Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

Makeup is there to sexualize as are high heels. Is that appropriate for the workplace? Seems like a relevent question.

It's not even all that controversial, since many workplace environments require 'corporate wear', especially in the finance sector. Suits for example as specifically designed to reduce individual expression in order to make people appear more 'uniform'. Many banks, professional institutions and other workplaces also impose strict dress codes when it comes to female clothing and accessories, for the exact same reasons.

For example, here is the 44 page long UBS dress code, it's a rather fascinating read. It caused a little bit of an uproar among sensation-seeking journalists, but was actually well received in the financial sector. Here are some cool/funny snippets:

• Flesh-colored underwear must be worn beneath a white blouse. In addition, it is advisable to avoid using any make-up on your neck. Smudges of make-up on a collar do not look nice.
• Make-up helps women to appear more competent; lightly and carefully applied daytime make-up in the form of a foundation cream, mascara and the discrete application of a lipstick in tone with the Corporate Wear will enhance the impression you make and are thus very important.
• Lingerie is one of the most personal items of clothing. Nevertheless, for that very reason it should not be neglected. Your lingerie must fit perfectly, never pinch or cut into your body, of course never be visible through your outer clothing, and never be silhouetted through your uniform.
• During summer you may wear thin, skin-colored stockings with a skirt or trousers. If you do so, it is very important that you and your colleagues all dress the same.
• A pair of tights must always be worn with a skirt, even during hot weather.
• During hot weather you can remove your jacket, as long as you are wearing a waistcoat and a long-sleeved shirt. Your superior will give you the permission. It is important that all staff is dressed in a standard fashion.
• Any jewelry you wear with Corporate Wear must be very discreet. It doesn’t take much to add something to your appearance; just one or two color-matched extras are enough. You must never exceed more than three accessories, including eyeglasses, which must not be too exotic in color.
• It is said that 80% of the decisions we make are on the basis of emotions.
• Our charisma contributes a mere 7% of the impression we make. The remainder is related to outward appearance (55%) and to posture, movement of the hands and body (38%).
• In our part of the world we respect the personal space of another person. That space must never be violated by approaching the person too closely or by being too far away. In our cultural environment, a distance of between 90 cm and approximately two meters is considered to be acceptable, anything inside this zone tends to be considered as unpleasant and inappropriate.

 

[llien]

Yeah, for style.

I'm not sure I'm following.

If only people would be honest enough to post the whole interview, giving much needed context to the above linked word-snippet:

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Dunki]

here is another interesting one on Motherhood and career

Likewise, Peterson argues that modern women are told by society “implicitly and explicitly that their primary interest will be the pursuit of a dynamic career.” In reality, he says, most people don’t have a dynamic career. Instead, they are likely to have a “job,” and one that is “job-like,” in that it is mundane and hardly exciting in the day-to-day. Women, especially, experience a crisis in their early thirties, he argues, as their interest in marriage and motherhood begins to compete with their career interests, even if they are lucky enough to have a dynamic professional life.

He goes to talk about countless female clients, who, despite having achieved pinnacles in their careers, opt to pull back and focus on their families:

My experience has been, overhelmingly, that high caliber women decide in their thirties that relationship and family [are] the most important things in their life. And I think the fact that major law firms, for example, have a really difficult time holding on to their high-performing women, even though they bend over backward to do that, is actually an indication of exactly that.​

https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/jordan-petersons-thoughts-on-motherhood

 

[KINGMOKU]

If only people would be honest enough to post the whole interview, giving much needed context to the above linked word-snippet:



Nowhere does he say that make-up warrants sexual harassment, merely that these questions need to be explored when it comes to the workplace environment.



Vice did a terrible hatchet job on Peterson, editing the video in a manipulative way in order to make him look bad.

This right here is why you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT TRUST THE MEDIA.

Wether your a dem repub, or indie trust no one.

I mean screw vice. How could anyone ever trust them after that?

 

[AquaticSquirrel]

That Vice interview always reminds me of this:



Also, from what I've read that Vice interview was actually about 2 hours long. In other words they have 2 hours of footage that they haven't released.

So that means that even the "Uncut" version is seemingly missing tons of content. Which I find to be really dishonest.

 

[Papa]

Even without the context provided by the full clip, how could anyone interpret that Peterson was advocating for sexual harassment in that Vice clip? I thought it was abundantly clear that he was criticising the hypocrisy of complaining about unwanted sexual attention while continuing behaviours that increase your sexual attractiveness. What an absurd leap of logic from the person who posted the first clip. How do you go from him asking what the purpose of make up in the workplace is to thinking he’s saying you’re trying to seduce all men and give them blowjobs with your red lipstick? Either you’re a troll or incredibly dense. Then to say this:

“If men are truly that socially inept then they should all be on disability for developmental delay or some form of autism.”

Perhaps take a look in the mirror, Tapioca ?

 

[prag16]

that is pretty much standard these days sadly. And people still questioning why journalism has such a bad reputation these days.

Good God those videos side by side.

Absolutely disgusting on the part of Vice.

 

[Future]

Even without the context provided by the full clip, how could anyone interpret that Peterson was advocating for sexual harassment in that Vice clip? I thought it was abundantly clear that he was criticising the hypocrisy of complaining about unwanted sexual attention while continuing behaviours that increase your sexual attractiveness. What an absurd leap of logic from the person who posted the first clip. How do you go from him asking what the purpose of make up in the workplace is to thinking he’s saying you’re trying to seduce all men and give them blowjobs with your red lipstick? Either you’re a troll or incredibly dense. Then to say this:

“If men are truly that socially inept then they should all be on disability for developmental delay or some form of autism.”

Perhaps take a look in the mirror, Tapioca ?

Isn’t that a little obtuse though? He mentions women and make up directly as a response to a question about harassment. Of course the interviewer is going to put 2 and 2 together and think the conversation is directly related to harassment prevention

The uncut version of the video is a bit better. I think the interviewer hits a good point in it though that the way Peterson speaks seems inviting of criticism. He knows what the interviewer is asking and alluding to, but instead of tackling it directly bounces around and focuses on the specifics of the semantics (I didn’t say that. *ends conversation*).

