You mean JP is actually channeling aliens?
1 Like
Honestly Ed, you’re coming across as somewhat unhinged. I’m not being funny, but I suggest taking a step back from life and talking to some trusted friends (or a counsellor) about your views. Disagree with JP if you like, but this sort of thinking isn’t healthy.
2 Likes
In other news, I finally bought “12 Rules for Life” (because it’s now a lot cheaper than it used to be). I’m only on Rule 1, which talks at length - predictably enough - about lobsters. There is nothing Alt-Right about any of it, much of it is a discussion of psychology and psychological research, and some of it’s quite amusing (lobsters are inherently funny anyway).
I’d argue with JP on the basis that his dominance-hierarchy theory doesn’t generalise as well as he thinks it does to humans. For example, in failed societies, those at the top of the heap are often allied closely with those at the very bottom - those who have little to lose. This is why those societies are extraordinarily stable (although not necessarily peaceful) and why those at the bottom of the hierarchy, despite apparently having nothing, are actually very dominant in many ways because they are untouchable by the moderate majority due to their protection from the alpha troupe; in fact those at the top have often been buoyed up from the very bottom via this arrangement of alliances (think Idi Amin and his ilk). Human hierarchies are more mesh-like than up-and-down linear.
You know I can neither confirm nor deny that. 
It is interesting that of the tens of thousands of species more closely related to us, Peterson had to search out one species of lobster that fit his pre-existing views. Why not bonobos, our closest living relatives? Or elephants? Hyenas? One of my favorites, the naked mole rat?
I’m sure if you wade through enough of his videos and text there is an explanation somewhere, but that would be a lot of work for probably a boring and metaphorical answer. maybe it is a good teaching aid, for all his failings he seems to have been a better performer than your average professor
but certainly your general point that humans are animals and we share things is something that all three of us agree on
Dominance hierarchy doesn’t just mean political hierarchy.
You describe a collusion (conspiracy) between the top echelon with the bottom is observable in many cases. The bottom echelon is too dumb to realize they are used to keep the middle class from overthrowing the top echelon.
Why go to all that trouble when you can just read this thread from the beginning (or just skip to here)? 
I personally don’t care enough about why he chose lobsters to read his stuff or the entirety of this thread, but was happy to click on your link.
I sorta skimmed through it twice and found some discussion of lobster in on part, but don’t see how that answers the question. Since you brought it back up, care to be more specific in how that long post addresses @MikeN1’s question about why lobsters and not something else?
You can copy and paste it
- I never said we should imitate lobsters. The part of the book about lobsters doesn’t say anything about using violence to assert yourself . Helen points out that geneticists and marine biologists have criticized him for misunderstanding or misrepresenting science on this one. JP insists in the interview that his only claim about lobsters is that we can see their hierarchical system as evidence that humans are biologically hierarchical as opposed to being infinitely malleable, which in his mind is the quintessence of Marxism. What did JP actually write? Apparently this: “Thus emboldened, you will embark on the voyage of your life. Let your light shine, so to speak, on the heavenly hill. And pursue your rightful destiny. Then the meaning of your life may be sufficient to keep the corrupting influence of mortal despair at bay. Then you may be able to accept the terrible burden of the world and find joy. Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster with it’s 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” And he really thinks it’s everyone else’s fault that this has become a meme prone to mockery?
So what you’re saying is @MikeN1 is incorrect to say that
Because -as per your paragraph- Peterson doesn’t see lobsters as the one species that fit his pre-existing views? I feel like that isn’t what you mean.
I for one, would love to see a lobster standing up straight with shoulders back. And sunglasses.
edit: thank you, the internet
1 Like
You believe we are derived from primates? I am not religious, but I have never been convinced. I am not going to go into why if anyone asks.
Why not go into it?
or
Would you go into why you won’t go into it? If not, why?
1 Like
I have a theory, but I’m not telling anyone. You can ask if you like, but I won’t tell you.
3 Likes
tell me more?!
1 Like
No. I shan’t.
2 Likes
It’s a rabbit hole I couldn’t be bothered going down right now.
no problem, i get you
nudge nudge
1 Like