(Part 3) Top products from r/JordanPeterson

I cheated once with a girlfriend I genuinely loved. /u/RunAMuckGirl has a good checklist.

But to supply a bit details on what I discovered in the period where I tried (and partly failed) to rebuild that trust I learned a lot.

Firstly, I knew that I had to figure out why it happened, and deeply change that, to even be able to start about continuing a relationship.
Among the things I found was:

• I learned by witnessing the consequences of betrayal that it is one of the worst things possible and started really believing that it is among the worst things to experience.
  
• I found the main culprit that caused it to happen was lying. Or specifically, willingness to lie was what made be allow the betrayal to begin with. One great book i read back then was Lying by Sam Harris - I think I re-read it 10 times.
  
• Another great thing I deeply learned was that I was a composite of good and bad sides, and that there was an ongoing battle concerning whether my good or bad side win. Especially I got this from the book Why do good people do bad things. It's essentially the lesson from Cain and Abel and the hostile brothers.
  
• Another important simple reason was just alcohol. Deciding to drink too much alcohol is itself a decision to possibly betray the people you love the most. So that meant that I stopped doing that.
  
• Lastly is belief. Having a strong moral foundation with some connection to the divine is a great insulator.
  
  Learning and over time integrating these learnings into myself started to give me the faith in myself that if given the opportunity in the future, I wouldn't take it. For my gf the journey is in some ways just as hard, as it is as important to her to learn how to avoid this happening again in the future - whether with me or someone else.
  
  Secondly, I knew I had to start rebuilding trust. And this was incredibly difficult.
  
  
• The most important part in human relationships that last is to build and maintain trust.
  
• You build trust by being open, honest, speak from the heart and sharing your emotions. You also build long-term trust by being reliable, consistent, managing your emotions and displaying loyalty.
  
  In practice this means many open and honest conversations. It means to get through the process of revealing past lies, and getting to a fully honest starting point. And then it means to continue doing that, and being strong enough to keep raising difficult topics and trying to find a new equilibrium.
  
  At some point, my partner did forgive me, but our relationship was over by then. However my efforts did pay off in a way, and today she is a close friend. But more valuable to me personally was that in this process I became a much better person, which is paying dividends now and probably will far in the future.
  
  I think forgiveness is a good thing to do yourself to others, but I don't think you can rely on forgiveness alone as a cop-out for yourself, but instead build yourself into the kind of person who will wouldn't do it again, and the take the investment required to rebuild trust over time.

Uhmmm, are you sure?

You're here, you can write better then the average Redditor, and have the courage to share with us this piece of news.

Anyway, like someone else commented conscientiousness is just as important as IQ; moreover there are many different types of intelligence which combined for the IQ; find the one where you excel, combine it with your passion, add hard work and you can live a happy life doing something that you love. How smart is that?

Did you do the Self Authoring? Do it. As you do it think about the life of your dreams, which activities would you like to do, both as a career and as hobby, think as wildly and diverse as you can.

As you think about career makes sure you think about the work, and not about the benefits/results.

I wish you best of luck and don't hesitate to post again in this forum; your post and people's comment help other people who didn't have the guts to post but go through similar experiences.

Also, check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Do-What-You-Are-Personality/dp/031623673X

Physical edition is finally out.

The views of Nietzsche that I share are his more anti-theistic proclivities. I want to be as upfront and honest as possible, when researching religion I had initially planned to demarcate positive qualities from the negative qualities. I think Judaism and Sanatana Dharma (Hinudism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are all different denominations of One religion called Sanatana Dharma but many people in the West feel uncomfortable with that and try to separate Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism from what they see as the "backwards" religion of Hinduism); gradually though, I made changes and the research I put into this book helped me to grow my views in ways I hadn't thought would be the result with the more I learned.

The most problematic aspect of contemporary Western society is Religious Tolerance in my view, because Liberals who shout down Free Speech discussion with the term "Islamophobia" aren't just destroying the foundations of Western civilization's Enlightenment values and everything the Enlightenment thinkers and US Founding Fathers fought and bled for (albeit with their own terrible beliefs like slavery which they benefited from), but they're playing into Islam's cultural practice of normalizing the idea that no non-Muslim has any right to criticize Islam. This is actively dangerous because of female genital mutilation being normalized now in the US. This is not a "cultural" issue or "foreign people have their own ways" issue -- it's a barbaric religious practice actively encouraged by Islam. Moreover, Liberals in the West are ignoring the human rights of Ex-Muslims who live in fear of being killed by their own families in the West.

