Jordan Peterson on Sex

[Shadow Wolf]

And sure, there is a universal ‘ick’ factor attached to gay and trans people - all fueled by the bigotry of religion. There seems a clear correlation between higher education and empathy, and therefore acceptance. I vote for higher education.

Just remembered a poll Ibsaw recently. You know what two best predictions of accepting trans people was? One strong predictor is being a Democrat. The other one is knowing someone who trans. Every other group accessed is nearing ir over half against. Education didn't make that big of a difference, especially in regards to a good prediction of someone's views.

 

[Sargonski]

This isn't very hard. It means that I vote for candidates that understand the importance of reaching for a better educational system - one that teaches critical thinking for starters, sex education, and actual science and history, regardless of how ashamed some people are to be confronted with our 400 year legacy of institutionalized racism.

Clearly it is "quite hard" for some .. your claim about voting for the teaching of Critical thinking candidate an exercize in self delusion as stated previously ... what you are voting for is the cancelation of critical thought and free speech .. except for things which you agree with.

There simply are no candidates .. on either side of the aisle fighting for Liberty and Freedom "Critical Thinking" --- somewhere down the road you bought into the "Necessary Illusions" the book by raging left wing radical "Noam Chomsky" which you forgot to read.

"Necessary Illusions -- Thought control in Democratic Society" --- Doesn't get much more fun than that Friend and for you would be also double for an excellent source of deprogramming ... learn something about what the left is supposed to be..

"Actual Science and History" -- Ya Mon .. all the news that is fit to print .. and all the Science and Historty that hasnt been Cancelled due to conflict with the Party Religion .. fallacious Utilitarianism to the core .. is what you have been voting for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but who cares what I think .. aye mate

And we don't because we see through your act. There's a few of us here with legit backgrounds in psych. Your gimmick and History Channel level lingo just isn't going to fly or impress here.

 

[anna.]

At least @anna. tried to refute it, despite not commenting on most of the things I bought up (that's not a knock at her, by the way; she asked a few questions and I answered honestly), but you have nothing to say. I don't really care about the peanut gallery anymore.

I actually did, while you didn't comment on anything I brought up in my last post.

 

[Sargonski]

And we don't because we see through your act. There's a few of us here with legit backgrounds in psych. Your gimmick and History Channel level lingo just isn't going to fly or impress here.

"Legit background in psych" --- and clearly you are not one of those folks .. as you try to project your "History Channel Level Lingo" onto me.

I did not claim to have a degree in psychology .. so who is the one "We see through your Act" ... LOL is that the Royal WE Shade ? .. double down on the fallacy while the doubling is good - and pretend to be an educated chap.

If you so legit .. why are you unable to answer basic Questions related to subject .. .. and all your claims are naked ... and further .. by this last post .. you dont know what a naked claim is ..or an argument .. going on about critical thinking and evidential approach .. doesn't quite fit .. make it though the "We see through your act" challenge. how is it you are unable to comprehend the basics ? ... fine that you didn't know previously .. but now that I have explained to you a few times .. still don't understand is problem .. puts your degree in question .. or at least the program.

You go on about Freud .. how methodology was disproven .. but can't seem to figure out how to support your claim .. never mind address evidence to the contrary.

and yet to show an understanding of the distinction between Rogers and Freudian schools of thought .. or should we call it "Perspective" .. .. and without such understanding .. have no hope of understanding how current techniques are lipstick on Freudian Pig.. conflated with some fancy statistics .. claims of the Phenominoloical Approach .. words you had never heard of never mind understand ... prior to meeting yours truly .. Gifted Scientist and Personal Guru .... at your Service

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Legit background in psych" --- and clearly you are not one of those folks .. as you try to project your "History Channel Level Lingo" onto me.

I did not claim to have a degree in psychology .. so who is the one "We see through your Act" ... LOL is that the Royal WE Shade ? .. double down on the fallacy while the doubling is good - and pretend to be an educated chap.

If you so legit .. why are you unable to answer basic Questions related to subject .. .. and all your claims are naked ... and further .. by this last post .. you dont know what a naked claim is ..or an argument .. going on about critical thinking and evidential approach .. doesn't quite fit .. make it though the "We see through your act" challenge. how is it you are unable to comprehend the basics ? ... fine that you didn't know previously .. but now that I have explained to you a few times .. still don't understand is problem .. puts your degree in question .. or at least the program.

