know about what it means to be "happy" we have received from the Other, from the social sphere.

Peterson's intellectual fucking atrocity is to ossify things like "happiness," "dominance," or "inferiority" into Ideal essences, things that have the same meaning across time and even fucking species, when we all know, as speaking and living subjects, that what it means to be happy in the year 2018 has an extremely specific meaning to us in the present, and a meaning which has absolutely nothing to do with what the signifier "happy" meant to literally any living person not even 100 years ago, and yet this idiot thinks that we can apply a number of contemporary categories, most concerningly "dominance hierarchy" (and what is this stupid fucking survivalist terminology he's using here?) to not only all of human history, but the animal fucking kingdom as well. It really is ideology at its absolute purest.

Jesus fucking Christ. The point, reactionary, is not that as we presently exist everyone is equal, I don't think anyone would argue that, but to ask the question of why inequalities perpetuate themselves, with the implication being that there is nothing "essential" to their continued existence, that nothing reproduces inequality among humans other than humans themselves, because there is no God/big Other/"genetic structure" which forces us to act in the way we do. To suggest anything else is to speak as an idealist and a reactionary. This is literally Marxism 101 here.

far too many long posts, someone tl;dr this for me


You think an analogy with bees would have worked just as well as the lobsters for Peterson? I don't believe that.

I have only reached rule 4 atm, so what I'm saying is based on that and if the rest of the book contradicts the following, please tell me.

It immediately struck me as wrong-headed to dwell much of an animal that is far removed from humans (that is, it's wrong-headed if you are an honest truth-seeker). Surely, if you want to get some generic idea of a core human nature that is not heavily colored by particularities of history and culture, it makes more sense to focus on animals that are closely related to us. Simplicity has its charm and I understand that a reference to a simple and very different creature underscores the breadth of the statement about general natural behavior, still I would have kept such references short and focused on our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos. Now here is the thing: Chimps and bonobos are extremely different in how they behave. Somebody with a communist agenda like Mexie can deduct from observing bonobos that our true nature is boinking all day and being chill. Or look at chimps and shill for a new fad diet called nuffin wrong with casual cannibalism. Peterson makes a few references to chimps (nothing compared to the space reserved for lobsters) and that's it. He cherry-picked.


There are some commonalities in the brain chemistry of humans and lobsters therefore existing human hierarchies and resource distributions are justified. If you disagree, you are a dangerous utopian and unscientific to boot.

Now go clean your room!

kek, he should watch some Ghibli, maybe his head would implode.

Engineeringfag here, I don't think many of my former classmates would know about Godel (or any mathematical logic beyond the bare basics). Though the argument itself is so nonsensical that it should have caught someone's attention.

if only those working in sweatshops worked harder!

Yes, if only.





I came back just to laugh at this. This is what anti-Peterson brainlets actually believe.

Haha yah like downs syndrome. Pure ideology. Also since you don't think biological bases for human behavior are real you're just going to ignore the extensive body of work on the neurological basis of emotions.

yah and in current year no less, dosen't he know that signifiers have absolutely no continuity over time?? Nothing is permanent. There is no human nature. Maybe happy meant "we must eliminate all jews" 100 years ago?

guys, guys, I finally found the cultural marxist Peterson keeps talking about! Are you from Canada buddy?

Completely backwards. If you want to get to the idea of the genetic core of human behavior. You don't go for the closest relative you go for the most distant relatives. If you want to make the strongest argument possible that a behavior you are looking to study, for example, reflex withdrawal from heat, is a genetically and neurologically ancient and basic one you don't study monkeys. Monkeys have a cortex, a social system and many other things in common with humans. You study something like a fruit fly or a lobster or even a hydra. If the behavior (reflex withdraw from heat) exists in a hydra which does not even have a brain in the classic sense. That is pretty good evidence that the behavior is rooted in the more ancient neurological structures of humans as well. Since if you needed a cortex or x brain structure to do the behavior then it wouldn't be observed in lobsters, hydras etc. If you did the same study with monkeys it tells you almost nothing because they're so close to us biologically. "We tested monkeys and they could still do x behavior" Pretty much just tells you the behavior isn't language related. The evolution of brain structures is interesting in that pretty much everything was preserved. You might think that the brain stem in a human and a frog are fundamentally different but you'd be wrong, they're almost identical. New stuff was basically just stacked on top with the older regions remaining almost unchanged.

