koti

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As long as you are available koti, can you please answer my question to you? I'm just really curious. Don't mean to rush you.

I pretty much explained in my edit above - I do not wish to be refered to as „they” but iNow insists on it. The hypocrisy is both very aparent and very self explanatory. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision.
Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ?

I was just about to substitute You with me so we could have a more „fruitful” dialog on this with iNow but I’m glad you came in.

Edit:

Okay, this is where we differ, I do care if iNow refers to me as a „they” and I certainly do not wish to be refered to as „they” I am a „he”.

It is Thursday today and if for some reason I loose my mind and by Sunday I decide everyone should refer to me as „your highness” while being sane at the moment of typing this, I would not want  iNow to bare legal consequences of not refering to me as „your highness”

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

And when he corrects me, I'll respect that this is THEIR choice to make, not mine. 

Sure, you can dodge all you want but it won't make all this any less ridiculous. Your stance should be the first example explaining what hypocrisy is in an encyclopedia. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

“My friend MigL went to the store today. While there, THEY bought food and supplies. I told THEM it would’ve been better to wait until next week when the sale began.”

I’m just not seeing why this is a problem for so very many people (well actually, I kinda am… but am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope I’m simply mistaken). 

Be careful, your'e not using MigL's chosen pronouns (he/him), you might be facing legal consequences.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Assuming the group are adults, you might be losing that bet assuming there are no additional qualities on display.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427

 

"Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation"
I wonder if N is the amount of people in the control group or the amount of kids the guy from Arete's story eventually had.

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

 

I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. 

What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. 

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. 

I bet the girl who was most disgusted with his behavior that night ended up having his kids.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Haha. I pictured swans with a nasty THC habit.

I thought that's only Dimms area of expertise, who would have known.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.

I always pictured long necked white birds swimming in a lake of tea. 

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are close to the core issue here. The most disingenuous part (I think) is that he drives home the nature part quite a bit, and on the one hand almost paints an inevitable picture of how our society is the way it is because of nature and then suddenly crosses the line in a sneaky way which makes it hard to spot whether it is still nature or nurture and then builds from there. A bit issue is that he kind of rejects that civilization is a construct with rules that moderates our "natural" responses. And by obscuring the line of what is our base nature and how we learn to behave (by liberally drawing from random examples in nature and implement them in humans) he almost argues that nurture is not relevant.

Again it is taking a grain of truth (we are animals at base) but then wipe of all nuance and knowledge about human (or animal) behaviour in order to sell his book and ideology.
And then he extrapolates it to extremes.

For example:

It is fine if you are pickup artist promoting a book, but again for presumably a researcher it is a bad look. That being said, I was not aware that he left University, which makes me somewhat less annoyed.

 

 

That is an interesting take, however how does his claim that the threat of violence is actually what allows civil discourse? He does not say that this only kicks in at the extreme range of actions (at which point I would argue that the chance of discourse is long gone) but that it is at the heart of it?

He also mentioned that folks not willing to fight would not be respected which again shows that in his view it seems that men are more civil than women since they are perhaps kept in line due to an implicit threat of violence. It is also interesting that I cannot really find something that would explain how women would function in such a society.

Who are you CharonY? We've been sharing pretty intimate dialogs over the years on this forum and it has been very apparent who I am because I GAVE IT ALL UP while you have been pretty much in the shadows. Are you married? do you have kids? What exactly do you do for a living? What are your pronouns? 

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, Dr Kaku is an actual Physicist.
I just make up stuff as I go along.

I have to agree with Phi here. I’ve learned way more from your physics related posts than I did from Michio Kaku.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Of-bloody-course it is! In every public appearance, he's scoring points with his target audience, selling books and speaking engagements and raking in the money.  He's not so much debating as self-promoting.

This is hard to disagree with. This plus his uncanny command of the English language which seems to be there for the sole reason of bulding likes/views/clicks is something that draws me away from him. His English is impressive though when put out of context. 

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't live in 1870's Deadwood,  or wherever Koti  lives…

I live in the outside world of the 21st century in a middle class family and circle of friends and business interactions in Europe. You know, the place that is not the internet forums, the other place (it’s there I assure you) 

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

I would think the best way out of that would be to approach your Mrs and make some excuse to drag her away. If he persisted during the course of the night, and the woman was visibly uncomfortable and had expressed being uncomfortable with his advances, then I might try engaging him in deep conversation and letting the Mrs off the hook, so to speak. If he was drunk, then we may have a problem on hand and security would be the obvious step. In saying that, and if he actually insulted or assaulted the woman [drunk or sober] then this may trigger an undesired, impulsive but expected action by the husband. 

