Jordan Peterson on How Women Rate Men
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2024
- In this video, Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson talks about how women rate men. He also discusses the feminine unknown, chaos, social cognitive categories, nature as benevolent, sexual selection, and choosy mate selection.
ua-cam.com/users/edit?o...
This video clip comes from Professor Peterson's: "2017 Personality 04_05_ Heroic and Shamanic Initiations"
Jordan Peterson on babies:
"You really gotta take care of those creatures"
I hear from so many women that men's physical appearance is not a big deal to them but for some reason, the majority of Westernized women will reject men for height alone if that isn't included in physical appearance even he may be six inches taller them.
Not only westernized women but most women in general
An then they get mad because are preference is "not fat"
@@markokucevic3311 lol
There does seem to be a lot of elitism in women's selection of men, in all fields. I am 188 cm myself, which would be 6'2 in the Imperial system, so 10 inches taller than the average western female, 4 inches taller than the average western man and 2 inches taller than the average man in the tallest country on earth, the Netherlands. Even then, I feel like I barely meet the requirements for 'tall' in a woman's eyes. It seems like most women's idea of a 'tall man' is someone who is 6'4 or 6'5 at this point. To put that into perspective, if the avg height of a western man is 70 inches and 3 inches is one standard deviation, that's between 2-3 standard deviations above the norm, which is huge. Basically, about 2.1% of people on earth are 6'4 or taller and 0.1% of people are 6 fot 6.6 and above.
@@interstellarlapisthecccp4946 I'm doing a podcast on height. Is there any way to contact you?
That ancestor line was so deep..... I had to run it back 3 times and take notes!
was i the only one that thought he was going to say masterbate?
3:10
Oh thank god someone else said it, I thought I had a dirty mind lol
Absolutely true about women's "preference" for men, yet they deny these clear facts...
I’d love to be a student in his class
You are a student of his class
The title is fairly misleading, as one could except a detailed explanation of the selection process
Your Very Own Sun omg ur an intellectual
Expect*
Wow that’s a fascinating explanation of the human evolution to be so extremely dominant in intelligence in the animal species. Makes you wonder if we are still accelerating the evolution of intelligence exponentially: agriculture > civilizations > complex cities > complex transportation > industrialization > electricity > global communication. It seems to be ramping up and the advancements are getting closer together
I can never connect his message to the topic of the video
Yeah, bcuz the uploaders use clickbait.
I thought men were more superficial, but it is really the other way around...
ua-cam.com/video/s-pgK_Rvuwc/v-deo.html
😅
Male life is a scam.
And you just figured that out
@@Android-ds9ie try spell check
Ladies and gentlemen welcome to real world
Don't take these things as absolute. Life is a process and things can change in so many ways.
Even your own experience of who is attractive and who not changes. To me a whole lot of women who others thought were so attractive, were absolutely unattractive. And that way it is also with women.
Please keep your sanity and just work on your life.
There are a whole lot of great people you will never see on tinder and not be able to take into those statistics.
Cope. Ugly
Men are doomed. Even ugly women don’t want ugly men
Does anyone know what study he is referring to at 2:05? Any links for it?
They only go for 20% of the men. But is it also posdible they rate you lower than you are to feel better about themselves? I always feel like they rate my better pictures worse than my average pictures.
I remember hearing of another study on women, where they rated a bunch of men (and yes, they were approximately strict to the same degree of what Jordan is saying)
But then a while later, they were invited back (I think long enough apart so they wouldn’t remember how they rated the men the first time) and the only difference this time was the mans yearly earnings figure was written at the top! Suddenly every man in the selection who had lots of money, didn’t matter if he was rated a 2 the first time, or a 9, they’d all get a 9 or so now, and the best looking most highly rated the first time, if any of them had a low yearly income, their number dropped quite significantly across all the women! ( not as much as the “nice guy” with money rose, so a 9 may drop to a 4-6, but a 2-3 will jump to an 8-9 if they have money)
Not surprising, but funny when you think that women call men superficial, and yet guys are way more realistic and fair in their expectations, all a woman has to do is not destroy her body, and be reasonably nice, that’s enough to have some kind of chance with every guy from broke to stinking rich! A man would consider dating a hot tramp lol! Now that’s equality! At least my preferences factor in nature and reproduction etc! And yes a woman choosing a guy who’s got his stuff together to the point he’s got a home and can provide enough to raise offspring, I get it, but these days it’s on a scale of pure personal indulgence and greed! It’s not about the offspring now, now they use the offspring to further their own gains!
In nature a male bird or something, has to build a nest to get the female, she has to choose a male bird who can do that, what she doesn’t do is try and make the male bird chase off or employ 15,000 other male birds, so he can seize all 478 trees as far as the eye can see, build 10,000 or so nests among all of those trees, so she can lay her egg in 1 of them, whilst hopping from nest to nest, bathing in how many nests and trees she’s got! Because if she did, her species would quickly become extinct!