But Peterson isn't just talking about simple reflexes, he is talking about politics and economics, he does so right from the beginning. "The basic principle had been discovered much earlier. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), an Italian polymath, noticed its applicability to wealth distribution in the early twentieth century, and it appears true for every society ever studied, regardless of governmental form."

Opposition to a particular socio-economic order is opposition to the rules of nature that can only end in mass murder. Socialism is impossible because lobsters. Hierarchy is in nature, look at lobsters, look at the unequal distribution of the mass of heavenly bodies. (He actually said that, the absolute madman. It reminds me of some medieval argument that clearly there must be seven planets because humans have seven openings in their head.) Of course, actually existing countries don't all have the same wealth distribution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Countries_by_Gini_Index And it stands to reason that a more radical intervention in the "natural" market than what social-democrat regimes are doing would reduce it more.

So are you, cine you know about jack shit about it. You probably haven't even taken Chimstry in grade school

Absolutely everything you're saying, anyone outside of America would call unethical.

This is why Peterson is considered a joke in anywhere BUT the United States

Peterson fans are all Americans, who knew?

Peterson should stop comparing the animal kingdom to human behavior, because animals definitely do not respect human social guidelines and situations. Fish became hermaphrodites. Frogs change sex. Lobsters piss on themselves to attract a mate. Salamanders massage each other's foreheads to turn each other on,

If Frozen is cultural marxist propaganda that LOTR is as well.

finally we are reading this! and by we, i mean you will read it and summarize it in this thread and i will skim some of the posts here.

It's probably more useful than reading this pile of shit.


Imagine the screeching from 4ch/tv/ if LOTR come out today

So a distribution generally refers to the shape of your data, normal distribution, exponential distribution, pareto distribution etc… dispersion measures like the Gini coefficient just give a metric of how spread out or stretched that data is. So you can have normal distributions with different amounts of dispersion or in the case of wealth I believe its generally vaguely pareto distributions but with varying levels of dispersion. And yah, mass of heavenly bodies also follows something like a Pareto distribution, might be exponential instead? More mass means more gravity which causes more mass accumulation.

Come at me you filthy leaf.

Europeans, Canadians, Cental Americans, Asians, everyone in academia worldwide seems to hate Jordan Peterson except for Americans

Why is that?

Is it because American's standards for what is and is not dubious for an academic to get away with is far too large, and does not meet the standards of say, the EU, Oxford, etc.?

Because the rest of the world's academia has been taken over by postmodernist neo-Marxist ideology.

For fucks sakes Jordan Peterson just went on FUCKING VICE to say that he believes women are asking to be sexually harassed by putting on lipstick in the workplace because lipstick simulates when women have sex and their lips turn red

Which on top of being what should get you fired FUCKING ANYWHERE OFFICIAL, ZERO TOLERANCE

Is probably the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard Peterson say bar none any quotes from his stupid god damn book.

Peterson is a complete joke and anyone who takes him seriously is probably taking him more seriously than he takes himself.

No, this sort of behavior would have had you fired in Academia in America for decades, it's only a recent phenomenon you can get away with pretending to be the nu Carl Sagan, and all of it is happening in the United States.

Now ask me why is that?

If nerds on cuckchan and elsewhere were as "radicalized" as they are today they would have hated all sorts of iconic franchises. Can you imagine Holla Forums and Holla Forums's reaction to HL2?
and so on

Why is becoming a television personality/motivational speaker from professor allowed in the United States, but discouraged everywhere else? Why is that most areas don't let you make official claims outside your respective field, but in America, you generally can say the most insane shit

To the point Psychologists can use reverse hypnosis to claim that Alien Abduction is real, and appear on whatever Gossip television?

Why is American Academia so fucking permissive of lunatics?

Peterson is canadian though.

