|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 1, 2020 23:05:28 GMT
Wow, when did I enter a time machine that took me back to 2018? Maybe it was God's Plan and Meant to Be. In any case it's Perfect and I Like It here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 1, 2020 23:26:54 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. It's been said that Donald Trump is popular because he embodies a poor person's idea of what a rich person is like. I always thought Peterson is popular because he embodies a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is like. Peterson isn't dumb, but neither is he some genius guru that his fans make him out to be. He's a pretty mixed bag. I like him best when he's doing his psychological/Jungian readings of stuff like The Bible, which is a refreshing change in this age of fundamentalism/anti-fundamentalism. Politically he seems to an equal mix of insightful and daft. EG, I think he has some good stuff to say about the necessity of hierarchies and how such things will always lead to some disenfranchisement, which will always necessitate a need for change/progress to avoid tyranny; but he also has that classic conservative "fear" to the point of paranoia that every new liberal movement is going to tear down all hierarchies and descend society into chaos. Even in that video, in which he's mostly in the right in what he says, he gets quite silly trying to equate trans-activists with leftist authoritarians like Mao just because there's a similar philosophy governing their beliefs. Even assuming that's true, there's a similar philosophy governing all people's beliefs, which doesn't mean that the outcomes of those common philosophies can't be radically different, which should be blatantly obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 2, 2020 3:00:11 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. It's been said that Donald Trump is popular because he embodies a poor person's idea of what a rich person is like. I always thought Peterson is popular because he embodies a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is like. I'd say that Peterson triggers those that are too dumb to see how smart he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 2, 2020 3:09:00 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
I have seen this interview at least 30 times and I never get tired of it. I am a huge fan of Jordan Peterson and I would say that I am blindly devoted except that I never catch or hear JP's saying anything dumb or offensive. He is extremely intelligent, even kind-hearted, I would say, and as a father figure to guys I would say he's the best there is (not that I don't love and appreciate my own father). It seems to me that the like/dislike ratio for Peterson is maybe 60/40, and I just don't get most of the comments his detractors make. Trying to pass of gobbledygook as rhetoric. First off, he is not even close to being a politically oriented person (my own take on him) and he is basically a compassionate and humane clinical psychologist who is also very eloquent. Second, his idol is Carl Jung, who was just about the smartest person ever.
As these things go, the interview is pretty good. Yes, Cathy Newman does try to put words in Jordan's mouth (almost constantly) and JP is spot on when he says that she is not truly listening to what he is saying. But she is not entirely unlikable and their rapport is playful at times. I love it when JP says to CN - "I suspect you're not very agreeable" and dang it if Cathy does not light up like a beam over that one! It's a very, very fun moment. But the topper to this interview, of course, is the "Gotcha!" moment. I get happy goosebumps all over when he lays that one out. And it is to Cathy's credit that she was able to smile at that one. But Jordan Peterson is always respectful and never appears to intend anything to be taken personally. I've felt like writing to him myself, because he actually does have very encouraging words to offer. I love the man. I would love to get the "Gotcha!" as a ringtone! Peterson is by no means dumb and while Newman was playing devil's advocate in trying to trap him, I think deep down, she herself had respect and admirability for him. This wasn't an interview born out of loggerheaded conflict of opinions, she wanted to see if she could break him down and she couldn't. Heck, subjectively she may even agree with him, but her professional role was not about giving that sense of rapport that would have then undermined her own position as a media front. Also, her standing as a successful and intelligent woman who is projecting an air of inspiration for other women and their own cause. She is by no means unpleasant to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 3:47:14 GMT
