Jordan Peterson-Rational Wiki

[Syne]

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.

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.  
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:

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.

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.

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.  
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-nocookie.com/embed/6ypVbUBEZHg

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.  

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? 

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.  
That's very intellectually dishonest.

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?  

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

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…

Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

Well, do you feel comparable to a lobster, deary?

Context, deary:

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

[Leigha]

hahaha Lobsters.

This thread is funny.

[Secular Sanity]

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? 

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?

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.

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?

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-nocookie.com/embed/xh7CV1Bm9xY

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!

I’ll address Leigh’s concerns when I have more time. We'll start it off with lobsters.

You're again putting words in his mouth without citing your source.  

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

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"

Here you go.

Lobster Bullshit

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]

How is that not a dominance hierarchy? O_o

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

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.

[Syne]

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? 

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?

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.

If you want to study something, scientifically, you have to induce it. You cannot feasibly catch a spontaneous religious experience. Nowhere does he advocate using drugs, but you keep making the claim and then quoting him NOT ADVOCATING DRUG. Learn how to either support your point or how to read.

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?

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.

Already saw it when it first came out (love what Dave Rubin does). Who said you couldn't find spirituality through reason? As far as I know, MR's the one touting "experience" as the end all be all of spirituality. Maybe you should take that up with him. And maybe you should revisit some of old posts on the subject...as I have described a very reasoned transcendence before (but it went completely over your head).

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!

I’ll address Leigh’s concerns when I have more time. We'll start it off with lobsters.

Right you are. I just ignored that, as it was addressing Leigha.

You're again putting words in his mouth without citing your source.  

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

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."

And? O_o
That's not the part I was referring to. But you either know that, and intentionally snipped my quote, or your attentional bias is too strong:

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-nocookie.com/embed/6ypVbUBEZHg

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

Again, and? O_o
He's citing a study.

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.  

So...nowhere. You're just making up associations between things he's talked about.
Lots of human behavior is more nuanced or has additional elements animal behavior does not. Saying modern humans hierarchies include competence does not mean that is mirrored in animals...unless you're a poor soul who believes you're nothing more than an animal.

How is that not a dominance hierarchy? O_o

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

In uncivilized cultures, sure. Muslims take women as slaves.

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.

The double standard exists because inherent biological differences do.

"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

I think he meant to say he was an "evolutionary psychologist", but any little nitpick, huh?
And as a relatively new study, he probably did have the requisite education and knowledge to be a neuroscientist at one time. Don't know about currently, as the standards have since developed.

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

IOW, fallacious guilt by association and appeals to consensus. Ho-hum.

[Secular Sanity]

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

They love him because he blames women for wage stagnation, which may or may not be true. He says that this economic disaster came about because we have access to the birth control pill now which allows us to compete in the same domains as men. We’re not more intelligent. Oh, no, according to Peterson, we’re doing better in school because we’re more likeable and agreeable. 

"There won’t be a damn man left in university in ten years except in STEM fields and it’s a complete bloody catastrophe and it’s a catastrophe for women because I don’t know where the hell you’re gonna find someone to marry."—Jordan Peterson

He goes on to say that it’s a very rare woman who at the age of 30 doesn’t consider having a child her primary desire and the ones that don’t consider that generally in my observation there’s something that isn’t quite right in the way that they’re constituted or looking at the world. Sometimes you get women who are truly non-maternal. They have a masculine temperament. They’re disagreeable and they’re not particularly compassionate.

He does say, though, that you do get the odd woman who manages a high-power career and kids...but Jesus, those women! I’ve seen some women manage it but they’re tough and they’re rare because that’s a hell of a regimen.

He said that it isn’t clear how society should sort this out. "We don’t know what to do now that woman have control over the reproductive function. It’s a big mystery." source

Well, you can always resort to marrying up, staying home, taking care of the kids, and preforming menial household chores. You might want to work on that dadbod and maybe do a little manscaping, though.

The one thing that I don’t understand, though, is why this fearmongering idiot keeps bringing Nietzsche into it?

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ZXm7kTggz9g

Nietzsche wasn’t fond of traditional values, nor was he a Nazi or nihilist. He was an atheist. He said, "What is called idol on the title page is simply what has been called truth so far. Twilight of the Idols—that is: the old truth is approaching its end."

Peterson has a rosy retrospection, doesn’t he? Traditional values have quite a few skeletons in the closet. His call for traditional values is a defense mechanism in which he avoids historical facts.

For Nietzsche, the death of god was a solution not a problem—a transitional stage. He wrote, "In fact, we philosophers and free spirits feel as if we are illumined by a new dawn, on receiving the news that 'the old God is dead'; our hearts overflow with gratitude, wonder, premonition and anticipation. At last the horizon seems to us open again…the sea, our sea again lies open before us; perhaps there has never yet been such an 'open seas.'"

