Okay, reread the article and the post you linked.
From the article, would it be accurate to summarize that:
Because of the “greatness” of white people’s past, in the face of higher, more difficult global standards of greatness as created by the internet, white people are the most likely to seek out his advice on the topic of climbing a hirarchy/becoming great?
As well as:
White people are more focused on dominating/being the top lobster, therefor Peterson’s advice is more attractive?
I can see some of his language being attractive to white people as well. “Who’s your daddy?” Lol.
As for your previously mentioned video formula, I can’t really bring that up, but I’ll watch a video of his later and watch for the various sections.
Anyway, are my summarizations on the article accurate?
If so, I guess what it really comes down to is not about the 12 rules at all, more the package that comes with it, and if you believe the “only two genders” stuff he also talks about, just like you initially said. I actually think I get it now.
What citation? This is a comment forum. I derive my observations on (in my case) a layman’s common sense understanding of what similar traits for predators have. Do you disagree that humans are the ultimate super-predator of all time insofar as our understanding of the universe to this point in time? I think humans have a natural tendency towards aggression and assertiveness when challenged. My comment proves this and so does yours. Does it not? Am I missing something?
It’s more that the white cisgender males he’s targetting feel a sense of entitlement to power, money, sex, etc. (basically a place at the top of the traditional hierarchy) that they’re not getting but feel they’re entitled to based on skin and gender privilege. He’s creating scapegoats (feminism, LGBTQ rights, “postmodern neoMarxism” whatever that is) for them to blame.
The 12 rules are just an entry point. $cientology and other cults use similar common-sense rules during early stages of recruiting to draw in the weak-willed and ignorant.
I provided proof that refutes your thesis.
You commenting back to me proves nothing? Or is this you being aggressive and assertive? Simply disagreeing without any back up? Ok then… welcome to Boingboing!
Common Sense is one of the worst rhetorical defenses of a position, just FYI. You can frame just about any argument as common sense. All it ends up saying is, “I find this position intuitive–you should too”.
Back up your position with well-sourced facts, and you will convince people of your viewpoint. I’m not even addressing your position of Humans as Predators here (which there’s perspectives I can think of on both sides of that argument).
And I declined to with what I wrote. Obviously I am taking this thread from a casual exchange. I am not sure if my wording was kludgy or you are trying to shoehorn the link in. Feels like both a little bit.
I am not here to convince you of my viewpoint. I appreciate the link and was already familiar with it.
I should have probably said: Anyone with eyes can see the plain and observable common facts between humans and predators or humans as predators. I also prefaced my comment with my opinion/perspective. I am not interested in getting hyper technical over here.
However I would ask and am interested in other views which would state that humans are not predators or similar. That would be fascinating to read. Because admittedly I can see much, much more what makes us and predators in common than not at the moment. But as a human being, and a smart one sometimes – I reserve to change my opinion or views at any time. Subject to change. Learning demands it!
Wait… I am confused…
Is it a fact that humans are predators or is it your opinion?
You can’t have it both ways dude.
You can’t trot out statements as “facts” and then hide behind “thats just my opinion”.
Put up or shut up.
I repeat: citation required!
Here is one l like that supports my thesis that we are NOT predators, and never were.
We were social communal animals living together and supporting the group. Personally, I think it is the breakdown of communal and multi-generational living that has cause most of our modern angst.
But then your common sense understanding has no more weight than mine.
In the sense you are using it, yes, I disagree. You are conflating predation and dominance behavior. Predators don’t seek to dominate, they seek to eat. Their behavior may be like cats, basically individuals, or wolves*, social animals who co-operate to get food, but their prey typically consists of other species. Predators who prey on their own species exist, but I personally don’t see that as a desirable way to structure human society.
Dominance is intraspecies, and the war of all against all seems to be what JP is getting at with his lobster analogy. It’s fascist ideology with a misogynist topping of “the alpha males get all the females”.
*(If you want bring up wolf hierarchies, consider this article:
or consider hyenas, where the alpha female gets all the males. There are lots of models out there in the animal kingdom. Humans don’t need to model themselves on any of them if we choose not to.)
Hmm… I’m not really seeing that come through honestly.
Nowhere in the twelve rules is he stating that other people are the problem, only that you yourself are the issue, so make yourself better. The whole idea of setting your house in order before blaming the world/others completely contradicts your statement.
If anything, I would suggest that the weak and entitled-feeling people you mention should actually follow his rules haha.
Within the scope of the book, nobody is the enemy except yourself. Feminism and related movements are an unrelated topic.
Again: the 12 rules are obvious and banal and somewhat useful pieces of advice, tailored slightly to the sensibilities of white cisgender male losers (mainly by taking on a “daddy” tone) but otherwise generic. If he left it at that no-one would be discussing him (obviously he doesn’t want that).
And it’s Peterson who contradicts himself by immediately jumping to discussions of “postmodern neoMarxists” and other such supposed impediments to the success of his followers in his videos and lectures. Like any self-help guru he needs a hook to differentiate himself, which is understandable. That this is the unfortunate way he’s chosen to do so is not so acceptable.
For my part, people invoking common sense is a pet peeve. That is all. I just went and found a link which summed up my thoughts so I didn’t have to write them out long form.
Humans are predators (no quibble with me on this count), but that is not all we are. We are omnivores, with a variety of strategies in play for eating. Not unlike other omnivores like canines or catfish, sometimes hunting, scavenging or foraging.
“Predator” sells us way short considering stuff we do that no other animal does: domesticating other animals, farming food, etc.
But, the point you made was that the book is targeted towards people who think they’re entitled to stuff, yet this is represented nowhere in the book?
It really just sounds like the article is trying to find ways of putting down the book.
Don’t get me wrong, his other ideas ARE ironic given his rules, but I wonder if people are making his book out to be worse than it is simply because of his other ideologies, which are unrelated to the book.
It is unwise to ignore everything someone says, just because something else they believe isn’t PC.
Something more like a PSA warning would be better for issues like this— and probably much more respected by people who aren’t a part of the feminist community.
Right now it just comes across as an exaggeration, which makes valid and real issues about Peterson seem less genuine.
