Jordan Peterson interview on C4

ardinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

This is a great podcast , it has a lot of relevance ..

https://youtu.be/HYJFgyqs0sM

Jordan and Brett do a JRE together too. I couldnt really get into this though, watched it live and honestly only half listened to it. Will give it a go again though!

LostYourNerve?

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

I think he defends that too within this interview.

LostYourNerve?

He can't say it, but who in their right mind would run that experiment! 20:50-21:17

LostYourNerve?

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

I've always suspected that!

Another thing I believe is likely true, is that the younger male offspring within a family, are more likely to be gay.

professore

LostYourNerve? wrote: »

I've always suspected that!

Another thing I believe is likely true, is that the younger male offspring within a family, are more likely to be gay.

Henry 8th? Was he a beta male? I don't believe that nonsense. And I've had both a boy and 2 girls so it's not some butthurt stuff

Brian?

LostYourNerve? wrote: »

I've always suspected that!

Another thing I believe is likely true, is that the younger male offspring within a family, are more likely to be gay.

You may believe that. But it’s pure tripe.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You may believe that. But it’s pure tripe.

Actually it's a well researched observation. Granted it's around 15% and other factors are in the mix including handedness, but having older brothers increases the likelihood of homosexuality in men(older sisters have no effect, neither to step brothers different mothers, which seems to rule out socialisation). It may be in uterus hormonal influences. The notion being that with every successive male foetus the hormonal mix varies. There may be immune system changes with each male foetus too. A rule no, but not quite tripe either.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it's a well researched observation. Granted it's around 15% and other factors are in the mix including handedness, but having older brothers increases the likelihood of homosexuality in men(older sisters have no effect, neither to step brothers different mothers, which seems to rule out socialisation). It may be in uterus hormonal influences. The notion being that with every successive male foetus the hormonal mix varies. There may be immune system changes with each male foetus too. A rule no, but not quite tripe either.

I meant the whole alpha/beta male crap

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

I meant the whole alpha/beta male crap

Yes and no. I mean, certain traits which one might designate as "alpha" characteristics such as confidence, charisma, social grace and assertiveness are highly prized socially. Conversely, "beta" traits such as introversion, reticence and shyness while not being taboo are definitely valued much less.

The thing is that the broscience brigade have hit on something and then have run it ragged in much the same manner as Hollywood does with film franchises in an effort to sound informed and legitimate.

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

I meant the whole alpha/beta male crap

There's a lot of truth in it.

Peterson talks about it a lot, and in his book the first chapter goes into detail on it in terms of serotonin levels, the dominance hierarchy, how to raise it with the winner effect and wans (online dating data showing a very small percentage of men getting the vast majority of attention from wans) finding men attractive. Interesting stuff, but the alpha/beta stuff is a bit cheesy/autistic/silly I'd agree.

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

There's a lot of truth in it.

Go on then. I’ll bite. Show me some evidence.

Peterson talks about it a lot, and in his book the first chapter goes into detail on it in terms of serotonin levels, the dominance hierarchy, how to raise it with the winner effect and wans (online dating data showing a very small percentage of men getting the vast majority of attention from wans) finding men attractive. Interesting stuff, but the alpha/beta stuff is a bit cheesy/autistic/silly I'd agree.

There is no doubt that certain men are more attractive or “manly” and they attract more female attention. It’s the way it’s used by a certain internet cult that really irks me.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes and no. I mean, certain traits which one might designate as "alpha" characteristics such as confidence, charisma, social grace and assertiveness are highly prized socially. Conversely, "beta" traits such as introversion, reticence and shyness while not being taboo are definitely valued much less.

The thing is that the broscience brigade have hit on something and then have run it ragged in much the same manner as Hollywood does with film franchises in an effort to sound informed and legitimate.

There are leaders and followers in life. There are wonderful people who are introverts and extroverts. This whole social hierarchy based on innate characteristics irks me. We have socially evolved beyond it. We are apes, it doesn’t mean we haven’t developed beyond this.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

There are leaders and followers in life. There are wonderful people who are introverts and extroverts. This whole social hierarchy based on innate characteristics irks me. We have socially evolved beyond it. We are apes, it doesn’t mean we haven’t developed beyond this.

I never said that we hadn't developed beyond this. I was simply pointing out that we haven't left this mindset completely behind yet.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said that we hadn't developed beyond this. I was simply pointing out that we haven't left this mindset completely behind yet.

Maybe I’m missing your point.

