Going through my own geneology – some of which I’ve found family records back to 1500s Europe and 1600s USA – the household members were far from “Mom, Dad, Kids” but always included whatever grandparents were there, cousins, people with other last names, etc.
Detangling family trees from way back can be REALLY messy, especially in large households with large blended families consisting of cousins and in-laws with similar names.
You want scientific, go through family tree stuff if you can, Cross reference and compare. Nuclear family is far from norm and is a 1950s fantasy that it was that way in the past.
Nuclear family is enshrined and back-projected incorrectly through time. But analysis of records shows that’s false. Extended family, blended family, childless families, single parent families, all common.
Mom/Dad/Children is considered MINIMAL family in past times, but elders were often heads and did not relinguish their rule until they died. Cousins, other unrelated (non-clan) also common.
And you know this how? By looking at today and projecting backwards through time?
Perhaps there were medieval tupperware parties too.
Look at medieval records of goods bought and sold. Commerce has always been complex.
You can infer it. That’s fine. Infer. But mark it as such. It’s disingenuous to treat it as certainty.
MLM’s aren’t that complex. It’s similar to prostylization techniques.
Privacy? lol. No. That’s a VERY modern concept.
Secrecy is throughout history. But privacy as a respected right? Nah.
So, all those single moms whose husbands died in wars or simply outliving throughout history weren’t socially viable units. Fascinating.
I feel like I’m watching a 1980s Pat Robertson show.
Depends on the husbands. Depends on the socioeconomic class. Depends on availability of jobs in the market. Depends on how ethnicity is treated in surrounding culture.
“single moms”. Damn feminists amirite
I’m mocking the purely hardwired position as so much of it is wrong and rests on fluffy assumptions.
Maintaining a purely hardwired position is as ridiculous as holding a purely relativist position.
Nah. Just mother.
“automatic instinct towards relativism” / “modern sickness” / “contangion”. Which is it?
Am I hardwired towards relativism?
You keep making it political. Oh, I know Zach is talking Peterson right now, but I avoided mentioning the obvious.
That’s why I bring up other figures to show that this position isn’t new.
I like watching the output happening. Quite amazing. I don’t even have to say much.
You’ve lost almost all of your McKenna, at least right now.
I liked Joseph Campbell. His is a Jung interpreter I liked. Kept it in its field and didn’t try to apply it to a political movement.
Writing style though. I could replace you right now in the conversation with any other dedicated fan of Peterson and I would get similar outputs.
I miss the McKenna / Watts you. That felt more authentic but maybe that’s my bias talking.
I think that’s why I like the NPC meme and how it so quickly has spread to areas outside of left vs right. Gotta know your own programming, even if you like it.
I just didn’t mention Peterson as I know there’s a Pinker Zach that I can handle better but I admit the Pat Robertson was a pot-shot. All that singlemothersarethecauseof – stuff though.
I don’t mind my programming being pointed out when it’s accurate and I expect reciprocal. Thank you.
I’m of the “Know your specific influences” camp. Vague “the left” / “liberals” / “political correctness” might as well be a whoosh for me as it’s meaningless slurs at this point.
But get specific and it gets more interesting, tangible and actionable.
Thing is, it’s hard not to notice. Look at me. Can you identify who my thought leaders might be?
If Peterson disappeared from the Earth and never had existed, he could easily be recreated.
Now, forget Peterson exists.
Can you identify who my thought leaders might be? Being wrong is ok. You might actually be right.
My algorithm found matches for you in Peterson, Pinker and Pat Robertson, in descending probabilities.
What’s my matches? .