Even with the uncut I’m not sure I agree with the point. He’s mentioning that men and women will always have some sexual tension whether through flirting or through choice of sexualized atire and what not. And due to that we don’t know the “rules” of proper interaction and therefore cannot prevent harassment.

This is only true if you consider harassment basic flirting. Often though, harassment is specifically defined as unwanted sexualized touching, repeated unreciprocated sexual advances, or forced sexual activity based on being in a position of power in having control over the victims career path. To suggest that we cannot prevent that due to difficulties in knowing the rules of male female interaction seems absurd.

 

[Papa]

Isn’t that a little obtuse though? He mentions women and make up directly as a response to a question about harassment. Of course the interviewer is going to put 2 and 2 together and think the conversation is directly related to harassment prevention

The uncut version of the video is a bit better. I think the interviewer hits a good point in it though that the way Peterson speaks seems inviting of criticism. He knows what the interviewer is asking and alluding to, but instead of tackling it directly bounces around and focuses on the specifics of the semantics (I didn’t say that. *ends conversation*).

Even with the uncut I’m not sure I agree with the point. He’s mentioning that men and women will always have some sexual tension whether through flirting or through choice of sexualized atire and what not. And due to that we don’t know the “rules” of proper interaction and therefore cannot prevent harassment.

This is only true if you consider harassment basic flirting. Often though, harassment is specifically defined as unwanted sexualized touching, repeated unreciprocated sexual advances, or forced sexual activity based on being in a position of power in having control over the victims career path. To suggest that we cannot prevent that due to difficulties in knowing the rules of male female interaction seems absurd.

I don't think the bolded is what he was saying though. It makes more sense when you listen to some of his lectures where he talks about dominance hierarchies. Almost every action we take is in some way related to social status, i.e. our position on the dominance hierarchy, and men and women obtain social status in different ways. His underlying point was that it is hypocritical to wear makeup to gain a social advantage in the workplace but then complain about the reciprocal disadvantages. He wasn't advocating either for banning makeup or for not punishing sexual harassment, rather that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

These Vice and Buzzfeed style hot takes add nothing to the conversation.

 

[Future]

I don't think the bolded is what he was saying though. It makes more sense when you listen to some of his lectures where he talks about dominance hierarchies. Almost every action we take is in some way related to social status, i.e. our position on the dominance hierarchy, and men and women obtain social status in different ways. His underlying point was that it is hypocritical to wear makeup to gain a social advantage in the workplace but then complain about the reciprocal disadvantages. He wasn't advocating either for banning makeup or for not punishing sexual harassment, rather that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

These Vice and Buzzfeed style hot takes add nothing to the conversation.

What cake and what disadvantage? If cake is the societal advantage all sexes get from succeeding at being attractive. And the disadvantage that sometimes you will be harassed. I do not believe that is an example of being hypocritical or having your cake and eating to. Unless I am just misinterpreting it all.

Harassment is not simply receiving attention. If you are attractive, rich, or literally anything that doesn’t blend in with the crowd.... you will get attention, some of which unwanted. But that is very different than being harassed.

 

[Papa]

What cake and what disadvantage? If cake is the societal advantage all sexes get from succeeding at being attractive. And the disadvantage that sometimes you will be harassed. I do not believe that is an example of being hypocritical or having your cake and eating to. Unless I am just misinterpreting it all.

Harassment is not simply receiving attention. If you are attractive, rich, or literally anything that doesn’t blend in with the crowd.... you will get attention, some of which unwanted. But that is very different than being harassed.

I think a large part of the problem is that the line between harassment and unwanted attention has become increasingly blurred recently. That is what Peterson meant when he said “we don’t know what the rules are anymore”.

 

[Future]

I think a large part of the problem is that the line between harassment and unwanted attention has become increasingly blurred recently. That is what Peterson meant when he said “we don’t know what the rules are anymore”.

And that’s where I’d argue he is being obtuse. Which is why the interviewer even had to specifically say grabbing privates, and even after saying that there was still some discussion to be had somehow

Sure, out of all the companies out there and all the victims and all the discussion, from 100s of millions of people there will be some debate over what harassment actually is. But that doesn’t mean we cannot iron those details out. I would rather his answers actually attempted to narrow the rules of harassment so he can give definitive answers, because it feels otherwise like he’s avoiding getting to actual real discussion points.

It’s also hard for me to believe that we haven’t already narrowed those rules down to be honest. If I slap someone’s ass as they walk by, that’s harassment. If I make sexual advances to someone that I have control over in some way from a position of power, that’s harassment. If I continuously attempt to make sexual advances to a coworker, that’s usually harassment.

The debate only exists if you try to go outside of that into basic flirtation. Which by my estimation, the metoo movement and recent harassment news, has had nothing to do with

 

[Papa]

And that’s where I’d argue he is being obtuse. Which is why the interviewer even had to specifically say grabbing privates, and even after saying that there was still some discussion to be had somehow

Sure, out of all the companies out there and all the victims and all the discussion, from 100s of millions of people there will be some debate over what harassment actually is. But that doesn’t mean we cannot iron those details out. I would rather his answers actually attempted to narrow the rules of harassment so he can give definitive answers, because it feels otherwise like he’s avoiding getting to actual real discussion points.

It’s also hard for me to believe that we haven’t already narrowed those rules down to be honest. If I slap someone’s ass as they walk by, that’s harassment. If I make sexual advances to someone that I have control over in some way from a position of power, that’s harassment. If I continuously attempt to make sexual advances to a coworker, that’s usually harassment.

The debate only exists if you try to go outside of that into basic flirtation. Which by my estimation, the metoo movement and recent harassment news, has had nothing to do with

The issue is that you’re attempting to apply common sense to a topic that is often irrational and hard to pin down. I would disagree with your assessment of the metoo campaign having nothing to do with it. It has absolutely everything to do with it because it has fostered an environment where men, particularly managers, are afraid to interact with female colleagues and subordinates because they don’t know what the boundaries are anymore.