And yet he comes to America to make a living

He's still the laughing stock of Toronto, and I have no idea why they haven't fired him yet

Oh that's it, I see :v)

typical hustler
americans will buy anything

American porkies will pay good money for competent shills and don't necessarily care about the results of said shilling either.

Charlie, we all wonder why Conservative students in America get lower grades

Jordan Peterson is basically a more retarded version of Stephen Pinker.

Do you really want me to respond to that statement which you just pulled out of your ass? Everyone in academia worldwide? Really? Every single one?

Best universities in the world are right here son, Oxford a shit, you have one top 10 university and it only has like 10k undergraduates. That's a quarter of fucking UCLA. I can see why you didn't mention the other world famous British and European schools seeing as how there aren't any. Max Planck is ok though.

He's been rejected by campuses almost everywhere on Earth, except America, and I was curious as to why that was

You're very funny.




The National University of Singapore is a better school than all of your non-Ivy American Universities

As a matter of fact, I find this interesting, do you know what's directly under The National University of Singapore? The University of Toronto. Where Peterson somehow, by way of luck bribe or both, became a professor

why are amerimutts so fucking retarded most of the time

Oxford is rated the most prestigious University on the Entire Planet

I see you've never been to a meeting of Britain's SWP in the glorious days when comrade Delta called the shots.

Point is, Peterson makes the following pseudo-argument: Some inequality exists whether you look through a telescope or at download rates for songs, therefore THIS inequality in human society exists and must exist and these are all pretty much the same pattern somehow. You might be able to wrestle a normative statement out of descriptive statements – if your collection of descriptive statements is huge, precise, and accurate – because then you might be able to make some statements about what is not even possible, and what isn't possible shouldn't be an aim. But there are examples in human history with very different distributions of wealth, and there are differences between the distributions within countries even as they exist right now.

It's a typical anti-socialist sleight of hand: Do you think when two people work the same job, and one works over-time, they should get the same remuneration? No? Crazy, right? But that's exactly what the commies want. Luckily we live in capitalism.

Really they've rejected him from speaking in China and India? I think you're just talking out your ass. And look at the number of publications by country. Yes there are a few good Universities in Europe and England but you fuckers underestimate the scale of things in the states. The UC systems output alone is probably larger than all of England.

Oh man, Cambridge 12,000 students and the largest endowment of any university outside the United States. That's pretty good for bush league. Look at the publication numbers. Your tiny universities don't do more of anything other than jerking themselves off about how great they were 50 years ago.

Isn't that like the only university in the entire country?

I'm trying to impress on the Europeans and Canadians the scale of their irrelevance in the world why they desperately cling to the prestige of their tiny universities and wigs or whatever.

They are rated the top Universities

By student score

Yes, and it's also right above Toronto where Peterson takes his residence

Don't, you're embarrassing yourself and I doubt you're in a university at all.

Yes, America has plenty of Ivy League Schools. Beyond those, (and let's say how "permissive" they are), everything else in America is a shit show that the rest of the world really is better at

The point is that American schools are far more permissive of behavior than other universities in the world. Behavior in them would generally get you banished anywhere else.

And most often times people like Peterson take advantage of America's generous tours to appear more prestigious than they actually are.

Peterson is from the University of Toronto, and yet Singapore is more prestigious.

I'm telling you bruh, publication numbers. You gotta remember US is the center of the hegemonic military power right now. A lot of that was maintained through technological supremacy and throwing massive amounts of the considerable money gained by being the sole intact manufacturing power after ww2 into the likes of laurence livermore labs, hiring off the cream of European scientists etc. You Europeans are funny because you still treat Universities like educational institutions. They're not, not here, we treat undergraduates like shit but there's a nuclear reactor and 5 wet labs in the basement and more billions in defense and private money than you would fucking believe. Student scores are good but its the wrong thing to be looking at. American universities are research factories for the machine and they are the best at it by a long shot. This is what I mean when I say Oxford is irrelevant, and believe me Oxford is irrelevant.

We're super good at murdering people in the most expensive ways possible.

Don't forget that trip he took courtesy of Monsanto.. or was it DOW chemicals? There's more going on here than it appears and you're right to be suspicious. I just don't think you're going to understand how you got fucked until its much much too late.

