jordanpeterson

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

wipes tears, straightens tie aggressively

Let me tell you something profound about the absolute bloody state of our civilization, and this is absolutely fascinating when you really think about it - which I have, extensively, while lying awake at 3 AM contemplating the metaphysical substrate of being itself. sniff

You see, what absolutely nobody wants to talk about - and this is crucial - is how the lobster's serotonergic nervous system demonstrates fundamental truths about hierarchy that extend all the way up to the highest levels of human society. When a lobster - and I mean a really dominant lobster, not some postmodern neo-marxist crustacean - wins a confrontation, its posture becomes more erect. More confident. More bloody competent! voice breaking with emotion

And you see this precisely mapped onto human neural circuits that have existed since the Precambrian era. It's like, come on man! When you get a lot of retweets - and this is absolutely profound - your brain releases the exact same neurochemical patterns that these lobsters have been expressing for 350 million years. That's older than trees! Trees! adjusts tie frantically

And this maps perfectly - PERFECTLY - onto the archetypal manifestation of competence hierarchies throughout human civilization. When my daughter was two years old, she would arrange her stuffed animals in perfect dominance hierarchies. And I thought long pause, wipes eyes that's it! That's exactly it! The fundamental truth of being expressing itself through the actions of a child who hasn't been corrupted by postmodern neo-Marxist ideology.

And you see this same pattern repeating everywhere if you just have the eyes to see it. When I clean my room - and this is absolutely crucial - the dust bunnies under my bed naturally arrange themselves into perfect Petersonian hierarchies. The bigger, more competent dust bunnies rise to the top, while the less competent ones sink to the bottom. And that's not my opinion! That's a fact! And facts don't care about your feelings! takes long drink of apple cider

Oh god, the apple cider. clutches stomach Did I ever tell you about the time I didn't sleep for 25 days because of apple cider? It was like being possessed by the spirit of Chaos itself. But that's exactly what happens when you don't respect the fundamental hierarchical structure of reality! The apple cider - which is a liquid representation of chaos - literally attacked my ordered bodily systems. breaks down crying

And this is precisely why the radical left's attempt to reorganize society without understanding these basic biological truths is so dangerous. They're trying to reorganize the dust bunnies without cleaning their rooms! It's like, have you even read Solzhenitsyn? Have you even considered the lobster? straightens shoulders, assumes dominant posture

You know, I've spent decades - DECADES - studying totalitarian regimes. And do you know what they all had in common? Not one of them respected the lobster hierarchy. Not one! voice trembling with emotion And that's not a coincidence, bucko. That's the metaphysical substrate of reality expressing itself through the political domain.

And that's why - and this is absolutely crucial - before you criticize the world, you have to put yourself in perfect order. Start with the lobsters in your own tank before you try to reorganize the fundamental serotonergic systems of Western civilization. Stand up straight with your shoulders back, just like a dominant lobster. Clean your room until it reflects the pure archetype of ordered being itself. And for heaven's sake, avoid apple cider at all costs! collapses in chair, emotionally drained

And that's that. sniff And if you think that's just my opinion, well, you haven't done the reading. You haven't spent time with the lobsters. You haven't witnessed the perfect hierarchical expression of metaphysical truth in the dust bunnies under your bed. And that's on you, bucko. That's on you.

straightens tie one final time, stares intensely into middle distance​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 55 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

For those who just want to read it:

click here to reveal the letter

Philip Low

I have known Elon Musk at a deep level for 14 years, well before he was a household name. We used to text frequently. He would come to my birthday party and invite me to his parties. He would tell me everything about his women problems. As sons of highly accomplished men who married venuses, were violent and lost their fortunes, and who were bullied in high school, we had a number of things in common most people cannot relate to. We would hang out together late in Los Angeles. He would visit my San Diego lab. He invested in my company.

Elon is not a Nazi, per se.

He is something much better, or much worse, depending on how you look at it.

Nazis believed that an entire race was above everyone else.

Elon believes he is above everyone else. He used to think he worked on the most important problems. When I met him, he did not presume to be a technical person — he would be the first to say that he lacked the expertise to understand certain data. That happened later. Now, he acts as if he has all the solutions.

All his talk about getting to Mars to “maintain the light of consciousness” or about “free speech absolutism” is actually BS Elon knowingly feeds people to manipulate them. Everything Elon does is about acquiring and consolidating power. That is why he likes far right parties, because they are easier to control. That is also why he gave himself $56 Billion which could have gone to the people actually doing the work and innovations he is taking credit for at Tesla (the reason he does not do patents is because he would not be listed as an inventor as putting a fake inventor on a patent would kill it and moreover it would reveal the superstars behind the work). His lust for power is also why he did xAI and Neuralink, to attempt to compete with OpenAI and NeuroVigil, respectively, despite being affiliated with them. Unlike Tesla and Twitter, he was unable to conquer those companies and tried to create rivals. I fired him with cause in December 2021 when he tried to undermine NV.