 

[Future]

The issue is that you’re attempting to apply common sense to a topic that is often irrational and hard to pin down. I would disagree with your assessment of the metoo campaign having nothing to do with it. It has absolutely everything to do with it because it has fostered an environment where men, particularly managers, are afraid to interact with female colleagues and subordinates because they don’t know what the boundaries are anymore.

Based on what though? All the Weinstein examples were him inviting ladies to his room and shit. With Al Franken it was groping. Where is the narrative coming from where any flirtatious interaction could now be a harassment angle? I ask not to be facetious but because I truly don’t know. All I’ve seen is reports from actresses claiming things that are most obviously sexual harassment.

 

[Papa]

Based on what though? All the Weinstein examples were him inviting ladies to his room and shit. With Al Franken it was groping. Where is the narrative coming from where any flirtatious interaction could now be a harassment angle? I ask not to be facetious but because I truly don’t know. All I’ve seen is reports from actresses claiming things that are most obviously sexual harassment.

I think that infamous Emily Lindin tweet is a pretty good example of the mentality that so many men, myself included, are afraid of. It is definitely out there and if you haven't encountered it yet, I suggest you need to broaden your media consumption.

 

[Vicetrailia]

It would be still for others since your think it is important to you how other people think about you. Make up is never for yourself but to attract others which in the end can make you feel good ut its goal is always to be more attractive seductive etc.

The only time to wear makeup is to consciously look more sexually attractive to others? There's such a thing doing things for yourself. Your absolutist statement is just strange. Makeup has a 6000 + year history, trending for different reasons in different ages and across different cultures. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/548e/23658e3c0ab9f38b640dd79315a59988636c.pdf

If I tell you that I'm wearing concealer to make me look more alive because I'm sick, haven't been sleeping well, am stressed out, and have darks spots under my eyes....and you turn around and tell me "no, you wanna sexually attract women", I'm gonna be like "what, I just don't want clients asking me if I'm sleepy all day". Neither is mutually exclusive nor is it zero-sum. In professional settings, you get judged for not wearing makeup because it looks like you're not taking care of yourself, peer pressure. It's not only about attracting people and seems pretty insignificant/weird to say that.

 

[strange headache]

Where is the narrative coming from where any flirtatious interaction could now be a harassment angle? I ask not to be facetious but because I truly don’t know. All I’ve seen is reports from actresses claiming things that are most obviously sexual harassment.

You need not look any further than what happened here on NeoGAF.

While I'm sure that we can all be glad, that some repulsive people got what they deserved, the whole #metoo movement has morphed into some sort of crazy witch-hunt. Everybody is on the edge, nobody is sure anymore how to behave, especially when a single message on social media can basically ruin your life, innocent or not.

There's for example Catherine Deneuve's open letter, that was signed by over 100 female French writers, artists and academics:

“Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not – nor is men being gentlemanly a macho attack,” said the letter published in the newspaper Le Monde. “Men have been punished summarily, forced out of their jobs when all they did was touch someone’s knee or try to steal a kiss,” said the letter, which was also signed by Catherine Millet, author of the explicit 2002 bestseller The Sexual Life of Catherine M. Men had been dragged through the mud, they argued, for “talking about intimate subjects during professional dinners or for sending sexually charged messages to women who did not return their attentions”. The letter attacked feminist social media campaigns like #MeToo and its French equivalent, #BalanceTonPorc (Call out your pig), for unleashing this “puritanical ... wave of purification”. It claimed that “legitimate protest against the sexual violence that women are subject to, particularly in their professional lives,” had turned into a witch-hunt. “What began as freeing women up to speak has today turned into the opposite – we intimidate people into speaking ‘correctly’, shout down those who don’t fall into line, and those women who refused to bend [to the new realities] are regarded as complicit and traitors.”

There's also the fact that many men are now reluctant to do first aid because they are worried about touching women:

According to a new study published by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, women suffering cardiac arrest are less likely than men to receive CPR from bystanders in public spaces. The study looked at more than 19,000 cases around the United States in which people suffered cardiac arrest in public, and researchers determined that while 45 per cent of men were given CPR by bystanders, only 39 per cent of women received the procedure. One possible reason for this discrepancy? Researchers believe that some male bystanders may be hesitant to perform CPR on women because they don’t want to touch their chests. After all, CPR requires that a rescuer press down on the chest of the person who needs saving.

And of course there's also the thing that happened to Aziz Ansari:

Unfortunately, #metoo is becoming the default label, applied to any awkward or icky encounter. And many women are uninterested in differentiating between rape and an unwanted kiss, or between the sexual advances of a boss and the sexual advances of the boy next door. But when we assign #metoo to bad sex and bad dates, we trivialize the habitual, career-threatening, power-over, violent, coercive behaviors of men like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer.

And then there's also Terry Gilliam and Matt Damon:

Weinstein was exposed because he "is an a**hole and he made so many enemies," he told AFP. But Gilliam stirred controversy by saying the reaction against the wave of sexual abuse and harassment revelations had become ugly and "simplistic... people are frightened to say things, to think things. "It is a world of victims. I think some people did very well out of meeting with Harvey and others didn't. The ones who did knew what they were doing. These are adults, we are talking about adults with a lot of ambition. "Harvey opened the door for a few people, a night with Harvey - that's the price you pay," said the maker of Brazil and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. "Some people paid the price, other people suffered from it." Gilliam, who is in Paris to direct an opera, Benvenuto Cellini, said the atmosphere around #MeToo had "got silly, people are being described in ridiculous terms as if there is no real humanity left anymore. "I feel sorry for someone like Matt Damon who is a decent human being. He came out and said all men are not rapists, and he got beaten to death. Come on, this is crazy!"

