Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Pluto Planet

pitifulgod wrote: »

How do you not see that as objectification? Not every woman is the same while you're reducing them to be something to be manipulated.

There are patterns of behavour, while everyone is unique, there are patterns of behavour which are predictable.

I never advised manipulating women, I said it is better to simply learn to be more attractive and let women choose to have sex with you.

When chatting with a women you just met, it is generally better to lean back. It is more attractive, leaning in conveys neediness and tends to make women feel uncomfortable. Is following this small nugget of advice manipulative?

In a loud environment such as a busy pub or nightclub, what happens is men typically lean into women to ensure that they hear what they are saying. It is much better even in loud enviroments to lean back and speak even if she can't hear you nor you her. Beckon her to come closer and speak in your ear if necessary. Tends to be much more attractive behavour.

When you start doing these things you can notice women's eyes light up, they start touching you more, they giggle more. Women don't want a man who is desperate for her, they want a man who puts himself first and who is perfectly willing to away.

(Disclaimer: The above is a generalisation, it may not be true of every single woman on the planet, there could indeed be a woman who prefers needy men)

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

You're also describing most single men who go to nightclubs.

And a lot of those go home alone every night and wonder why

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you trick someone into having sex with you?
(I'm guessing we're not talking about drugs)

First of all, you'll notice I said trying but I guess I should rephrase the sentence as "using tricks to".

This is the only real part of your post I take issue with. Sounds like you did leverage lessons from this area of study to improve your communication ability and not just get laid, so fair play on that. But this is the kind of statement that people use to justify gross behavior. Have you never been convinced to do something that you later regretted? Never walked into a store to buy one thing, been convinced to buy a more expensive version and woke up the next day to realise you should have stuck with your original intention? It's part of human nature and one that we generally look down on people exploiting (e.g. the used car salesman, advertising execs).

What about when booze is involved? It makes us more susceptible to suggestion, lowers inhibition and impairs judgement. Is this another quirk of human nature to exploit? If your goal is just to get laid, then surely it'll help. Not so much if you're hoping to be able to have a conversation though

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

it seems to come in for a lot more criticism relatively speaking

It does, and rightly so IMO. However, I fail to see the double standard or how it's not socially acceptable.


I disagree with anything that makes sweeping generalistions of people, be they male of female. PUA generalise both men and women in the most sweeping way.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

There are patterns of behavour, while everyone is unique, there are patterns of behavour which are predictable.

I never advised manipulating women, I said it is better to simply learn to be more attractive and let women choose to have sex with you.

When chatting with a women you just met, it is generally better to lean back. It is more attractive, leaning in conveys neediness and tends to make women feel uncomfortable. Is following this small nugget of advice manipulative?

In a loud environment such as a busy pub or nightclub, what happens is men typically lean into women to ensure that they hear what they are saying. It is much better even in loud enviroments to lean back and speak even if she can't hear you nor you her. Beckon her to come closer and speak in your ear if necessary. Tends to be much more attractive behavour.

When you start doing these things you can notice women's eyes light up, they start touching you more, they giggle more. Women don't want a man who is desperate for her, they want a man who puts himself first and who is perfectly willing to away.

(Disclaimer: The above is a generalisation, it may not be true of every single woman on the planet, there could indeed be a woman who prefers needy men)

The part in bold is a generalisation of women and an oversimplification of what/who they find attractive.

I have a feeling that this carry on works really well with a certain subset of the female population. A subset that may benefit from some work on their own self confidence. This is just a guess though, I wouldn't dare sate it as fact.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

And a lot of those go home alone every night and wonder why

As do most of the PUA guys.

The difference is when you question why and look for real answers that aren't excusing your own behavior & attitudes. And then realizing, I can do better.

First of all, you'll notice I said trying but I guess I should rephrase the sentence as "using tricks to".

Again, what are these tricks? The thing is that women have brains. They're generally more aware of being "manipulated" than men because most people trying to manipulate aren't being honest. Either with themselves or with others. They throw on a different persona that is not natural to themselves or seeks to encourage behavior that doesn't match with their actual values. And women sense that. Most women I know are very aware of what is happening when they're out with a man and are alert enough to pick up on discrepancies.