Oxford is the most prestigious school in the world, more than any American University. It has an EXACT even number of undergraduates and postgraduates.

About 97 per cent of Oxford graduates are either employed or in postgraduate study within six months of leaving.

The point is that humans are irreducible to their biology, in terms of what motivates our action and understanding of our subjective position in regards to the society we find ourselves in. And yes, this is as true for those with conditions such as downs syndrome as it is anyone else, I mean my fucking god are they not human?! How we relate to ourselves and each other, and most importantly, how we organize production, are not biological processes. To say otherwise is anti-democratic and anti-scientific. I mean just use your fucking head for a moment: if the practices of humans are determined simply by biology, how do you expect to scientifically account for historical changes in production, when our biological/genetic/etc. basis has remained unchanged for thousands of years? Bourgeois mouthpieces such as Peterson are incapable of accounting for this, and as such they can only resort to the most vulgar kinds of superstition and mystification when they approach this topic. And the real fucking scandal here is that this piece of shit pretends to have an ounce of familiarity with psychoanalytic theory! The very same field which makes it abundantly fucking clear that what moves humans, what determines the conditions of their psychological existence, is not some ridiculous misappropriation of biology, but the death drive, a negative self-reflexivity which is not biological, but instead subsumes and over-determines biological processes.

Look at this piece of shit. Look at his fucking laziness, rather than actually engage in an argument, rather than taking a second to use his fucking head to think critically, he instead prefers to passively appeal to "duh scienze," allowing some "studies" to form his opinions for him. Honestly, I'm completely willing to believe this child has basically no experience or actual grounding in studies concerning the "neurological basis of emotion," it's simply enough for him to know that they exist, that somewere out there, there's Science which has already explained that all of the human experience has been found to have an essentially biological essence. Nevermind methodology, nevermind which populations have been tested, nevermind how a completely fucking arbitrary term like "emotions" was qualified for these studies, Science says it so it is so! It's absolutely anti-democratic and, ironically, anti-Enlightenment in origin.


This is inarguably true. Just use some fucking reasoning instead of cowardly allowing Science to articulate all of your opinions for you. From where we speak at the moment, from where we are as people, what things do we associate with happiness, "the good life?" Are you honestly going to try and fucking tell me that what makes someone living in America in the 21st century happy bears even a minimal fucking resemblance to what was deemed the good life in, say, ancient Greece? Do you honestly believe that we can draw any continuity between the consciousness of someone living in the feudalistic epoch and the consciousness of the 21st century capitalist subject without granting otherwise meaningless signifiers transhistorical status?

This is precisely how ideology functions, it ossifies the conditions of the present into eternal Ideals, it tells us that the rotten fucking conditions we find ourselves in today are "just how it's always been man.. i mean at the end of the day we're just animals you know…" So FUCKING stupid! THIS is what an unscientific discourse looks like, it is idealist, in the sense that it grants something which has a very precise meaning in one specific context a universal character by separating it from its specific context. By doing so, you remove the materiality of a given signifier and turn it into a purely ideal abstraction. Thus, by treating something such as "hierarchy" as a transhistorical universal, with a slew of moralistic implications, Peterson is quite simply choosing to worship an idea, just as the primitive, superstitious societies of antiquity did. This is the same dishonesty which allows reactionary, pseudo-scientific fucking garbage a la evolutionary psychology (a field which, unsurprisingly, that fucking rodent Peterson concerns himself with) to be given an iota of legitimancy. We are materialists or we are superstitious idiots, the choice is yours.

We Marxists are, far, far more offensive to Peterson's petty bourgeois sensibilities than he is even capable of understanding, especially as long as he continues in his refusal to actually read a page of Marxist literature. Honestly, he had better hope that his pathetic "infringement of free speech" crusade is the worst it gets for him. If we Communists ever achieve our goals, Peterson and every other filthy fucking reactionary who touts that evopsych shit has much more to fear for than simply losing their "free speech."


In other news, we still live in a bourgeois state.

