http://digg.com/2018/jordan-peterson-book-review?amp=true A little over a week ago, Peterson, who is known for his psychology lectures on YouTube, released his book 12 Rules for Life. The book, which offers "12 practical and profound rules for life" is a logical milestone in Peterson's trajectory from a YouTube academic known for his lectures that fused a diverse array of topics (psychology, philosophy, history and religion) to a vocal cultural critic and self-help figure whose controversial ideas are grounded in essentialist takes on humanity. Peterson's philosophies spilled into the world of policy when he began to fight against human rights legislation in Canada aimed at protecting people from discrimination based on gender identity or expression in September 2016. In his book, Peterson said "Male and female and parent and child are categories for us — natural categories, deeply embedded in our perceptual, emotional and motivational structures." It's clear how he views things that don't fall neatly into those categories. Peterson's ideas are grounded in the notion that men and women contain essential, separate and immutable personality characteristics. Recent studies have found that the idea of a consistent male personality and female personality is not grounded in reality. A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses, backed by the American Psychological Association, found that men and women were alike in "personality, cognitive ability and leadership," and that "gender differences had either no or a very small effect on most of the psychological variables examined. Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships." Psychologist Diane Halpern, PhD, a professor at Claremont College and past-president (2005) of the American Psychological Association, points out that even where there are patterns of cognitive differences between males and females, "differences are not deficiencies." She continues, "Even when differences are found, we cannot conclude that they are immutable because the continuous interplay of biological and environmental influences can change the size and direction of the effects some time in the future." In one portion, Peterson explained away the gender pay gap by claiming that it is largely a result of preferences naturally found in men and women, pointing to the continued gender disparity in the number of nurses and engineers even in the most progressive Scandinavian countries (The Economist points to a Canadian study that found that women shied away from "masculine" sounding jobs because they feared they wouldn't belong, not because of the job itself, to explain the continued disparity). The criticism of the perceived phenomenon doesn't bear fruit in light of Peterson's willingness to brush aside the proposition of absolute gender equality on the next page: "any hierarchy creates winners and losers. The winners are, of course, more likely to justify the hierarchy and the losers more likely to criticize it." It seems like faced with the proposition of a less extreme hierarchy, Peterson has forgotten how this rule applies to himself. http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455794/outrage-culture-backlash-jordan-peterson-12-rules-life-antidote-chaos Here's some encouraging news: If you're with me on this, we're not alone — and when it comes to constant outrage, we might be nearing a tipping point. "No one trying to understand how to live should read this book," wrote Julian Baggini in a review at the Financial Times. "Anyone interested in the growing assault on liberal values, however, should study it with fear and trembling." This is a fascinating critique, given that no matter what you think about Peterson's opinions on various topics — and there are many, ranging from proper posture to child-rearing to evolution to Communist propaganda posters to the work of Carl Jung — Peterson's most consistent position centers on one of the most precious "liberal values" of all: free speech. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html In our current political climate, the term "cuck" -- short for "cuckservative" -- has become an insult of the so-called alt-right, aimed at men they view as spineless and emasculated. The slur has its roots in the concept of cuckolding, or having an adulterous partner. But, according to a recent study by David Ley, Justin Lehmiller and the writer Dan Savage, acting on cuckolding fantasies can be a largely positive experience for many couples, and hardly a sign of weakness. Part of what makes cuckolding arousing for heterosexual men is that they tend to view it as a taboo act. "In a society or culture that idealizes monogamy, the cuckold fantasy is a current narrative that is available to people to conceptualize their sexual fantasies," said Ley. And the emotions surrounding seeing your partner with someone else can add to the turn-on, explained Savage. "It's not cuckolding if there isn't an element of humiliation, degradation or denial," he said. "Our erotic imaginations have the ability to turn shame lemons into delicious kink lemonade." Monogomy Bonobos and Chimps "For men and couples considering the issue of cuckolding, it's important there be honesty, integrity, communication, mutuality and shared values," advised Ley. "I've seen men who try to trick their wives into cuckolding them, and this never, ever ends up well." Really this is about polygamy or polyamory https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/ First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd. But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman's exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth. "So you're saying," Newman retorts, "that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity." But that's not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty. The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a "fact of life" that women should just "put up with," though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter. Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is "stirring things up" and "whipping people into a state of anger." This is why this is a turning point But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone's sake is long overdue. Why we can't have nice things http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5316265/Cuckolding-couples-cheat-happier.html https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/study-women-on-birth-control-pills-prefer-less-masculine-men/274464/