Yes, the rules are changing, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but these changes are fueled by a lot of rage and hysteria instead of a reasoned and careful approach. That's what Peterson was saying. The problem is not sexual assault, that should be evident. The problem is that in the wake of this very heated and emotionally charged debate, the lines between harmless flirting and sexual harassment have been blurred beyond recognition. Unfortunately, the journalist tried so hard to be outraged at everything Peterson said, basically cathy newman'ing him at every possible opportunity while baiting him for controversial statements.

 

[llien]

If cake is the societal advantage all sexes get from succeeding at being attractive.

Attractiveness doesn't work the same way for "all sexes".
Former prime minister of UK, very popular among female voters:

hardly anyone would care about, had he been, say, a taxi driver.
It doesn't work the same way with the opposite gender (e.g. Merkel, Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon) which is again, quite simple to explain from evolutionist POV.

Weinstein's former wife:

Or just look at POTUS and his spouse.

With Al Franken it was groping...

With Al Franken it was PRENTENDING to grope on a staged photo and alleged "inappropriate touching" in front of husband.
Curiously, the first allegation was coming from a person who actually did this:

the pic from the left is from the very same day the "groping photo" happened, if I'm not mistaken.
And also curiously, groping (and other sexual misconduct) allegations against another senator of different gender didn't have as much an impact, to put it mildly.

So:
1) There are no clear rules
2) Stricter rules apply to one of the genders

 

[It's Jeff]

I think that infamous Emily Lindin tweet is a pretty good example of the mentality that so many men, myself included, are afraid of. It is definitely out there and if you haven't encountered it yet, I suggest you need to broaden your media consumption.

Jesus. What a terrifying thought.

 

[CreamCream]

Jesus. What a terrifying thought.

Yeah, about 15% as terrifying a thought as all the men who don't care about women getting sexually harassed and assaulted.

 

[Tapioca]

Haha, alrighty then. What purpose does makeup serve if not to enhance the wearer’s sexual attractiveness?

Because I enjoy putting it on? It is fun to me?
I work ALONE and put on make up at least 3/5 days a week. I'm not trying to impress anyone.

You're still droning on about that? Nobody thinks like that and I gave you an explanation already. How about you engage with that, instead of simply ignoring it and being needlessly inflammatory.

Writing an essay does not make your point anymore valid.
And the "unedited" version of the interview doesn't change anything.

 

[Dr. Claus]

And the "unedited" version of the interview doesn't change anything.

The unedited version of the interview leads to far different conclusions than the edited one. Are you sure you watched both of them?

 

[Dunki]

Jesus. What a terrifying thought.

Thats not all of it. this is her defense after the backlash

Yeah, about 15% as terrifying a thought as all the men who don't care about women getting sexually harassed and assaulted.

This is such bullshit. You destroy lifes with this bullshit and even if its proven wrong you are done for. The only thing you can do is start a completely new life with a new job in another town/state maybe even a new name and then still you are scared for life since you will never trust a women again in most cases.

 

[prag16]

Yeah, about 15% as terrifying a thought as all the men who don't care about women getting sexually harassed and assaulted.

That's a nice strawman. Is there anyone here in particular that you are targeting this at, or are you just making broad/vague bullshit statements because the sentiments of this Emily Lindin and her ilk are indefensible and you know it?

 

[strange headache]

Yeah, about 15% as terrifying a thought as all the men who don't care about women getting sexually harassed and assaulted.

Weird, and here I thought the presumption of innocence was a judiciary principle and a basic human right that favors both men and women alike.

 

[Rookje]

Most obvious is their explanation of gender differences. Yes there are differences between men and women’s personalities and interests for sure but both guys keep expounding the idea that these all have an overwhelmingly biological basis. To support this they pick animals with a patriarchal organization to claim that these are intrinsic to our DNA.

If they instead looked at Penguins for example, or elephants or any of the numerous other species where both men and women take an active role in raising children, more akin to humans, these so called biological differences largely disappear.

I believe the far larger factor in gender differences stem from social conditioning and role modeling. People constantly model themselves after what they see, from their parents, their peers and ever increasingly, the media. Until about two decade ma ago, female role models in men centric roles were few and far between, even in the media.

Ads even today show girls playing with dolls and boys playing with cars. The media until recently was inundated with examples of women as home makers and care givers and men as soldiers and scientists. And this feeds into the expectations that parents have for their children as well. Parents unconsciously think of these roles based on their child’s gender and push it on them inadvertently.

What you're talking about is the idea known as tabula rasa or "blank slate theory" which suggests that at birth, everyone is born as a blank canvas and all knowledge comes from experience or perception. There's no doubt that we're affected by our environment and society when developing ourselves, but science is showing that more and more its predominantly genetic. And in the case of male and female, biological.

Take for instance the curious case of David Reimer, a Canadian man born male but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision. It seemed to be going well when Reimer was a child, and magazines and books hailed the case as evidence of the blank slate theory. But when Reimer started puberty he began to know something wasn't right and his parents were forced to admit to him that he was, in fact, born a boy. He transitioned at age 15, married a woman, but eventually committed suicide after dealing with intense depression.

To dismiss biology when discussing the genders is not just disingenuous or ignorant, but dangerous. The war between culture and biology will only intensify in the coming years. As men and women become more "equal" in the workplace and society, we've strangely become less happy (especially women). We must question why and how we can move forward. To do that, we must do it with facts and science and not let our ideologies cloud the way.

 

[It's Jeff]

Thats not all of it. this is her defense after the backlash

This is such bullshit. You destroy lifes with this bullshit and even if its proven wrong you are done for. The only thing you can do is start a completely new life with a new job in another town/state maybe even a new name and then still you are scared for life since you will never trust a women again in most cases.

I don't, and may never understand this mentality in general. What gives me the right to go after anybody's livelihood to begin with? Sexual harassment has a punitive element associated. Who gave out the deputy badges to every pissed off malcontent with a Twitter account?

Even more to the point, let's suppose that you demand the termination of the alleged. Lets suppose you get what you want and he's out on the street. This person is no ally to your cause. The thought process of a wrongly terminated person in this case isn't, "I know I didn't do it, but it's more important that the patriarchy be undone than buying saltine crackers and leasing my Subaru. We're cool, Emily. I feel you on that patriarchy tip. One love."