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am also utterly unclear how threatening violence actually manages to de-escalate situations. Perhaps it is a cultural/societal thing, but I cannot remember a time where threatening violence actually successfully de-escalated a situation. But that is the thing, isn't it? It means that if we are in a conflict situation we should start puffing up and bring deterrents to the table. Americans claim that open carry is therefore a great idea to deter violence. Looking at the actual numbers I simply don't think that is true.

It's not the threatening of violence, it's projecting confidence and fearlessness with grains of humour, knowledge  and intelligence which dissolves those situations. I've had numerous situations like this in my life and I've never had to resolve them through violence - the weak attack the weak.

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's OK to cry. Or are you laughing at my pain? I've dealt with some childhood ideals and the toxic dilemmas they can create. It's often difficult to see them even after a lifetime, but learning to throw out the bath water while keeping the baby is an ongoing, ever-changing process. At least it is for me. If it's not something you're interested in, so be it.

I thought you sarcastically replied "Quantum Field Theories" as a reply to CharonY's toxic elements and I found it hilarious. What QFT's are we talking about here Phi and I'm sory for the faux pas.

Edit: Found it - Quoted For Truth. Facepalm at self.

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It could be. I think my main criticism of the movie is that the documentarist has highlighted too much the weird fringe of men's right activism rather which diluted the overall message. But in all fairness, I do not remember much of the details, I generally just did not find it very enlightening.

However, I think where there is some intersection is basically the definition of masculinity which we struggle and where folks such as Peterson find their selling points. In many (including Western) societies masculinity is or was often defined in the context of strength, dominance, independence, self-sufficiency and so on. 

The man is the provider and that is how it should be. They are considered the builders of civilization, the mover and shakers and they should be listened to because of that. Peterson's view and some of those I consider fringe among men's advocates is a desire to uphold that worldview. Unfortunately, it has at least two consequences. One is a certain desire to keep women out of male spaces as they just not fit the established mould. And two, it puts an enormous burden on men, which not everyone can fulfil (not everyone will be rich) and certain folks use that and try to explain those who are unsuccessful how to deal with it while still keeping the traditional view on masculinity as a banner of how things should be.

They can score a lot of points by blaming feminists for their misery, for example. At the same time they lack introspection to figure out whether it is not the adhering to the perceived ideals of masculinity. Looking back at my youth and personal experiences that is something that at some point rang a bell for me. I still have trouble doing certain things that are not considered manly as instilled to me in my youth. Asking for help, for example. 

There are in my mind absolutely toxic elements in the ideals we grew up with and learning how to change that to make our lives better and happier is IMO a much better way they struggling in some weird dominance game that some insist on playing. I think Peterkin had the right idea, either leave (or perhaps call security if such exists) but something to not escalate it further. I wished my younger self had thought that way.

This is where we differ, I have never had problems with asking for help when I needed it and when I knew there is a chance I could have received it. I'd also not call security in that situation, it seems that one man's toxicity is another man's bliss, I much rather have some broken bones and my 'masculine' conscience clear than resolve through security/cops. This attittude  actually prevents and/or de-escalates any potential violence before it can happen and I'm willing to bet that JP would agree that this is exactly what he was trying to convey. Plus theres also the most likely scenario where my attitude leads to no violence and my wife telling me how much she loves me for deffending her and that she feels safe with me. Remember the times when it was ok for a woman to feel safe alongside a strong, dominant male?

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

QFT.

🤣

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, I was putting into a broader context. I started the discussion with MigL in which I referred mostly to his first chapter, and what he was discussing in the interview was something that he also stated in his book. I.e. I am trying to find a consistent argument in his philosophy. Of course, it is possible that all his ideas are unrelated and perhaps even allow for contradiction. But then I think a discussion on his views would be pretty moot as they might be anything at any given point.

So if we talk about the fundamental aspects he is explicitly saying in his book that the posturing and jostling for dominance is hard-baked into our brains and that depending on where you are in the hierarchy, it will affect all aspects of life. I.e. in your example the male with low serotonin would probably abandon his wife and the dominant male would take over your wife. If you have enough serotonin you would push back and then inevitably a struggle for dominance would ensue. In the book he states that these need not be violent but as he expounded further they require the underlying threat of violence. 