I am all for sharing cultures and people being allowed to practice their beliefs insofar as they don't harm the personal liberty of other people. But Islam needs to be kept in check through peaceful means and that means exposing it and defending Free Speech just as it would mean for any dangerous elements in other religions. Religious Tolerance creates too many problems and I felt that the most effective way of critiquing the problems was a Nietzschean perspective shift, an examination from the psychology texts I've read and applying them to religion, and examining the errors in reasoning that religion creates.

This might not be what many would like to hear, especially if they feel distrustful of people like Sam Harris and feel he is extreme, but there really is the issue of the human rights of Ex-Muslims and if we ignore that, then we ignore the best qualities of Western culture at the expense of people losing their lives for thought crimes. I hope you all can forgive any rudeness or harshness on my part, but I think out of a sense of compassion, that we should push forward this conversation towards a world where religion has less of an impact because there really are people whose lives depend upon Western values of the Enlightenment being defended.

Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.

Part I Only.

Part II Only.

Explanation on pricing can be read here.

OK, it's only been happening now a couple of generations, but I'm increasingly thinking it's worth seriously addressing the proposition that intelligence in women is selected against.

Not saying this is a good thing - it's plainly not - but it is true that the more intelligent a woman is then the less children she has.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/

https://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligence-Paradox-Intelligent-Choice/dp/0470586958

Where that goes is speculation, but as there is a selective pressure we would expect some outcome - and these things can happen over a surprisingly few generations (as the siberian foxes demonstrate)

Eh, Marx was inevitable. He took the ideas of a genius, Hegel, and the idea of the historical dialectic and inverted it.

Marx made a good observation about a way of interpreting the driving forces behind human history. He was ultimately wrong (historical materialism is too simplistic), but that idea was going to happen one way or the other.

We ought to blame Marx as much as Stalin and Mao as well as everyone else who behaved like a total fuckwad when it wasn’t necessary to behave like a total fuckwad.

I recommend everyone to listen to Peter Singer summarize Hegel

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X

And Marx

https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/0192854054

Edit: Lots of overlap between Peterson and Hegel btw. Though Hagel was highly critical of the Classical Liberal notion of freedom.

Edit: Fixed spelling for all anal retentives

IQ is actually negatively correlated with reproductive success, which on a longer timescale is all that really matters.

The Intelligence Paradox is an interesting book that goes into this.
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Paradox-Intelligent-Choice-Always/dp/0470586958

I feel the same way, but I forgave my dad, and all dads who couldn't deliver the message as effectively, after reading "Under Saturn's Shadow." Check it out. It's been recommended on the sub before:https://www.amazon.com/Under-Saturns-Shadow-Wounding-Psychology/dp/0919123643

There's not really a good correlation between intelligence and lack of social skills. If you're smart you have the potential to be much more socially aware than those around you, you just have to work at it. Trying to make theories about your intelligence in relation to your lack of social skills is just rationalizing excuses based on empty rhetoric.

You understand your own problems, you just have to work on them. Read the books recommended in the comments, they help a lot. Then set out to practice what they tell you. My favorite one is one called "the charisma myth," but dale carnegie is just as good. Maybe also read stuff like this. This stuff wont come naturally to you if you're already bad at it, but if you work at it for months/years and really internalize it you'll find that you're almost superhuman at reading people. Also try meditation, being "present" helps more than anything.

/u/Magnificrab a critique is not an ideal starting place for someone new to a subject.

PlzFadeMeBro when you are first learning about something it is best to start from a neutral position and then proceed to sophisticated supporters and detractors. To do otherwise is to risk becoming an ignorant and dogmatic ideologue.

Oxford University Press produces a series of books called Very Short Introductions that provide accessible introductions to different topics.

https://www.amazon.ca/Marx-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/0192854054
https://www.amazon.ca/Postmodernism-Short-Introduction-Christopher-Butler/dp/0192802399

Read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Vicktor Frankl.