That may be true, but saying that somehow Oxford is inferior to most American schools, that's just not the case

I'm amused how butthurt you limeys get about your universities. What does most prestigious even mean? I can tell you for certain it does not mean most publications and does not mean best department in any particular subject. Like if you're doing engineering MIT is a better school, if you're doing neuroscience UCSD is a better school. You're lucky that euro financial crap is still headquartered in london for whatever reason otherwise all ten thousand graduates from your tiny university would probably have to go back to potato farming. Say it with me now. England is a sad former empire whose main economic exports are posh accents and financial products.

Your tiny posh school is probably inferior to pretty much all of the large American public schools in terms of research output.

CalTech is a better school than MIT, you have no idea what you're talking about


In terms of research output? Again, the United States is not in the top ten. Any of them are beat by

Get ready for it

The King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia

"Research output" is not a good qualification for how good a university is

This is a good point honestly, never thought it otherwise which is a interesting point of view

You're something special user, even most of the neo-freudians didn't believe in the death drive. I'd probably have to pull out… I think it was Alice Miller who had a take on death drive and its interpretation that I liked to really engage with you on that one. I honestly haven't run into anyone who seriously cited death drive in the last like 50 years in writing much less a real live person…. not that that means its wrong but you've caught me pretty unprepared for once and I'm pretty busy bullying the british at the moment so you'll have to give me a raincheck on that one. And I'm not trying to dodge you on the biological basis of emotions stuff, I'm not an expert by any means but I've taken a couple classes on the subject and read through some of the primary literature. The evidence for primary emotions being universal and biologically based is pretty good so I wasn't expecting that I'd need to defend it. Like there's a real conversation to have here about what is human nature and what's ossified social constructs being justified as human nature by those in positions of power. But I thought it was pretty accepted that there is such a thing as human nature…. which I guess I was wrong about. I'm pretty curious what you were educated in tbh. I thought cultural marxists were just a right wing boogeyman not a real thing.

Well we can at least agree they're both better than Oxford.

Yah it was a bit of a trip for me visiting European universities where the focus was so different. Like I can see how it'd seem ridiculous that we have these massive expensive institutions and yet most people graduating are these barely literate idiots. Clearly american universities suck and are massively inefficient with their money. Nah bro, it just all goes to medical and weapons research.

No I meant that for Engineering degrees Caltech is better than MIT, while Oxford probably remains the best university in the world in general.

Considering your boy Peterson is such a fucking brilliant mind he's comparing human social organization to the world of….ocean arthropods….he's not only at a great place to talk about how human beings operate but he also has plenty of friends.

The world of oceanic arthropods is so alien to mankind he might as well be justifying the cultural marxism he hates by comparing men to lobsters, lobsters are not good human analogs. I cannot believe this even needs to be said, and I cannot believe you take Peterson this seriously.

Unless Peterson really wants to get into the gnitty gritty of the hierarchy of sex in Marine Arthropods, I'm all for that and he should start here:


Lobsters aren't what he thinks they are

Yah, MIT is also better for engineering than Oxford so we're both right. You should also look at how these ratings are calculated. A lot of the weighting is on things like citations per professor, number of phd students per professor etc. Which very heavily favor small elite institutions that dump a lot of money into hiring a small group of late career big name professors and mostly doing research and graduate work. This is why places like MIT or Oxford have those absurd 50 / 50 undergraduate, graduate student ratios. If you only hire people who are already famous and well cited who take on a lot of phds its easy to pump up those ratings. A larger institution of any sort that hires early career professors, does more undergraduate education etc… will never get as high on those metrics. Having one tiny University that's the highest possible on those metrics just shows that the brits were willing to spend a lot of money to have their old ass University be a showpiece rather than on having a strong general education or research infrastructure. Which lets be honest, is exactly like those fucking limeys.

Yah, the point is they're very bad human analogs and you can still compare the behaviors.

How you guys got from, hey isn't it interesting that lobsters have dominance hierarchies that are controlled at least partially by serotonin perhaps those same circuits still exist in humans as well… to hurr peterson thinks people are exactly like lobsters is a mystery to me.

