Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[fskimospy]

Well, it looks like his argument is that looking for equality of outcome requires that you believe all people are equal. To be able to achieve an equal outcome in a world where people are not equal in ability or desire would require that you force people to conform to your view of equality. That desire for equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity was the underlying principle of Soviet Russia, and Mao's China.

Also, I think you got something backwards. Its not that equality leads to Marxism, its that Marxism leads to an attempt at equality of outcome.

Saying that you think pushing equality of outcome will lead to a society that has millions die like they have in the past is vastly different than saying there is a conspiracy to murder millions. The biggest difference is intent. I don't think climate change deniers are part of a conspiracy to murder millions, but, that is what would happen if we do nothing.

I don’t really feel like arguing the nuances of my statement. He clearly believes equality movements are part of a conspiracy by Marxists to seize control and that such control will lead to the deaths of millions.

By any measure that is a batshit insane idea. It is also a deeply ignorant and stupid idea, but as with climate change Peterson seems to have transitioned to making a living by opining about things he doesn’t understand.

 

[realibrad]

I don’t really feel like arguing the nuances of my statement. He clearly believes equality movements are part of a conspiracy by Marxists to seize control and that such control will lead to the deaths of millions.

By any measure that is a batshit insane idea. It is also a deeply ignorant and stupid idea, but as with climate change Peterson seems to have transitioned to making a living by opining about things he doesn’t understand.

Do you not believe equality of outcome is wrong? I think there is a big difference between saying you are for equality in terms of equality of opportunity, vs equality meaning outcome.

This is why you see countries where they have tried to give equal opportunity have seen gender differences grow larger. Differences maximize when all other needs are met. So the societies where outcome are closer tend to have either social barriers forcing people, and or extreme situations where people are simply fighting to survive.

 

[Vic]

I don’t really feel like arguing the nuances of my statement. He clearly believes equality movements are part of a conspiracy by Marxists to seize control and that such control will lead to the deaths of millions.

By any measure that is a batshit insane idea. It is also a deeply ignorant and stupid idea, but as with climate change Peterson seems to have transitioned to making a living by opining about things he doesn’t understand.

The core flaw in alt-right ideology is the belief that everything is transactional. Quid pro quo, zero sum game. So to them, if someone gets richer, then someone else must - in direct consequence - get poorer. And if some people are to be allowed greater equality, freedom, and liberty, then those people currently enjoying such must therefore sacrifice some of what they already have in order for that to happen. Followed to its most extreme conclusion, equality must therefore lead to poverty and enslavement.
But the problem is, of course, that thinking is utter horseshit. Transactions aren't inherently zero sum. Quite the opposite, they usually mutually beneficial. And freedom and justice for all isn't Marxism, obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you not believe equality of outcome is wrong? I think there is a big difference between saying you are for equality in terms of equality of opportunity, vs equality meaning outcome.

This is why you see countries where they have tried to give equal opportunity have seen gender differences grow larger. Differences maximize when all other needs are met. So the societies where outcome are closer tend to have either social barriers forcing people, and or extreme situations where people are simply fighting to survive.

Neither modern feminism nor the feminism Trudeau was praising are attempting to mandate equality of outcomes so that is irrelevant.

Peterson said feminism was part of a murderous equality doctrine that he believes to lead to the deaths of millions. Period.

 

[OCGuy]

He's just yet another alt-right clown who wants people to believe that the proposition that all persons are created equal is Stalinist or Maoist.

He's more eloquent, and his arguments are more intelligent, than most of the alt-right, but it still contains all the usual alt-right contradictions. They think they're against identity politics, but all their politics revolve around their own identity. They think they're freedom fighters, but the only freedoms they're fighting for are their own, while they're seemingly terror-stricken that anyone else (outside their identity) might have freedom. They think they speak for all white males, they don't.

You're a true-believer, aren't you? You're the leftist version of the Westboro crowd to say the least.

 

[fskimospy]

The core flaw in alt-right ideology is the belief that everything is transactional. Quid pro quo, zero sum game. So to them, if someone gets richer, then someone else must - in direct consequence - get poorer. And if some people are to be allowed greater equality, freedom, and liberty, then those people currently enjoying such must therefore sacrifice some of what they already have in order for that to happen. Followed to its most extreme conclusion, equality must therefore lead to poverty and enslavement.
But the problem is, of course, that thinking is utter horseshit. Transactions aren't inherently zero sum. Quite the opposite, they usually mutually beneficial. And freedom and justice for all isn't Marxism, obviously.