But there is no pay gap anymore. The oppressed class now is the working class white male. Bullshit. I've spent 25-years watching male nurses with less experience and education get promotions over their female counterparts. One of the guys I work with was just offered a supervisor position and he's a clown. His documentation is illegal and he calls off all the damn time. He's charismatic though and knows how to bullshit people. This same director offered my boss his unit manager position. He only has 8-years of experience and there are nurses on the same unit who have 30 and just as much education, some more. Now, I'm not going to complain too much because he hired me and I worked with him at another job and he's great, but I still think he had an advantage because of his gender. Men are becoming less of a novelty in nursing but still the minority and their rate of advancement seems disproportionate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 3:48:19 GMT
Even in that video, in which he's mostly in the right in what he says, he gets quite silly trying to equate trans-activists with leftist authoritarians like Mao just because there's a similar philosophy governing their beliefs. Even assuming that's true, there's a similar philosophy governing all people's beliefs, which doesn't mean that the outcomes of those common philosophies can't be radically different, which should be blatantly obvious. That's the thing, though. He essentially defines Maoist philosophy as being one that treats people according to their "identity" rather than as an individual. But... that's not Maoism. It's nothing to do with Maoism. Maoism involves a lot of stuff, and none of it is anything to do with that. He's just scaremongering, engaging in the common trope of asserting that everyone who isn't 100% behind current republican politics is "most scary version of communist I can think of". Or worse, he is genuinely too ignorant to know what he's talking about. And he does stuff like that constantly. He talks a reasonable game, but a very large portion of what he claims as true is just random BS. I've no idea if he's just dumb or he's deliberately setting himself up as a darling of the right because money, but he certainly doesn't act like somebody who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to these things. Reminds me a lot of William Lane Craig, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 2, 2020 6:24:39 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. It's been said that Donald Trump is popular because he embodies a poor person's idea of what a rich person is like. I always thought Peterson is popular because he embodies a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is like. Here is what I wrote after going back to watch the rest of the video, "I was being unfair earlier by giving up so early. I went back and watched the video on my PC and now I understand he was just carefully weighing his words because the interviewer is out to trap him." There is a point in the interview where JP says, "I got you," and she responds, "You got me," and blushes. That was the real her. The interview was her challenging Jordan and he played her masterfully, wouldn't surprise me if they didn't bang one out in the dressing room right after. When JP sticks to his field, his words are well reasoned but when he goes off on stuff outside his field, especially politically, his ditto brain takes over and says questionable things. He's much like engineers in that regard, when they stick to their field they are fine but tend to be overconfident and often have dumb opinions about things outside their speciality.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 2, 2020 7:11:55 GMT
I have seen this interview at least 30 times and I never get tired of it. I am a huge fan of Jordan Peterson and I would say that I am blindly devoted except that I never catch or hear JP's saying anything dumb or offensive. He is extremely intelligent, even kind-hearted, I would say, and as a father figure to guys I would say he's the best there is (not that I don't love and appreciate my own father). It seems to me that the like/dislike ratio for Peterson is maybe 60/40, and I just don't get most of the comments his detractors make. Trying to pass of gobbledygook as rhetoric. First off, he is not even close to being a politically oriented person (my own take on him) and he is basically a compassionate and humane clinical psychologist who is also very eloquent. Second, his idol is Carl Jung, who was just about the smartest person ever.