Harassment is never a good thing. If you want to talk about improving procedures or changing the way we prove it, I'm on board. And by the way, if you're a company that shed one of your employees because McCarthyists like Emily here demanded it? Shame on you. Resist this nonsense, support your employees until you have cause to act, and when bellyaching stops working we just might get back to normal.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

MODERATION INTERLUDE.

Apologies for intruding:

Topic creator opens thread regarding an important matter.
Topic creator gets presented well constructed and sustained arguments about the matter.
Arguments don't confirm the Topic creator beliefs.
Topic creator refutes with hollow points.
Topic creator keeps disputing making the matter at hand a battle of attrition.

i will apologize in place of N Nintendo Switch to strange headache and Kadayi (excuses if omitting anyone else), i don't know your behavior in other threads but in this case you 2 deserved a lot better than what you are getting here. Hopefully this doesn't discourage you from engaging at such high level in other topics.

N Nintendo Switch , we'll be monitoring your conduct in this thread from now on and want to see what you have to say. As an advice, approach a debate to learn something from it and not to be "right". Or to confirm your beliefs. i think you are wasting the efforts of people that approcahed with honest intentions and that seem to have a wider knowledge of the topic at hand.

Moderator10, I was engaged in reasoned conversation in this thread until you chose to single me out. I never violated the TOS in any way.

This place doesn’t need right authoritarians as moderators here any more than it needs left authoritarians as moderators.

You don’t need to apologize on my behalf and I don’t care if you decide to “monitor me” for disagreeing with James Peterson or his supporters.

I will leave this quote from the link below as it highlights some of the points I made in the OP especially about Peterson and how he is half right and half nonsensical.

Needless to say, when someone is this convinced of their own brilliance, they can be unaware of just how far afield they have drifted from the world of sense and reason. The diagrams and figures in Maps of Meaning are astonishing. They are masterpieces of unprovable gibberish:

How does one even address material like this? It can’t be “refuted.” Are we ruled by a dragon of chaos? Is the dragon feminine? Does “the ‘state’ of preconscious paradise” have a “voluntary encounter with the unknown”? Is the episodic really more explicit than the procedural? These are not questions with answers, because they are not questions with meanings.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

 

[Vicetrailia]

Dear lord what is that? JP is a man of the status quo (or restoring it actually).

 

[TheGraykid]

What you're talking about is the idea known as tabula rasa or "blank slate theory" which suggests that at birth, everyone is born as a blank canvas and all knowledge comes from experience or perception. There's no doubt that we're affected by our environment and society when developing ourselves, but science is showing that more and more its predominantly genetic. And in the case of male and female, biological.

Take for instance the curious case of David Reimer, a Canadian man born male but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision. It seemed to be going well when Reimer was a child, and magazines and books hailed the case as evidence of the blank slate theory. But when Reimer started puberty he began to know something wasn't right and his parents were forced to admit to him that he was, in fact, born a boy. He transitioned at age 15, married a woman, but eventually committed suicide after dealing with intense depression.

To dismiss biology when discussing the genders is not just disingenuous or ignorant, but dangerous. The war between culture and biology will only intensify in the coming years. As men and women become more "equal" in the workplace and society, we've strangely become less happy (especially women). We must question why and how we can move forward. To do that, we must do it with facts and science and not let our ideologies cloud the way.

The David Reimer case can be interpretted in that way, but is also commonly interpreted in a completely different way by psychologists. Your idea appears to be that his biological gender identity kicked in and caused his issues, but the more common interpretation of what happened is that he (like everyone else) had an internal gender identity separate from his biology, and that by changing his biology away from that gender identity they gave him gender dysphoria. Physiologists believe that gender identity and gender itself is completely separate from your biology.

Also, correlation does not equal causation, especially when there are very obvious reasons why people right now are less happy than before. So implying that they're related seems off to me.

The "war between culture and biology" talk seems a little silly to me given how far away we are from our original biological means.

 

[TrainedRage]

Moderator10, I was engaged in reasoned conversation in this thread until you chose to single me out. I never violated the TOS in any way.

This place doesn’t need right authoritarians as moderators here any more than it needs left authoritarians as moderators.

You don’t need to apologize on my behalf and I don’t care if you decide to “monitor me” for disagreeing with James Peterson or his supporters.

I will leave this quote from the link below as it highlights some of the points I made in the OP especially about Peterson and how he is half right and half nonsensical.



https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

First off you don't even know the guys name it's Jordan Peterson, bud. Not James. It's careless things like not even getting his name right, calling his followers cult members and being disingenuous as fuck that got you not even a warning but a friendly nudge not to be an ass hat. So immediately the mod is on the far right and is clearly authoritarian? This is why you got called out. If you can't even see what you did and instead blame the community and staff then don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[Dunki]

people really lost the plot now even call him a nazi

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

 

[Nintendo Switch]

First off you don't even know the guys name it's Jordan Peterson, bud. Not James. It's careless things like not even getting his name right, calling his followers cult members and being disingenuous as fuck that got you not even a warning but a friendly nudge not to be an ass hat. So immediately the mod is on the far right and is clearly authoritarian? This is why you got called out. If you can't even see what you did and instead blame the community and staff then don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Read the op or the freaking title of this thread if you seriously don’t think I know the guys name. A typo has zero to do with the point I made.

Any moderator that reacts to a poster sharing his honest opinion, not violating the tos in any way by threatening to “monitor him and his future posts” because he disagreed with the moderators political views, is authoritarian, whether coming from the left or the right.

I have no problem with authoritarian posters and members sharing his viewpoints here but when those people are promoted to moderator status, we already saw where that ends up.

They turn into nutty bubbles like oldgaf, /pol/, teh donald, freer, reset and stormf that suppress the free exchange of ideas. We don’t need that happening to this site again.

 

[strange headache]

Physiologists believe that gender identity and gender itself is completely separate from your biology.

