Jordan Peterson-Rational Wiki

#71
I can only assume that all the refutes that SS is now ignoring were successful, and she has no further comeback for them. I will consider all those points settled, and will simply quote my replies to them, if repeated in the future.

(Jul 7, 2019 04:39 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 6, 2019 10:55 PM)Syne Wrote: I don't remember Peterson ever calling himself a Christian.

When interviewed by British author, Tim Lott, Peterson was asked "are you a Christian?" and responded "I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes". [1]
You're cherry-picking your own reference.  Dodgy
He goes on to qualify that ("although") and say that he's agnostic about the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. You, yourself, have claimed that isn't a Christian:
(Jul 6, 2019 02:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Believing in the resurrection of the dead is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. That is their big claim to fame—their evidence for an afterlife. That’s their central proof that Jesus was in fact the son of god (god himself) and that he is the only way. Eternal life is achieved through him and him alone. Take that away and it all crumbles.


Quote:Let's get back to the lobsters now, shall we? Why lobsters?
This is the very first mention of lobsters in this entire thread. So whoever/whatever you think you're getting "back to", it ain't me and it ain't here.
That makes this a non sequitur.
Quote:He says that there’s biological and behavioral continuity across the animal kingdom. He chose lobsters to indicate that there’s so much continuity in the systems that allow us to estimate status positions that we share it with creatures that are a third of a billion years old. Lobsters are arthropods but there are older living arthropods, take the horseshoe crab for instance, it’s been around for 445 million years. He said that we’ve divulged from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago but that’s inaccurate. He cherry picked a species that has a trait that he wants to claim as universal. If Peterson thinks that all hierarchies are identical to humans then he’s sorely mistaken. The social behavior of lobsters and humans are not the same at all.

At one point, he gets all cocky with British journalist, Helen Lewis, and says, "I know my neurochemistry. So, if you’re going to play neurochemistry let’s go and do it."
You're again putting words in his mouth without citing your source.  Dodgy
Where has he claimed the traits universal? What specific traits?
Could it simply be that he's pointing out that some traits reemerge over long timescales and genetically distance species? That seems fairly remarkable in itself. Convergent behavioral traits that mirror the convergent evolution of physical traits.
How long ago did we diverge ("divulged" means to make known) from lobsters? Where's your source? He actually says 350-600 million years ago*.
Where did he say human and lobster social behavior was identical? O_o

Or is he just saying that dominance hierarchies and mating competition is pretty widespread in the animal kingdom?
*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ypVbUBEZHg

Quote:Well, okay, let's do it then.

He says that, "lobsters exists in hierarchies and they have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy and that nervous system runs on serotonin just like our nervous systems do."
Where is that quote from? You've already proven that you will take quotes out of context.
From the only thing you've cited about lobsters (British journalist, Helen Lewis), the only things close are:

"if you know the literature on hierarchical structure you understand that across the entire animal kingdom animals tend to organize themselves into hierarchies"

"no reasonable biologists dispute the fact that most organisms organize themselves into hierarchies and that the fundamental biological mechanism for the regulation of hierarchy is the serotonin system that's not disputable now you can find animal organizational structures that vary from that fundamental pattern but the existence of variants isn't proof against the existence of a fundamental pattern"

See, in your own link, he acknowledges variation, which is in stark contrast to your straw man that he is making a claim of universal traits.  Dodgy

Quote:Serotonin is a single neurotransmitter. It’s just one of many. It’s a common amino acid. Bananas even have serotonin. Oh, yeah, he really knows his neurochemistry all right. Ha-ha! Maybe he could collaborate with Ray Comfort, eh?  Big Grin
Where did he say serotonin was the only neurotransmitter? O_o
He cites a study that showed serotonin, used to treat depression in humans, will get a losing lobster to fight again...to challenge the established dominance hierarchy.

Instead of trying to refute what he's actually said, you just argue straw men and try to poison the well with a tenuous association you've fabricated.  Dodgy
That's very intellectually dishonest.