I have an issue with alpha/beta being applied to modern human males. Alpha implies the top male in a given group of males, whereas these online communities believe they are all alpha males. Beta is then used as an insult to men who don’t fit their narrow parameters for what a man should be.

It’s nonsense. Tripe. Largely used as an excuse for boorish behaviour and misogyny, in my experience.

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

Go on then. I’ll bite. Show me some evidence.




There is no doubt that certain men are more attractive or “manly” and they attract more female attention. It’s the way it’s used by a certain internet cult that really irks me.

So. just because it irks you. You call it tripe?

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So. just because it irks you. You call it tripe?

No. I call it tripe, because it’s tripe.

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/oct/10/do-alpha-males-even-exist-donald-trump

Brian?

Look at this muck:

https://youtu.be/GUnzzjthwkI

Charmeleon

Brian? wrote: »

No. I call it tripe, because it’s tripe.

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/oct/10/do-alpha-males-even-exist-donald-trump

Unfortunately, there are undeniable facts about humans. We have a high degree of sexual dimorphism, males are on average a lot bigger and stronger. That is because it was useful in the past to be a large, strong male. We know this was being used to full effect because around the dawn of agriculture 17 women left offspring for every 1 man. I believe it still averages out to 4 to 1 now globally. A small number of males were mating with large numbers of females.

Most horticultural and agricultural societies have a ‘big man’ who holds varying degrees of authority and power, the highly unequal burial practices over thousands of years suggests this is a very ancient way of organising a community. Big men usually were associated with a single village of a small number of families, there were a lot of big men in a geographic area and they competed with each other, eventually leading to the emergence of chiefdoms when ambitious big men commanded multiple villages.

I think the Guardian piece is big on mushy thinking and low on actual facts.

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

Look at this muck:

https://youtu.be/GUnzzjthwkI

Didn't actually see much wrong there to be honest. A lot seems fairly accurate.

Sweetemotion

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't actually see much wrong there to be honest. A lot seems fairly accurate.

Didn't see the muck myself.

Brian?

Charmeleon wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are undeniable facts about humans. We have a high degree of sexual dimorphism, males are on average a lot bigger and stronger. That is because it was useful in the past to be a large, strong male. We know this was being used to full effect because around the dawn of agriculture 17 women left offspring for every 1 man. I believe it still averages out to 4 to 1 now globally. A small number of males were mating with large numbers of females.

Most horticultural and agricultural societies have a ‘big man’ who holds varying degrees of authority and power, the highly unequal burial practices over thousands of years suggests this is a very ancient way of organising a community. Big men usually were associated with a single village of a small number of families, there were a lot of big men in a geographic area and they competed with each other, eventually leading to the emergence of chiefdoms when ambitious big men commanded multiple villages.

I agree with all of this. This doesn't mean the alpha/beta male carry on, spun out by the "pick up artist" community, isn't tripe.

I think the Guardian piece is big on mushy thinking and low on actual facts.

Mushy how?

Brian?

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't actually see much wrong there to be honest. A lot seems fairly accurate.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Didn't see the muck myself.

It's pseudo psychology, mixed with pseudo sociology with a pinch of misogyny.

Basically selling the line "Want to get the girl? Become an alpha male!". That is not how modern human beings work.

Ulysses Gaze

Brian? wrote: »

It's pseudo psychology, mixed with pseudo sociology with a pinch of misogyny.

Basically selling the line "Want to get the girl? Become an alpha male!". That is not how modern human beings work.

I read it as want to get the girl? Achieve and optimise your potential.

Brian?

Flutewood wrote: »

What is the alpha/beta male carry on you are speaking of, has anyone else mentioned it on this thread?

The fact of the matter is confidence, dominance and masculinity are traits which women tend to find attractive in men. Only a minority of men are sexually attractive to women. This can be verified genetically.

I started by responding to a posters belief in it.

Brian?

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I read it as want to get the girl? Achieve and optimise your potential.

Then why bring the whole alpha/beta male paradigm into it?

Everyone should attempt to maximise their potential in life. Success is fairly attractive to the opposite success, I'm not arguing that.

Wibbs

Charmeleon wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are undeniable facts about humans.

OK.

