Phi for All

And first on that guidelines list is to ask yourself, "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" You make some assertions that are unfalsifiable wrt individual existence in multiple universes (like, the person you've known a long time doesn't really exist in their universe, only in yours, that bit). Your idea must have a way to show it's false before you can test it.

You'd have to change a LOT to remove/reduce the pressures that led to our current population. Those 5B happened for LOTS of reasons, and to assume it was just the church or just the need for labor or just the fun of procreation is too simplistic for a sophisticated septuagenarian such as yourself. By difficult choices I assume you think we should kill some folks off or force sterilization, but again that's too simplistic a solution. You can achieve MUCH more with better education and healthcare. Educated people have/need fewer children, it's a fact. Make 'em smart and you also get to live with smarter people, which would really be a treat.

A LOT of those countries experienced cataclysms (Venezuela, Boznia and Herzegovina, Syria, Serbia to name a few). Since you're removing 5B people, I think most would have gone the route of war, famine, and pestilence. Most of the others on the list keep their populations in check with education and healthcare. Seventy years ago, if the entire world would have focused their efforts on educating the population and making sure healthy choices were always available, I suppose that would allow us to grow our culture and technology in ways that don't automatically require more of us to do the work.

Does a re-test reveal the false positive? I'm assuming this common oral medication doesn't set off flags every time with every person (I'm also assuming re-testing is allowed on a drug screening that detects cocaine or methamphetamine).

If you're taking Metformin for Type II, there's a chance it will flag for methamphetamines, or so a friend claimed.

Difficult to say. What cataclysm caused so many to die off in the last 70-80 years? What caused such a drop in overall prosperity that the population didn't prosper? In an age of discovery and travel, what forces could have acted to keep the population the exact same?

So he takes a popular approach to subjects he's not an expert in. I know how much that changed the way I was learning physics when I first joined PhysicsForum many years ago, and they had a deal with Michio Kaku to promote his books. I don't know why you think notoriety and pop-science sensationalism is so acceptable, especially since I've learned WAAAAAAY more about physics reading YOUR posts than I ever did following Dr Kaku.

OK, that's pretty funny.

The part you quoted wasn't my "masculinity concept". I'm not sure I've stated one. And I don't need examples of courteous males secure in their masculinity. I'm well aware it exists and is actually thriving (though it's being drowned out by the bigger profits that surround hate and aggression; decent men don't make the headlines much). Bottom line, in my opinion, is that many men (like you, like me, like koti, like JP) have done something overly aggressive that they'd like forgiveness for, that they're not willing to admit might have crossed a line. They want to be judged in context, and not lumped together with the men who are OBVIOUSLY toxic and wrong. And I think that tacitly gives a lot of power to those obviously toxic men, and allows them to play whataboutist games that continue to get them off the hook.

I think your concept of "masculine conscience" interferes in other people's lives to a far greater extent than most who hold the POV are willing to admit. You may not care, and indeed that's the attitude that seems prevalent. Those who have to put up with violent men do so partly because you and JP want to be held blameless when you feel the need to break some bones to sooth your masculine conscience. Personally, I think masculine aggression is being used against men. It's easier to legally manipulate a man with a violent record, but that's probably a whole different thread. 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.

QFT.

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. And his words are being defined one way by the authors at The Federalist, and in completely different ways by men who love their toxicity. 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. Edit to add: I forgot to point out how the supposedly "classically liberal" Peterson is the darling of the conservative publication The Federalist. Again, I think he's abusing the label to appear as something he's not.

! Moderator Note Science. How do you think you know biology is so complex? Science. We need some here. We can help you better understand some of the complexities involved in your ideas if you're willing to learn mainstream explanations from the members in this sub-forum. If you're trying to support your own non-mainstream ideas scientifically, I'll move this to our Speculations sub-forum. Either way, your part of the discussion should be less hand-wavy, with at least some evidence you can use in support. We don't do WAGs here, and we don't waste (much) time with trolling. If you think you have a good science discussion about this in you, have at it.

Wow, your sampling abilities suck! I think it's much better to sip gallons of sour milk as opposed to having to drink TheVat of it (wink wink). It's important to be able to spit out the crap. I watched it start to finish. When this guy steps out of his area of expertise and tries to extrapolate in others, he makes errors as most people would. I don't assume that as a given, it's part of most criticisms on his teachings (especially his YT videos). It's not my interpretation of his stances that prompt me to take up a cause against them. It's too easy for anyone to justify their own actions by pointing to a scholar like Peterson and claiming science supports aggression and physical behavior from men as part of their genetic (evolutionary) makeup. Many men hide like cowards behind a double standard that gives them an excuse to choose violence when they're too intellectually challenged, and then they want to be forgiven for being "real men". They see the use of reason, diplomacy, compromise, and fairness as weak, and while your Jordan Peterson might deny identifying with men like this, he's giving them LOTS of encouragement to continue behaving in ways they see as masculine.