By believing that a better life is awaiting one following death or at some point in the future, the individual escapes from the responsibility and burden of having to make the most of this life. He thought that a world composed of people who did not believe in 'true world theories' would be a much better world. He said, "The concept 'beyond', or 'true world' was invented in order to devalue this world—in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task of our earthly reality!"

"I emancipated them from bondage under purpose."

"This wantonness and folly did I put in place of that Will, when I taught that "In everything there is one thing impossible—rationality!"

"A LITTLE reason, to be sure, a germ of wisdom scattered from star to star— this leaven is mixed in all things: for the sake of folly, wisdom is mixed in all things!
A little wisdom is indeed possible; but this blessed security have I found in all things, that they prefer—to DANCE on the feet of chance.

O heaven above me! thou pure, thou lofty heaven! This is now thy purity unto me, that there is no eternal reason-spider and reason-cobweb:

That thou art to me a dancing-floor for divine chances, that thou art to me a table of the Gods, for divine dice and dice-players!" —Nietzsche

[Syne]

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

They love him because he blames women for wage stagnation, which may or may not be true. He says that this economic disaster came about because we have access to the birth control pill now which allows us to compete in the same domains as men. We’re not more intelligent. Oh, no, according to Peterson, we’re doing better in school because we’re more likeable and agreeable. 

See, whenever you paraphrase without citing your source, you're just plain lying.

it's necessary for families to have two incomes and I think the reason for that there's two reasons for that one is that when women started to flood into the labor market was approximately the same time that the market started to open to places like India and China and working wages started to flatten but then you also have the fact that if you double the labor pool by introducing women into it perhaps you have the value of labor and that maybe you do even worse than that if women are more agreeable and more likely to work part-time and more willing to take lesser hours and lower pay which seems to be the case
- Peterson https://youtu.be/d3fvs3bRPng?t=4m41s

He obviously doesn't blame women, but the global market opening and the doubling of the workforce, regardless of gender. Those are both objective facts.
And that's as close as I could get on sourcing your little game of putting words in his mouth.

"There won’t be a damn man left in university in ten years except in STEM fields and it’s a complete bloody catastrophe and it’s a catastrophe for women because I don’t know where the hell you’re gonna find someone to marry."—Jordan Peterson

He goes on to say that it’s a very rare woman who at the age of 30 doesn’t consider having a child her primary desire and the ones that don’t consider that generally in my observation there’s something that isn’t quite right in the way that they’re constituted or looking at the world. Sometimes you get women who are truly non-maternal. They have a masculine temperament. They’re disagreeable and they’re not particularly compassionate.

The demographic trends in universities are just facts. And?
Women not being as able to satisfy their innate hypergamy is not really an issue for men.
And anyone, man or woman, who doesn't ever want children seems to have had some trauma in their past or something, as it's just biologically unnatural for any species to have no desire to procreate. And yes, women who don't want children do tend to have more masculine personality traits. And?

He said that it isn’t clear how society should sort this out. "We don’t know what to do now that woman have control over the reproductive function. It’s a big mystery." source

Well, you can always resort to marrying up, staying home, taking care of the kids, and preforming menial household chores. You might want to work on that dadbod and maybe do a little manscaping, though.

The one thing that I don’t understand, though, is why this fearmongering idiot keeps bringing Nietzsche into it?

Where exactly are you seeing fearmongering in any of that? Mysteries aren't inherently threatening, and many men would love to stay home.

Peterson has a rosy retrospection, doesn’t he? Traditional values have quite a few skeletons in the closet. His call for traditional values is a defense mechanism in which he avoids historical facts.

Which historical facts? Lobbing unspecified accusations is intellectually lazy, at best.

[Magical Realist]

And anyone, man or woman, who doesn't ever want children seems to have had some trauma in their past or something, as it's just biologically unnatural for any species to have no desire to procreate. And yes, women who don't want children do tend to have more masculine personality traits. And?

Do you have any real studies to support these claims or is this just you airing your incel gripes about women again?

[Leigha]

If I had no idea at all, who Jordan Peterson is...what is the main message that he is trying to convey? Everyone has an angle, so to speak. He does like anyone else. He's not a preacher. He's not a life coach. What is the main message that he is trying to convey? What does he want his audience to know?

Is his purpose to empower men? To help men? To help men and women get along better? To foster communicate between men and women?

I'm genuinely wondering what the purpose is, for his ''talks?''

[Syne]

“The purpose of life is finding the largest burden that you can bear and bearing it.” ― Jordan B. Peterson

[Magical Realist]

“The purpose of life is finding the largest burden that you can bear and bearing it.” ― Jordan B. Peterson

That sounds weirdly puritanical if not masochistic to me.