It's perfect for situations like that.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/080701429X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_jOJsDbAWE6XV3

You're defining this hypothetical and any other dimensions that comes along with it. I'm not sure what kind of answer your going to expect because issues of compulsion are going to be a case by case basis on real world embodied individuals.

If you looking for modern science about the gambit of addictions I might recommend When The Master Becomes The Servant I wouldn't say Powers is a "Peterson" type but his field is about this subject.

One person Peterson has cited is Frankl. You might enjoy Man's Search For Meaning very short book.

She is the way she is because she was raised "backwards" and fixing it basically requires her to re-raise herself. This is a ten to twenty year process after she recognizes a problem and fully commits herself to improving. Given all of that there is no guarantee that she will successful.

You have your blaring red-flag. You should end this relationship and move on with your life. She is not your responsibility to save - that's a problem with you that you should work on.

Start with this.

Andrew Breitbart was a leftist until he watched the left defame and destroy the reputation of Clarence Thomas as he was being nominated for SC justice. He went on to be a force for the new right. Check out his book about it. It's great: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538184082&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+breitbart

Here's another interesting I've read and can recommend on reclaiming the father archetype for modern men: https://www.amazon.com/Under-Saturns-Shadow-Wounding-Psychology/dp/0919123643

It's less about loss and the rise of the feminine and more about the shadow of the masculine. A tough read, but worthwhile.

What you do does not have to be perfect, just good enough for you to achieve your goals. Obviously, if you find yourself with time on your hands, you can stretch yourself and define more goals. However, if you are struggling to get things done, you could look at the Pomodoro Technique. Alternatively, if you feel that you are taking too much on, you could read Necessary Endings by Henry Cloud.

>Finding work that is meaningful is crucial for me.

The work isn't meaningful. You make it meaningful by the way of doing it. Wanna learn how? Read this.

It's a goody. See what you think of this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Sisyphus-Penguin-Great-Ideas/dp/0141023996

Camus was getting at the same idea I think.

https://www.amazon.com/Will-Work-For-Lobster-Tie/dp/B07CQ877ZS

https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Thought-Justice-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4

That’s the standard playbook, I believe.

Entryism. You can read about how they do this in this book. I'm not affiliated with the author.

The book is Ordinary Men.

I really cannot explain all the concepts in a quote.. nor a picture.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America/dp/0452011175/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3ROUU99CWA6F3&keywords=the+ominous+parallels&qid=1555697098&s=gateway&sprefix=the+ominous+p%2Caps%2C128&sr=8-1

btw, this was a better explanation of what happened in Nazi Germany than the book 'ordinary men'.

Try this book https://www.amazon.com/Do-What-You-Are-Personality/dp/031623673X

Here you go - Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left

> From one of the leading critics of leftist orientations comes a study of the thinkers who have most influenced the attitudes of the New Left. Beginning with a ruthless analysis of New Leftism and concluding with a critique of the key strands in its thinking, Roger Scruton conducts a reappraisal of such major left-wing thinkers as E. P. Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, Jurgen Habermas, Gyorgy Lukacs, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Žižek, Ralph Milliband, and Eric Hobsbawm. In addition to assessments of these thinkers' philosophical and political contributions, the book contains a biographical and bibliographical section summarizing their careers and most important writings.

> In Fools, Frauds and Firebrands Scruton asks, What does the Left look like today, and how has it evolved? He charts the transfer of grievances, from the working class to women, gays, and immigrants, asks what we can put in the place of radical egalitarianism, and what explains the continued dominance of antinomian attitudes in the intellectual world. Can there be any foundation for resistance to the leftist agenda without religious faith?

> Writing with great clarity, Scruton delivers a devastating critique of modern left-wing thinking.

This article is a typical hit piece that uses several well known propaganda techniques to instill doubt into people. As someone who actually knew most of the things Peterson is talking about, from other sources, I can vouch for what Jordan Peterson says, the man is not a crank.