No the point is the sexuality of marine arthropods and invertebrates are so fucking Alien to mammalian, and especially human life, we might as well be talking about entirely different planets. There is no analog. There is literally none. A species of crayfish can clone itself without the need for sexual reproduction at all. Animals under the water constantly change sex.

Aquatic life is completely different because life on the surface became subsequently more penetrating….even then sex is alien until you get to mammalian life…which isn't really good as a human analog either.

Above and below water sex and the behavior associated are so different because the movement we're dealing with are different.

Most damning, our last living direct relative is the Bonobo, which has hierarchy revolved around a Matriarchy, where combat is few and far between, and is alien to most primates. All of the genera Homo came from a common ancestor, and that's the best we have in terms of a parallel for mankind. It doesn't fit Peterson's narrative well.

Peterson is a psychologist and he should really not be delving into Biology as a layman, he's bound to make some serious fucking mistakes like compare the alien behavior of marine invertebrates to human beings….when our closest primate kin we can compare ourselves to doesn't obey the logic Peterson is forwarding.

In fact let's talk about Lobster sex, shall we. The female lobster sprays a cloud of urine and attractive chemicals that make lobsters far away attracted to it. The male lobsters then go into battle to the death with their pincers, frequently urinating on themselves in ritual around the female. To the victor gets the spoils, and both male and female lobsters begin urinating on each other. This is done to make sure both lobsters are in the mood due to the chemicals within the urine cloud, and to make reproduction successful. After the end of lobster coitus, the female either kills the male, or they both escape quickly enough that neither get too aggressive to turn on one another and start pinching with their claws. Males can kill female lobsters despite this elaborate ritual if it isn't hastened, but females killing males is far more common.

Does this circle of life sound anything similar to how human's treat sex in hierarchy. If you say yes, point me to the direction where men do a fighting piss wrestle in order to fuck someone they may as well kill, making reproduction void. Or more probably, the female lobster kills and eats its successful urine soaked suitor.

Lobsters also engage in homosexuality between breeding. So, there's that.

Lobster behavior and human behavior are separated by several hundred million years of not only difference in form, but difference in environment.

Material conditions once again, explain evolution and hierarchy evolved.

I'm just saying, Peterson comparing vertbrate land dwelling life to possibly the most degenerate tumblr place on the planet (The Ocean), is really ironic.

There's a ton of genetic and structural similarities between humans and invertebrates. Plenty of differences too but its stupid to just say… they're too different, they have weird sex! It depends what you're studying. Giant squid were used to study neural transmission because they have these huge fuck off motor neurons that are unmyleinated but have the same ion pumps and etc. The bonobo stuff is interesting but there's still a lot of debate about it.

See, just like the British. Was wondering where I could get my jab on the british in but there it is. I mean sure animal sex can be pretty weird there's this type of beetle that inseminates females by piercing their shell with their hypodermic penis and shooting semen directly in their body cavity. And since bugs have no real circulatory system, everything just kinda floats in the cavity, the sperm just swim through their guts until they reach the ovaries. But despite how weird invertebrates are we do still share most of our genes and a good bit of neural functioning with them. Evolution is real you know.

We share almost nothing with the Lobster that isn't the most primitive shit you can possibly imagine. We aren't directly related to Lobsters,f or one. We're related to forms of life that can be traced back as worm like organisms 600,000,000-550,000,000 BCE.

Lobsters are almost completely alien to us on another level their evolution went differently because the sex lives of animals above and below water are different simply because new organs need to exist in order for previously water dwelling life to keep reproductive fluid in.

Sex has evolved so many different ways along the ways to humanity that looking at one singular underwater invertebrate is random as hell to prove a point.

I would have at least gone with a Chimpanzee or something similar, but our direct relatives (the only one left) is the Bonobo, and they kind of refute a lot of Peterson's argument.

You have to wonder, at what point are we trying to anthropomorphize the lives of creatures completely alien to us (instead of similar) in order to prove a point.

Maybe Peterson has read all that stuff about lobsters, and then thought: Fascinating, these creatures are just like the people in my Hentai comics.

