Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[fskimospy]

What part does not have to do with this discussion? You were the one that came in on the discussion of the majority of people arguing for outcomes, as that discussion was between me, interchange, and whm1974. That was not a continuation of what you and I had been discussing until you put yourself in it. Don't blame me for a branch that you made by combining two different discussions.

Or, are you trying to say that hard work being a privilege is the thing nobody is trying to argue about?

Irrelevant. You made a claim and then provided a source that disproved your claim. Will you admit this?

 

[realibrad]

He is just a guy who gets off listening to his own high lix bigoted paraphrasing and marvels at his own reflection in whomever turns up to listen to his crap.

Well, that is probably true of most of us here too to be fair lol. We are talking politics on a tech forum.

 

[cytg111]

I am distorting things and byintention because, while I believe that gender stereotyping and racial stereotyping have been and continue to be valid issues that require address, I am not buying into this new phenomenon appearing on the mostly advanced examples of race and gender equality expressed institutions in the country, liberal universities, that shout down any attempts to rationally analyze data that would lead to conclusions that there are other factors for wage difference as one example are 100% caused by some privileged majority that has its foot on the neck of those poor poor victims.

A life lived in the hallucination we are victims is not optimal for happiness.

Its quite fair to observe that a 250lbs fireman is likely better equipped to carry me than a 100lbs firewoman..

The Bigot : Cause thats a mans job.
The non Bigot : Cause 150lbs difference in muscle mass.

There may well be stuff men are better suited for then women, I dare say some races are better equipped to prolonged ultra violet exposure than I am.. All valid observations all trumped by the one universal fact that we all understand, if we are not EQUAL, sooner or later we begin killing eachother.
So its not about the gender, its about the musclemass, its not about the race its about skin pigmentation etc etc.. Equality is the *only* path forward... Hell plus, in 10 years time you can rewrite your genome with CRISPR-CAS9 to be and look like wtf you want to anyway.

 

[cytg111]

Well, that is probably true of most of us here too to be fair lol. We are talking politics on a tech forum.

Not like this guy. False Prophet.

 

[realibrad]

Irrelevant. You made a claim and then provided a source that disproved your claim. Will you admit this?

I think my claim is backed up by the article. The article goes into how opportunity should not be the goal, and then saying that we need to measure society by the outcomes. While I agree that you do need to measure what society outputs, I think that juxtaposed to opportunity establishes my point.

 

[realibrad]

Not like this guy. False Prophet.

Anyone that sees Peterson as a literal or figurative prophet is wrong. He has some insightful things, but, is not right about everything. He can also be very unclear.

What I will also add is that lack of clarity does not prove malice or indicate he is wrong in what he says. The long form discussions I have seen seem to be productive and establish a much more clear view of him.

 

[fskimospy]

I think my claim is backed up by the article. The article goes into how opportunity should not be the goal, and then saying that we need to measure society by the outcomes. While I agree that you do need to measure what society outputs, I think that juxtaposed to opportunity establishes my point.

It does not, considering the author explicitly states it does not mean equality of outcomes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There are plenty of compelling non-discriminatory reasons. The vast majority of reason have nothing to do with discrimination.

Not really, it just means that there is a deeper, more systemic, form of discrimination.

No, its not that its because they have raised children. Its that they took time off to raise children at the prime working age and thus have a gap in experience.

Society needs women to have children. Society has decided that to survive and raise those children most women will require jobs. That means that they will have to be out of the workforce during prime working age. This means that societies demands on women create a discriminatory environment against women that needs to be adjusted.

The argument is that because opportunity is not possible, that we should focus on outcomes as a metric for an equal society. That is inherently flawed as we should not only not expect equal outcomes, but, equal outcomes could harm society.