In fact, I do not think that he actually made a claim that it is part of our personality as such, rather that this is the basis, and personality outcomes are based on that. I.e. if you lose the struggle for dominance, you will be diminuitive, stressed and unhealthy (again, from his book). So either he claims it is a fundamental aspect and that justifies his hierarchical dominance model (which in turns is used to justify a link to happiness, drug abuse, self-worth and other issues), or it is not fundamental at which point I am not sure what then his reasoning in the book are then really is meant to convey.

 

Okay so I haven't read the book and you seem to have read it so I am not equipped enough to comment on this. I do remember a few years back though, you and me having a chat about that documentary "The Red Pill" and it seemed to me back then that we've been either watching two different films or we have a fundamentally different aparatus for digesting concepts and events which took place in that documentary so by crude interpolation I suspect we might be having a similar situation here.

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Now anything that breaks this perceived mold is not seen as a viable alternative, but rather that somehow breaks order. I.e. you can beat up a woman and therefore civil discourse breaks down. I.e. confronting a man perhaps in the context in a joust for dominance, that is orderly that has rules that you as a men somehow are clear about and can adhere to. But if a woman enters the same context, she is a "crazy woman" and cannot be controlled.

This is exactly what I'm refering to, frankly it is beyond me where you got the above because that's very much not what Jordan Peterson is saying in that video short.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Was I not clear? A "situation" takes more than one person to create. This kind of thing doesn't need resolving; it needs defusing. If someone other than a child is behaving inappropriately, it's not my responsibility to educate or correct them. The more enlightened (?evolved) strategy is remove myself - and any others who want my assistance - from the potentially volatile situation. 

It is clear now, thank you for clarifying. 

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

 

Wow.   You make the wife sound helpless and like some sort of possession ("you... take your wife and leave").  Have you met many American women?   Why would my confronting the guy be "standing up for myself"?  In your scenario he is hitting on her,  not me.   And my wife would definitely stand up for herself, an alternative you completely ignore for some reason.  (As well as that my wife would refuse to leave a party unless the building was under rocket attack)   And there's yet a fourth alternative where I do get involved and neither flee the party nor tell the guy rudely to leave or get punched - instead I simply tell him he is making my wife uncomfortable and he should stop.   And I'm aware of no evidence that any such pest would have "a set of skills" that allows him to predict my or my wife's response.   And,  from my experience, most spouses opt for the relatively peaceable "knock it off" response because they know the interloper will back away in embarrassment.  I think you may have watched too many violent American movies where everything must be resolved through some vigilante asskicking.   Social shaming is far more powerful.

 

It's not that. Some men tend to be much more stubborn and explicit in those kinds of situations than women and despite the wife standing up for herself the guy might not give up and keep on hitting on her. It does happen in the movies youre right but I got news for you - it does happen in real life too.

24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. For instance, it does not occur to this man that his wife in this hypothetical situation might have a stake, and ought to be consulted rather than be a steak for two dogs to snarl and fight over. Another kind of man would not address the would-be Casanova at all, but noticing that his wife is uncomfortable, come over and say something tactful, like, "Honey, there's an old friend I'd like to meet," and lead her away, rather than embarrass his wife, his hosts, the drunk he's offering to punch, and possibly himself if the other guy hits back harder.   

But, suppose the issue of contention is over some inanimate object, like a Mars rover and two member of team disagree over the landing gear design. Can they really not respect each other without taking it outside or does the team leader have to step and separate them, every time this happens?  Slow progress, I'd imagine. What if the team leader is older and less physically robust than the juniors who disagree? Can they still respect him? (In my experience of team efforts, there has never been perfect agreement, and there has never been a broken jaw - or even a shoving match - and work got done somehow.)

So you would consult your wife and the guy how to resolve the situation in a calm discourse ?

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Welcome back!

This sounds like another piece I read on Jordan Peterson, and one I'm going to use to show how his reasoning is being interpreted. He openly states that if you're a man and you're not capable of being violent, you can't claim it as a virtue. He claims you aren't competent UNLESS you can be violent. Is that your stance as well?