No they don't, please stop making up bullsh*t claims, biological sex and gender identity correlate to about 99,7%, it would be silly to assume they had nothing to do with each other. I would need to write up another lengthy reply on the scientific consensus, but I'm really getting tired of refuting other people's baseless assumptions. Just consider this instead:

Guevedoces (literal translation "penis at 12") - who are also called "machihembras", meaning "first a woman, then a man" - appear to be completely female at birth and are brought up to be little girls. "When they're born, they look like girls with no testes and what appears to be a vagina," wrote Mosley for The Telegraph back in 2015. "It is only when they near puberty that the penis grows and testicles descend."

After the developments of puberty, Guevedoces grow up to be fully functional males in their society, although some telltale signs do give away their unique biological heritage. "Apart from being slightly undersized, everything works and the Guavadocesnormally live out their lives as men," wrote Mosley, "albeit with wispy beards and small prostates."

Not all Guevedoces in the Dominican Republic change their name upon hitting puberty – some grown men in the region have female names throughout their life. The condition is not isolated to just the Dominican Republic, it's also been observed in Turkey and New Guinea.

For his documentary, Mosley met Johnny, a Guevedoce male who was raised as a little girl, Felicita. When Felicita turned seven, puberty brought more than the usual changes that most people experience. "I did not feel good, I no longer liked to wear a skirt, and I was no longer drawn to play with girls. All I wanted to do is play with toy guns and boys," Johnny said. Along with the psychological changes came physiological ones; Johnny grew testicles and a penis.

EDIT: I mistakenly quoted the wrong person, should be fixed now.

 

[TrainedRage]

No they don't, please stop making up bullsh*t claims, biological sex and gender identity correlate to about 99,7%, it would be silly to assume they had nothing to do with each other. I would need to write up another lengthy reply on the scientific consensus, but I'm really getting tired of refuting other people's baseless assumptions. Just consider this instead:

He can't even get Jordan Peterson's name correct. I wouldn't expect much else unless it's an ad hom about JP or his "cult like" followers. And don't dare question him or you will be labled as an extermest authoritarian! Oh but hey he linked some articles posted from the other site so... It's over he got us. Killed by flawless logic and factual information. Because he would never base judgment on his personal feelings.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

That is very interesting about the Gueveno, but you’re quoting someone else words about the physiology of genders. I never made that statement. The only statement I made is that many of the differences in the roles, careers and interests that men and women choose for themselves are heavily influenced by society, the role models and protrayls they see in the media and in their environment.

If only people would be honest enough to post the whole interview, giving much needed context to the above linked word-snippet:



Nowhere does he say that make-up warrants sexual harassment, merely that these questions need to be explored when it comes to the workplace environment.



Vice did a terrible hatchet job on Peterson, editing the video in a manipulative way in order to make him look bad.

No he doesn’t say that wearing makeup warrants sexual harrassment. However his statement that the only reason women wear make up or high heels is to sexualize themselves is idiotic in itself.

Plenty of women wear high heels and makeup because it makes them feel more confident. It is precisely the same reasons Peterson says men should stand tall with their shoulders held high and dress well. Why is it okay for men to do that but any woman that wears makeup or high heels for that exact same reason is accused of sexualizing her self?

This is why I accuse Peterson of being wrong often but having so much confidence that he can’t see it and some of his followers can’t see it either. He has no idea all the various reasons why a woman might opt to wear makeup or high heels (my wife for example wears high heels because she was teased about her height and being a few inches taller makes her feel more confident ), yet he is happy to claim the only reason women do it is to attract the opposite sex.


Again, I do believe that he is right some of the times, but many times, the things he is right about are very obvious things...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

A few more Petersonisms:

“The future is the place of all potential monsters.” The future is the place for all potential everything.

“People do not care whether or not they succeed; they care about whether or not they fail.” Which is apparently different.

“People aren’t after happiness, they’re after not hurting.” I’m actually after happiness, thanks.

“There is no being without imperfection.” No shit.

“To share does not mean to give away something you value and get nothing back. That is instead what every child who refuses to share fears it means. To share means, properly, to initiate the process of trade.” Could mean anything, depending on interpretation: if I share my food with a hungry person, and ask for nothing in return, I may still have “gotten something.” But the maxim could also be interpreted as a defense of avarice. You can find a justification in it for whatever your worldview already is.

“You can’t make rules for the exceptional.” By definition.

“Life is suffering. That’s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth.” Anything is “irrefutable” if it’s not clear what we mean by it.

“You cannot be protected from the things that frighten you and hurt you, but if you identify with the part of your being that is responsible for transformation, then you are always the equal, or more than the equal of the things that frighten you.” Unless you are frightened of leopards, and are subsequently eaten by leopards.

The multiplicity of possible interpretations is very important. It makes it almost impossible to beat Peterson in an argument, because every time one attempts to force him to defend a proposition, he can insist he means something else.

 

[strange headache]

However his statement that the only reason women wear make up or high heels is to sexualize themselves is idiotic in itself.

This has already been discussed ad nauseam, Peterson doesn't say that. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this to you, since it's quite evident that you simply cannot be reasoned with. Ever wonder why so many women enjoy wearing make-up and why it is such a huge aspect of every human culture? Yeah...

This is why I accuse Peterson of being wrong often but having so much confidence that he can’t see it and some of his followers can’t see it either.

Ah so we're back at the old 'Peterson is a cult, hurr durr' argument, alrighty then.

He has no idea why all women wear makeup...

He never claims to know why all women wear make-up. He explains the psychological, behavioral and societal function of make-up. How many times do people still need to explain this to you?

Again, I do believe that he is right some of the times, but many times, the things he is right about are very obvious things...

Yeah man, I'm truly impressed by the incoherent rambling of a clearly very biased guy, with a BA in African-American studies and a degree in social science, who clearly has an ax to grind. Maybe if you had the common decency to break it down and explain in your own words what you agree with in that article, I'd take the time to give it a reasoned reply. But as it stands, your desperate attempt at spamming this topic with links and incoherent copy-pasted word snippets isn't very convincing.