Here are some easily accessible materials that will cover many of his ideas:

Everything he says about the impact of biology on behavior:

>Robert Sapolsky's 2011 "Human Behavioral Biology" course from Stanford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

Everything he says about the denial of human nature by ideologues:

>Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature": https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blank-Slate-Modern-Penguin-Science/dp/014027605X (Peterson actually mentions it at one point in his talks). (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFey_0cbgeo)

Everything he says about the corruption of the left wing utopians:

>Paul Johnson, "Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky" https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170 (videos of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW-Oc6HoqTE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_6NsFvjm0o)

>Roger Scruton, "Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left": https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1408187337 (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLfRoO8HwN0)

Everything he says about the virtues of Western Civilization:

>Niall Ferguson, "Civilization: The West and the Rest" https://www.amazon.com/Civilization-West-Rest-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0143122061 (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnFeyMGUs8)

>Not ordinary men.

Traumatised by war, sure, unlike most modern men in the West today, but nearly all men are ordinary in the sense of this book Ordinary Men.

Signal to others that you, too, are a fascist mystic, with this beautiful blue tie, available now, from amazon.com. But get it quick, cuz these lobsters are going fast!

https://www.amazon.com/Will-Work-For-Lobster-Tie/dp/B07CQ877ZS

Everyone needs to read Breitbart's Righteous Indignation. You've been lied to about this guy. He's a true hero, that's why he was murdered (look into it).

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526992910&sr=8-1&keywords=righteous+indignation+andrew+breitbart

As far as I'm concerned, nearly the entire school of postmodernism rises from rotten soil (largely German idealism, Continential philosophy, Marxism, and phenomenology) and is thoroughly anti-rational. One of my favorite philosophy books, The Ominous Parallels examines how German idealism and postmodernism gave rise to totalitarian political philosophies (especially the Nazis) and how even post-fascism, post-modernism is still pushing people in the same direction.

In essence post-modernism argues that because nearly all human knowledge has its ultimate origin in some subjective judgment or observation about the world, therefore all human knowledge is subject to subjective interpretation and criticism. It seeks to undermine rationality (man's primary tool for making sense of the world) by declaring everything to subjective and/or a social construct - to be interpreted by the viewer in any way they see fit. As if all history is just the story we agree to tell, all science is just people's best guesses, economics how we steal from each other, and philosophy the lies we tell to justify the world being how it is.

My next big beef with post-modernism is their willful exercise of obscurantism. The term refers to the deliberate use of vague, unclear, or jargon-heavy language for the purpose of concealing the true meaning of the text, rather than just saying it in clear and understandable prose. Derrida is practically the poster-boy for this, and he learned from Heidegger the card-carrying Nazi.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I'm one of the most voracious readers I've ever met. I'm the kinda guy who reads philosophy for fun, and I've read a lot of it. And every time I've tried to read post-modernist texts, I've walked away in frustration as I had no idea what they were actually trying to say. Their logic is invariably impossible to follow, their texts filled with bullshit and filler, and their actual ideas to be thin gruel and trivial at best, or flat out wrong at worst.

The unsophisticated and uncritical often mistake obscurantist texts for having profound deep meanings that ordinary person just doesn't understand. I consider that bullshit. To me, obscurantism is the hallmark of the intellectual fraud. The purpose of language is communicate clear and consistent meanings, not to distort, confuse, and hide meaning. Unfortunately it has a long tradition in bad philosophy - Kant was a past master of the art.

To me, Foucault is a thinly-veiled Marxist sadomasochist. Kant (the ultimately ancestor of postmodernism) an OCD-sufferer who undermined rationality in order to attempt a reconciliation of science and Church dogma. Heidegger a nihilistic Nazi. And as for Derrida, I think he's one of the biggest frauds of them all. I haven't seen a single idea of his that I think has any merit and I consider his boast that his work is impossible to criticize as proof positive that he is a fraud, and worse, a dangerous fraud.

To me, philosophy must come correct and be written for the purpose of being understood by most if not all who read it, or else it's simply not philosophy worth reading. If you can't or won't communicate the meaning behind your thoughts clearly, then you have no business calling yourself a philosopher or having your thoughts taken seriously.

> ". . . anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity, by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."

-- John Searle on Deconstruction