I think modern reactionary conservatism like the alt-right also isn't primarily concerned with what makes everyone better off, they are concerned about their position in the hierarchy. I am not at all convinced they would accept an offer where they would be personally better off but then disadvantaged groups would also be brought up to be equal to them.

 

[Vic]

Do you not believe equality of outcome is wrong? I think there is a big difference between saying you are for equality in terms of equality of opportunity, vs equality meaning outcome.

This is why you see countries where they have tried to give equal opportunity have seen gender differences grow larger. Differences maximize when all other needs are met. So the societies where outcome are closer tend to have either social barriers forcing people, and or extreme situations where people are simply fighting to survive.

Excuse me, but where did Spy, or anyone else in thread, claim they wanted equality of outcome?
And why is it that when the discussion turns to equal protection of the laws, which itself is only a means by which to hope to achieve some semblence of equality of opportunity, and which is all these marginalized groups are working towards, that automatically someone fires back with the straw man that the demand is for equality of opportunity?
Don't bother answering that. I already did in my post directly above.

 

[realibrad]

Neither modern feminism nor the feminism Trudeau was praising are attempting to mandate equality of outcomes so that is irrelevant.

Peterson said feminism was part of a murderous equality doctrine that he believes to lead to the deaths of millions. Period.

It sure looks like Peterson was trying to bring up equality of outcome. Difference in opinion I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

You're a true-believer, aren't you? You're the leftist version of the Westboro crowd to say the least.

By saying he finds the alt-right to be hypocritical and motivated by fear he's the equivalent of those who say gay people should be put to death, and potentially worse than them?

Uhmm... wut.

 

[fskimospy]

It sure looks like Peterson was trying to bring up equality of outcome. Difference in opinion I guess.

So he was deliberately and dishonestly attempting to mischaracterize the views of Trudeau and feminists in order to make a point? First, I see no evidence of that and second, even if that's true that's another good reason to ignore him as he's not an honest person.

 

[Vic]

You're a true-believer, aren't you? You're the leftist version of the Westboro crowd to say the least.

I guess when you don't have any arguments, you just have to resort to namecalling, eh?
Don't worry, guy, contrary to the nonsense you just posted here, I actually believe in and will fight for your freedom, while you actively fight to suppress any freedom you don't personally enjoy.

 

[OCGuy]

Excuse me, but where did Spy, or anyone else in thread, claim they wanted equality of outcome?
And why is it that when the discussion turns to equal protection of the laws, which itself is only a means by which to hope to achieve some semblence of equality of opportunity, and which is all these marginalized groups are working towards, that automatically someone fires back with the straw man that the demand is for equality of opportunity?
Don't bother answering that. I already did in my post directly above.

Didn't you just say you weren't for laws compelling speech? Which by the way, don't "protect" anyone?

We don't even allow laws preventing speech in the US, unless it causes imminent physical danger to someone, let alone something as ludicrous as compelling speech.

 

[OCGuy]

I guess when you don't have any arguments, you just have to resort to namecalling, eh?
Don't worry, guy, contrary to the nonsense you just posted here, I actually believe in and will fight for your freedom, while you actively fight to suppress any freedom you don't personally enjoy.

I enjoy the 1st and the 2nd most important rights, so although I appreciate the offer of protection, I will graciously decline.

Please, continue to tell us how there are not resource limitations, and how I am equal to Lebron James, I just decided not to be a professional athlete.

 

[ecogen]

The guy promotes PragerU videos, that alone is enough to realize his public persona is full of shit. I doubt he believes most of the things he preaches. He's just like Ann Coulter, found a vulnerable and impressionable target audience, saw the chance to profit and did so. Just another grifter.

 

[Vic]

I enjoy the 1st and the 2nd most important rights, so although I appreciate the offer of protection, I will graciously decline.

Please, continue to tell us how there are not resource limitations, and how I am equal to Lebron James, I just decided not to be a professional athlete.

No, you'll just continue to what the extreme right always does, which is to proclaim for freedom and liberty, while at the same time framing a false narrative that any exercise of freedom, by someone else, that you don't personally enjoy, or personally identify with or agree with, is a threat to freedom so dire that it must be squashed.
So like above, I said something you didn't agree with and couldn't argue against, and that somehow made me like the Westboro baptists.
To Jordan Peterson and his ilk, basic equality will (somehow) inevitably lead to Stalinist tyranny.
Likewise, antisemitism is justified through OMG globalist bankers or whatever.
Racism is justified through OMG criminal thugs.
Denying others their basic right to freedom of religion is justified through OMG terrorism.
Denying people the basic right to choose their own life partners and their own identities is justified through OMG the children.
Fighting against the basic right of women to have the opportunity to achieve within a capitalistic meritocracy is justified by OMG communism.
And so forth and so on.
But thanks for proving what I had already said, that the only rights you care about are your own.