But I'll pick an example from the list of Petersonisms (that's an amazing word btw, I think I'll keep that) just for fun and to show how full of himself that author is (and isn't even interested in honestly engaging with what Peterson has to say):

“People aren’t after happiness, they’re after not hurting.” I’m actually after happiness, thanks.

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Epicurus, Socrates, Zeno of Citium, Kierkegaard... all of them would disagree. Merely goes to show, that what Peterson is saying is far from obvious and that the author has no clue whatsoever about the philosophical notions (and evidently about philosophy in general) that Peterson is alluding to. Peterson isn't saying that people shouldn't strive for happiness, he's saying that suffering is part of life and that our hedonistic society is ignoring its importance through the promise of happiness while making people unable to cope with misery.

For example:

Because happiness is not always the kind of thing that can be pursued, we should view it, more often than not, as a lucky side effect but not a calculable or calculated end. Making it such an end all too easily brings out the worst in us. [...] The belief that we can arrange our happiness – as though happiness were akin to justice, which we can work towards – may be to misrecognise the very thing that concerns us.

My three fairly obvious propositions are: first, in Freud's formulation from Civilisation and its Discontents, "happiness is something essentially subjective" (subjective I take it, in the sense of being not only personal but idiosyncratic). We can be surprised by what makes us happy, and it will not necessarily be something that makes other people happy.

Second, bad things can make us happy – and by bad things I mean things consensually agreed to be unacceptable. It clearly makes some people happy to live in a world without Jews, or homosexuals, or immigrants, and so on. There are also what we might call genuinely bad things, like seriously harming people and other animals, that gives some people the pleasure they most crave.

Last but not least – though the least exciting – is the third point: some people like being unhappy.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Have you seen the video, that’s what he says about makeup and high heels. You are claiming something that is direct contrast to his statements in the video.

As for his claim about misery, it means the exact same thing. There is no difference between not wanting to feel bad and wanting to feel good. If you are hurting, you aren’t happy. And if you are happy that by definition means you are not hurting.

That’s precisely the point that the article I cited is making, that almost all of his so called wisdoms are obvious things masked behind a swath of complex language to make it sound more intellectual than it is.

 

[Papa]

Moderator10, I was engaged in reasoned conversation in this thread until you chose to single me out. I never violated the TOS in any way.

This place doesn’t need right authoritarians as moderators here any more than it needs left authoritarians as moderators.

You don’t need to apologize on my behalf and I don’t care if you decide to “monitor me” for disagreeing with James Peterson or his supporters.

I will leave this quote from the link below as it highlights some of the points I made in the OP especially about Peterson and how he is half right and half nonsensical.



https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Most Jungian psychology is as incomprehensible as this when presented out of context. The figures would make more sense if posted with the accompanying text rather than just thrown out there to point and sneer at.

 

[strange headache]

Have you seen the video, that’s what he says about makeup and high heels.

Dude, I posted the video!

That’s precisely the point that the article I cited is making, that almost all of his so called wisdoms are obvious things...

And that's why said article has no clue what its talking about. Much of it pertains to philosophical notions that have been debated for frikkin' millennia.

...masked behind a swath of complex language to make it sound more intellectual than it is.

Lol, if you think that is complex language, then please stay away from Kant, Hegel, Scheler, Husserl... like seriously, wtf! Only because you or the author fail to understand it, doesn't mean it's pseudo-intellectual.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Only because you or the author fail to understand it, doesn't mean it's pseudo-intellectual.

So explain to me how this passage from his book is not pseudo intellectual nonsense (masked behind a swath of complex language and a couple of obvious truisms to make it sound more intelligent than it is).

Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others.

Quoting from the article here...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

“What’s important about this kind of writing (Jordan Peterson’s writing style) is that it can easily appear to contain useful insight, because it says many things that either are true or “feel kind of true,” and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding. (Many of the book’s reviews on Amazon contain sentiments like: I am not sure I understood it, but it’s absolutely brilliant.) It’s not that it’s empty of content; in fact, it’s precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance. It’s certainly right that some procedures work in one situation but not another. It’s right that good moral systems have to be able to think about the future in figuring out what to do in the present. But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved. (The old expression “what’s new in it isn’t true, and what’s true isn’t new” applies here.)

Obscurantism is more than a desperate attempt to feign novelty, though. It’s also a tactic for badgering readers into deference to the writer’s authority. Nobody can be sure they are comprehending the author’s meaning, which has the effect of making the reader feel deeply inferior and in awe of the writer’s towering knowledge, knowledge that must exist on a level so much higher than that of ordinary mortals that we are incapable of even beginning to appreciate it. In fact, Peterson is quite open in insisting that he has achieved revelations beyond the comprehension of ordinary persons. The book’s epigraph is comically grandiose (“I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” — Matthew 13:35) and Peterson even includes in the book a letter to his father in which he tries to convey the gravity of his discovery:

I don’t know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I’m not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing…. Anyways, I’m glad you and Mom are doing well. Thank you for doing my income tax returns.

(It’s fun to read the letter for yourself and imagine being Peterson’s dad trying to figure out what his son is doing with his life.)”

 

[strange headache]

So explain to me how this passage from his book is not pseudo intellectual nonsense.

I'd need a lot more time than what I'm willing to invest in explaining something that is taken out of its larger context so that I can appease an intellectually dishonest reader. But if 'hurr durr, plan for the future' is everything that author can extract from this, he's a poor sod.

I'd need to study the whole thing in order to give an informed opinion. But going by the tiny snippet and simply speaking, Peterson writes about the psychological conflicts that arise when a person's value hierarchy breaks apart because it fails to provide a desired outcome. In such cases, the resulting moral conflict requires said person to either reevaluate or flat out break its moral principles, which often results in a conflict of conscience that can take a heavy psychological toll on the person. In that case he is negatively 'affected' by said problem, because his behavior, his own values and his beliefs about how the outside world functions are becoming incompatible with each other. Hence he is forced to re-adapt, which is oftentimes a painful process.