We are aiming for equality in starting position, on average. Outcomes is the metric to see if we are achieving that goal. It is assumed that if on average the same number of people from each group have the same starting positions that you will end up with a similar outcome. In other words if you have a similar number of men and women, and a similar number of each come from similar starting positions, then we should see similar outcomes from each group if they are equal. If we don't see that then we have some form of discrimination preventing each generation from achieving equality.

It is assumed that people are generally all the same, and it is the expectations of society that changed that. To argue that equality is not possible is to argue that one group is not valued as highly as the other. If you argue that women can not be equal because they have children, then stop and consider what that means for society if women should do as you are slyly suggesting and stop having children.

 

[VRAMdemon]

He is just a guy who gets off listening to his own high lix bigoted paraphrasing and marvels at his own reflection in whomever turns up to listen to his crap.

Yeah...Never heard of him...I'm sure he and his warped views are irrelevant to 99.5% of the population. Nothing to see here...

 

[realibrad]

It does not, considering the author explicitly states it does not mean equality of outcomes.

Here is what I am reading.

Equality of opportunity is also a morally heinous ideal. It is a way for us to justify the abandonment of people who — we insist — were given opportunities and squandered them. Even if it were possible to achieve equality of opportunity, it's not an achievement worth fighting for.

...

That all sounds rather pleasant. But equality of outcomes would also help these poor, smart strivers. The difference is that while equality of outcomes promises gains for every poor person, equality of opportunity explicitly leaves some people out. It tells the poor who are not Mensa members, who don't have the work ethic of John Henry, that they deserve nothing. It gives Will Hunting everything, and offers his Southie friends squat.

But the people equality of opportunity abandons do not deserve to be abandoned, for the simple reason that they did next to nothing to deserve their lot. If you separate out socioeconomic factors, a huge chunk of people's economic success is determined by genetic variations beyond anyone's control.

...

This matters in practice. When specific parts of the government try to pursue equality of opportunity, they not only disadvantage people due to genetics, they also disadvantage them based on inequalities between families and neighborhoods that the opportunity egalitarians haven't stamped out yet.

...

We could choose to help them despite that, to offer a basic income so that their injury doesn't condemn them to a life of poverty. But we don't choose that. Instead, we choose work requirements. We choose "responsibility." If they are really severely impaired and can persuade the Social Security Administration as much, we might give them a pittance. But if they're among the large number of disabled people who can't get on insurance, who can't stand in front of a bureaucrat and prove that they're "deserving," or who can work but just can't work enough to survive, we sort them into the basket of people who don't deserve society's help. If we just cared about equality of outcomes, this sorting wouldn't be necessary. But focusing on equality of opportunity demands it. An opportunity is only an opportunity if it can be squandered — even if that squandering is a consequence of poverty, deprivation, and lead poisoning.

First it explains why opportunity is flawed and leads to bad outcomes. Establishes how focusing on opportunity pushes out focusing on outcomes. Then explains how focusing on outcomes pulls up the bottom whereas opportunity ignores them.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is what I am reading.

First it explains why opportunity is flawed and leads to bad outcomes. Establishes how focusing on opportunity pushes out focusing on outcomes. Then explains how focusing on outcomes pulls up the bottom whereas opportunity ignores them.

Right, which is in no way an argument for EQUALITY of outcomes. In fact, the author explicitly states that in his ideal world inequality would persist. ie: equality of outcomes is expressly denied.

His basic argument is that actual equality of opportunity is inherently impossible and that's clearly correct. So in his opinion instead of making that unreachable (and in many ways unmeasurable) goal our primary focus we should make a more robust safety net so the truly screwed aren't consigned to a lifetime of misery due to circumstances out of their control. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[realibrad]

Not really, it just means that there is a deeper, more systemic, form of discrimination.

You can only say that if you ignore the data.

Society needs women to have children. Society has decided that to survive and raise those children most women will require jobs. That means that they will have to be out of the workforce during prime working age. This means that societies demands on women create a discriminatory environment against women that needs to be adjusted.