Quote:You might be asking yourself at this point, why didn’t he simply go with one of our closest living relatives? He probably wanted to steer clear of the bonobos for obvious reasons. They’re more matriarchal and egalitarian, but what about chimpanzees?

Well, that really wouldn’t fit with Peterson’s hypothesis that fundamental human hierarchies are not based on power, but on competence, and male chimpanzees are aggressive towards male and female chimpanzees. Mate preferences might exist among female chimpanzees. Male-male competition is one of the leading theories for sexual dimorphism, but supposedly, males are more promiscuous, compared to the greater choosiness of females. However, there are plenty of studies showing that female chimpanzees are actually quite promiscuous. Male-male competition and sexual coercion most likely limits their mate choices.
For the umpteenth time, where has he said animal hierarchies are ones of competence but not power?
And what's with all the non sequiturs? I thought you wanted to talk about lobsters. What, that wasn't as damning as you'd hoped? So you have to choose something he hasn't talked about much to make straw men about?  Rolleyes
Quote:Since male aggression against females both constrained female mate choice and imposed costs on females, we conclude that such aggression functioned as sexual coercion. Coercive aggression could increase male copulation rates through at least two mechanisms: by overcoming female resistance (direct coercion), and/or by limiting female promiscuity (mate guarding). Whether the benefits lie primarily in overcoming female resistance or in constraining female promiscuity, these data represent the strongest evidence found that in a wild primate, male aggression against females functions as part of a mating strategy. As such, they represent the best demonstration of male coercion as a mechanism of sexual selection distinct from male–male competition and female choice in primates. [2]
How is that not a dominance hierarchy? O_o

Quote:Nonetheless, if I was to conflate the two behaviors with domestic violence, I’d be accused of committing an anthropomorphic fallacy. In fact, when I mentioned this to Syne before, he said…

(May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote: Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

Well, do you feel comparable to a lobster, deary?
Context, deary:
(May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 30, 2018 03:44 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe we’re not so choosey after all.  Social and biological observations suggest that men are more promiscuous, but they fail to mention that female primates, when in heat, constantly present themselves to any approaching male.
Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?
You were the female trying to tell us how promiscuous females are, by bringing up apes yourself.

First, not all dominance hierarchies are bad. The dominance of police protect you daily.
Second, now you're the one bringing up lobsters to, what, make a negative comparison to men. If I had been the one to bring up promiscuous female apes and then compare that to you, you'd rightfully cry foul. Because I'd essentially be calling you a slut, i.e. ad hominem.
So if there's a positive association you're trying to make between men and lobsters, what is it? Otherwise, we can only assume you're trying to find ways around your promise to avoid ad hominems. That seems to be your go-to when you can't manage to argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

As for me, yes, dominance hierarchies are quite prevalent in a great many species. And? O_o
Reply
#72
hahaha Lobsters. Big Grin

This thread is funny.
Reply
#73
(Jul 7, 2019 09:08 PM)Syne Wrote: I can only assume that all the refutes that SS is now ignoring were successful, and she has no further comeback for them. I will consider all those points settled, and will simply quote my replies to them, if repeated in the future.

This? 

(Jul 6, 2019 06:43 PM)Syne Wrote: Again:
"He never implies that wishful thinking is beneficial. He actually contrasts hallucination (knowing your experience is not reality) with delusion (not knowing your experience is not reality). And he quotes Jung as saying "beware of unearned wisdom" as it pertains to mystical experiences induced by drugs, where a substance-free religious experience would be earned wisdom."

He makes it sound pretty good. Do you think I should try it, Syne?

Peterson Wrote:I think the postmodern objection to meaning is actually wrong. I do believe that there’s a transcendent ethic. I do believe that it touches on the metaphysical. I believe that people experience that because people are capable of having unalterably profound religious experiences and the naturalistic materialists don’t know what the hell to do with that. They say it’s delusional and it’s like well, hang on a sec. People who have those experiences appear to be more successful and healthier. So, in exactly what manner is that delusional? If you induce it in a lab with psilocybin for example among people who are dying cancer, their fear of death goes away. There’s an 85% success rate with quitting smoking with just one mystical experience on psilocybin. With ecstasy three treatments produces a 72% cure rate for intractable post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s like those are miracle cures and they have to be accompanied by a mystical experience. No one knows how to account for that.

