Women do not just wear make-up to signal sexual availability, There are societal pressures and expectations as well. Some people also just like the wear it makes them look. Part of the problem here is assuming intent. Everyone decides if the actions of others are desired or not. https://twitter.com/CovfefeAnon/status/961886414999875584 …
-
-
I don't think he does it on purpose. I think he just gets so wrapped up in psychology that he'll pick up on a single datapoint which I'm sure there is some evidence for, and make it into a big issue. I don't think he realises how it comes across when he does that.
-
It's not so much what he says, but what he doesn't say as well. Could you imagine having a conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, and someone saying "but red lipstick tho" What???
-
yeah thats beyond retarded. thats like saying a man's groomed face or nice shoes was him signaling sexual avalibilty. not just looking professional. & the concept of looking good = feeling good is lost on basement dwellers.
-
Yeah, I think Peterson needs to understand that he's not speaking to other psychologists and that he needs to put these things into better context, because the message he's sending may not be the one he intends to send.
-
From an evolutionary standpoint he has a point, it is all about signalling your desirability to potential mates. However, humans evolved logic and reasoning that allows them to overcome their base animal instincts. We can find grooming aesthetically pleasing and just like it.
-
He’s not talking on individual bases like all the individual examples from all the individuals who are outraged. The majority is not the individual.
-
Yeah, and it's a perfectly valid criticism to ask how useful it is to speak in such generalities and raise a single data-point in multi-faceted and complex social systems without context. Like I said, he's not speaking to other psychologists.
-
He’s speaking in accordance to his profession to defend his professional opinion. He’s not speaking to other psychologists when speaking to his students in this manner either.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not just this, but there are many jobs where women are expected to wear make-up in order to look professional. The idea that they're contradictory is so dumb.
-
It wouldn't be so bad if Peterson had raises this point, but he's so hyper-focussed on these small data-points as if they're really important that it makes him sound like he's from the 1950s.
-
(3)all people are making the decision to wear makeup to conciously attract mates. He's saying something much more complex. You have to understand the filter through which he speaks. Effective criticism should always come from a place of understanding the argument.
-
No offence, but this is like the 3rd person today who has defended Peterson to me and said something along the lines of "you need to see it this way", or claimed I've misunderstood his argument. No, I got his argument. I'm criticising the way he expressed it.
-
If I have to make a considerable effort to understand his lens, then does that not suggest he has not effectively communicated his point? Some people wear make-up to attract mates. Valid point? Yes. In response to sexual harassment in the workplace? Not so much.
-
Sure, that's an understandable criticism. I've just seen people in your thread (and possibly you, to a degree) imply that he is stating something factually incorrect. That may be a misunderstanding of you in my part. However, it's important to point out that he's correct.
-
Sure, but even if something is factual, if you present it in a way that overstates it or makes it appear to be a bigger factor than it is, then it makes it a lot easier for other people to fill in the blanks. My criticism was mostly of how he said it and the responses to that.
-
Peterson, from what I've seen, does base his arguments on research. Can't fault him too much there. How he does it, at least in my opinion, leaves a lot to be desired, because these are complex issues, in an environment where people will fill in a lot of the blanks themselves.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But WHYYYY does ot make you feel more confident? Confident in what? In your sexual desirability/attractiveness....
@jordanbpeterson is 100% right. It can be subconscious you knowThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
cause he's a Christian version of the Taliban clerics?
-
Do you know what the word "hyperbolic" means?
-
yes, I know I used it... Here, let me rephrase it in a non-hyperbolic way: Because he's a Christian fundamentalist, with a backwards and traditionalist view of the world, especially on gender and gender relations? Happy?
-
Well I think you're still exaggerating a bit. But hey, that's just like, your opinion man. I'm also not really in the mood to argue, so how about we agree to disagree?
-
HMMM YOU WON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ARGUING WITH STRANGERS OVER THE INTERNET OVER THE BELIEFS OF A CANADIAN PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR??? YOU ARE COWARD!!!1!!1!111!!!!11!!! (jk)
-
Hahaha, to be honest I did just have a full two day twitter argument with some cunt about Ben Shapiro being an alt-right intellectually dishonest shitlord. I was just really not in the mood to argue this time.
-
I mean, he's not alt-right. But he is a reactionary intelectually dishonest shitlord. (I'm not in the mood to argue, I'm just stating my opinion that I'm sure you wanted to hear /s


) -
Well to be fair I was exaggerating for comedic value. I was actually trying to explain that Ben was neither alt-right nor intellectually dishonest. It was more that the whole shitlord thing was the subject. But I can see how one could perceive some hypocrisy in my words there.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.