This is the only real part of your post I take issue with. Sounds like you did leverage lessons from this area of study to improve your communication ability and not just get laid, so fair play on that.

Oh, I started all this seeking to get laid. All men do. I was in my early 20s and essentially a virgin while my friends were being successful around me. I was single, and everyone else was in relationships. And I tried the same things they did and got nowhere. So I went looking for answers elsewhere.

And I did get plenty of sex. In many ways, far more than my friends ever did. But I've never tricked a woman into having sex with me. I presented myself in the best way possible, and they chose to be with me... or not. So, I do wonder about these "tricks".

But this is the kind of statement that people use to justify gross behavior. Have you never been convinced to do something that you later regretted? Never walked into a store to buy one thing, been convinced to buy a more expensive version and woke up the next day to realise you should have stuck with your original intention? It's part of human nature and one that we generally look down on people exploiting (e.g. the used car salesman, advertising execs).

Gross behavior? All people influence each other in any interaction. I learned to improve my verbal communication, understand other peoples word usage, body language etc.. and it works very well.

I can mirror another person's body language which increases rapport, I can match my breathing to theirs which tends to subconsciously make them more comfortable, I can anchor a nice feeling to a word or gesture, and I can elicit them to discuss good experiences rather than bad. (All of which I later learned again in work when I went for sales seminars and negotiation training.)

The thing is that most people use all of the above naturally. They're not thinking about doing it, and are totally unaware of doing so. But they still are doing it. The difference is that due to my experience growing up, I didn't learn to do these things naturally, and needed to develop them myself. Now, I do them automatically without any conscious effort.

But there's no trickery involved. This is the problem with never learning this material. You look from the outside-in and think it's some kind of Jedi mind control, where I can push people into doing what they don't really want. I can't. It's the same with hypnosis. Your subconscious will automatically rebel against such attempts at programming.

Even when alcohol is involved, it just encourages you to do what you already want to do. It might remove some minor internal objections, but ultimately, it just pushes your own desire as a priority. Getting drunk is dangerous in any situation with another person in a dating environment and should be avoided.

What about when booze is involved? It makes us more susceptible to suggestion, lowers inhibition and impairs judgement. Is this another quirk of human nature to exploit? If your goal is just to get laid, then surely it'll help. Not so much if you're hoping to be able to have a conversation though

My own dating tends to revolve around cafes and places where there is no drinking. Why? Because I get better conversations and better rapport without the alcohol being involved. But then I'm never simply out to get laid. Sex, in itself, is a rather shallow experience without some intimacy involved. While I'm not out seeking traditional BF/GF relationships, I am seeking something more stable and healthy. For myself and for them.

EDIT: It's worth noting that while I did go through the PUA & speed seduction scene decades ago, I'm not advocating it to others now. It's changed a lot from when I did it and they've since embraced the Red Pill attitudes. However, I do recommend to anyone having issues with dating/relationships, to seek alternative ways to improve your "game"... There are answers out there that will match with the person you want to be. I like being a gentleman, and the manner in which I date reflects that. I took what I was exposed to by Ross Jeffries/others and adapted it to my life, and the person i wanted to be. The problem with PUA is that most of them just accept everything and try to behave like the teacher/instructor. It's fake and not natural. It's good to be different.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

It does, and rightly so IMO. However, I fail to see the double standard or how it's not socially acceptable.


I disagree with anything that makes sweeping generalistions of people, be they male of female. PUA generalise both men and women in the most sweeping way.

sweeping generalisations can be true enough, however trying to fake qualities you dont have will probably comeback to bite you in the long run. so if a young lad sees some pua stuff and it inspires him to be a more out going and engaging person good on him, if a young woman sees that men are quite visual creatures and it inspires her to hit the gym or look after her self a bit better , good on her.

My last seminar (Ross Jeffries, Speed Seduction in 2004) was split about 60/40 men to women. Many of the men had brought their wives/girlfriends with them because they believed that learning the material would help their relationships. According to them, it does. The point is that this is not all geared towards men looking for sex. A lot of people are interested in it to improve the relationships that they already had. There have always been single women going to the seminars too with the same aims as the men. A minority, sure, but still...