 

[Atreus21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rE03PGQfA

"You have a mechanism in your brain that's seriously wrong. The data's pretty clear on that."

 

[OCGuy]

No, you'll just continue to what the extreme right always does, which is to proclaim for freedom and liberty, while at the same time framing a false narrative that any exercise of freedom, by someone else, that you don't personally enjoy, or personally identify with or agree with, is a threat to freedom so dire that it must be squashed.
So like above, I said something you didn't agree with and couldn't argue against, and that somehow made me like the Westboro baptists.
To Jordan Peterson and his ilk, basic equality will (somehow) inevitably lead to Stalinist tyranny.
Likewise, antisemitism is justified through OMG globalist bankers or whatever.
Racism is justified through OMG criminal thugs.
Denying others their basic right to freedom of religion is justified through OMG terrorism.
Denying people the basic right to choose their own life partners and their own identities is justified through OMG the children.
Fighting against the basic right of women to have the opportunity to achieve within a capitalistic meritocracy is justified by OMG communism.
And so forth and so on.
But thanks for proving what I had already said, that the only rights you care about are your own.

You should really stop reading whatever terrible blogs you frequent and go for a walk, get a hobby, etc. The tone of your responses suggest an emotional instability that may need to be addressed.

I haven't seen anyone suggest any of the nonsense you are arguing against, but keep pretending everyone is a Nazi, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist that is holding you down. You are really just one good speech-law away from reaching the success that you pretend to hate so much.

 

[Vic]

You should really stop reading whatever terrible blogs you frequent and go for a walk, get a hobby, etc. The tone of your responses suggest an emotional instability that may need to be addressed.

I haven't seen anyone suggest any of the nonsense you are arguing against, but keep pretending everyone is a Nazi, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist that is holding you down. You are really just one good speech-law away from reaching the success that you pretend to hate so much.

I don't believe that anything is holding me down, and my emotions are perfectly stable. While you are the one supporting a public figure whose core message is that other people are holding you down, and getting quite emotional about it.
And the last thing that I would ever want is some "good speech" law. But keep on beating on beating those straw man.

 

[realibrad]

Excuse me, but where did Spy, or anyone else in thread, claim they wanted equality of outcome?
And why is it that when the discussion turns to equal protection of the laws, which itself is only a means by which to hope to achieve some semblence of equality of opportunity, and which is all these marginalized groups are working towards, that automatically someone fires back with the straw man that the demand is for equality of opportunity?
Don't bother answering that. I already did in my post directly above.

Spy did not. What happened was that spy linked to a tweet by Peterson that looks to be about the topic of equality of outcome. Thus, I see the tweet one way, and Spy sees it differently.

 

[realibrad]

So he was deliberately and dishonestly attempting to mischaracterize the views of Trudeau and feminists in order to make a point? First, I see no evidence of that and second, even if that's true that's another good reason to ignore him as he's not an honest person.

Well, I'm not from Canada and don't know much about their politics. I don't know if they have had discussions before, or, if there is other context that would establish a narrative that would make either position more clear.

I think that you have a very strong believe that he thinks there is a genocide conspiracy over a tweet, which seems strange. I could see using a tweet to find out what color he likes, but, I would want far more that what is in that tweet before labeling someone as a genocide conspiracy believer.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I'm not from Canada and don't know much about their politics. I don't know if they have had discussions before, or, if there is other context that would establish a narrative that would make either position more clear.

I think that you have a very strong believe that he thinks there is a genocide conspiracy over a tweet, which seems strange. I could see using a tweet to find out what color he likes, but, I would want far more that what is in that tweet before labeling someone as a genocide conspiracy believer.

It's not a belief based on a tweet, it's a statement of his beliefs based on his consistently expressed opinions over years. If you want more, feel free to look it up yourself as there's tons of it.

Again, as I keep saying he's not shy about telling people he holds this opinion. People seem to not want to believe it because they don't want to think the guy is just that stupid and just that insane but that's not my fault - it's his.

