[silveroriole]

I did read it. I decided not to take life advice from someone who writes, about a two-year-old child: “I picked him bodily off the playground structure, and threw him thirty feet down the field. No, I didn’t. But it would have been better for him if I had.” It’s a ‘joke’, but it’s a weird joke. I believe he thinks this over-aggression makes him seem dominant and powerful; in reality, a grown man getting so furious at an infant that he fantasises about throwing it is just odd. I can see why young men on the internet find it appealing to be told that being aggressive is actually cool and powerful and good, but that doesn’t actually make it good advice.

I also don’t agree with his sexual-marketplace ideas about how women choose mates, and why it’s a good thing for women to choose men who behave badly towards them because they’ll change: “[female lobsters] identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him. This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation. It’s also one used by females of many different species, including humans. ... His aggression has made him successful, so he’s likely to react [to the female] in a dominant, irritable manner. Furthermore, he’s large, healthy and powerful. It’s no easy task to switch his attention from fighting to mating. (If properly charmed, however, he will change his behaviour towards the female. This is the lobster equivalent of Fifty Shades of Grey, the fastest-selling paperback of all time, and the eternal Beauty-and-the-Beast plot of archetypal romance. This is the pattern of behaviour continually represented in the sexually explicit literary fantasies that are as popular among women as provocative images of naked women are among men.)” Is this good advice or information for men or women? Personally, I don’t think so, but since it bears absolutely no relation to how I chose my partner, I suppose Peterson would say I am some kind of outlier or unusual female. Readers may make their own minds up about the quote.

[aquad]

I thought it was a funny joke. You have to remember he's a psychologist. When it comes to children they think very simply in terms of reward and punishment to "train" children to learn to behave. You should've seen that from everything else he said about his interactions with children. I don't know how you can also come away with that psychoanalysis of him, I'd say you're reading into it too much. In reality, we are human and small things tend to irritate the majority of us from time to time. I'd also add that aggression is a tool that has certain uses throughout life, you can't always live life on the defensive. Young adults of any gender should be told that this is a tool at your disposal and completely okay to use at certain times.

For the lobster thing, I read it as neutral information. I took it as he was bringing up a similarity he has observed between the lobster behavior and popular plots in entertainment that seem to be popular with certain types of women. He's just presenting a connection for readers to make up their own minds about rather than stating some fact. However I also think most young men who read that will tend to agree with him quite easily, it definitely feels like it could partially be true (bad boy stereotype is a thing isn't it?). Also would you consider yourself in general to be a 'usual' female compared to the general population say personality wise or any other metric even? Just being on HN tells me you're already unusual, wouldn't you say?

[gexla]

> in reality, a grown man getting so furious at an infant that he fantasises about throwing it is just odd

You are getting that backwards. In reality, people think that way. They get angry with kids. They may even think violent thoughts. Tragically, they may actually be violent.

Any time you make a statement about what's weird about interactions between adults (especially parents) and kids, you should clarify that you do or do not have kids. So, I'll ask, do you have kids? I ask because we can be rational in an HN discussion. Dealing with kids tests that rationality.

> Is this good advice or information for men or women?

Men who are "alpha male" types get more selection. This may or may not be true. The "should" (rational decisions) is a different argument. JP is trying to explain how things ARE (and he could be wrong on that.) That's different from advice and the information is neither good or bad.

[silveroriole]

He is just describing “how things are”, not giving advice or telling you what you should do, in his self-help advice book about his “rules for life”? That’s surprising to me, I must say!

[gexla]

Heh, good point.

Okay, you're right. It's a self help book with advice. ;)

[belorn]

The sexual-marketplace is not good advice on how to behave, but there is aspects of truth to acknowledge that humans are somewhat similar to tournament species where a smaller percentage of men have children compared to women. The semi-accurate 20/80 means that social status has a very direct impact on the probability that a man has children, and a sad aspect of human culture is the tendency for men to be rewarded with social status for cultural correct aggression.

But we are also somewhat similar to pair bonding species. I would not describe it as an outlier or unusual, but rather two different biological strategies that is expressed through genes and culture. Researchers has even found some specific genes that is linked to predicting it, and women and men who has more of the pair-bonding associated genes have longer and happier relationships.

Being aware of both strategies and knowing there is a biological aspect to it is useful information, but strictly following one is foolish. We are human with human brains so individuals will behave uniquely even if there is a bias when averaged over a population.

[rdtsc]

> This is the lobster equivalent of Fifty Shades of Grey, the fastest-selling paperback of all time,

There is something strange about that book being so popular.

I think one can argue that women have been socialized to want aggressive men so that becomes a common fantasy vs it's a biologically based phenomenon. I wonder if there is a way to compare how popular the book is in relation to how strongly stereotypical the education and culture is.

[fucking_tragedy]

> I think one can argue that women have been socialized to want aggressive men so that becomes a common fantasy vs it's a biologically based phenomenon

Or it's just a popular form of easily consumable 'taboo'. No need to theorize about women secretly wanting violent relationships when there's a much simpler explanation on the table.

[rdtsc]

Sure, but why is it a popular taboo? Otherwise it's like saying "this book is popular because the topic is popular".