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/jordan-petersons-right-become-dangerous-heres/

Jordan simplifies modern life down to a martial arts philosophy where you should learn how to be as dangerous as you can, then control yourself tightly. But, he also claims men are hardwired to be aggressive, and implies that it's normal and natural for men to sometimes be overly physical and threatening. It's insulting to those of us who don't accept that men are just brutes with no feelings or intelligence. Some of us would like to foster change when it comes to men assuming aggressiveness equals competence and confidence. I don't believe in "boys will be boys". I think some humans remain animals, and some learn that brains are better than fangs, claws, and brawn.

I wouldn't build my life around it as a fundamental aspect of myself but yes, if you keep on hitting on my wife at a party where she feels uncomfortable and I feel I have to stop it or we have to leave, I will tell you that I will break your jaw and if you keep up what youre doing I will do it. I've only had to resort to violence once in my life in those kinds of situations and I presume that if it wasn't for my stance on this, I would have to resort to violence much more often.

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If we take this line of thinking apart it basically means male interactions are fundamentally a posturing where we assess the level of violence we should level at each other. This, to me sounds like an overly simplistic model, after all we have many, many everyday interactions and violence or even thoughts of violence are the extreme outlier (in my experience). So it would sound odd that this extreme outlier should somehow be a defining factor of our behaviour. It seems to me that he is taking an extreme outlier and then creates a model of human behaviour out of it. 

Peterson is making a statement, a claim, an observation, he’s not modelling a model. You on the other hand seem to be doing the very thing which you are accusing him of - taking an observation made by Peterson and implying that he’s making a model. Plus hes not claiming that male interactions are fundamentally a posturing where we asses the level of violence, we do it as only a part of our personality.

Quote

In fact I would think most folks nowadays would react to a sudden violent outburst with shock rather than with a skillful well-adjusted reaction, simply because we actually do not think in those terms. Moreover, society has a measures to outsource violence (e.g. police). Yet Peterson puts the threat of physical violence as a core concept in male behaviour.

Please elaborate on this, my English might be becoming a little rusty and I’m seeing you saying that if I was hitting on your wife/partner at a party you would call the cops? 
 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

He claims that men can only respect each other when there's a threat of violence. Do you really believe that?

 

Hi Phi and everyone else, its been a long time - around 3 years or so since I've posted anything longer than a few words. I've been busy with my family and business, not enough time to post a lot anymore, especially that the majority of topics have been mostly pollitical and less physics/science focused which was the original reason why I came here.

I think what Jordan Peterson is claiming here is... let me give an example - if a man is hitting on your wife and he keeps on doing it despite civil discourse and does it again and again at a banquet or at a NYE party downtown, there comes a moment when you have to make a decision - you either take your wife and leave the place or stand up for yourself and tell the guy straight to his face to f off or you'll break his jaw. What Peterson is saying is that most men have a set of skills which enable them to detect which type of man they are dealing with during a normal, civilised, non hostile conversation - the leave the place guy or the break the jaw guy. I know that this might come as a  serious shock to many here but women and men do differ in many physical and even psychological aspects and this is an example of such a difference. It might come as a further shock to many that this is not mysogyny, patriarchy heck - it's not even a bad thing.

Gravity not only looks like it's not a force but it also looks like its not a basic concept, it looks like it's an aproximation of something underlying. Interestingly, time seems to fill the same rough definition - time seems to be an aproximation and not a basic concept and it too seems to be a part of something underlying. 

Powerful flashlight (10K+ lumen)
Powerful blue/green laser (above 1W)
Decent microscope with WiFi.
Leatherman/Gerber multitool
Tiny projector


 

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve had a bunch of randos who’ve never even once posted here start “following” me in the last few weeks... I am notified when they begin following.

My understanding is that the follow function is basically a subscription to get updates every time I post.   

My intuition is that it’s not being done for any positive purpose or because they wish to learn from me etc., and may in fact be a coordinated effort to learn more about me and plan for a social engineering attack of some sort. Maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong, but I’d simply rather not have followers. 

Can followers be blocked? Can I disagree to their desire to follow me, or be given an option to Approve/Deny the subscription to my posts? Can the feature be disabled entirely sitewide?

Any other options available besides crossing my fingers and hoping I’m just being paranoid?

Sounds like your safe space might have been breached and crossing fingers might not be enough. Enforcing real measures could be the only hope.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

Youre right. 

23 hours ago, iNow said:

I really wish you’d stop derailing the thread by asking me to defend claims I haven’t made. 

Where would you say I am deraling an already split thread on politics iNow? Would you say its more towards testical taze or political bias?