Would be a good point if social influence wasn't such a big part of this discussion.

Social influence does not exist outside of biology. So biology influences biology.

Once you start talking about social influence as if it’s non-biological you’re off in the mystic again.

I don't disagree with that, but it's still far too reductionist imo because you're stripping away myriad relevant factors.

I’m taking the woo out of it so it can be discussed correctly.

Alright say that I was fine with your reductionist take of social influence. What is the point that needs to be discussed now and how is it a better discussion than, say, finding the source and justification of one social influence?

The correct discussion is exactly what Peterson was talking about: the hippocampus and amygdala.

Yes those are things. Not much of a discussion is it.

It depends on if you understood what he was saying or not.

I guess I don't. Explain the hack's point for me.

You seriously don't consider equating (or as some might say: reducing) our predisposition to accept social influence with social influence itself to be a valuable stance, do you?

We need a thread about that.