We have a high degree of sexual dimorphism,

Actually we don't, certainly not when compared to the other great apes. Compared to them dimorphism has reduced over time. We certainly don't show close to the dimorphism of apes that operate a alpha/beta harem setup. The male gorilla is significantly larger and stronger than the female and the leader of the harem is larger and stronger than other submissive males within the group(though contrary to popular their genes show up regularly among the offspring, King Kong's missus gets side action from the postman...). In more solitary setups like the Orang the male is larger again. In chimps the range narrows as they live in more socially cohesive groups, Bonobo similarly. This strongly suggests humans are not alpha/beta harem in setup and are more socially cooperative.

Of all things penis and testicle size tracks this too. Gorillas have tiny meat and two veg. Because the male has more of a "captive audience" he faces less mating competition so requires less energy diverted into sperm production. Chimps are more a free for all, so have huge clock weights, because they need to produce far more sperm to have any guarantee of mating success. Humans are somewhere in the middle. Not a harem and not a free for all either. I'll leave the migrating clitoris in humans for another day...

In any event comparing us to the great apes, though still popular is chock full of problems. We're significantly different to them in so many ways, not least in reproductive strategies.

We know this was being used to full effect because around the dawn of agriculture 17 women left offspring for every 1 man. I believe it still averages out to 4 to 1 now globally. A small number of males were mating with large numbers of females.

Not quite that simple. Looking at genetics yes more women reproduced than men, more female lines survive than mens. It is not at a 17/1 ratio. In some populations(Asian IIRC) the gap narrows even further to near equal.

There are many more factors than the alpha/beta stuff. 1) Women have always outnumbered men in human populations(the modern Chinese demographic is an outlier). 2) pre modern medicine more male children died than female and by quite a margin. 3) in adulthood more reproductively fertile men died throughout history than women and many of them hadn't reproduced yet. War, hunting/farming, famine(women are more likely to survive famine) and even enslavement took them out of the gene pool. If one group takes over another what tends to happen is that men are killed or enslaved so no kids, women were/are considered a resource so would be reproduced with, so more kids. 4) Women also traveled more genetically. They tended to move to where their reproductive partner was, whereas men's genetics stay more local. That increases the diversity. This is not to say that polygyny wasn't a factor at times, but it was one of many. Oh and of those studies showing this difference sample sizes were small and narrow in scope. A common problem still to be found in human genetics. I suspect when a larger percentage of human DNA is sampled and examined we'll find out all sorts of stuff. Only a few years back a Black lad in America was found to have a Y chromosome found in nobody else yet tested.

I think the Guardian piece is big on mushy thinking and low on actual facts.

I would say - and considering the source - it was quite the measured take on the whole thing for a nice change from the Guardian.

Brian? wrote: »

Then why bring the whole alpha/beta male paradigm into it?

It became popular with the whole American pickup artist thing. Even when at the height of the alpha/beta notion applied to other species was a big thing, it was never applied to human social dynamics. Now that the alpha/beta thing is seen as extremely simplistic, or just plain wrong in animals(wolves a perfect example) it has become popular in the wider culture.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

It became popular with the whole American pickup artist thing. Even when at the height of the alpha/beta notion applied to other species was a big thing, it was never applied to human social dynamics. Now that the alpha/beta thing is seen as extremely simplistic, or just plain wrong in animals(wolves a perfect example) it has become popular in the wider culture.

Yep.


My own personal opinion on it's popularity is: people want a simple, binary solution to solve their problems. They don't want to be told the solution is complicated and nuanced, it's too difficult to deal with.

Brian?

Flutewood wrote: »

It's about more than just success in my opinion. The alpha/beta paradigm is about mindset. You can be a CEO and Beta and you can be unemployed and Alpha.

The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women.

We all have multiple potential versions of our personality, these are linked to social status. Put a man in position of CEO and he becomes more charismatic amongst friends, he more easily accesses that flow state where he is outside of his head. Put a man in a position of low status and he becomes less charismatic. Your brain chemistry is altered by the social status. The cues you signal change and women are very good at detecting these cues. There is "just something about him", they say.

What the alpha can do though, is behave as high social status regardless of titles etc.

I'm trying to be as polite as possible here. But this is meaningless gibberish.

Brian?

Flutewood wrote: »

I'll try to be as polite as possible in response then, What aspects do you disagree with, can you use reason and logic to rebutt my points rather than simply dismissing them?

I'll start with this:

"The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women"

That sounds like the "alpha" is delusional.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

That sounds like the "alpha" is delusional.

Well to be fair B human beings tend to be "delusional" to one degree or other. We layer culture and meaning on top of both reality and biology and certainly apply that to ourselves. It's kinda what we do as a species. Both the over confident and the under confident are running their own sets of delusions to some degree.