Sweeping generalisations tend to be made on all sides of the argument. I've found that often the people arguing against this whole thing seem to think they know everything because they've read "the game" or read some red pill forums. Until you've been to a few of these seminars, met the people involved, you really have little idea. There are so many groupings of people involved in the scene. It's a lot like the Feminist movement in a way. You've got your hardliners, the crazies, the slightly odd, the reasonable, the poets, the scientists, etc. So many individuals all looking for answers or desiring to express their own perception of the world.

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

<snip>

EDIT: It's worth noting that while I did go through the PUA & speed seduction scene decades ago, I'm not advocating it to others now. It's changed a lot from when I did it and they've since embraced the Red Pill attitudes. However, I do recommend to anyone having issues with dating/relationships, to seek alternative ways to improve your "game"... There are answers out there that will match with the person you want to be. I like being a gentleman, and the manner in which I date reflects that. I took what I was exposed to by Ross Jeffries/others and adapted it to my life, and the person i wanted to be. The problem with PUA is that most of them just accept everything and try to behave like the teacher/instructor. It's fake and not natural. It's good to be different.

I was going to make a more detailed response but I think this is key. What you're talking about isn't really PUA* (to my eyes). PUA is a subset of these areas, applied to a very specific purpose. There's nothing wrong with learning how to interact with people better, or on how to identify and minimise your own behaviors that are counter-productive. But PUA is geared towards selling lonely men on the idea of learning tricks to pull any girl they want. Again I'll use the analogy of the used car salesman using every trick he knows to sell bad cars to poor people that can't afford them. Nobody is forcing them to buy the car, but the salesman is doing his best to exploit their nature, and perhaps even weaknesses in their character, to get what he wants without any care for how it impacts on them. Does that mean all salesmen are awful people? No, but there most definitely is ones that are.

Apologies if I'm painting an entire industry with the same (sh1ty) brush, but I'm going from my understanding from an outsiders perspective, although I have looked through the The Game and some other books I can't remember the titles of. I've no problems with the likes of NLP.

* Lets not get bogged down in the semantics of this definition. I'm taking it as a "here's how to have sex with 100's of women" type thing. I'm open to correction if it also includes "here's how to have meaningful conversations and interact with people on a human level". Perhaps there's another term for what I'm thinking of?

Pluto Planet

xckjoo wrote: »

I was going to make a more detailed response but I think this is key. What you're talking about isn't really PUA* (to my eyes). PUA is a subset of these areas, applied to a very specific purpose. There's nothing wrong with learning how to interact with people better, or on how to identify and minimise your own behaviors that are counter-productive. But PUA is geared towards selling lonely men on the idea of learning tricks to pull any girl they want. Again I'll use the analogy of the used car salesman using every trick he knows to sell bad cars to poor people that can't afford them. Nobody is forcing them to buy the car, but the salesman is doing his best to exploit their nature, and perhaps even weaknesses in their character, to get what he wants without any care for how it impacts on them. Does that mean all salesmen are awful people? No, but there most definitely is ones that are.

Apologies if I'm painting an entire industry with the same (sh1ty) brush, but I'm going from my understanding from an outsiders perspective, although I have looked through the The Game and some other books I can't remember the titles of. I've no problems with the likes of NLP.

* Lets not get bogged down in the semantics of this definition. I'm taking it as a "here's how to have sex with 100's of women" type thing. I'm open to correction if it also includes "here's how to have meaningful conversations and interact with people on a human level". Perhaps there's another term for what I'm thinking of?

What tricks do PUAs sell to lonely men, do you have examples?

Also, I don't see what is wrong with someone wanting to have sex with hundreds of women. Each person is entitled to choose their path in life and follow their desires. The tools are their for men to expand their options, what they choose to do with theor options is their choice, be it a monogomous relationship, polyamory, marriage and kids or whatever else.

Many of these tools are applicable in ither areas if life. Take the simple and small piece of advice to lean back. You'd be surprised how many people can suddenly hear you amongst a group when leaning back and carrying yourself with better stature compared to leaning in, when speaking at the same volume.