As these things go, the interview is pretty good. Yes, Cathy Newman does try to put words in Jordan's mouth (almost constantly) and JP is spot on when he says that she is not truly listening to what he is saying. But she is not entirely unlikable and their rapport is playful at times. I love it when JP says to CN - "I suspect you're not very agreeable" and dang it if Cathy does not light up like a beam over that one! It's a very, very fun moment. But the topper to this interview, of course, is the "Gotcha!" moment. I get happy goosebumps all over when he lays that one out. And it is to Cathy's credit that she was able to smile at that one. But Jordan Peterson is always respectful and never appears to intend anything to be taken personally. I've felt like writing to him myself, because he actually does have very encouraging words to offer. I love the man. I would love to get the "Gotcha!" as a ringtone! Peterson is by no means dumb and while Newman was playing devil's advocate in trying to trap him, I think deep down, she herself had respect and admirability for him. This wasn't an interview born out of loggerheaded conflict of opinions, she wanted to see if she could break him down and she couldn't. Heck, subjectively she may even agree with him, but her professional role was not about giving that sense of rapport that would have then undermined her own position as a media front. Also, her standing as a successful and intelligent woman who is projecting an air of inspiration for other women and their own cause. She is by no means unpleasant to watch. Yes, I like the fact that she does not make it a point to downplay her attractiveness, her feminine appeal - e.g., she wears makeup, feminine attire and she is not at all bullish in her manner. She has a nice smile and I saw her eyes light up and twinkle on two separate occasions! And, yes, I think deep down, they both kinda like each other. CN wasn't a sore loser and JP was by no means a haughty, sore winner. You have to love it when that sort of thing happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 2, 2020 7:58:37 GMT
Peterson is by no means dumb and while Newman was playing devil's advocate in trying to trap him, I think deep down, she herself had respect and admirability for him. This wasn't an interview born out of loggerheaded conflict of opinions, she wanted to see if she could break him down and she couldn't. Heck, subjectively she may even agree with him, but her professional role was not about giving that sense of rapport that would have then undermined her own position as a media front. Also, her standing as a successful and intelligent woman who is projecting an air of inspiration for other women and their own cause. She is by no means unpleasant to watch. Yes, I like the fact that she does not make it a point to downplay her attractiveness, her feminine appeal - e.g., she wears makeup, feminine attire and she is not at all bullish in her manner. She has a nice smile and I saw her eyes light up and twinkle on two separate occasions! And, yes, I think deep down, they both kinda like each other. CN wasn't a sore loser and JP was by no means a haughty, sore winner. You have to love it when that sort of thing happens. He made his point, she did her job in attempting to negate it, but ultimately, she knew his argument was real for what it was. You can't run from the truth, if there's nowhere to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 9, 2020 12:51:57 GMT
More truth from Peterson about the radical left, when they can't be easily pigeon holed for their own ludicrous and extreme ideologies, due to delusions of what nature and science represents and what they want it to be, or think it should be. I know this source is from Fox News, which can be very questionable, but with Peterson talking, he is just stating it the way he sees it from a rational minded perspective. It is difficult to be skeptical about the awful truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 9, 2020 13:08:28 GMT
Even in that video, in which he's mostly in the right in what he says, he gets quite silly trying to equate trans-activists with leftist authoritarians like Mao just because there's a similar philosophy governing their beliefs. Even assuming that's true, there's a similar philosophy governing all people's beliefs, which doesn't mean that the outcomes of those common philosophies can't be radically different, which should be blatantly obvious. That's the thing, though. He essentially defines Maoist philosophy as being one that treats people according to their "identity" rather than as an individual. But... that's not Maoism. It's nothing to do with Maoism. Maoism involves a lot of stuff, and none of it is anything to do with that. He's just scaremongering, engaging in the common trope of asserting that everyone who isn't 100% behind current republican politics is "most scary version of communist I can think of". Or worse, he is genuinely too ignorant to know what he's talking about.
And he does stuff like that constantly. He talks a reasonable game, but a very large portion of what he claims as true is just random BS. I've no idea if he's just dumb or he's deliberately setting himself up as a darling of the right because money, but he certainly doesn't act like somebody who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to these things. Reminds me a lot of William Lane Craig, actually. He is doing no such thing. He is pointing out the flaws in radical illogical thinking and this is from both sides of the political spectrum. Surely a brick logic mind such as yourself can see that, unless you have just reinforced your wall and can't see due to your pride. I doubt you win a debate with Peterson, it just makes you look dumb to think that you would when you define him as ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 9, 2020 13:18:38 GMT
But there is no pay gap anymore. The oppressed class now is the working class white male. Bullshit. I've spent 25-years watching male nurses with less experience and education get promotions over their female counterparts. One of the guys I work with was just offered a supervisor position and he's a clown. His documentation is illegal and he calls off all the damn time. He's charismatic though and knows how to bullshit people. This same director offered my boss his unit manager position. He only has 8-years of experience and there are nurses on the same unit who have 30 and just as much education, some more. Now, I'm not going to complain too much because he hired me and I worked with him at another job and he's great, but I still think he had an advantage because of his gender. Men are becoming less of a novelty in nursing but still the minority and their rate of advancement seems disproportionate. That is not really a pay gap issue though. This situation can exist in any place and for both genders, depending on how those that are in superior charge, relate to certain types of people and then make decisions regarding their career. Age is also a factor and ageism in the work place can be a bigger issue than a bogus pay gap argument. Even if they are wrongheaded, they may see certain qualities that they require on a professional level. They may also want to promote more males into the nursing profession, due to it being predominately female dominated. If he worked in another place, he may not have the same opportunity presented before him.
