You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Want more? This is funny.
So, not only is "Enforced Monogamy" a reserved academic term in a few different areas, the @nytimes own search engine shows at least 2 separate positive references to the term as a positive progressive ideal in 2000 & '02 before @jordanbpeterson's use.
Here the @nytimes publishes a review pointing out "enforced monogamy" should be a positive progressive *feminist* ideal in humans, likely to "[reduce] sexual conflict", increase paternal investment in child rearing obligations & giving healthier offspring. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/23/books/maternal-instinct.html …pic.twitter.com/wQhtjure32
In the other @nytimes reference I find before the @jordanbpeterson hit piece, the NYT is talking about *progressive reforms* in 1928 Afghanistan where "Enforced Monogamy" is discussed alongside "Separation of Church & State" and...wait for it..."Emancipation of Women".
Wild, no?pic.twitter.com/KaTuYPSon3
Do we really live in a world that takes arguments of the form 'do as I say because of my experiment on fruit flies' seriously?
I’m fairly sure David recognizes my original argument (a NYT review seeing enforced monogamy as a feminist utopia) and is starting a new line of thought rather than his thinking I’m promoting experimentally enforced monogamy trials in humans based on a drosophila model. A hunch.
Indeed.
Fruit flies don't have the brain capacity for moral or ethical behaviour, and is an evolved trait as well. Claiming to expect similar results in such radically different species is asinine at best.
More to the point things like cryptic female choice in fruit flies, or concealed ovulation in humans make a big difference as systems, to say nothing of relative k vs r-selection. But the assertion of relevance to humans wasn’t mine. It was in the review.
I'm sorry - are you promoting this idea because *both* 'adversaries' desire it, or suggesting they're equally daft?
He's showing the hypocrisy of nytimes for both encouraging enforced monogamy as a feminist ideal, and then condemning it as a sexism when peterson mentions it.
They aren't. It's a review of an author that holds an opinion he's misrepresenting. Shamelessly reaching to pull her over to his side in the argument when it's pretty clear that nobody is talking about a Feminist utopia except he himself. Telling me how to live as subservient :D
You’re saying that living as a full-time mother is subservient? How shallow a way to view a child-rearing dynamic. Many women actually choose that role voluntarily... It works wonderfully in some couples, in others, it’s more advantageous for a woman to pursue a career.
Man Eric is just slaying it right now. I’m weak in the knees.
No dude. He lied. The article says nothing remote to what he's claiming. The Dunning-Kruger effect is no joke.
The more I'm exposed to an increasing number of articles that pathetically yet viciously attacks @jordanbpeterson (the person) rather than his ideas, the more I like @elonmusk project of #Pravda. It'd b a great help 4 all the #IntellectualDarkWeb heroes 
this is amazing.
Eric, you sir are awesome.
I'm surprised someone as smart as you would infer that. It points out that it happens in fruit flies and would likely predict the same results in humans. Doesn't advocate this. Does advocate a utopian world where 'women and men invest equally in the welfare of their children.'
They don’t really care... whatever holds to the moments narrative is what they’ll push
From cockroaches to fruit flies. How deep are you willing to dig to defend your defamed friend and his stupid idea? This is really dredging the bay.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
