12yearplan, The now bold bits of yours in this bit of yours
"These journalists filling a column giving an opinion piece was too easy/empty And what YOU based your conclusions on so I dismissed them out of hand. Sorry ;). If you are basing your bravado on that one biologists comments Which were very generous imo to JP His criticism was quite specific and I don't think would elicit much argument from JP. He wasn't writing a treatise on that Lobster specifically but used it as a tool. Like the Biologist said, he isn't a Psychologist and JP would likely say the same - not a Biologist. Umm, wait a second .. this just in - I think JP thinks Biology informs much.. "
One they were not simply opinion pieces. And there is more than on biologist who sees Peterson's using a lobster to justify his world view about human hierarchy. Seems to me you are missing that's the biologists bitch with him. That his saying aggression is required to be successful in the human world as evidenced by the lobster's world.
And your "If you are basing your bravado on that one biologists comments" Where the hell did that thought come from. Nobody here is being courageous in this discussion. Unless you feel you are.
Like this of yours
"Yes, there are many hit pieces coming from insecure locales like the NY Times and Wapo.. read them; always hinting at right wing parallels without the knock out punch - sad/poor journalism. Until there is a smoking gun I'll stay with the substance behind, the motivation behind ideas put forward. P - To be fair to this Wapo girl,..." https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170501338
Insecure locales??? You make those kinds of baseless comments then you simply ignore my comment on them
"Yes, there are many hit pieces coming from insecure locales like the NY Times and Wapo.. read them; always hinting at right wing parallels without the knock out punch - sad/poor journalism. Until there is a smoking gun I'll stay with the substance behind, the motivation behind ideas put forward." P - Insincere? Peterson who feeds you faulty science is more sincere than those you show you where he is wrong. That's absurd. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=170501338
Repeat: Seems to me you are just not getting the biologists' beef with Peterson. After all the reading it should be no longer difficult.
To understand the similarities between any two organisms, biologists look back through evolutionary time to their most recent common ancestor. In the case of humans and lobsters, our most recent common ancestor was defined by the remarkable evolutionary innovation of a complete gut — meaning that the mouth and anus are two separate openings (the importance of this morphological novelty is clear when you contemplate the alternative .. https://jellybiologist.com/2018/05/22/jellyfish-dont-throw-up-or-poop-they-throop-they-throop-through-their-manus/ ). The living animal that probably .. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1496/1493.short .. most closely resembles this ancestor is the acoel .. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)00755-6.pdf , a mostly harmless marine worm no bigger than a grain of rice. Acoels’ social interactions are limited to mating — they’re typically hermaphroditic, so each individual acts as both “male” and “female” — or sometimes to cannibalism, if a hungry acoel encounters another small enough to fit in its mouth. I suppose cannibalism is a sort of dominance hierarchy, but acoels don’t engage in the complex displays of aggression seen in lobsters or form social hierarchies like primates. If the common ancestor of humans and lobsters lacked dominance hierarchies (which seems likely, based on what we know about living animals), then our two species’ social behavior evolved independently, and the one can’t inform us about the other. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170500865
That's the crux of it. Peterson chooses the lobster because it fits his view of the human world. Biologists don't see that as legitimate. Their expert views are not simply opinion pieces to be dismissed as illegitimate positions.
Sod knows why you defend Peterson's faulty lobster-so-human logic so adamantly.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