It's much similar in concept to what Piaget would call assimilation, accommodation and equilibration:

• Assimilation
  – Which is using an existing schema to deal with a new object or situation.
• Accommodation
  – This happens when the existing schema (knowledge) does not work, and needs to be changed to deal with a new object or situation.
• Equilibration
  – This is the force which moves development along. Piaget believed that cognitive development did not progress at a steady rate, but rather in leaps and bounds.

There's a lot more that could be said, but this is getting tiresome.

Also this is such bullsh*t:

But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved.

That's not exactly how psychology or philosophy work. They are not hard sciences, since humans a partially irrational beings, hence why philosophers and psychologists don't think about their theories like that. That would be akin to trying to 'disprove' utilitarianism or Metaphysics or Aristotle's 'golden mean', or whatever.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

That’s precisely the point that article is making. All of the truisms that Peterson is conveying were either made in a far more comprehensible manner by Maslow, Piaget and other psychologists that came before him, or are outright obvious facts written in a way to sound much more insightful than they are.

Peterson often repeats those same concepts but disguises them inside 600 pages of mostly needless pseudo intellectual babble that is quite difficult to delineate what Peterson is claiming, none of his truisms are new or particularly insightful. And much of what is new is utter nonsense, and “nobody can be sure they are comprehending the author’s meaning, which has the effect of making the reader feel deeply inferior and in awe of the writer’s towering knowledge, knowledge that must exist on a level so much higher than that of ordinary mortals that we are incapable of even beginning to appreciate it.”

 

[strange headache]

That’s my point. Much of the points that Peterson is conveying were made in a far more comprehensible manner by Maslow, Piaget and other psychologists that came before him.

No, no that's not your point. You're just trying to coattail on the information I've just given to you. Also it's not like Maslow or Piaget were groundbreakingly novel, they also built upon some of what was already there.

Peterson often repeats those same concepts but disguises them inside 600 pages of mostly needless pseudo intellectual babble that is quite difficult to delineate what Peterson is claiming, none of which is actually novel.

Eh whatever, that's just like your opinion man. I think otherwise. That guy has over 9.000 (pun intended) academic citations, so clearly what he has to say is useful to a lot of people.

And much of what is new is utter nonsense, and “nobody can be sure they are comprehending the author’s meaning, which has the effect of making the reader feel deeply inferior and in awe of the writer’s towering knowledge, knowledge that must exist on a level so much higher than that of ordinary mortals that we are incapable of even beginning to appreciate it.”

Again, you go an try read Jung or Kant or whatever, you probably won't understand a whole lot because it requires a certain amount of preliminary knowledge. The author you linked to is just waaaaay out of his depth and too biased to engage with it honestly.

 

[Papa]

N Nintendo Switch

You wouldn’t go into an advanced calculus class if your math knowledge is at a high school algebra level. Why should psychology be any different?

I don’t pretend to understand everything Jordan Peterson says, but I admire him for having the courage to speak truth - his truth, not yours - to power at a time when that is very difficult, even dangerous, to do.

I get the impression that you’re not here to understand why people agree with and take solace in what Jordan Peterson has to say. Rather, your mind is already made up and you’re here to convince everyone else why they’re wrong. Just look at your recent thread titles:

“What Jordan Peterson and James Damore got wrong”

“The speech that sparked a revolution”

They’re phrased as foregone conclusions that seem intended to elicit outrage from dissenters. However, I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt on that and assume you’ve just grown accustomed to clickbait culture and did it subconsciously.

 

[strange headache]

As for his claim about misery, it means the exact same thing. There is no difference between not wanting to feel bad and wanting to feel good. If you are hurting, you aren’t happy. And if you are happy that by definition means you are not hurting.

The first approach, avoiding misery, is a Stoic approach, the second one, actively seeking happiness, is a hedonistic approach. Both are not the same. Peterson is clearly making a case for Stoicism. Another reason why the author you brought up has no clue what he's talking about.

Of course we could also apply Mill's happiness principle, but Peterson is far from being an utilitarian:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

The mere absence of pain does not automatically constitute happiness.

 

[TrainedRage]

strange headache
I'm just wondering what your favorite Peterson videos/lectures? You know much more about him than I do and am wondering what some of your suggestions would be? Shit man you could teach a class.

 

[Rookje]

The "war between culture and biology" talk seems a little silly to me given how far away we are from our original biological means.

My point is that a lot of current cultural debates are, at their core, concerning the tensions between our culture and rooted biology. Women want to be more like men, but does that make them happier? Why are housewives happier than rich female CEOs? Why does working out -- something you could argue simulates hunting -- improve our mood so much, especially men? The paleo diet, for example, is a recent example of us reacting to our current society and saying "we aren't happy and healthy because we're not eating how we biologically were meant to eat."

Human beings are deeply tied to our primordial biology. We are not simply computers where we can modify our software at our whim, we don't have control over what makes us happy and healthy. Think about having a life partner. It seems ridiculous, really. Why do I need a partner? Why do I need to go home and sleep beside this same person every night? But try not doing it. Many do, of course, and its one of the leading causes of the ills of society.

Maybe one day we can be born, choose our gender, choose how we want to live, maybe alone in solitude with no life partner, without the feeling of hunger or sexual desire, without needing to sleep. Imagine if we didn't need to eat so often, sleep, or need to spend so much time chatting with our life partner? We would of conquered the universe already! But that can't happen over night, it would take thousands of years of evolution to change our biological code just as it took thousands of years to give us the capability of language, tool making, monogamy and so on.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I primarily see biology used to maintain hierarchical order, so that's a red ass flag.

Otherwise, what is natural isn't necessarily good, and we have been slowly running away from natural instincts.

 

[Dunki]

I primarily see biology used to maintain hierarchical order, so that's a red ass flag.

Otherwise, what is natural isn't necessarily good, and we have been slowly running away from natural instincts.

The irony in this sentence is that people probably like you also first tried to blame it on Social conditioning or influence but now that it has a huge biological factor you are totally fine with conditioning people and manipulate them so it would fit better to your own ideology.

I hope you can see that...