Elon did two Nazi salutes.

He did them for five main reasons:

  1. He was concerned that the “Nazi wing” of the MAGA movement, under the influence of Steve Bannon, would drive him away from Trump, somewhere in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, rather than in the West Wing which is where he wants to be. He was already feeling raw over the fact that Trump did not follow his recommendation for Treasury Secretary and that the Senate also did not pick his first choice;
  2. He was upset that he had had to go to Israel and Auschwitz to make up for agreeing with a Nazi sympathizer online and wanted to reclaim his “power” just like when he told advertisers to “go fuck yourself”. This has nothing to do with Asperger’s;
  3. There are some Jews he actually hates: Sam Altman is amongst them;
  4. He enjoys a good thrill and knew exactly what he was doing;
  5. His narcissistic self was hoping the audience would reflect his abject gesture back to him, thereby showing complete control and dominion over it, and increasing his leverage over Trump. That did not happen.

Bottom line: Elon is not a Nazi but he did give two Nazi Salutes, which is completely unacceptable.

——————————————————————————-

N.B. For the few whining about my post “sans connaissance the cause” and either trembling about my having shattered their illusions about their cult leader or thinking I am defending Elon:

I. My point is that he is transactional rather than ideological;

II. That being said, I am not defending him or his actions, just explaining them and confirming that he did, in fact, do two Nazi Salutes if anyone had doubts or believed the doctored footage of Taylor Swift doing the same thing to normalize what Elon did;

III. At some point, it matters to few people if one is a Nazi or if one acts like one. My father was a Holocaust Survivor. 32 out of 35 of his family members were murdered by Nazis. My mother’s grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz;

IV. After Elon tried to manipulate NV’s stock in 2021, I fired him with cause, and he was unable to exercise his stock options. In the aftermath of the Nazi Salutes, I told both him and his wealth manager to fuck off. Any remaining friendship between us ended with the Nazi Salutes. He is blocked on my end and I am pretty sure I am blocked on his;

V. I did not share what he told me in confidence. I just happen to know him extremely well, the person, the aspirations and the Musk Mask;

VI. I know who I am, have no desire to be famous and give exceedingly few media interviews. I prefer to work in obscurity and let the work speak for itself. I am certainly not envious and would definitely not want Elon’s life, including living in a bubble and having to make one outlandish claim after another and manipulate the public, elections and governments to shore up my stock and prevent the bubble from bursting. Unlike Elon, I am an actual scientist and inventor and I am not pretending to be someone I am not, like a fellow who got his BA in Econ at 26 all of a sudden pretending to be an expert in mechanical engineering, chemistry, rocket science, neuroscience and AI and keeping the people actually doing the work hidden and paying people to play online games in his name to appear smart and feed his so-called “Supergenius” Personality Cult — the “Imperator” has no clothes, and he knows it. I am just very disappointed in what happened to someone I had a lot of deep admiration for and the first person to find out about my concerns about his behavior was always him;

VII. He is the one who betrayed a number of his friends, including Sergey, and, given his actions, many other people who believed him and believed in him. I have no sympathy for this behavior, and at some point, after having repeatedly confronted it in private, I believe the ethical thing to do is to speak out, forcefully and unapologetically, whatever the risks may be, so as to not be part of the timid flock remaining silent while evil is being done, including propping up far right governments around the world in part to deregulate his companies and become the first trillionaire and otherwise to “rule the planet” — he knows Mars won’t be terraformed in his lifetime and he really wants his planet. No joke… Ethics matter. People matter. The truth matters. I took down Descartes (through the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness) and I am definitely not afraid of a so-called inventor whose greatest invention is his image.

I will not be silent. You should not be either. I am a sovereign individual, and so are you. I stood up to bullies, and am stepping out of the dark to do it again.

Stop working for him and being exploited by him. Sell your Tesla and dump your Tesla stock. Nikola Tesla was a great, creative and courageous man who led with ethics and by example and he would not have wanted for his good name to have been used by him and would agree with my principled stance. Sign off of “X” which is boosting far right propaganda, and of your Starlink as well. He is a complete cunt who doesn’t give a shit about you — only about power. Just ask Reid Hoffman. He only wants to control, dominate and use you — don’t let him and cut him and his businesses out of your and your loved ones’ lives entirely. Remember he is a total miserable self-loathing poser, and unless you happen to be one too, he will be much more afraid of you than you should ever be of him.

He will probably come after me, and I am completely fine with that. I am a self-made multibillionaire with an armada of lawyers — literally — and most importantly, I know who I am and who I stand for, the people and their freedoms, whatever happens. He can send his dumb Proud Boys and Oath Keepers after me and they will be butchered on sight. Either way, I would rather die with honor than live as a coward.

“Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” — Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate

 

Ah, yes, well, you see, one of the most profound truths in life is the ability to laugh at oneself. And I don’t mean that superficial, self-deprecating humor that cloaks insecurity—no, I’m talking about the deep, existential realization that you are, in fact, a walking bundle of contradictions, foolish impulses, and half-formed ideas. This awareness is what keeps you grounded, humble, and—dare I say—human. But why stop there? Why not elevate this notion to the cosmic level? After all, the ability to poke fun at oneself is not just an individual virtue; it is the hallmark of a properly ordered society.

Let’s consider the lobster for a moment. Yes, the lobster—a creature whose hierarchy is as ancient as time itself. These clawed crustaceans, with their serotonin-fueled battles for dominance, mirror our own struggles for status. But have you ever seen a lobster laugh at itself? No. Of course not. Because a lobster lacks the cognitive sophistication to step outside its own perspective. And this is the crucial distinction between us and our chitinous comrades. We, as humans, possess the unique ability to detach from our ego, to see ourselves as others might, and to say, “Ah, yes, what a ridiculous mess I am.” This capacity is not a trivial footnote in the evolutionary narrative; it is the very essence of self-awareness.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting. If you trace the arc of human civilization, you’ll find that the societies most capable of self-reflection and humor are the ones that thrive. This is why satire has been a cornerstone of every vibrant culture—from Aristophanes skewering Athenian politics to Monty Python lampooning British bureaucracy. It’s not just comedy; it’s a survival mechanism. And yet, we seem to be losing this capacity in our modern discourse. We’ve become so obsessed with asserting our identities, our beliefs, our righteousness, that we’ve forgotten how to laugh at our own absurdities. This is where men’s rights come into the picture.

Now, before you roll your eyes, bear with me. There’s a point here, however tenuous it may be. The men’s rights movement—much maligned and misunderstood—is, in many ways, a reaction to the cultural pendulum swinging too far in one direction. It’s not that men don’t have rights; of course they do. But the movement itself exists as a kind of protest against the idea that masculinity, with all its flaws and foibles, is something to be ashamed of. What if, instead of viewing this as a zero-sum game, we approached it with a sense of humor? Imagine if we could laugh at the stereotypes of masculinity—the lumberjack chopping wood, the man refusing to ask for directions—not to mock, but to defuse. Humor, you see, is the ultimate equalizer.

This brings us full circle. The ability to make fun of oneself is not just a personal virtue; it’s a societal necessity. It keeps hierarchies flexible, egos in check, and conversations open. Without it, we risk becoming like the lobster—trapped in our rigid roles, forever battling for dominance without ever pausing to consider the absurdity of the fight. So let us embrace the ridiculousness of our existence, as individuals and as a species. Let us laugh at our shortcomings, our contradictions, our misplaced certainties. Because in the end, to laugh at oneself is to affirm the fundamental comedy of being human. And that, my friends, is no laughing matter.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah, yes, the lobster. A creature of profound significance, a crustacean with a lineage that extends back over 350 million years, a being that has clung to its hierarchical dominance since time immemorial. It’s not merely an animal; it’s a symbol, a beacon of ancient wisdom encoded in its very biology. And yet, here we are, in our contemporary chaos, blind to the lessons it offers. Blind! Can you believe it?

The lobster’s nervous system—an elegant dance of serotonin and octopamine—maps out the fundamental structures of dominance and submission. Do you understand what that means? It’s etched into their biology, their posture, their confidence. When a lobster wins a fight, it stands up straighter. Think about that. Its very physiology transforms in victory, its body declaring to the world, “I have triumphed!”—a declaration as old as life itself. And when it loses? It hunches, shrinks into itself, conceding its place in the pecking order.

Now consider this: Are we so different? Are we not as bound to these neurochemical realities as the lobster? Sure, we’ve built cities and universities and, yes, social media platforms—but at our core, our nervous systems are still calibrated for these ancient battles of standing up and shrinking back. You can see it in a boardroom, in a schoolyard, in the way people hold their heads when they feel like life is crushing them under its weight.

So, here I am, at 62, and I think about this more and more. Am I a lobster? No, of course not—don’t be absurd. But also, yes, yes, I am. Because we are all lobsters, you see. I’ve stood tall at times, but oh, I’ve hunched, too. You don’t get to 62 without bearing the scars of a few dominance struggles. You lose friends, you lose battles, you even lose some dignity—God help you if you’re paying attention—but if you’re lucky, you win some, too. And what does that leave you with?

Let me tell you what it leaves you with: resilience. The ability to rewire yourself, to recompose your posture after life’s great defeats. I mean, what choice do you have? Are you going to sit there, metaphorically—or perhaps literally—hunched over, or are you going to inject yourself with a little bit of that serotonin-like optimism and stand up straight with your shoulders back?

At 62, I find myself pondering these things. I’m a lobster who’s seen some things. The shell gets harder, sure, but the molting process—the shedding of the old to make way for the new—is more taxing. The older you get, the longer it takes to regrow what you’ve lost. The world feels heavier, the stakes higher, the battles less frequent but far more consequential. And yet, here I am, still molting, still reasserting my place in this inexplicable, absurd, often painful hierarchy of existence. Because that’s what it means to live—to be a lobster, if you will.