…It’s a place where the biological and transcendent touch.

…The Indians regarded psilocybin as the food of the gods for a reason. Beware of them but they open the door to the transcendent.
I’m not making a claim for anything metaphysical here but I’m definitely pointing out that there are undeniable realms of human experience that involve religious experience and a sense of the infinite transcendent that look like they're healthy and that you cannot deny that.

Secular Sanity Wrote:So, my question to you is, Syne, is this what you’re referring to when you’re talking about transcendence and spirituality? Have you ever taken psychedelics?

(Jul 6, 2019 06:43 PM)Syne Wrote: I have, and that's why I know the difference.

Maybe you should watch the entire video because I know that you admire Ben Shapiro and he says that he tries to get to spirituality through reason as opposed to experience.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh7CV1Bm9xY

Syne Wrote:This is the very first mention of lobsters in this entire thread. So whoever/whatever you think you're getting "back to", it ain't me and it ain't here. That makes this a non sequitur.

Wrong!

(Jul 6, 2019 04:03 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I’ll address Leigh’s concerns when I have more time. We'll start it off with lobsters. Dodgy

Syne Wrote:You're again putting words in his mouth without citing your source.  Dodgy

I don't have to put words in his mouth. He's a verbose speaker.

Secular Sanity Wrote:He says that, "lobsters exists in hierarchies and they have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy and that nervous system runs on serotonin just like our nervous systems do."

Syne Wrote:Where is that quote from? You've already proven that you will take quotes out of context.
From the only thing you've cited about lobsters (British journalist, Helen Lewis), the only things close are:
"if you know the literature on hierarchical structure you understand that across the entire animal kingdom animals tend to organize themselves into hierarchies"

Here you go.

Lobster Bullshit

Syne Wrote:For the umpteenth time, where has he said animal hierarchies are ones of competence but not power?

He's saying that human hierarchies are ones of competence but he's using animal hierarchies to back up his claims. Animal hierarchies vary dramatically.  

Since male aggression against females both constrained female mate choice and imposed costs on females, we conclude that such aggression functioned as sexual coercion. Coercive aggression could increase male copulation rates through at least two mechanisms: by overcoming female resistance (direct coercion), and/or by limiting female promiscuity (mate guarding). Whether the benefits lie primarily in overcoming female resistance or in constraining female promiscuity, these data represent the strongest evidence found that in a wild primate, male aggression against females functions as part of a mating strategy. As such, they represent the best demonstration of male coercion as a mechanism of sexual selection distinct from male–male competition and female choice in primates. [2]

Syne Wrote:How is that not a dominance hierarchy? O_o

It is a dominance hierarchy. Is that comparable to the human male dominance hierarchy?

Syne Wrote:You were the female trying to tell us how promiscuous females are, by bringing up apes yourself.

If I had been the one to bring up promiscuous female apes and then compare that to you, you'd rightfully cry foul. Because I'd essentially be calling you a slut.

Well, that's one way to socially enforce monogamy. "Slut" is used to refer to promiscuous women in a derogatory fashion. The double standards employed when discussing the sex drives of women and men. Women are described as sluts, while men are referred as studs.

"Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent.

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children."—Jordan

He deserves to be included in RationalWiki because he is full of shit. He's not an evolutionary biologist or a neuroscientist.

BBC HARDtalk - I'm an Evolutionary Biologist

Jordan Peterson -As a Neuroscientist

Next up: Why incels love him and why he's been called a sexist and a misogynist.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Psychology prof the new Hitler? What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson? C C 2 273 Jan 21, 2018 09:29 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Emotional and rational brains differ physically & Bisensory influence of musicians C C 0 395 Jun 18, 2015 08:17 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)