You go on about Freud .. how methodology was disproven .. but can't seem to figure out how to support your claim .. never mind address evidence to the contrary.

and yet to show an understanding of the distinction between Rogers and Freudian schools of thought .. or should we call it "Perspective" .. .. and without such understanding .. have no hope of understanding how current techniques are lipstick on Freudian Pig.. conflated with some fancy statistics .. claims of the Phenominoloical Approach .. words you had never heard of never mind understand ... prior to meeting yours truly .. Gifted Scientist and Personal Guru .... at your Service

Sorry, I don't speak fillerfluff.

 

[Firenze]

Just remembered a poll Ibsaw recently. You know what two best predictions of accepting trans people was? One strong predictor is being a Democrat. The other one is knowing someone who trans. Every other group accessed is nearing ir over half against. Education didn't make that big of a difference, especially in regards to a good prediction of someone's views.

And that's a function of our innate xenophobia, which is most certainly universal. It's the evolutionary adaptation that causes us to fear 'the other', and it's the root of racism, homophobia, tribalism... And though our definitions of who the 'other' is changes over time and culture, the xenophobia is always there. There is a real battle between good and evil. But it resides in ourselves, not in the mysticism of angels and demons. As a species we're constantly battling between our reptilian, limbic brain that calls us to eat, screw, or kill anything that comes into our territory or simply looks 'other' - and our evolved cerebral brain where Reason, compassion, and the desire for community reside. It's a battle most are losing more than winning.

 

[metis]

...and voted for Obama, believing his lies.

Which lies?

 

[metis]

"January 6th" is a psyop, to put it more or less bluntly. There were federal agents escalating things in the crowd, and this is pretty obvious and kinda sorta been admitted to by the FBI during Congressional questioning. I know of such tactics - agents provocateurs. I've seen this myself when I was at one of the 2020 George Floyd protests here that turned into a running street battle with the cops. There's too many inconsistencies. The Biden administration is persecuting its political adversies. It's not the first time the DoJ and especially the FBI has been weaponized. It's been used throughout its history to silence opposition, such as the Civil Rights movement (the FBI tried to ruin MLK). The federal government is not the friend of the American people. They betrayed us a long time ago. They serve other interests.

That's simply nuts.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think, that as far as I have understood, in the US people, especially women take pride in saying they don't have a sex life.
As if having a satisfying sex life were something to be ashamed of.

I think in Europe it's other way around. Not having a satisfying sex life is something to be ashamed of.
And in general, Europeans do speak of their own sex lives.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think, that as far as I have understood, in the US people, especially women take pride in saying they don't have a sex life.
As if having a satisfying sex life were something to be ashamed of.

I think in Europe it's other way around. Not having a satisfying sex life is something to be ashamed of.
And in general, Europeans do speak of their own sex lives.

While I'm not sure about this - whenever I read your responses about Europeans, I think that there's probably a difference between them and US people.

But then again, when you speak on US people, I also see a difference between them, and the US people that I personally know.

 

[Estro Felino]

While I'm not sure about this - whenever I read your responses about Europeans, I think that there's probably a difference between them and US people.

But then again, when you speak on US people, I also see a difference between them, and the US people that I personally know.

I did point out I may be wrong.
But it seems to me that Peterson or others consider secrecy something positive, when it deals with sex or people's sex lives.
In my opinion, and it's just my personal opinion, secrecy will cause nothing but incommunicability among people, among friends, among neighbors.
Secrecy increases the risk of adulteries and affairs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that's a function of our innate xenophobia, which is most certainly universal. It's the evolutionary adaptation that causes us to fear 'the other', and it's the root of racism, homophobia, tribalism... And though our definitions of who the 'other' is changes over time and culture, the xenophobia is always there. There is a real battle between good and evil. But it resides in ourselves, not in the mysticism of angels and demons. As a species we're constantly battling between our reptilian, limbic brain that calls us to eat, screw, or kill anything that comes into our territory or simply looks 'other' - and our evolved cerebral brain where Reason, compassion, and the desire for community reside. It's a battle most are losing more than winning.

Speak for yourself. We aren't reptiles amd thus don't have a reptile brain.

 

[Firenze]

No... you are presenting only two alternatives or at least the wording isn't correct. Is it "repressive" to promote healthy abundant intimate unions in a monogamous relationship?

I assume your exit from this thread is an admission that you recognized the flaws in Unwins claim that societies fail as they become sexually permissive.
For your edification, you might look at how modern anthropology has rejected his claims - there’s a reason you had to go back to 1934 to find what you thought was support for keeping women married and in the kitchen.
First we have the Chinese, who even with their complex concubine system is still thriving today. Then there’s the Roman Empire, which thrived under a culture of hetero, homo, and pederastic permissiveness - only failing pursuant to the infiltration of puritanical Christianity. Unwin saw correlation where it usually does not exist, and worse, provides no valid causation.