|
|
|
|
Post by senan90 on Feb 9, 2020 13:49:20 GMT
Not really. He had his spotlight in early 2018 but he was found out after his debates with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, respectively. He's a cod.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 9, 2020 13:59:17 GMT
More truth from Peterson about the radical left, when they can't be easily pigeon holed for their own ludicrous and extreme ideologies, due to delusions of what nature and science represents and what they want it to be, or think it should be. I know this source is from Fox News, which can be very questionable, but with Peterson talking, he is just stating it the way he sees it from a rational minded perspective. It is difficult to be skeptical about the awful truth. See, I think that's a good example of where Peterson straddles the line of being right and wrong. I agree with him that if anyone is claiming that biological sex, gender expression/identity, and sexual preference have no relation and vary independently from each other is ridiculously wrong; but to claim that this is a common claim among "radical leftists" is equally wrong, AFAICT. There may be some "radical leftists" claiming this, but I'd challenge Peterson to show how it's the majority. Further, he talks about science establishing gender as being biological rather than social, but he doesn't seem to realize that "gender as social construct" STARTED in science, with its first attestation being in the 1945 American Journal of Psychology, and was popularized by the sexologist John Money. I've yet to read any of these people claim that gender was independent of biological sex, however. I don't think that's what "gender is a social construct" even means; as if you can have any social constructs uninfluenced by human biology. Further, whether or not gender is an expression that follows biological sex, it's still useful to have a term to distinguish between biological sex and our social concepts of feminine/masculine traits regardless of why those traits express themselves. Even if gender is deeply rooted in biological sex, it's clear that there are people whose gender are atypical of their biological sex, and this seems to be rooted, according to the latest science that Peterson also seems unaware of, in differences in brains, where transsexuals have brains more typical of the sex they identify as rather than the sex they were born as. It would seem to follow from this that if there are typical and atypical male/female brains, there can easily be brains that are "on the spectrum" and not clearly more like one than the other. In such cases it's obvious that these people would feel a conflict between what they see from the majority, most of whom have brains and, thus, gender traits typical of their biological sex, and how they feel, and it's equally clear that social pressures on those people to conform to the gender traits typical of their biological sex would often be enormous, perhaps even quite oppressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 9, 2020 14:00:37 GMT
Not really. He had his spotlight in early 2018 but he was found out after his debates with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, respectively. He's a cod. Found about about what may I ask? If you could please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 9, 2020 14:48:41 GMT
My work colleague, who's a paid-up, card-carrying left-winger, listens to all things Jordan Peterson so I'm used to hearing his thoughts on matters. Also saw Petereson on 'Question Time' here in the U K.