Society does not demand women have kids in their prime working age. This is the flaw people like you have. Women CHOOSE to have children during their prime working age, because, its what is best for their situation and their children. Those constraints are not created by society, but, by reality.

Women cant have kids later as there are health issues and or other biological issues. Not society.
Women cant have kids younger as they are not mature enough to raise a child. Not society.
Men cannot carry the baby. Not society.
Women's bodies are geared toward taking care of children in ways that men's are not. Not society.

We are aiming for equality in starting position, on average. Outcomes is the metric to see if we are achieving that goal. It is assumed that if on average the same number of people from each group have the same starting positions that you will end up with a similar outcome. In other words if you have a similar number of men and women, and a similar number of each come from similar starting positions, then we should see similar outcomes from each group if they are equal. If we don't see that then we have some form of discrimination preventing each generation from achieving equality.

No we should not, and that is the problem. Men and women are not 100% equal. They have preferences and pressures that are not equal. To assume the outcome should be 50/50 is to ignore reality.

I see nothing wrong with people that want to reduce the pressures that inhibit one group over another, just don't do it at the expense of others.

When I have a kid in the next 2 years, I will be the primary parent to take care of the child. The reason for this is that our constraints and preferences are different. I'm not doing it for any social reason.

It is assumed that people are generally all the same, and it is the expectations of society that changed that. To argue that equality is not possible is to argue that one group is not valued as highly as the other. If you argue that women can not be equal because they have children, then stop and consider what that means for society if women should do as you are slyly suggesting and stop having children.

Depends on what you mean when you say women cant be equal. Women should have the choice to decide for themselves, without any arbitrary barriers. I'm not suggesting women should stop having children. I actually believe that society should find better ways for compensating caregivers. Its just that its crazy hard to come up with a way to do it.

 

[realibrad]

Right, which is in no way an argument for EQUALITY of outcomes. In fact, the author explicitly states that in his ideal world inequality would persist. ie: equality of outcomes is expressly denied.

His basic argument is that actual equality of opportunity is inherently impossible and that's clearly correct. So in his opinion instead of making that unreachable (and in many ways unmeasurable) goal our primary focus we should make a more robust safety net so the truly screwed aren't consigned to a lifetime of misery due to circumstances out of their control. Seems reasonable to me.

Do you believe that those that do not want to work hard are "truly screwed"?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you believe that those that do not want to work hard are "truly screwed"?

As always, it would depend on why they didn't want to work. Regardless, no equality of outcomes found.

 

[realibrad]

As always, it would depend on why they didn't want to work. Regardless, no equality of outcomes found.

You realize that the article is saying that anyone that does not have the drive to work are why we need to help people right? The article makes the argument that desire to work hard is not a choice for everyone, and they are left behind, and that we should cater to them.

 

[fskimospy]

You realize that the article is saying that anyone that does not have the drive to work are why we need to help people right? The article makes the argument that desire to work hard is not a choice for everyone, and they are left behind, and that we should cater to them.

Well sure, I mean it's hard to argue that's wrong.

Trust me, I know what the article is saying better than you. I actually read it, after all, haha.

 

[realibrad]

Well sure, I mean it's hard to argue that's wrong.

Trust me, I know what the article is saying better than you. I actually read it, after all, haha.

So what do you do with people that can work but don't want to because of a lack of desire?

Right now the system pushes people by offering them a better life if they do work.

 

[fskimospy]

So what do you do with people that can work but don't want to because of a lack of desire?

Right now the system pushes people by offering them a better life if they do work.

This is a fundamental argument against the social safety net. Empirical research shows that the social safety net at worst creates a pretty marginal disincentive to work. After all, Scandanavian countries have some of the most robust social safety nets on earth but say Sweden, for example, has a higher work force participation rate than the US does.

So basically the answer is that this problem seems minor enough that it can be ignored.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right, which is in no way an argument for EQUALITY of outcomes. In fact, the author explicitly states that in his ideal world inequality would persist. ie: equality of outcomes is expressly denied.