We humans like to think we are special unique little snowflakes (and of course each person is unique, but there are very consistent patterns of behavour and responses amongst people. People are subconciosly scanning socially for signs of value.

The person with low status signals is often genuinely not heard because the subconcious deems them low value due to the signals they are sending out so puts them on ignore, it's not a deliberate attempt to be rude.

If you pass one person in the street looking up into the sky you might look up, if you pass one hundred people looking up into the sky you will look up. Was that statement objectifcation? Can't say I really care, it's truth

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Apologies if I'm painting an entire industry with the same (sh1ty) brush, but I'm going from my understanding from an outsiders perspective, although I have looked through the The Game and some other books I can't remember the titles of. I've no problems with the likes of NLP.

* Lets not get bogged down in the semantics of this definition. I'm taking it as a "here's how to have sex with 100's of women" type thing. I'm open to correction if it also includes "here's how to have meaningful conversations and interact with people on a human level". Perhaps there's another term for what I'm thinking of?

Nope. You're spot on with regards to the mainstream PUA scene. I don't like it myself, and it spills over into giving all other styles of dating improvement a very negative reputation.

I just like to point out that there's more to this than PUA. I use many techniques to improve my relationships with people (and in dating too), but I'm not PUA. Never wanted to be.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

It does, and rightly so IMO. However, I fail to see the double standard or how it's not socially acceptable.

I don't understand this line of argument. You agree that it (Men seeking methods to improve confidence with the opposite sex) does and should be criticised more than say if it was the other way around. Which is bizarre and sexist.

Yet you then claim to be unaware that its socially unacceptable.

Truly weird and bizzare logic

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

I don't understand this line of argument. You agree that it (Men seeking methods to improve confidence with the opposite sex) does and should be criticised more than say if it was the other way around. Which is bizarre and sexist.

It's fairly clear you don't understand "this line of argument", because that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said I want both men and women to be more confident.

Yet you then claim to be unaware that its socially unacceptable.

Truly weird and bizzare logic

You need to read what I said again horse.

Wibbs

Pluto Planet wrote: »

What tricks do PUAs sell to lonely men, do you have examples?

A couple of outfits are decidedly snake oil salesmen and almost cult like in how they target men. They even select for subsets of young men. So they'll have the chubby "guru", the "wacky" guru, the Asperger "guru"(of which there would be a few) and so on. They particularly target men on the Asperger spectrum, with their almost robotic to A,B,C and D techniques, promising the earth and "you can get nearly any woman out there" stuff. Blanket Youtube vids with fake interactions, or in the jargon of the movement; "in fields" and "sets" with hired actresses(which magically work) or a couple of real women(and these almost always go nowhere beyond the "number close"(jargon for getting her phone number)). Never mind that many of these "gurus" are presentable looking men, even good looking men. And then encourage their followers to go spamming social media about the company(there's three regular reregs here on Boards that do this and I've seen similar on other forums).

"Real Social Dynamics" a perfect example of one such outfit, but not the only one. They make their money at "Boot Camps", seminars for these men where they charge a pretty penny for attendance. Ditto for one to one "training". Books and the like make up other revenue avenues. Youtube vids are both advertising and make some revenue themselves(they usually run a couple of hundred thousand subs for their various content channels).

I would have no issue with somebody out to actually help men and if they made a few quid doing it, then fine, but actual honesty in that game is low indeed, the US based stuff is particularly like this. I would also have no issue with believing that many of these observations of man/woman interactions have good basics in human sexual psychology. Certainly if we're talking about subsets of men/women. Of the more honest PUA types I've read over the years they will be quick to say that they are dealing with and preselecting for a subset of women they meet and that even at the top practitioners have a good result rate of around 1 in 10 with blank stranger interactions.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

My last seminar (Ross Jeffries, Speed Seduction in 2004) was split about 60/40 men to women. Many of the men had brought their wives/girlfriends with them because they believed that learning the material would help their relationships. According to them, it does. The point is that this is not all geared towards men looking for sex. A lot of people are interested in it to improve the relationships that they already had. There have always been single women going to the seminars too with the same aims as the men. A minority, sure, but still...