Many believe we have a reported gender pay gap in some professions, which government claims to be addressing nationally, and with even supposedly guilty businesses doing little to refute current data and statistics. But some respected British commentators demand it's all fake news pushed by a corporate, elitist, liberal agenda mission, so who knows. Boys clubs have always been built upon unregistered money, "gifts", bonuses, kickbacks, lobbying etc. - that's a reality I'll never be a part of. My colleague does point out however that this guy Peterson is a very successful, multi-millionaire who understands business and knows how to negotiate the lucrative talk circuit, so you have to respect that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 9, 2020 23:52:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 10, 2020 8:56:27 GMT
More truth from Peterson about the radical left, when they can't be easily pigeon holed for their own ludicrous and extreme ideologies, due to delusions of what nature and science represents and what they want it to be, or think it should be. I know this source is from Fox News, which can be very questionable, but with Peterson talking, he is just stating it the way he sees it from a rational minded perspective. It is difficult to be skeptical about the awful truth. See, I think that's a good example of where Peterson straddles the line of being right and wrong. I agree with him that if anyone is claiming that biological sex, gender expression/identity, and sexual preference have no relation and vary independently from each other is ridiculously wrong; but to claim that this is a common claim among "radical leftists" is equally wrong, AFAICT. There may be some "radical leftists" claiming this, but I'd challenge Peterson to show how it's the majority. Further, he talks about science establishing gender as being biological rather than social, but he doesn't seem to realize that "gender as social construct" STARTED in science, with its first attestation being in the 1945 American Journal of Psychology, and was popularized by the sexologist John Money. I've yet to read any of these people claim that gender was independent of biological sex, however. I don't think that's what "gender is a social construct" even means; as if you can have any social constructs uninfluenced by human biology. Further, whether or not gender is an expression that follows biological sex, it's still useful to have a term to distinguish between biological sex and our social concepts of feminine/masculine traits regardless of why those traits express themselves. Even if gender is deeply rooted in biological sex, it's clear that there are people whose gender are atypical of their biological sex, and this seems to be rooted, according to the latest science that Peterson also seems unaware of, in differences in brains, where transsexuals have brains more typical of the sex they identify as rather than the sex they were born as. It would seem to follow from this that if there are typical and atypical male/female brains, there can easily be brains that are "on the spectrum" and not clearly more like one than the other. In such cases it's obvious that these people would feel a conflict between what they see from the majority, most of whom have brains and, thus, gender traits typical of their biological sex, and how they feel, and it's equally clear that social pressures on those people to conform to the gender traits typical of their biological sex would often be enormous, perhaps even quite oppressive. Well, to be fair, he only had around 5 minutes to talk here, so would have had to have condensed key points to make his point. He would know that there are also other various contributing factors to how a mindset thinks, but when one is radical left, as opposed to radical right, it can go from fanatical hatred, to fanatical delusion. Is "radical right" pretty much all on the same wavelength as well, regarding race relations and oppression of minorities. If that is a major component of right wing fundie ideology, then the same could be said of fundie left within their own ideology.
I just think there is too much intellectualizing and semantics involved with the term 'gender', when compared to the birth term 'sex'. To my mind, gender\sex is one and the same, male or female. It is the biological makeup of the physical and we only have 2 sexes—anomalies don't count, because that is congenital—and while I agree that gender identity can be to do with what the brain processes, it is the body itself which will trigger what signals the brain receives. If a TG thinks they are female, but their biology isn't dictating as such, then I understand the take Peterson takes, with him being a highly qualified clinical psychologist. Ergo for him, it would be something more born of mind. How would we know if a person born male, yet thinks or wants to be female, would actually enjoy being female if they had an "authentic" female body, but with the same brain and mindset they operate from as male physiology?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2020 1:39:49 GMT
See, I think that's a good example of where Peterson straddles the line of being right and wrong. I agree with him that if anyone is claiming that biological sex, gender expression/identity, and sexual preference have no relation and vary independently from each other is ridiculously wrong; but to claim that this is a common claim among "radical leftists" is equally wrong, AFAICT. There may be some "radical leftists" claiming this, but I'd challenge Peterson to show how it's the majority. Further, he talks about science establishing gender as being biological rather than social, but he doesn't seem to realize that "gender as social construct" STARTED in science, with its first attestation being in the 1945 American Journal of Psychology, and was popularized by the sexologist John Money. I've yet to read any of these people claim that gender was independent of biological sex, however. I don't think that's what "gender is a social construct" even means; as if you can have any social constructs uninfluenced by human biology. Further, whether or not gender is an expression that follows biological sex, it's still useful to have a term to distinguish between biological sex and our social concepts of feminine/masculine traits regardless of why those traits express themselves. Even if gender is deeply rooted in biological sex, it's clear that there are people whose gender are atypical of their biological sex, and this seems to be rooted, according to the latest science that Peterson also seems unaware of, in differences in brains, where transsexuals have brains more typical of the sex they identify as rather than the sex they were born as. It would seem to follow from this that if there are typical and atypical male/female brains, there can easily be brains that are "on the spectrum" and not clearly more like one than the other. In such cases it's obvious that these people would feel a conflict between what they see from the majority, most of whom have brains and, thus, gender traits typical of their biological sex, and how they feel, and it's equally clear that social pressures on those people to conform to the gender traits typical of their biological sex would often be enormous, perhaps even quite oppressive. Well, to be fair, he only had around 5 minutes to talk here, so would have had to have condensed key points to make his point. He would know that there are also other various contributing factors to how a mindset thinks, but when one is radical left, as opposed to radical right, it can go from fanatical hatred, to fanatical delusion. Is "radical right" pretty much all on the same wavelength as well, regarding race relations and oppression of minorities. If that is a major component of right wing fundie ideology, then the same could be said of fundie left within their own ideology.