His basic argument is that actual equality of opportunity is inherently impossible and that's clearly correct. So in his opinion instead of making that unreachable (and in many ways unmeasurable) goal our primary focus we should make a more robust safety net so the truly screwed aren't consigned to a lifetime of misery due to circumstances out of their control. Seems reasonable to me.

Might sound reasonable to you but fuck welfare assistance. I want to head the Department of Feminism at Harvard University and despite my profound understanding of how to suppress women, they won't interview me for the position. I am a victim of sexist discrimination. I demand that position and if you try to deny it to me I will scream in your face. I'll make your life a living misery. I am a victim and it's not fair.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a fundamental argument against the social safety net. Empirical research shows that the social safety net at worst creates a pretty marginal disincentive to work. After all, Scandanavian countries have some of the most robust social safety nets on earth but say Sweden, for example, has a higher work force participation rate than the US does.

So basically the answer is that this problem seems minor enough that it can be ignored.

Not to mention, it's a lot easier to get a job if you come to the interview having slept in a bed and had a bath.

We are also going to have to prepare for the fact that the robots and AI of various and increasing levels of sophistication are coming.

 

[realibrad]

This is a fundamental argument against the social safety net. Empirical research shows that the social safety net at worst creates a pretty marginal disincentive to work. After all, Scandanavian countries have some of the most robust social safety nets on earth but say Sweden, for example, has a higher work force participation rate than the US does.

So basically the answer is that this problem seems minor enough that it can be ignored.

Again, the disincentive is marginal because social safety nets keep you at a very low income bracket. If people are willing for those people to be very poor, then the disincentive is small. You start to raise that up, which is what the article calls for, that disincentive grows. You can get around some of it by social pressure, but, not all.

When you combine wanting to fund lazy people and raising that income floor, you are creating a system where the disincentive is very large.

I think its absurd to say that we should not have safety nets, so its not my position. I think we could and should do a lot more for helping the poor. I think that just looking at outcomes and expecting parity is flawed.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, the disincentive is marginal because social safety nets keep you at a very low income bracket. If people are willing for those people to be very poor, then the disincentive is small. You start to raise that up, which is what the article calls for, that disincentive grows. You can get around some of it by social pressure, but, not all.

When you combine wanting to fund lazy people and raising that income floor, you are creating a system where the disincentive is very large.

Why do you think the available evidence does not support this conclusion? Sweden’s welfare state is undoubtedly much more generous than ours, yet a higher proportion of their working age population works than in the US.

Is this a case where you feel it should be true or is there specific evidence of these large effects?

I think its absurd to say that we should not have safety nets, so its not my position. I think we could and should do a lot more for helping the poor. I think that just looking at outcomes and expecting parity is flawed.

Once again literally no one is arguing for that so you never need to bring it up again.

 

[ecogen]

Why do you think the available evidence does not support this conclusion? Sweden’s welfare state is undoubtedly much more generous than ours, yet a higher proportion of their working age population works than in the US.

Is this a case where you feel it should be true or is there specific evidence of these large effects?

It also offers higher equality of opportunity as shown by their higher economic mobility.

Some people just like arguing against reality.

 

[interchange]

Some people just like arguing against reality.

I think the basic problem here is a fundamental idea that either of you are able to ascertain objective reality. I'm not criticizing your observational skills. I can't find objective reality. Nobody can.

Might I suggest we therefore approach arguments as an attempt to establish an intersubjective field wherein everyone's individual subjectivity is supported enough to allow for openness to revision?

 

[Triloby]

On a side note, anyone who describes themselves or others as either "alpha" or "beta" males, is most certainly the latter.

I'd go so far as to say that anyone who takes this "alpha beta omega" male nonsense seriously because of some "wolf pack society" garbage (that even L. David Mech later admitted was misleading or not well-researched), is neither strong, smart, or has any kind of dominance to begin with.