Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[ecogen]

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?

Sure, should I have gone with "arguing against established facts and empirical evidence"?

 

[pmv]

I have no idea who JP is. What do I win?

A small increase in peace-of-mind and a release from the tension of being pretty sure you disagree with someone but really can't face the work and stress of looking in detail at everything they have said or written (and everything others have said in response) in order to fully justify your disagreement to yourself.

It's a nice prize.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Society does not demand women have kids in their prime working age.

Yes, it does. Try to imagine a society in which we did not demand this of women. Lets, just as a thought experiment, imagine a society that does the opposite, demands that women not have children until they are 60. What happens to that society? Right, it ends in just a few generations.

Those constraints are not created by society, but, by reality.

You trying to say that society does not demand that on women is like trying to say that society does not demand people eat. It is a basic underling premise that allows the society to exist at all.

If it is a requirement for society to exist, then it is a demand of that society.

Men and women are not 100% equal.

We can stop this conversation right here, because we have just disagreed on what this entire conversation is about. You do not believe in equality. Your philosophy is misogynistic by at its premise, and I know better than to try to argue with that.

 

[pmv]

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.

I believe equality of opportunity is a chimera and meritocracy is either a myth or an undesirable thing depending on how you define it. And that to achieve anything at all in the way of justice (or, concequently, stability) you have to aim for equality of outcome to some degree. You aren't going to get there, and you probably should turn back if you find yourself getting too close to it, but you need to have it as an ideal.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I believe equality of opportunity is a chimera and meritocracy is either a myth or an undesirable thing depending on how you define it. And that to achieve anything at all in the way of justice (or, concequently, stability) you have to aim for equality of outcome to some degree. You aren't going to get there, and you probably should turn back if you find yourself getting too close to it, but you need to have it as an ideal.

This is true to some extent since society somewhat arbitrarily defines what is merit. Do we reward intelligence, physical prowess, adherence to a specific moral code, inherited wealth, or genetic heritage? Our society tends to view the first three as most meritorious while actually generally rewarding the last two the most. This we define as inequality, because it does not support the goal of promoting the things we merit. If the things we merit lead to equality of outcome we are doing a good job of promoting those things, but if we get too close to full equality of outcome it means that we no longer need to merit those things and we should change what we merit.

 

[realibrad]

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?



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

I believe its largely due to social pressure. The idea that if you try and leech the system you are going to find people using social pressure to work. That helps prevent lazy people from not working.

The article is talking about using the state to provide for people that do not want to work. As exemplified by your own statement, most people in those strong social safety net countries do work even with the fallback they have.

 

[interchange]

Sure, should I have gone with "arguing against established facts and empirical evidence"?

Are you saying that @Moonbeam is denying a disparity in economic mobility (itself something conceptual which can only be reasonably approximated in attempts to quantify)? Or perhaps the attribution that economic mobility is a measure of equality in opportunity? Or what established fact or empirical evidence exactly?

Let's just take a look at the supposition that economic mobility is reflective of equality in opportunity. Perhaps it could be assented even that greater equality in opportunity, all else being held constant, always increases economic mobility. Of that, I am personally uncertain but have no problem taking it as a prerequisite to our hypothetical. So, naturally then, you would conclude under this condition that because Sweden has greater economic mobility then they must have greater equality of opportunity. But that is only true if nothing else affects economic mobility or at least the things that drive economic mobility are well-understood and can be accounted for in comparative analysis between US and Sweden such that they do not confound our finding. I'm skeptical that such a thing is remotely possible, but nonetheless you haven't provided any analysis which attempts to address potential confounders anyway.

But then we look at the root of the argument. And this is surrounding Sweden's welfare policies. How are those related to their economic mobility? That hasn't even attempted to be answered, but if you wanted to try it would be easy for me to point out how your analysis would be predicated on assumptions which cannot be proven.

Again, this is no criticism of you. I think trying to add detail to this and understand what is happening is very valuable and can likely lead us to develop models which are better predictive of outcomes than the current gestalt derived from things closer to the "established facts and empirical evidence" you describe.

But thinking we are discovering reality in the process? Hardly.

 

[interchange]

I believe its largely due to social pressure. The idea that if you try and leech the system you are going to find people using social pressure to work. That helps prevent lazy people from not working.

The article is talking about using the state to provide for people that do not want to work. As exemplified by your own statement, most people in those strong social safety net countries do work even with the fallback they have.

What would you think of the idea that workforce participation may not be independently related to a strong social net?

 

[realibrad]

Yes, it does. Try to imagine a society in which we did not demand this of women. Lets, just as a thought experiment, imagine a society that does the opposite, demands that women not have children until they are 60. What happens to that society? Right, it ends in just a few generations.

That is not society, that is biology. Society does not prevent women in their 60s from having children. In actuality, society has enabled some to do just that.

You trying to say that society does not demand that on women is like trying to say that society does not demand people eat. It is a basic underling premise that allows the society to exist at all.

If it is a requirement for society to exist, then it is a demand of that society.

There is a huge difference between society and nature.

We can stop this conversation right here, because we have just disagreed on what this entire conversation is about. You do not believe in equality. Your philosophy is misogynistic by at its premise, and I know better than to try to argue with that.