Sweeping generalisations tend to be made on all sides of the argument. I've found that often the people arguing against this whole thing seem to think they know everything because they've read "the game" or read some red pill forums. Until you've been to a few of these seminars, met the people involved, you really have little idea. There are so many groupings of people involved in the scene. It's a lot like the Feminist movement in a way. You've got your hardliners, the crazies, the slightly odd, the reasonable, the poets, the scientists, etc. So many individuals all looking for answers or desiring to express their own perception of the world.

When people criticise PUA, they are not criticising the stuff you outlined above which sounds like self help techniques to improve the person. The problem is with the PUA/Red Pill side of things, which (as you stated yourself) does not focus on the person, more the quick fix side of things and to treat romantic interaction as something that can be manipulated by following a set of guidelines. I guess it is the nature of the beast that it all gets lumped into the one bracket, however, I'm sure most people can see the difference between the two.

Pluto Planet

mzungu wrote: »

When people criticise PUA, they are not criticising the stuff you outlined above which sounds like self help techniques to improve the person. The problem is with the PUA/Red Pill side of things, which (as you stated yourself) does not focus more on the person, more the quick fix side of things. I guess it is the nature of the beast that it all gets lumped into the one bracket, however, I'm sure most people can see the difference between the two.

From the PUA sources I've encountered it has been explained it takes time to and practice to improve results. As someone who has actually applied such techniques I can say that is largely true, well depending on you baseline level to begin with.

I imagine there are cases of men who only need to tweek their approach to see dramatic improvements.

I was probably about average to above average at walking over to a woman and begginning some form of an intimate relationship. Simple adjustments can make big changes, such as not leaning in when talking to women.

But for core confidence there is no substitute for practice and gaining reference expereinces. For example I gave myself some mission impossible challenges. One such challenge would be I approach a woman try to get her number without speaking. I could only use hand gestures or facial expressions to communicate. Another such challenge involves approaching a woman with your hands on your head, you can't take them off your head. If she asks why your hands are on your head just say thats how you stand. Or approaching a woman when she is surrounded by men.Many others I can't even remember.

Now, when you can do such challenges, approaching women normally becomes much easier. And your confidence goes up fast. It trains your brain that approaching women isn't scary, as such any nerves you have tend to fade or go altogether. This allows your authentic personality to shine, something nervousness prevents.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

It's fairly clear you don't understand "this line of argument", because that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said I want both men and women to be more confident.



You need to read what I said again horse.

So why did you say 'It does, and rightly so IMO' when 'It' is talking directly about men learning techniques about confidence in dealing with the opposite sex.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

When people criticise PUA, they are not criticising the stuff you outlined above which sounds like self help techniques to improve the person. The problem is with the PUA/Red Pill side of things, which (as you stated yourself) does not focus on the person, more the quick fix side of things and to treat romantic interaction as something that can be manipulated by following a set of guidelines. I guess it is the nature of the beast that it all gets lumped into the one bracket, however, I'm sure most people can see the difference between the two.

Agreed, although I wouldn't be so sure about the last part. Even before the red pill movement and the explosion of PUA, Speed Seduction received a rather hefty amount of criticism. There were loads of media shows who would look at the area of men improving their ability to communicate as being trickery and manipulation. Admittedly, Ross Jeffries (one of the Godfathers of the movement) was a bit creepy about the subject and was usually the one interviewed.

I'd guess the problem is that these kinds of movements attract extremes. The people who become the teachers tend to be overly egotistical, and pushy about their beliefs. Then you get the pupils themselves who resist generalisation simply because they come from all kinds of backgrounds, interlaced with a horde of assholes. And then the people reporting are looking for something juicy for people to complain about.

I've had dozens of conversations on the topic of learning how to communicate well, and the manner of manipulation. My first career was a credit controller where I needed to know who was lying, my second career was contract negotiations and contract enforcement, and lastly, as a teacher. All very people orientated and communication driven.

