Phi for All

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.

! Moderator Note Which seems to be a recurring theme with this poster, as well as his former account (good catch, swansont). Trolling their incredulity, belaboring the point, and obfuscating replies to reasoned arguments is the MO, which makes it difficult to discuss and impossible to learn. If you think there's anything meaningful to talk about here, I can leave the thread open, otherwise I'll shut it down.

Biology, chemistry, anatomy, basically what a medical doctor would study. I think interest is only going to grow, so you'll probably have lots more help in the near future. Here's a study from a few years back: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.15438

! Moderator Note Your overgeneralized perspective on this borders on breaking our rules of civility. Can you describe your points regarding the UK PM with more precision than "stupid" leaves us with? Can you avoid slurring whole groups of people with your remarks? There is an important distinction to be had by judging a person's actions instead of the person. Boris Johnson has done some stupid things, but does it make him ALL stupid? Science discussion forum, let's do better.

! Moderator Note We don't appreciate opinions that require blanket condemnation of whole groups of people. They're meaningless and waste time and brain cells, in addition to being racist and bigoted. We're a science discussion forum, so thinking is important. Don't bother responding to this modnote, just do better.

One trick I learned with silicone caulk (very sticky but soft when dry) is to use an ammonia-free glass cleaner on the area I DON'T want the silicone to stick to. I spray my tools and fingers too. I wonder if the same trick would work on the item you want to take an impression of, and make your wax easy to remove?

! Moderator Note No references to who you're talking about, no link to what you're talking about, no context, no mention of chemistry, and no attempt at clarity. Even in your native language the OP would make no sense, and that's against the rules. Thread closed, do better next time.

I can also hope Joe Sixpack will someday see that idolizing these "rascals" as the epitome of masculinity ("a real man's man") gives a big thumb's up to their immoral behavior. Political office is an enormous privilege, and it's being conferred on scummy personalities who want the average guy to forgive them anything. They're ticks and leeches and for some reason they're being encouraged to keep on sucking. At the time I had just taken my colored glasses off to look at what Bill Clinton had really done (besides the prosperity we enjoyed). He's partly to blame for many of our current troubles with racial strife and untrustworthy news, but he also perpetuated this toxic myth that men just can't reasonably be expected to control themselves where sex is concerned.

I hated that at the time, iirc. Nice slimy, strawman pivot from "higher moral plain (sic)" to "lies about jobs". It's the whole "I'm going to grope and disrespect you and then I'm going to claim I'm only human after all" attitude that makes this kind of male behavior sustainable. I'm not asking for perfection (another strawman from the perspective). I'm asking that our male leaders don't get a pass on toxic, gender-based behavior. I'm fairly sick of the crappy point of view that boys will be boys. It's men who can't handle the power of the office and are abusing much more than that.

Larrikin, man's man, rogue, scoundrel, all terms that enable the "boys will be boys" outlook that has led to so much inequality and looking the other way when male politicians abuse their power. I don't think all Aussies identify the same way about larrikins. It clearly hampers female politicians.

All Aussies, or just the real men? He sounds like he enabled a whole lot of ignorant and toxic male behavior that kept women in the shadows for an extra generation. What a peach. I think Australian men deserve a better role model.

Simple? There are around 250 species in Britain and Ireland alone. Pick one and you might get meaningful references.

! Moderator Note This is completely off-topic. Please don't hijack someone else's threads. And no more advertising, please. We aren't here for you to promote your book.

! Moderator Note So sorry, the rules require threads to be free of advertising, even if it is for a free book. Otherwise we'd be overwhelmed. This is a science discussion forum.

I think this is a populist approach to the subject, and so it's flawed from the start. Bernie Sanders had it right; elect the leader that stands for what YOU stand for, one who is more interested in maintaining a movement towards the goals we share rather than doing what's popular to stay in office.

Here's one relevant paper, Spatial and temporal dynamics of the endothelium, from the Journal of Thrombosis and Hemostasis. There's a breakdown of their findings that includes the measurements. The paper itself is more about how the phases of hemostasis are far more integrated than previously thought, but the research quotes the relevant studies they're based on. There's 154 references, and I'll bet one of them is the actual measurement parameters.