I just think there is too much intellectualizing and semantics involved with the term 'gender', when compared to the birth term 'sex'. To my mind, gender\sex is one and the same, male or female. It is the biological makeup of the physical and we only have 2 sexes—anomalies don't count, because that is congenital—and while I agree that gender identity can be to do with what the brain processes, it is the body itself which will trigger what signals the brain receives. If a TG thinks they are female, but their biology isn't dictating as such, then I understand the take Peterson takes, with him being a highly qualified clinical psychologist. Ergo for him, it would be something more born of mind. How would we know if a person born male, yet thinks or wants to be female, would actually enjoy being female if they had an "authentic" female body, but with the same brain and mindset they operate from as male physiology?
I've heard Peterson talk a lot and I don't think I've ever heard him qualify any of his speech on this subject with the facts I've given above, even when had plenty of time to do so. There's fringe lunatics on both the radical left and right, with plenty of fanatical hatred and delusion. I don't see a huge distinction there. The issue is what constitutes "radical" and what constitutes "radical fringe lunatics" and what constitutes more normal left/right and moderates. There are a ton of people on both sides who love to hold up the lunatic fringe as being the radicals, and hold up moderates as being radicals--basically, they perceive the other side as being more towards the extremes than they actually are. Of course they do this because it makes it much easier to argue against strawmans rather than more reasonable positions. I'm suggesting that what Peterson presents in that video is closer to a strawman, that even if there are some on the left that believe that, they are likely not the majority. "Intellectualizing" and "semantics" is part of the job of science and philosophy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's how it is. It's stupid to have two terms to refer to the same thing. We need a means of talking about both biology and sociology and how they affect other in terms of sex and our concepts of masculine/feminine. I also think you got it backwards; the brain is more largely responsible for what signals the body receives, not the other way around. We also have to realize that brain is biology as much as body is. Just because we see a body and our experience of a mind is how someone acts doesn't make the latter any less biological. Your last question is a good one, and it's one that we need to carefully answer going forward with people who feel they're transgender, especially kids. From what little I know of the transition process, it's a long one that includes many incremental changes and often years of tests (many psychological) and persistence. So generally by the time someone has transitioned it's something they've wanted for a long time without having changed their mind. Can we KNOW they'll be happy once they transition? No, but we also know many people are miserable in the body they were born in, so sometimes the devil you know isn't necessarily better than the one you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 0:10:09 GMT
Well, to be fair, he only had around 5 minutes to talk here, so would have had to have condensed key points to make his point. He would know that there are also other various contributing factors to how a mindset thinks, but when one is radical left, as opposed to radical right, it can go from fanatical hatred, to fanatical delusion. Is "radical right" pretty much all on the same wavelength as well, regarding race relations and oppression of minorities. If that is a major component of right wing fundie ideology, then the same could be said of fundie left within their own ideology.