 

[Firenze]

Speak for yourself. We aren't reptiles amd thus don't have a reptile brain.

You could benefit from a simple review of the relevant anthropology. The ganglia complex is widely recognized as our vestigial reptile brain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You could benefit from a simple review of the relevant anthropology. The ganglia complex is widely recognized as our vestigial reptile brain.

We aren't reptiles though. We behave far more like chimps, even the inherent need for socializing (reptiles are solitary).

 

[Firenze]

We aren't reptiles though. We behave far more like chimps, even the inherent need for socializing (reptiles are solitary).

And again, socializing is in the later development of the limbic brain - yet it still competes with the kill everything instinct of the earlier reptile complex.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes .. as stated the DSM provides a set of guidelines for diagnosing mental disorder ... and from there often comes the drug recommendation for the diagnosed disorder. and Yes .. it is based on the Freudian methodology as described to you .. something you have failed to address ... preferring to cry "No no no" as if repeating a naked claim over and over constitutes an argument for something.

Go back and scroll through your posts.

"Yup .. DSM 5 is about perscribing Drugs ... the fact that it is "Evidence Based" does not change the fact that this is based on the Freudian school of thought ... labeling some patent ... putting them into a pre=ordained schema .. on the basis of answers to questions."

It's only Freudian in the vaguest sense, in that he was one of the first to come up with "talk therapy" as a concept. But the talk therapy we're doing today is light years away from what Freud was up to.

We have discovered that your Psyc education did not include the ability to distinguish between Rogerian and Freudian perspective .. I am guessing logical fallacy was not covered either ... critical thinking .. what constitutes a valid argument .. logic .. that kind of thing .. Sometimes arts Students can take Logic 100 as the Math requirement .. and so many would get this training ... I say the class should be required for a degree. ... but who cares what I think .. aye mate

Boy, somebody really thinks highly of himself.
LOL

Last time you were going to tell me about this "Specifically Locatable Phenominon" type of medical disorder .. vs the other kind .. and how this relates to our discussing of Therapy and if not Freud or Rogers .. what is the current methodology for diagnosis .. Do we no longer ask questions to and of the Patient .. in order to diagnose.. or do we just hook them up to a machine which tells us immediately what is wrong inside their head ?

Was I? Looks like you've confused me with someone else, O Great Sage.

I'm responding to your claim above that "DSM is about prescribing drugs ... " You know, the thing you deny saying.

Or did you think changing Obsessive Compulsive to something a little more politically correct means the Freud Method is no longer in use ?

How has it changed friend .. need to put some clothes on naked claims of yours..

Looks like you're confused about who you're talking to.
I'll give you more time to master the fine art of posting to the right person, O Great Wise One.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Legit background in psych" --- and clearly you are not one of those folks .. as you try to project your "History Channel Level Lingo" onto me.

I did not claim to have a degree in psychology .. so who is the one "We see through your Act" ... LOL is that the Royal WE Shade ? .. double down on the fallacy while the doubling is good - and pretend to be an educated chap.

If you so legit .. why are you unable to answer basic Questions related to subject .. .. and all your claims are naked ... and further .. by this last post .. you dont know what a naked claim is ..or an argument .. going on about critical thinking and evidential approach .. doesn't quite fit .. make it though the "We see through your act" challenge. how is it you are unable to comprehend the basics ? ... fine that you didn't know previously .. but now that I have explained to you a few times .. still don't understand is problem .. puts your degree in question .. or at least the program.

You go on about Freud .. how methodology was disproven .. but can't seem to figure out how to support your claim .. never mind address evidence to the contrary.

and yet to show an understanding of the distinction between Rogers and Freudian schools of thought .. or should we call it "Perspective" .. .. and without such understanding .. have no hope of understanding how current techniques are lipstick on Freudian Pig.. conflated with some fancy statistics .. claims of the Phenominoloical Approach .. words you had never heard of never mind understand ... prior to meeting yours truly .. Gifted Scientist and Personal Guru .... at your Service

Wow that was a lot of words to say ... not much of anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And again, socializing is in the later development of the limbic brain - yet it still competes with the kill everything instinct of the earlier reptile complex.

We don't have a kill everything instinct. Most animals, including reptiles, don't kill unless it's food, protecting mates/cubs, feeling threatened and some over territory. But mostly we try to avoid amd flee violent encounters. That's the animal kingdom in a nutshell.