 

[realibrad]

It's not a belief based on a tweet, it's a statement of his beliefs based on his consistently expressed opinions over years. If you want more, feel free to look it up yourself as there's tons of it.

Again, as I keep saying he's not shy about telling people he holds this opinion. People seem to not want to believe it because they don't want to think the guy is just that stupid and just that insane but that's not my fault - it's his.

I'm currently looking into it now. So far literally everything I have found is him talking about equality of outcome being a murderous ideology, but, supports equality of opportunity.

If you have something, then please save me some time. What you gave is nowhere close to supporting your claim. Why you would not give me something that does seems like a waste of time.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm currently looking into it now. So far literally everything I have found is him talking about equality of outcome being a murderous ideology, but, supports equality of opportunity.

If you have something, then please save me some time. What you gave is nowhere close to supporting your claim. Why you would not give me something that does seems like a waste of time.

Again, then your claim is simply that he's egregiously misrepresenting their views in order to attack them which makes him a dishonest person.

Considering basically every group he criticizes as being part of this 'murderous ideology' is not for enforcing equality of outcome he's just a disingenuous hack.

Glad we solved that, discussion over?

 

[yllus]

I find Mr. Peterson a bit fascinating because he's from my hometown of Toronto and teaches at our biggest university here. By all accounts he's always had an enormous ego and has held his peculiar beliefs for quite some time.

As a public intellectual - I don't really know how to say this in a non-mean way - I feel like the people who think he's brilliant are the type who also say "Harry Potter was my favourite book series!" and when you ask what else they've read that they like you find out it's also the only book series they've ever read. Mr. Peterson is an uneducated person's idea of an intellectual; enormous amounts of nonsense flows from his mouth, but enough of it "feels" right and the fact that he has the title of Professor makes his nonsense sound like something. It's not, though. It's mostly just actual nonsense.

Oddly enough I also am a subscriber to Current Affairs, which has the most comprehensive critical review of Mr. Peterson's work I've seen to date. I recommend giving it a read; it's quite long.

Current Affairs - the Intellectual We Deserve

...

But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the “misinterpretation” of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected.

...

But here the left and academia actually bear a decent share of blame. Why is Jordan Peterson’s combination of drivel and cliché attracting millions of followers? Some of it is probably because alt-right guys like that he gives a seemingly scientific justification for their dislike of “social justice warriors.” Some of it is just that self-help always sells. Another part of it, though, is that academics have been cloistered and unhelpful, and the left has failed to offer people a coherent political alternative. Jordan Peterson is right that people are adrift and in need of meaning. Many of them lap up his lectures because he offers something resembling insight, and promises the secrets to a good life. It’s not actually insight, of course; it’s stuff everybody already knows, dressed up in gobbledegook. But it feels like something. Tabatha Southey was cruel to call Jordan Peterson “the stupid man’s smart person.” He is the desperate man’s smart person, he feeds on angst and confusion. Who else has a serious alternative? Where are the other professors with accessible and compelling YouTube channels, with books of helpful advice and long Q&A sessions with the public? No wonder Peterson is so popular: he comes along and offers rules and guidance in a world of, well, chaos. Just leave it to Dad, everything will be alright.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don’t really feel like arguing the nuances of my statement. He clearly believes equality movements are part of a conspiracy by Marxists to seize control and that such control will lead to the deaths of millions.

By any measure that is a batshit insane idea. It is also a deeply ignorant and stupid idea, but as with climate change Peterson seems to have transitioned to making a living by opining about things he doesn’t understand.

Intelligent as he is, his prodigious ego leads him to opine on things he does not understand frequently. For example, I recently heard a clip of him talking about Trump, wherein he displays his ignorance of American politics and history. [paraphrasing] He says, sure, Trump is kind of an ass, but the left is freaking out over his supposed divisiveness because, after all, he claims, we were more divided during the Nixon era than we are now. Apparently he sees the loud protests over Vietnam and angry criticisms over Watergate and thinks that made us more divided. Yet he neglects the fact that we had a shared reality in those days. For the most part, people weren't disagreeing on facts and proffering insane conspiracy theories, living in self-sealed, fictional information bubbles in perpetuity. And how that makes the conflict infinitely more dangerous.

He also doesn't seem to get that when Nixon behaved in an authoritarian manner by trying to fire the special counsel, his own party rebuked him by voting for impeachment. Peterson doesn't understand anything about what is going on in America right now but that doesn't stop him from bloviating about it. He should at the very least stick to his own field.