I just think there is too much intellectualizing and semantics involved with the term 'gender', when compared to the birth term 'sex'. To my mind, gender\sex is one and the same, male or female. It is the biological makeup of the physical and we only have 2 sexes—anomalies don't count, because that is congenital—and while I agree that gender identity can be to do with what the brain processes, it is the body itself which will trigger what signals the brain receives. If a TG thinks they are female, but their biology isn't dictating as such, then I understand the take Peterson takes, with him being a highly qualified clinical psychologist. Ergo for him, it would be something more born of mind. How would we know if a person born male, yet thinks or wants to be female, would actually enjoy being female if they had an "authentic" female body, but with the same brain and mindset they operate from as male physiology?
I've heard Peterson talk a lot and I don't think I've ever heard him qualify any of his speech on this subject with the facts I've given above, even when had plenty of time to do so. There's fringe lunatics on both the radical left and right, with plenty of fanatical hatred and delusion. I don't see a huge distinction there. The issue is what constitutes "radical" and what constitutes "radical fringe lunatics" and what constitutes more normal left/right and moderates. There are a ton of people on both sides who love to hold up the lunatic fringe as being the radicals, and hold up moderates as being radicals--basically, they perceive the other side as being more towards the extremes than they actually are. Of course they do this because it makes it much easier to argue against strawmans rather than more reasonable positions. I'm suggesting that what Peterson presents in that video is closer to a strawman, that even if there are some on the left that believe that, they are likely not the majority. "Intellectualizing" and "semantics" is part of the job of science and philosophy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's how it is. It's stupid to have two terms to refer to the same thing. We need a means of talking about both biology and sociology and how they affect other in terms of sex and our concepts of masculine/feminine. I also think you got it backwards; the brain is more largely responsible for what signals the body receives, not the other way around. We also have to realize that brain is biology as much as body is. Just because we see a body and our experience of a mind is how someone acts doesn't make the latter any less biological. Your last question is a good one, and it's one that we need to carefully answer going forward with people who feel they're transgender, especially kids. From what little I know of the transition process, it's a long one that includes many incremental changes and often years of tests (many psychological) and persistence. So generally by the time someone has transitioned it's something they've wanted for a long time without having changed their mind. Can we KNOW they'll be happy once they transition? No, but we also know many people are miserable in the body they were born in, so sometimes the devil you know isn't necessarily better than the one you don't. It is just compounding the issue, by compartmentalizing the spectrum of the far reaching ideals of either partisan stance. So yes, semantics and intellectualizing something that doesn't need to be, is creating more confusion. They are either common sense issues or not and these appear to exist toward the center, or in the middle. Peterson didn't even comment on the "majority" of radical lefties, he just just claimed "radical". This is perhaps a more appropriate and professional term, than just claiming them as 'fundie', or 'extremist'. He didn't negate science either in his talk. Peterson appears to talk in a manner that is not going to go above the head of most, nor is he trying to impress with rhetoric and terms of intellectual snobbery, that is esoteric knowledge. That is wise.
Depending on where the trauma is in the body, the nerve endings will then send a signal to the brain that something is not quite right. Well, it all works in with each other, but the brain is not going to respond to a signal from the body that has not been triggered, unless it is head\brain trauma. If you stub your toe, the toe will be the first receptor, not the brain.
It is just psychological conditioning that is confusing kids. They need to be allowed to be who they are, in terms of tastes and what they like and are drawn to without being told they are wrong, but when we pander to something that is going to have detrimental effects in the long run, kids also need to learn there are consequences for every action. Some things may not be easily undone, or perhaps never undone. And while we like it or not, life is also a game and there is an expectation of attitude and behavior. The gender flux issue, is just going to make things worse, if they can't function and accept the biology they are born with. That can't be wholly reversed, no matter what is attempted.
The body is not permanent and there are more serious physical disabilities and maladies that humans can suffer, than some spoiled brat who wants attention, because they were born with a dork and not a huhu. If they have full functional use of all their limbs, their hearing and sight and the rest of their body is functional normal, TG psychological issues can take a backseat as far as I'm concerned. It is not relevant to the bigger picture.
|
|