He NEVER says "crazy men", only "crazy women". It doesn't seem much to matter that what he's talking about is assault and battery, and that it's the expected response between men when civil discourse fails (protip: laws help keep people from acting like animals, until the law looks the other way for some reason). And are you denying he seems to say men are hardwired this way through evolution and they can't deal intellectually with women who present them with challenges they'd normally fight a man for? I DO have a bias against the toxic male attitude I see on the rise in the last several years. I've argued many times that it's polluting daily life for too many. Unnecessary aggression while driving, anti-intellectual stances on health and environment, and the daily pain some males inflict upon their society in the name of masculinity is being fed by stances like Peterson's. There is a time and place for aggressive action, and too many men have been taught that it's their only tool. Thanks for letting me know this bias is showing! I'm rather proud of it.

Please watch this short bit from YT, in his own words, and it will help you understand why my interpretation is not a misrepresentation, at least of what Peterson is saying: He claims that men can only respect each other when there's a threat of violence. Do you really believe that? He claims women are crazy and men can't deal with them as effectively as they deal with other men because they can't threaten them with violence. Do you really believe that? He believes men can only throw their hands up in "not even disbelief" when dealing with crazy women and there's no other step forward for them culturally than to be aggressive and physical. Do you really believe that too? He claims that men can have no respect for another man who won't get physical with them, who won't fight them, and that this threat of violence is what keeps us all civilized. Do you really believe this as well? I don't. Not at all. I think this is how animals try to justify their behavior, and intelligence is simply beyond them. Many of his videos talk about how fundamental male dominance hierarchies are, and rather than focusing on ways to use intellect to override baser animal instincts and behavior (which seems more in line with what a psychologist should be focused on), he instead claims the most natural thing to do is adapt to it, accept that men are uncontrollably aggressive at times, and move on from there. Do you agree with that?

You and Peterson seem to claim evolution is forcing men to remain animals, and there's no hope of them being able to intellectually overcome this "sometimes uncontrollable aggression". Like evolution is at odds with what society needs, so we have to understand that men can't be held to societal norms the way women are. This is part of what gives some men a license to act out whenever they feel like it, and you give them a scientific excuse to rely on brawn over brain, on aggression over compassion, on constantly competing rather than cooperating. I don't think evolution is keeping humans behaving like animals. I think that's on you and others with this mindset that we need to be lenient on aggressive men because they can't help themselves. You may not be saying it that way, but that's how it's being abused. Y'all have been giving toxic men just what they've needed to perpetuate the social atrocities we keep hearing about.

Sorry, but as long as you continue to hold men unaccountable for some of their actions because they "really cannot help themselves in being men", you'll always provide grounds for those who want to do whatever they like, watering down any censure they should rightly receive. Are you seriously telling me you've done things for fun that you couldn't have stopped yourself from doing? You're defining "men" in such a way that the loophole for being a wildling is always there. You're claiming that the essence of being a man entails insensitive behavior that you shouldn't be punished for because you're not really responsible and only having a bit of fun. Because man. You may have plenty of control, but you're enabling those who don't by claiming real men are naturally going to be men. This is actually what Jordan Peterson is claiming, that we can't change, that men are agents of order dealing with feminine chaos, and that it degrades our personalities to fight against those traits.

He resists change, he claims transgender folks are mentally ill, and matches up with most definitions of conservatism I know of. And your own Canadian Bar Association (chock full of lawyers who know the law, with zero psychologists) disagrees with him about the law you're talking about. His absurd notions are addressed in a letter from them to one of your Senators: https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f He openly battles against a monolithic left wing he feels is too chaotic, calling himself "classically liberal". I think instead he's positioning himself as a liberal chastising liberals for being too liberal. Taken with the rest of his POV, I think he's firmly conservative and lying about it.

I dislike many of them, especially when he blames the rise of toxic masculinity on feminists trying to "feminize" men. It's a LOT like the argument that men can't help themselves when it comes to "being men" and having to control themselves around women. Men like Peterson seem to argue that people are just animals while also profiting from his intellectual pursuits. He has the cake, he eats the cake, and women everywhere suffer for his POV. He doesn't even believe women merit equal pay for equal work. And in general, I see calls from the right for a more balanced approach as hypocritical. We need a LOT more than just a gentle course correction towards the center, we need a fairly massive push if we're going to address the problems we currently have as a planet. To me, the right and its extremists have declared they're tired of losing the intellectual battle and just want to win no matter what. They don't care that their hatred and bigotry has been marginalized, that so many people see their dwindling numbers, and they've decided they deserve to be the majority so they just ARE. It doesn't matter that they're losing elections, they just deny it and threaten to take over local legislatures where they lost, with force (like animals) if necessary. We're supposed to be growing as a species, but men like Jordan Peterson claim we'll lose our inherent humanity if we change. In fact, he believes we can't change our basic nature, so he enables toxic male attitudes and defines masculinity and femininity as "order" and "chaos". Me personally, I wouldn't listen to a thing this asshat says.

You're complaining about the clarity of someone else's posts, and irony meters everywhere burst into flames.

This sounds like a job for Google. Is there anything you wish to discuss about this subject with the other members?

This is Homework Help, not Homework Answers. What have you got so far? Can you show your work?

! Moderator Note Since you're not a cognitive expert, your opinion of other people's cognitive abilities is meaningless, so that's probably a great decision. Perhaps you can learn to view people from another perspective that doesn't have such a negative impact on your own life. I'm closing this because it's just going to attract those who haven't learned what you have.

The answer is so obvious, it makes me wonder why you bring it up. If you're sincere in this I wish you well.