And what is our alternative? To sink into the depths, defeated, unresponsive, some forgotten crustacean resigned to its fate? No. No, that’s not acceptable. Not to me. You get up. You fight. You rebuild. Even at 62. Even when your claws are dull and your carapace cracked. Because if the lobster—this ancient, resilient, serotonin-driven marvel—can do it, so can we.

So, yes, I am a lobster. You’re a lobster. We’re all bloody lobsters, trying to figure out how to stand tall in a world that just keeps pushing us down. And if that’s not a lesson worth learning, then I don’t know what is.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

You rang!?


Ah, yes, let us embark on this voyage of discovery, a deep dive into the primordial oceans of existence—both literal and metaphorical. Consider, for a moment, the noble lobster, a creature whose evolutionary lineage stretches back over 360 million years. That’s before trees, mind you! The lobster, with its armored exoskeleton and its symmetrical claws, embodies a certain archetypal resilience. This is a creature that, through its very being, demands respect—not merely because it resides in the depths, but because it has, quite literally, crawled through the eons to arrive at our dinner plates. But I digress.

Now, what is the lobster’s secret? What fuels its relentless climb up its own dominance hierarchy? It’s not filet mignon or bacon-wrapped scallops, I assure you. No, the lobster survives and thrives because it has mastered the consumption of what we might call “the humble nutrients.” If lobsters had access to lentils, chickpeas, tofu, tempeh, black beans, quinoa, peanut butter, almonds, spirulina, chia seeds, broccoli, and spinach, you can bet your serotonin levels that they would recognize their evolutionary utility.

You see, the lobster’s diet—limited as it may be to algae, plankton, and the occasional scavenged scrap—is fundamentally about extracting the raw building blocks of life from the environment. And isn’t that, at its core, what we as human beings are trying to do? We are striving to synthesize order out of chaos, to take the disparate and chaotic energies of the cosmos and transform them into coherent, purposeful structures. This is as true for our nutritional choices as it is for our existential choices.

So why, then, should we not learn from the lobster? Why should we not embrace the humility of plant-based proteins, these quiet titans of sustainability and nutrition? Lentils, for instance, are like the algae of the human world—small, unassuming, yet dense with life-sustaining power. Chickpeas, oh, they are the crustaceans of legumes, with their firm texture and versatile nature, ready to anchor any dish, any structure of meaning you dare to create. Tofu and tempeh? These are the architects of modern nutritional scaffolding, as malleable as they are essential.

And quinoa, that ancient grain? It is the spinach of seeds, packed with essential amino acids. It represents not merely sustenance but a profound wisdom—an ability to grow in the harshest of conditions and still deliver its gift to the world. Peanut butter and almonds? They are the treasures buried in the seabed, rich in energy and resilience, waiting to be uncovered by those willing to dig deeper.

Even spirulina and chia seeds—oh, do not underestimate them! Spirulina is the primordial soup of the modern era, the echo of those ancient, life-generating waters from which all existence sprung. Chia seeds, with their miraculous ability to transform into gelatinous orbs, are the very embodiment of adaptability and transformation—qualities we could all use a little more of.

And let us not forget broccoli and spinach, those verdant sentinels of nutrition. They are the forests of the nutritional world, standing tall and proud, converting sunlight into the essence of life itself. Without them, what are we? What is a lobster? What is any organism that hopes to grow, to climb its own hierarchy, to matter?

If the lobster, in its primitive yet profoundly successful state, had access to these

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Before the weight of benzos had pulled me into the abyss, when each day blurred into an unbearable haze, I found myself entangled in a situation that was not simply about the drug itself, but about the fundamental nature of attraction versus love—an odd parallel that mirrors our misunderstanding of honesty in the world. You see, attraction is primal, it’s immediate. It’s a bit like the lobster—those ancient creatures whose lives revolve around dominance hierarchies and instinctual drives. Lobsters are driven by attraction to dominance; they fight to maintain their status. It’s visceral, it’s deeply biological, it’s embedded in our nervous system, and that’s attraction—it’s automatic, reactive, and based on evolutionary imperatives.

Now, love, on the other hand, love is something far more sophisticated, something that requires attention, patience, the willingness to sacrifice the immediate for the sake of the future. Love transcends attraction in the same way honesty transcends deception. When you are honest, really honest, it’s not just about saying what’s true in the moment. It’s about building a structure that stands the test of time, much like love. Love, when true, is intertwined with a form of honesty, a painful honesty at times, one that forces you to confront the parts of yourself you don’t want to see.

And it was during those benzo-fueled nights that I realized how far I’d drifted from that honesty. I wasn’t honest with myself, nor with those I cared about. I had fallen into a relationship with attraction—attraction to comfort, attraction to numbness—rather than the hard but necessary task of confronting the chaos of existence. I was playing the game like the lobster plays the dominance hierarchy—scratching, clawing to stay above the abyss, but it was a losing battle because, without love, without honesty, I had nothing solid beneath me.