I really love the irony here: in the midst of our conversation, you unintentionally reveal the tragically anti-intellectual and vulgar empricist climate of the American university discourse while you are simultaneously attempting to defend that very institution itself. We students here in the States truly live in dark times.

The "neo-freudians," as you seem to understand them, were not Freudians at all. Lacan himself devoted nearly a decade in the 40's to distancing real psychoanalytic work from the "neo-Freudian" turn, which was a disctinctly American phenomenon (I could provide you with several quotes from Elizabeth Roudinesco's "Why Psychoanalysis?" which provide substantial historical grounding for this point). "Psychology," as it hegemonically exists in our bleak times, is an absolute farce, and the fact that you appear to have a modicum of university experience with psychology departments only stands as evidence of this. The fact of the matter is that Freud's discovery of the unconscious, which is inseperable from the death drive itself, is an inarguable scientific revolution, however it has not been received as such. I'm not familiar with Alice Miller, however you are absolutely incorrect in your assumption that the psychoanalytic consensus at large has lost its "belief" in the death drive. Although the psychoanalytic field which I concern myself with, the Lacanians, takes Freud's death drive completely seriously, they are not alone. The apparent "distancing" from Freud's revolutionary discoveries really only has happened in one "analytic" domain: the Anglo-American perversion which at one point called itself "ego psychology." Today it is known as cognitive-behavioral therapy. In either case, the same is true: the vast majority of the predominant "psychological" discourses today serve one precise function: the readjustment of neurotics to the logic of capital. This is, again, one of the most vulgar perversions of analytic technique history has ever seen; the point of analysis is not to make a subject happy, but to work through the truth of his unconscious. This is, frankly, not an enjoyable experience, and is fundamentally concerned with something much greater than a given subject's ability to adapt itself to the logic of capital; a true psychoanalysis radically confronts the subject with the Real of it's desire, something which speaks to our actual subjective position, which is absolutely irreducible to how we are doing at our job or any other trivialities. To put it simply, psychoanalysis, the only historically acceptable psychological approach that exists, is only capable of exposing the simple fact that once we resolve our personal, individual pathologies, we still happen to be deeply unhappy. This is the truth of capital. The absolute bottom line is that living in subserviance to capital is not an enjoyable existence. If we accept this fact, then we are able to understand the, in my opinion, horrifying implications of the predominant psychology of today; it mostly serves in order to provide fucking excuses for why our conditions today make us miserable.


I would like to, just for a moment, appreciate how fucking precisely he demonstrates my point, completely on accident. He doesn't believe his own opinions, he defers his belief onto the Other. "The evidence," for him, is nothing less than God, as long as "the evidence" exists he doesn't have to subjectively take responsibility for his own opinions, the big Other is all too ready to believe for him. Without having the desire to actually search the "scientific evidence" for biological determinations of emotion, he is still able to act as if he belives in it. This is pathology at its absoloute purest, he is still able to believe because he imagines that there is someone "out there" who really does believe, and the "presence" of this abstraction is enough for this pathetic poster to act as if he belives in the "scientific" hegemony.

No, reactionary, there is no conversation to be had here. "Human nature," in the context which you are using it, is nothing but ideological. Psychoanalytic technique does in fact tell us that there are universals to the human experience, however, as I said before, these universals are irreducible to our biological essence. We are much greater than our biology. The absolute fucking TRASH which Peterson sells is that we are to believe that the biology which we observe serves as a reference point for how we should act. Well, because I actually believe in the ideas of Western civilization, the Enlightenment, which that fucking DISGUSTING reactionary loves to pay lip service to, I on the contrary believe that we are actually free. This means, if ANYTHING, that we are greater than the chains biology apparently places on us, as the evopsych shitheels would have us believe.

I thought you had read a single fucking Marxist book. If you are honestly identifying me with the "cultural Marxist" category, something which is nothing but a direct descendant of the fascist "Judeo-Bolshevism," all you do is reveal yourself as an uneducated piece of fucking shit. For even the most basically engaged Marxist intellectual NOTHING I HAVE SAID TO YOU IS CONTROVERSIAL.


Adorno did not say there shouldn't be any poetry after Auschwitz. He said there can be no poetry, or more specifically, that writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric. The first statement, out of context, is declaratory. The second statement is rhetorical.