And what women don’t get, or western women in particular, is that they’re not the whole female species, so when they act like they do these days, it’s a major turn off, but they’re just a privileged greedy section of the species by comparison to the natural level that nature set! So it’s only really their own extinction they’re stampeding towards, because men have resources and always will regardless, because that’s what nature makes us do, but we can take those resources elsewhere! And yes, you can take your body elsewhere, but the thing is, I get the feeling I’d be a lot more fine with a stunning woman from some war torn poor nation, makes no odds to me as long as she’s attractive (sign of good genes, good nature) and nice (sign of good nurture), a lot more than you’re going to enjoy some guy from the same war torn poor nation! There isn’t really anywhere higher for western women to go, generally speaking western men are the wealthiest on the planet, based off their earnings, could theoretically live anywhere in the world! But western women aren’t the top of the pyramid, because female beauty is in part a lottery, so it’s like men being born millionaires, even in poor families! And just about every woman is born with that lottery win, all they have to do is not spend it all before they’re 18! Men don’t actually get born millionaires though, and just have to save it, we start with nothing, like a woman starting with no P sleeve, and she has to earn it first! And If anything, body and attitude wise, western women in particular are doing their best to make their way DOWN that pyramid!
All these single childless feminists, are doing men and nature a favour really, because their attitudes don’t align with nature or what they’re worth in return anymore, but they’ll just be removed from the gene pool! Just think that literally hundreds of thousands of generations of ancestors and creatures have reproduced, for millennia, all the way to a modern day single childless woman! All that effort to continue life which is nature’s goal, that woman is the first person in the history of her direct line of descendants, who hasn’t had a child! That blood line may have been going for millions of years, and it suddenly stops with them! Pretty sad really, but better for humans as a whole that it works like that I guess!
This is the most elaborate and hilarious incel rant I've ever seen, bravo
Thx
This is a recent phenomenon otherwise short men would have been eliminated from the gene pool a long time ago. It happened in the sexual revolution, late 1950s and onwards when women achieved sexual freedom. However, did this not mean that women were having sex with all kinds of men. This meant that women were having sex with the alpha male. This revolution favored the alpha male as promiscuous mean that alpha male had all the women who were now free to have sex and they all chose to date the same alpha male and then move on the next alpha male. Hence, the sexual revolution proved the anthropological facts of how women mate as now we returned to primordial sexual mating patterns. Before the sexual revolution, women did not have a choice and they tend to end up with the men available in their town and who their parents chose for her to marry. In that era, short, ugly, beta males had a chance and often married. Only a small percentage of men were in fact single or childless as it was stigmatized by society's Christian ideological framework.
It is a more drastic statistic than that if you look at all of human history in the genome. It gets a bit foggy because there are different parts of the world. His 2 women to 1 man ratio is actually too optimistic.
It can however be that two thirds of men are wiped out and yet all women reproduce. That is harsher than his optimistic number.
The ratio he mentions makes it seem like it is not as bad for men as it actually is but we must remember that the human population underwent a massive population explosion in places like China and India and Africa over a modern 200 years of 1 billion to 7.5 billion (or thereabouts), and actually before the billion was even reached a few key things happened and they pertained to natural selection with sexual selection.
Those are "disease" when the north europeans were surving plagues with the delta32 CCR5 mutation and white tall women were naturally selecting their husband mate _(so the population is tall and we know a son cannot be shorter than the mother)._ Look at West Russia/Sweden vague areas of the map. But also the other thing that was happening was Ghengis Khan style breeding and so look at the stats on people who are descended from him as eventual offspring. It is vast.
So the 2 to 1 ratio is a rather "kinder" version of the reailty and just a blip in the ocean of human time. The previous human bheaviours and disease behaviours (from both humans and the diseases) will not vanish and so they will return to doing that. It is a false sense of security to think the recent billions of people are representative of human history when actually those europeans were are larger subset (of the diploid group) previously.
The chances of survival for men is way harder than he makes out. 1 man to 3 women.
If you want to look at chances of survival simply do not look at the billions of modern indian and black africans.
Look at the older chances and stats yes, but not this new set of genome instances propped up by modern factors.
As for China, and nearby look at the Ghengis Khan offspring. You get some of that behaviour in reproduction in India and Africa too (but warlord rapey types who are not Ghengis Khan).
All of the above is about the longterm behaviours in human history and one must not bee fooled into corrupting that data by looking at the massive families that recently sprang up in the 200 year or so period.
White tall countries (parts of cold north europe and west north russia) are of women who select their mate (husband) for being white with height and alcohol tolerance (because fermentation is clean water). These cover (amongst other things) prepper's _"prep number 1"_ which is water and also health (disease) as per the Delta32 CCR5 mutation and similar immune system traits. This sexual selection is a racial trait and pertains to longer child care planning beyond one generation even though the women do not need to know what they are doing automatically.
Why is he always lecturing in a basement?
Peterson always stresses a clean room. You should know this.
He sounds shook lol
Message to all incels: *You are voluntarily celibate* .
-You're just choosing to ignore and reject the women who'd be willing to sleep with you because you think _they're_ too ugly or undesirable.
-You're not entitled to women's time and bodies.
-Being a 6.5 has never stopped me from having sex because I don't pursue relationships with other women out of my league. If you can't find a woman in your league to accept you, it's because your personality is rotten.
-You could take all the energy you're wasting on being mad and use it to fix your attitude. Then, maybe someday someone will be able stand you for long enough to have sex.
Also a 6.5 isn’t even ugly lmao
Enough with your ridiculous rant. Get back on your meds.
Incels listening to this like it's gospel
You know wuts worse than incel Someone who uses said words a lot.
@@adio8824 good grammar dude
@@cs-ke1by you use incel buddy calm down
@@cs-ke1by Your name fits you very well.
Just dive into Virtual Reality VRChat 2nd life basically, where u can always change ur appearance and height problem solved
🤗❤️