From what I've learned, it's acceptable to learn NLP, or communication techniques as part of your work, but it's generally seen as deceitful to use the same techniques as part of dating. It's considered to be manipulation. Manipulation being automatically negative. It doesn't matter if it makes the relationship better, reduces conflict or makes the woman happy... it's still manipulation. However... If you've learned to do it naturally as part of growing up and life experiences, then its all acceptable. Ahh.. the logic of it all is astounding. [Never ever point out that most of the stuff we learn is actually learned from observing women... they do most of it themselves subconsciously]

In other words, it's best to keep silent about ever consciously improving your ability to communicate.

Malayalam

I haven't read back through the 70 odd pages of this thread, so I'm hoping it hasn't descended into a PUA willy-waving contest, but on the off-chance that it's still about Jordan Peterson...

A day or two ago, there was a protest about a JBP lecture at Queen's University, Canada, a snippet of which you will see here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3RilH1oyrI

The person trying to break the stained glass window eventually succeeded. They were later arrested. The 38 year old woman protestor and window smasher had a garotte in her back pack. A garotte is a length of wire with handles on both ends, whose only purpose (that I know of) is strangulation. I don't care what one thinks of Peterson - I happen to like much of his work though his omnipresence becomes boring and he can be arrogant and self-righteous - but to attempt to shut down free speech and to carry a garotte to a protest is absolutely rotten. As I saw someone say 'Antifa = useful idiots being used to stamp down on wrong think'. They are worse than useful idiots, though - they are a dangerous cult.

Malayalam

Malayalam wrote: »

I haven't read back through the 70 odd pages of this thread, so I'm hoping it hasn't descended into a PUA willy-waving contest, but on the off-chance that it's still about Jordan Peterson...

Peterson himself has lowered himself to giving pointers on how men can be more successful with women...

But no, the thread hasn't switched to a PUA topic. [I'd consider us able to veer off and return easily enough since it's all related]

Malayalam

Deleted User wrote: »

Peterson himself has lowered himself to giving pointers on how men can be more successful with women...

But no, the thread hasn't switched to a PUA topic. [I'd consider us able to veer off and return easily enough since it's all related]

I was mostly kidding
But yes I have listened to his lingerie and role playing suggestions

cantdecide

Malayalam wrote: »

As I saw someone say 'Antifa = useful idiots being used to stamp down on wrong think'. They are worse than useful idiots, though - they are a dangerous cult.

They're kind of a fascist militia. Having absolutely no concept of irony is a prerequisite of membership.

Sand

The should be considered a domestic terrorist organisation, and dealt with appropriately. Absolutely no purpose for existing other than plotting to violently attack people.

Havockk

Sand wrote: »

The should be considered a domestic terrorist organisation, and dealt with appropriately. Absolutely no purpose for existing other than plotting to violently attack people.

I love seeing whinging right wingers. Lovely salty tears

Brian?

cantdecide wrote: »

They're kind of a fascist militia. Having absolutely no concept of irony is a prerequisite of membership.

What defines them as a fascist militia? Or a kind of fascist militia?

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

The should be considered a domestic terrorist organisation, and dealt with appropriately. Absolutely no purpose for existing other than plotting to violently attack people.

I miss the times when everyone was opposed to fascists. It was simpler.

Havockk

Brian? wrote: »

I miss the times when everyone was opposed to fascists. It was simpler.

Used to be they handed out medals for bashing the fash.

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

What defines them as a fascist militia? Or a kind of fascist militia?

By forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

By forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

There are plenty of groups doing that without being fascists. If you think that defines fascism, you need to do some book learning. Or Wikipedia fascism.

Calling antifa fascists is a lazy smear. One which i guess was started by the people Antifa were protesting against.

I do not agree with Antifas methods. They are not fascists.

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

There are plenty of groups doing that without being fascists. If you think that defines fascism, you need to do some book learning. Or Wikipedia fascism.

Calling antifa fascists is a lazy smear. One which i guess was started by the people Antifa were protesting against.

I do not agree with Antifas methods. They are not fascists.

Calling everybody Nazis is also a lazy smear.

Just because you say antifa are not fascists doesn't make them not fascists.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I miss the times when everyone was opposed to fascists. It was simpler.

I miss the times when everyone you disagreed with was not a fascist.