Jordan Peterson – You Need a Partner Who is a Challenge

Diposkan pada oleh Skeptical Inquirer

Jordan Peterson: Uncucking the Cucked since 2017

If you’re among friends you know you think that’s explored territory that’s not exactly right, because what happens if you’re among friends is that they carefully reveal new parts of themselves all the time so, it’s like they’re blasting little elements of unexplored territory. Territory at you constantly and if they don’t then what happens you get bored and you look for new people and we know there’s empirical data on that with regards to intimate relationships because there was a nice study done a while back showing that looking at the ratio of positive to negative emotional experiences that were most predictive of long-term relationship success and the answer was now obviously it depends on how you would measure an event and how you would measure positive and negative emotion.

But that aside the finding was something like if you’re in a relationship and you only have five positive interactions – one negative interaction then the relationship will end.

Its to negative but if you have more than eleven positive interactions – one negative interaction then it also ends.

And you think well that’s pretty bloody peculiar; why in the world would that be don’t you want, like a hundred to one positive to negative interactions and the answer that is what makes you think that you want a relationship?

So that you could be happy or at least happy moment-to-moment why do you think that it’s not it’s certainly not the case as you know that – because you I mean I bet you there’s not a person in this room who hasn’t rejected someone

because they were too nice to them.

Something like that person’s no challenge, it’s something like that you want someone who you know “oh you can get along with them but now, and then they bite you and you think oh that that’s interesting, you know I didn’t really expect that”

“And then you go and puzzle over it for a while and you torture yourself about it”

“And that’s one of the things that keeps you really linked into the relationship

and the reason for that is that part of the reason that you want the relationship isn’t so”

That you’re happy right now, it’s so that you can live a high quality

life across multiple decades and so you’re looking for someone that you have to contend with who’s going to push you beyond what you already are and who’s going to judge you harshly often for your limitations now that will make you angry and resentful and maybe you’ll take your revenge and and all of that but you don’t want someone who thinks you’re perfect in your current form partly because why would you want to go out with someone that deluded.

Life and relational muscle is strengthened by the necessary resistance or contention,’ and without which atrophy sets in. We live a society that fosters weakness  and delivers masses weaklings out of that which would otherwise strengthen them.

I agree with you completely. In another lecture he talks about how people who don’t have their act together should be left alone so that they are forced in a way to better themselves. Here he seems to be contradicting that by saying we should accept people who are ‘challenging.’ Well, everyone is challenging and people change, most often for the worse. The real issue is the laws. When I have the freedom in life to pick ‘challenging’ partners without them having totalitarian state control over my body I’ll consider maybe asking another woman on a date. Until then, nooooo ma’am!

You know, the funny thing is that it doesn’t matter at all what Dr. Peterson is saying when you just don’t go near women at all. We could split hairs until the sun comes up, but in the end I still have my money and zero chance of seeing the inside of a court room for the rest of my life. Owner of a lonely heart – much better than a – owner of a broken heart. The funny thing is, most of the time I’m not lonely. The loneliest times I’ve ever felt was when I was with those irrational, unaccountable, promiscuous, and largely undiagnosed mental outpatients commonly referred to as women. They can bother the islamic jihadists and wear burkas all they like. They deserve it.
I don’t think your assessment of life is correct. There is no safe space. Plain and simple. And nobody needs one if you can slay the dragons – both outside the home, inside the home and internally (your own personal dragon/demons). Dragons are everywhere and inescapable. How you deal with them is the key to a fulfilling and worthwhile life. A spouse who doesn’t necessarily make life easy for your and who doesn’t remain docile all the time is likely to help you slay those personal dragons. that’s what Peterson’s getting at. Have a spouse who points out BOTH your positives and flaws and you’ll have a much more fulfilling relationship. And also, he comments on how a new side to a person gets constantly revealed….doesn’t necessarily mean its a bad side…could be positive as well. One day your spouse could surprise you in a way you never imagined. Another day….they could let you down catastrophically. Learning to deal with both and move on is key. Besides, if you can’t destroy the internal and home dragons, how can you stand a chance at the external (worldly) dragons. Edit: Another thought: Isn’t choosing someone who points out only the good, but never the bad EXACTLY the same tactic as the feedback loops, safe spaces and silencing of opposition that the SJWS and neo-marxists use? Peterson encourages us to be better than that. To embrace the chaos of opposition – the chaos of the good and the bad and to fight it and slay the dragons. Not to run home and hide from it with a spouse.
This makes him seem like a master of BDSM. – OWNER OF LONELY HEARTED
Jordan Peterson: Uncucking the Cucked since 2017