JBP really is a third fucking rate "thinker."

When is an actual Marxist intellectual going to reckon with JBP's bullshit? Guys like David Harvey, Terry Eagleton, Zizek or Fredric Jameson would make mince meat out of him.

Also pretty funny that JBP is still dodging Doug Lain's podcast. He also seems to have completely ignored Derick Varn's podcast invitation. Speaks volumes about the coward.

Someone should really just ask him about Frozen. I would love to hear him try to justify his position to normies.

IDK if Doug is the best to do it anyway; he's probably too leftcom to actually provide any examples of working socialism.

Probably, but he'd at least destroy Jordan's strawman of postmodernism and Marxism.

A part of me thinks it's only a partial or perhaps not the best strategy to accuse someone like Peterson of being a "charlatan" or totally irrational.

My view is that whenever you have a following like this around thought that is mixed with a pseudo spiritual, or what we today call self-help tinge, the nature of the collective thing that's taking place will always appear as the work of a charlatan. It doesn't matter whether the academic substance is rigorous or not. Peterson only needs to appear like he's well read. No, what matters is the affect, the cathexis, the hook of libidinal drive that his positions are eliciting. His talks apparently feel like "revivals" for example.

So I think a big part of challenging or at least understanding the Peterson moment is to ask why this sort of energy and cathexis around ideas isn't happening with professors or public figures that have left-wing orientations.

Well someone's touchy about trannys, it would seem.

your posts are truly idiotic

Jordan's tiny head might explode

Petersons argument is quite literally that dominance hierarchies are the most primitive shit you can possibly imagine. Brain stem level circuits that we even share with lobsters. I like the idea that he got it from watching too much hentai though.

>vulgar empiricist climate of the American university
ehehe you got that one right. If you can't quantify it you can pretty much go fuck yourself. I do have a modicum of experience with university psych at least in burgerland and I can tell you with certainty nobody does psychoanalytic. It would be a career death sentence to try and its a pretty common punching bag for something that's "unscientific". I'm a bit of a weirdo so I actually read a bit but as far as I can tell psychoanalytic theory was never accepted in academic psychology. Even at the time it was clinicians and the literary set who were into psychoanalysis, university psychologists were and continue to be quite hostile to it. Never read Lacan but I'm sympathetic to your criticism of stuff like CBT and the modern use of psychology as a tool to accommodate people to bad circumstances. Did you know they give Orcas kept in those tanks at sea world lithium? Apparently similar technology works on humans and other intelligent animals kept in cages.

Hey now, that's kind of mean. I'm totally arrogant enough to believe my own opinions over whatever bullshit experts. I have actually seen and worked through some of the material on the biological basis of emotion. I'm not just saying well science says so it must be right… I really wasn't expecting to run into a Lacanian who thought emotions were socially constructed so I don't exactly have citations ready. But here's a puzzle for you, if emotions are purely socially constructed how do newborn babies know to react positively to smiling faces? And they do, why wouldn't they be neutral until they'd been socially conditioned in some way?

Peterson does not actually say that we should use biology as a reference point for how to act he says something like it defines the rules within which we can play the game.

I mean I got through a lot of Das Kapital, but I mostly liked the labor theory of value and the discussion of the relation of capital and labor. I don't actually remember any parts about how there's no such thing as human nature.

I love you too user

is this scientifically proven (the connection between the brain stem and dominance hierarchies) or is it one of his insights?

Except…it's not. There are plenty of animals without dominance hierarchies, choosing marine arthropods is probably the absolute worst fucking place to start comparing human beings with.

There are crustaceans that literally have no hierarchy and switch sex from female to male, male to female, depending on the situation. "Dominance hierarchies" among crustaceans in order to compare them to human beings, is like ice skating uphill.

He pulled it out of his arse. See: youtube.com/watch?v=iyHVwUe66qw





get rekt.

At every problematic situation you have two very general options - voice vs exit. You either try to play or you just opt out. Being able to opt out is a great limiter on how your rights can be restricted by rules of the game. Thus - create alternative structures.