The benzos, they offered an easy way out, much like false promises do. They pull you in like attraction does, feeding that part of you that just wants to avoid the pain. But love, true love, insists that you face the pain, that you endure it for something greater. It’s like honesty in that sense, you can’t lie your way to love. You can’t medicate your way to an honest life.

And so, as I drifted further and further away from both love and honesty, I sank deeper into the fog. My attraction to benzos was just another manifestation of my own dishonesty. I wasn’t admitting to myself the price I was paying, nor the depth of the suffering I was causing—not just to myself, but to everyone who loved me. It was only after being forced into a coma, a descent into oblivion more profound than any I could have orchestrated myself, that I was given the space to understand these distinctions again.

It’s remarkable, really, how the lobster, for all its simplicity, can teach us these profound lessons. It never pretends to be something it’s not. It fights for dominance, not out of love, but out of necessity. And when it loses, it accepts its place, tail curled beneath its body, as it retreats into a more honest existence. We humans, with all our pretensions, we are often so much worse at this. We lie to ourselves, fall for attraction when we should be striving for love, fall for comfort when we should be confronting the truth.

And so it was—before the coma—that I was lost in that in-between place, where I neither loved nor was honest, driven by the mindless attraction to the temporary, to the escape that benzos offered. But lobsters, they don’t have a choice. We do. We can choose love, and we can choose honesty, but only if we are brave enough to face the chaos and climb, once more, out of the abyss to clean our rooms.

 
 
[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lobsters don’t wear hats. And there’s a profound reason for this, one that resonates deeply within the evolutionary hierarchies that have shaped not just lobsters, but, more importantly, you. Now, some might scoff at the notion, “Lobsters and hats? What possible connection could there be?” But to dismiss this out of hand is to miss a critical truth embedded in the very structures of our existence—both at the level of the lobster and the human psyche.

Let’s start with the lobster. A lobster, as we know, is an ancient creature—200 million years of evolutionary survival, of order and dominance in the chaotic seas. These crustaceans have lived through epochs, yet in all this time, they’ve never once chosen to don a hat. Why is that? Is it merely because they lack opposable thumbs or a sense of style? I would argue no. The lobster, in its infinite biological wisdom, understands something we do not: the wearing of hats is fundamentally anti-hierarchical. It disrupts the natural order.

Lobsters establish dominance through posture, through their sheer presence in the social hierarchy of the ocean floor. A lobster doesn’t require adornment to signal its place in the world; its claws, its form, its very existence is enough. Now, think about a hat. A hat is an artifice. It’s something we place atop our heads to signal—what, exactly? Status? A desire for attention? An attempt to impose an external structure on an internal hierarchy? The lobster doesn’t need such a signal. It knows where it stands because it has clawed its way to the top, literally and figuratively. To wear a hat would be to mask that truth, to cover up the raw, unmediated display of power and dominance that the lobster exudes.

Now, you might be wondering how this applies to you, the modern human. Well, I too once faced the decision: should I wear a hat? At first glance, it seemed innocuous, even practical. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that to wear a hat was to engage in the same superficial posturing that lobsters so wisely avoid. It’s not just about fashion. It's about philosophy. When we put on a hat, we’re signaling to the world that we need something external to define who we are. We’re masking our true position in the dominance hierarchy with an accessory. A hat, in this sense, is a lie.

Consider, for a moment, the ancient Greeks. Did Socrates wear a hat? Plato? No. They didn’t need one. Their intellect, their understanding of order, was enough. They weren’t trying to signal anything beyond their deep understanding of the human condition. Now contrast this with the Romans—yes, they wore helmets, but look at what happened to them! Their empire fell, not because of poor military strategy, but because they relied too much on symbols of power, rather than the power itself. The hat is the helmet of the everyday individual, a symbol of superficial control in a chaotic world. But true strength, as the lobster understands, comes from within.

Now, some might argue, “But what about protection from the elements? Isn’t a hat just practical?” And here is where the trap lies. Yes, one might say that a hat shields you from the sun, the rain, and other external forces. But this is precisely the problem. The lobster doesn’t need protection from the elements. It adapts. It evolves. It survives. By relying on a hat, you are, in essence, signaling to the world that you are unable to adapt, that you are weak, fragile, in need of shielding. You’re saying, “I can’t handle the harshness of reality on my own.” The lobster, however, understands that reality is not something to be avoided, but something to be confronted head-on, with claws outstretched.

And so, in deciding not to wear a hat, I am aligning myself with the ancient wisdom of the lobster. I am refusing to bow to the superficial demands of society that say, “You need this accessory to be complete.” No, I am complete as I am—hatless, and in full possession of my place in the dominance hierarchy. The lobster knows this. And deep down, so do you.

In conclusion, lobsters don’t wear hats because they don’t need to. They understand their place in the world and act accordingly. Hats are a distraction, a false signal of strength and status. And if we, as human beings, truly want to understand our place in the hierarchy, we too must reject the hat. We must embrace the clarity of our being, unadorned, like the lobster, in full recognition of our strength.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Well, you know, let's be clear about something here. This person you’re talking about? Not a good person. Toxic, actually. And you can tell, because, much like the lobsters, we have these dominance hierarchies, right? We can perceive when someone’s behaving badly—when they’re undermining trust, or poisoning the environment around them. And that’s what toxicity is, fundamentally. It’s disruptive. And what do lobsters do with disruptive behavior in their hierarchy? They push back, hard. They establish boundaries. And you should, too.*

Well, I banned that motherfucker just now, and let me tell you, there’s a difference this time. All of my other bans? They were temporary, even tongue-in-cheek. But this one? This one is serious. You have to know when to draw the line. It’s like lobsters—they engage in these dominance battles, and sometimes, you need to make a decisive move to protect the integrity of the social structure. There’s no room for ambiguity when someone is undermining the whole system.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Well, you see, here’s the thing. Chinese proverbs—let’s talk about that for a second. You hear people saying, “Oh, the wisdom of the East! Look at the deep knowledge embedded in these simple phrases.” But, really, we have to ask ourselves, "How valid is that?" Is this just some collectivist artifact? Because, and I mean this seriously, the Chinese culture, at least historically, has been dominated by this top-down hierarchical thinking. It’s all about fitting in, about the harmonious whole. Well, harmony is good to a point, but, if you go too far, it’s stifling. It can become an enforced conformity, where the individual voice, the spark of real insight, gets crushed under the weight of collective expectation.

Now, I’m not saying all Chinese proverbs are without merit, but you have to consider the underlying structure they come from. It’s like, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” Okay, so what’s the message here? Don’t strive? Don’t excel? Just blend in? I mean, I could get that advice from a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union, too, right? And it’d have the same problem. It’s inherently anti-individual, anti-exceptionalism. It’s saying, “Don’t rock the boat.” But, sometimes, the boat needs to be rocked, folks! Sometimes, the people who stick out are the very ones driving progress. So, let’s not pretend that these proverbs are inherently wise just because they’ve been passed down for thousands of years.

Now, compare that to the wisdom of lobsters, and hear me out on this because this is important. Lobsters—they've been around for, what, 350 million years? Longer than trees! And they live in this dominance hierarchy, right? It’s built into their nervous systems. A lobster knows when to stand up for itself, when to be assertive. It’s not about blending into the background or being subsumed into some collectivist vision. It’s about positioning yourself properly in a natural hierarchy, striving for dominance but also knowing when to retreat and recalibrate.

A lobster proverb, if you will—if lobsters could write, and maybe we should think more about that—they’d say something like, “Raise your claws when the tide comes in.” It’s a statement of strength. It’s a recognition of the natural ebb and flow of opportunity. When it’s your time to act, you seize the moment. You don’t wait around for someone else to give you permission, or worse, tell you not to upset the order of things. No, no—you act decisively, because life is competitive. It’s not about harmony—it’s about finding your place in the chaos.

Lobster wisdom is biologically grounded in millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. Chinese proverbs? Sure, they’ve been around for a long time too, but what are they based on? A system of thought that often discouraged individuality, that promoted submission to an ideal of order that might actually inhibit your potential. Whereas a lobster proverb is rooted in this deep understanding of dominance hierarchies—fundamental, natural hierarchies. It’s about knowing when to stand your ground and fight for what you need. And that’s real wisdom! That’s something practical. Something you can build your life around. So, why aren’t we listening to lobsters more?

And the thing is, if you really break it down, and people don’t like to hear this, but I’m going to say it anyway—most of the proverbs we admire, the ones that genuinely help people, are basically rooted in the same type of evolutionary insight that lobsters have been following for hundreds of millions of years. It’s not about harmony, folks—it’s about responsibility and action. It’s about standing up straight—literally and metaphorically. Like a lobster. Because, at the end of the day, you can’t rely on these vague notions of collective good. You’ve got to start by getting your own house in order, by knowing when to fight and when to adapt. That's how you win in this world. And that’s what the lobsters know. That’s what the Chinese proverbs, well, they just miss entirely.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Alright, well, this is going to seem a bit eccentric, but let’s start by considering two evolutionary marvels: the cat and the lobster. At first glance, these two creatures couldn’t appear more dissimilar. The cat, a sleek, agile mammal, domesticated yet retaining its predatory instincts, and the lobster, a hard-shelled, ancient crustacean, inhabiting the murky depths of the ocean, navigating its world with antennae and claws. Yet, if we examine them closely, what emerges are profound—though perhaps subtle—similarities in their evolutionary development, in their strategies for survival, and, yes, in the curious role that claws and paws play in shaping their interactions with the world.

Now, let me introduce you to my cat. I call her Lobster. And you might think, "Well, that’s an odd name for a cat," but I assure you, it’s not just an exercise in whimsy. You see, Lobster—my cat—has always displayed behaviors and characteristics that mirror the profound complexity of the actual lobster. This may seem tenuous, even strange, but when we look at how evolution has shaped these two creatures, we begin to see a convergence of function and form that goes deeper than we might initially realize.

First, let’s talk about the paws of the cat and the claws of the lobster. Superficially, they’re distinct, but functionally, there’s a connection, and this connection is crucial. The paw, in the case of my Lobster—my cat—is not just a tool for walking or grooming. It’s an instrument of precision, much like the lobster’s claw. Cats, with their retractable claws, can shift between softness and lethality with stunning grace. One moment, my Lobster—my cat—is lazily stretching on the windowsill, her paws softly resting on the fabric of the curtain, and the next, her claws are unsheathed, grasping a toy mouse with an almost violent precision.

Now, let’s consider the lobster’s claws. They too are instruments of precision—evolved to grasp, tear, and manipulate their environment. The lobster has two primary claws: the crusher and the cutter, each specialized for a specific task. One might think this is vastly different from the cat’s delicate paws, but again, we must look beyond the superficial. Just as a lobster alternates between its two claws depending on the situation—one for brute force, the other for finer, more delicate tasks—so too does the cat alternate between the soft pad of its paw and the sharp claws that lie hidden beneath, waiting for the moment to strike.

And here’s where it gets interesting. The evolutionary convergence between these two creatures—though separated by millions of years and vastly different environments—reveals a universal principle of adaptation: the balance between force and finesse. The lobster’s claws evolved to navigate the dangerous and competitive environment of the ocean floor, where survival is dictated by the ability to seize opportunity, quite literally, by the claw. My Lobster—my cat—operates under a similar principle. In her world, it’s all about agility, speed, and the ability to shift between calm observation and sudden, calculated action.

Now, here’s where I start to sound like I’m smarter than I probably am, but bear with me. When you look at evolution, you begin to see patterns. You see, evolution doesn’t just shape organisms randomly. It shapes them according to certain fundamental principles—principles of order, of adaptation to chaos. Both the lobster and the cat exist in environments that are fundamentally unpredictable, full of danger and opportunity. But evolution has equipped them with tools to navigate this chaos. The lobster uses its claws to assert dominance and survival, while the cat uses its paws to hunt, defend, and explore its territory.

But it’s not just about survival, is it? There’s a kind of grace here, a refinement that speaks to something deeper. Cats, like my Lobster, move with a kind of elegance, a mastery of their environment that’s almost artistic. And the same could be said of lobsters—though they may appear awkward, clambering along the seafloor, their movements are precisely calibrated. They don’t waste energy. Every motion, every use of their claws, is deliberate, focused on the task at hand. It’s almost as if both creatures are performing a kind of evolutionary ballet, each movement honed by millions of years of adaptation.

Now, what does this teach us? Well, it teaches us that the world is a place of immense complexity, and success in that world—whether you’re a lobster or a cat—depends on your ability to balance force and delicacy, to act with precision when necessary but also to adapt to the environment in a way that conserves energy and maximizes effectiveness. My Lobster—my cat—demonstrates this beautifully. She doesn’t just pounce on every toy that comes her way. No, she watches. She waits. And when the moment is right, she strikes with an efficiency that would make any lobster proud.

But there’s something more here, something philosophical. When we consider the evolutionary paths of these two creatures, we’re reminded that nature rewards not just strength but adaptability. The lobster has survived for over 350 million years because it has learned to adapt to its environment, just as the cat, a much more recent arrival on the evolutionary scene, has mastered its own domain. And what do they both rely on? A set of tools—claws and paws—that allow them to interact with the world in ways that are both subtle and forceful.

And this is where we, as humans, can learn a great deal. In our own lives, we must balance these same principles—force and finesse, action and contemplation. We must be like the lobster, knowing when to apply brute strength to overcome obstacles, and like the cat, understanding when to use precision and subtlety to navigate the challenges we face. My Lobster—my cat—reminds me of this every day, with her measured, deliberate movements, and her ability to shift from a state of calm repose to one of sudden action.

So, while it may seem strange to compare the evolution of the cat to the evolution of the lobster, there’s a deeper truth here. Evolution shapes creatures according to the demands of their environment, but it also instills within them a kind of wisdom—a wisdom that we, as humans, can observe, learn from, and apply to our own lives. Whether you have paws or claws, the key to survival—and to thriving—lies in mastering the balance between power and precision, in understanding when to strike and when to wait, and in recognizing that the tools you’ve been given are more than sufficient if you know how to use them.

In conclusion, my Lobster—my cat—may not live under the sea, but she embodies the same principles that have allowed lobsters to thrive for millions of years. And that, I think, is a lesson worth pondering.

[–] jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Well, to begin with, let’s consider the lobster, which is a remarkable creature—remarkable not only for its physical structure but for what it represents in terms of hierarchical behavior, and in that regard, it becomes a fascinating lens through which we can understand something as intricate and contemporary as the cult of celebrity in modern society. Now, stay with me here because it may seem like a stretch at first, but I assure you the connection between these primordial crustaceans and the modern fixation on fame is anything but superficial. In fact, it cuts to the very heart of human nature and the evolutionary patterns that govern us.

Lobsters, as you may well know, have existed in their current form for over 350 million years. That’s older than the dinosaurs, older than trees, and certainly older than any social media platform or film studio. These creatures have survived through the ages, not by being passive, but by adapting, evolving, and competing within a well-established social hierarchy. They engage in fierce dominance battles, and from those battles, hierarchies are formed. The dominant lobster is more likely to mate, more likely to secure the best resources, and—this is key—more likely to succeed. Sound familiar?

Now, let’s leap from the seafloor to modern society. Humans, just like lobsters, are wired to respond to hierarchies. It’s not something we’ve constructed recently; it’s a fundamental part of our biology. We evolved within hierarchical structures, whether in small tribes or large civilizations. In many ways, we’re still those ancient, status-seeking creatures, but instead of fighting over resources at the bottom of the ocean, we’re jockeying for social recognition in our workplaces, our communities, and—here's where it gets interesting—within the celebrity culture.

Now, why is that? Why do we elevate certain people to celebrity status and obsess over them? It’s because we’ve evolved to look up to those who seem to represent success within our hierarchy. Celebrities, by virtue of their fame, wealth, or skill, appear to occupy the top rungs of the social ladder. They become, in a sense, the dominant lobsters in our cultural ocean. But here’s the problem: unlike lobsters, whose hierarchies are based on tangible outcomes—who can fight, who can mate, who can survive—our celebrity culture is often based on something far more superficial: visibility, not competence.

Think about it. In today’s world, you don’t have to be particularly skilled or intelligent to become a celebrity. You don’t even have to provide any real value to society. Often, it’s simply a matter of being seen, of being talked about, of being placed on a pedestal. And what does that do to us, as individuals and as a society? Well, it distorts our sense of what is truly valuable. We start to elevate people who, in many cases, are not worthy of that elevation, and we undermine the natural hierarchy that should be based on merit, on contribution, on real competence.

This is where the cult of celebrity becomes toxic. In a healthy society, we should aspire to be like those who have demonstrated genuine ability, resilience, and virtue—qualities that, in an evolutionary sense, help the tribe or the group survive and thrive. But when we fixate on fame for fame’s sake, we create a kind of feedback loop of superficiality. We idolize people who, in many cases, are more fragile than the structures they’ve been elevated to. They become the hollow shells of dominant lobsters—creatures who have risen to the top not by strength, not by merit, but by the capricious winds of public attention.

This has real consequences. Young people, for example, grow up in a world where they’re bombarded with images of these so-called “dominant” figures. They’re told, implicitly, that the path to success is not through hard work, not through building something meaningful, but through the accumulation of attention. And that’s corrosive. It erodes our individual sense of purpose. It pulls us away from the things that actually matter: our relationships, our communities, our personal development.

Now, consider the lobster once again. In the natural world, when a lobster loses a fight and drops in the hierarchy, it doesn’t spiral into depression because it lost its Twitter followers. It doesn’t collapse under the weight of shame because it was de-platformed from some ephemeral stage. No, it resets its serotonin levels, re-calibrates its sense of place, and starts anew. But what happens to us when we buy into the cult of celebrity and we inevitably fail to live up to those impossible standards? We become disillusioned, resentful, and anxious because we’re measuring our self-worth against a false and fleeting ideal.

In a way, the cult of celebrity is a distorted reflection of the natural hierarchy that we’ve evolved within for millions of years. But instead of basing our hierarchy on real competence, on the ability to solve problems and contribute meaningfully, we’ve allowed it to be hijacked by the shallow pursuit of fame. And this is dangerous because it not only distorts our individual sense of self-worth but also undermines the values that should guide society as a whole. It’s as if we’ve allowed ourselves to worship false gods, gods made not of substance but of glitter and distraction.

So, what do we do about this? Well, the first thing is to clean up our own lives. Just as the lobster recalibrates itself after a defeat, we too must recalibrate our sense of value and purpose. We need to recognize that real success is not measured in likes or followers but in the tangible impact we have on the world around us. And we need to be very cautious about whom we elevate to positions of prominence in our culture because when we elevate the wrong people, we’re not just distorting our own lives; we’re distorting the entire structure of society.

In conclusion, the cult of celebrity is a toxic inversion of the natural, competence-based hierarchies that have guided us for millions of years, just as lobsters have thrived through their dominance hierarchies. If we are to resist this toxicity, we must first recognize it for what it is: a distraction from the things that truly matter. And then, we must do the difficult work of re-centering our values, of finding meaning in real accomplishments, and of ascending the hierarchy—not through fame or notoriety, but through competence, courage, and responsibility.

 
view more: next ›