Satu tanggapan untuk “Jordan Peterson – You Need a Partner Who is a Challenge”

Tinggalkan komentar

Diterbitkan oleh Skeptical Inquirer

• Central For Inquiry (CFI) • Skeptical Inquirer • Free Inquiry • Point of Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Yang nyata ialah manusia itu sendiri bukan tuhan, bukan manusia pikiran tuhan, tetapi tuhan adalah pikiran manusia, agama tidak merubah kenyataan dan mengukir sejarah, tetapi manusia itu sendiri yang merubah dan mengukirnya. Bukan tuhan yang menciptakan manusia tetapi tuhan adalah angan-angan manusia. Agama tidak merubah kenyataan tetapi menusia bisa merubah kenyataan. 2. Agama ialah proyeksi manusia : tuhan, neraka, surga, malaikat. Kenapa? Karena manusia butuh tempat untuk mencurahkan keluhan karena dunia tanpa hati, jadi penderitaan tempat lahirnya tuhan. Dengan demikian agama disebut keterasingan manusia dari kehidupan karena struktur masyarakat tidak mengizinkan secara penuh perealisasian diri sendiri, sehingga manusia membangun kerajaan angan-angan (agama). Dalam kenyataan manusia menderita lalu ia mengharapkan surga 3. kenapa agama khayalan, karena agama tidak inderawi, sedangkan manusia inderawi, manusia penuh dengan kepastian sedangkan agama berbau unsur spekulatif, unsur yang tidak bisa diterima secara ilmiah 4. Jadi agama dan tuhan ialah ciptaan manusia itu sendiri, tetapi manusia itu sendiri lupa dengan ciptaanya (seperti pada zaman jahiliyah dahulu sebelum nabi muhamad dating : orang-orang kafir zaman dahulu mengukir tuhan dari kayu dan batu, yang kemudian disembahnya, sama seperti kita kini yang memproyeksikan tuhan lalu menyembahnya). Agama penyembahan tuhan terhadap dirinya sendiri. Agama penyembahan manusia terhadap ciptaanya sendiri 5. Sehingga khayalan atau angan-angan itu mempunyai eksistensi realitas yang membuat manusia takut dan harus menyembahnya dan tuhan mempunyai hakikat lain yang manusia harus sembah. Sifat-sifat itu yang membuat manusia egois. 6. Penderitaan manusia ialah tempat lahirnya tuhan, penderitaan yang memaksa manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama, itulah dasar yang menyebabkan manusia merasa butuh agama dan tuhan 7. Teologi harus diganti menjadi antropologi dan agama ialah candu rakyat. 8. Kritik agama hanya meruska bunga khayalan pada rantai, bukan bunganya yang harus dipatahkan tetapi rantai itu sendiri. Rantai (factor yang menyebabkan manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama) 9. Kita seperti wayang dengan penuh kesadaran dan kemauan tetapi kita tidak bisa lepas dari tangan sang dalang. 10. Kalau semua ini benar, maka manusia bukan merealisasikan keinginanya tetapi mengharapkan berkah dariNYA (proyeksi manusia itu sendiri/perubahan pasif) 11. agama ialah keterbatasan: agama melarang kita bergaul dengan duniawi, sehingga kita hanya memikirkan surgawi Tanpa agama kita bisa hidup lebih baik, tanpa mengaharapkan hibah/welas asih dariNYA, hanya mengandalkan kenyataan dan diri sendiri. 12. Kepasrahan adalah kelemahan agama 13. Tuhan seperti halnya dengan setan, bila ia terus diyakini dengan adanya exsistensinya maka semakin berkuasalah ia, kita seperti member roh kepadanya dengan keyakinan kita. GROUP : https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientistsecularist