I think Peterson's point is that there's examples in nature where hierarchical systems exist due to bottom-up, emergent, biological reasons.
Therefore, you cannot assert that human "Patriarchy" is a top-down, aggregate, and entirely socially constructed system without evidence.
Therefore, you cannot assert that human "Patriarchy" is a top-down, aggregate, and entirely socially constructed system without evidence.
Since many parts of human society parallel parts of social organization in other species, it's a reasonable hypothesis that our social organization was shaped by similar forces.
If you want to change it, you have to properly understand it first. Denying reality doesn't help.
If you want to change it, you have to properly understand it first. Denying reality doesn't help.
Trying to disprove how sexual selection shapes social organization in humans by showing how it shapes social organization differently in different clades doesn't really make sense.
You're just demonstrating the incredible power that sexual selection has to shape behavior.
You're just demonstrating the incredible power that sexual selection has to shape behavior.
You can't go "look at all of this CRAZY variation in behavior and physiology that exists due to the POWER of sexual selection," and then use that to conclude that sexual selection and biology have absolutely no influence on human behavior.
You're contradicting your own point.
You're contradicting your own point.
I guess that you can be a biologist and a "Blank Slatist" at the same time so long as you stick your fingers in your ears whenever you come across any evolutionary psychology.
I don't know how anyone could live with that level of dissonance, but it's clearly possible, somehow.
I don't know how anyone could live with that level of dissonance, but it's clearly possible, somehow.