Men and women are not equal. That is not misogynistic, that is fact. Individuals are not equal, and when you group them by sex they continue not to be equal. This does not mean you treat one as the lesser. Does not mean that the differences are huge.

 

[realibrad]

I believe equality of opportunity is a chimera and meritocracy is either a myth or an undesirable thing depending on how you define it. And that to achieve anything at all in the way of justice (or, concequently, stability) you have to aim for equality of outcome to some degree. You aren't going to get there, and you probably should turn back if you find yourself getting too close to it, but you need to have it as an ideal.

Why should that be the ideal?

What do you see as the cost benefit of outcome vs opportunity.

I would also like to point out that saying nobody wants outcome over opportunity should be ended as clearly that is not true.

 

[realibrad]

What would you think of the idea that workforce participation may not be independently related to a strong social net?

I think its pretty clear that there is a very good argument that a strong safety net actually raises participation.

I believe a lot of that has to do with reducing unneeded suffering that causes long term damage. Sometimes people come up against things that are not of their own doing. There is no utility in having those people suffer for things they did not cause. A safety net prevents them from taking on damage that might reduce their long term productivity.

I think it also allows for future investment. Allowing some people to focus on things like college where the net outcome is far more returned to society than the expense of that hit to the social safety net.

So, I think that is enough signaling to answer your question to see if I was an ideologue willing to ignore reality to keep my preferred ideas.

 

[darkswordsman17]

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.

So, you're just being full of shit because you think you're making a valid point? And you want people to take you seriously? Yeah, that's just nonsense and you're just buying into media's reporting on it without understanding the actual situations. Studies doing that are being done and the reason why you've got conservatives shitting their pants over it is that it actually does support that bias and discrimination is a major factor in people's prosperity and that even though things have been done to help balance things, because of how skewed they were, things are not easily remedied. Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about this at all if that's all you've been able to glean from this.

And the hallucination of happiness achieved by ignoring problems is optimal? Because that's all you'll get with your antics. Just because you say you're about rational analysis doesn't make it true, especially when you argue against things that actually are that because you don't want to actually understand them more and they can't be simplified to very "yes/no" results.

I was actually typing a response to the person that cited an analysis of this guy and how he reminds me a lot of your posts. Lots of vague "meaning of life" stream of consciousness nonsense that you can spout in response to almost any situation that and that because you dress it up in flowery verbage that it somehow is saying something when its actually saying nothing. Add in your general lack of real knowledge about the particulars of many topics but still willing to interject yourself into those topics and expect people to offer you that which you don't offer them in return. And of course how you're using the language of conservatives while trying to claim you're not just parroting their nonsense just because you call out the ridiculous examples of when they're clearly objectively shitty. That you're saying anything about "victims"...so, I hope you realize no such "objective rational analysis of data" would frame shit like that. But you know who does? Conservative talking heads. And, just like them, you're positing that well the discussions about this stuff, well people are just shouting down all contrary opinions, creating the actual victims of this stuff, while you do exactly that which you're condemning.

The reality is that the nonsense that conservatives live in everyday appeals to you. You'd prefer that to reality. You find it less "boring" for one. But more simply, I think it just makes more sense to you, because it is nonsense, and that's the language of your mind.

 

[ecogen]

Are you saying that @Moonbeam is denying a disparity in economic mobility (itself something conceptual which can only be reasonably approximated in attempts to quantify)? Or perhaps the attribution that economic mobility is a measure of equality in opportunity? Or what established fact or empirical evidence exactly?

That post wasn't referring to Moonbeam.

The established fact and empirical evidence show that countries with strong social safety nets and robust public services tend to have higher economic mobility than the rest.
You're free to look up data, it's out there.
The fact that equality of opportunity would enhance economic mobility is pretty self evident, do I really need to explain why?

Let's just take a look at the supposition that economic mobility is reflective of equality in opportunity. Perhaps it could be assented even that greater equality in opportunity, all else being held constant, always increases economic mobility. Of that, I am personally uncertain but have no problem taking it as a prerequisite to our hypothetical.

Why are you uncertain, care to elaborate?

So, naturally then, you would conclude under this condition that because Sweden has greater economic mobility then they must have greater equality of opportunity. But that is only true if nothing else affects economic mobility or at least the things that drive economic mobility are well-understood and can be accounted for in comparative analysis between US and Sweden such that they do not confound our finding. I'm skeptical that such a thing is remotely possible, but nonetheless you haven't provided any analysis which attempts to address potential confounders anyway.

Of course there are multiple factors at play when talking about economic mobility, nowhere did I claim that a strong social safety net is the only one. I don't know if you're including public services in the safety net but if not, they're another major factor in providing equality of opportunity and therefore higher economic mobility.

But then we look at the root of the argument. And this is surrounding Sweden's welfare policies. How are those related to their economic mobility? That hasn't even attempted to be answered, but if you wanted to try it would be easy for me to point out how your analysis would be predicated on assumptions which cannot be proven.

You're free to prove to me how the quality of education one receives for instance doesn't impact someones future salary on average.

Again, this is no criticism of you. I think trying to add detail to this and understand what is happening is very valuable and can likely lead us to develop models which are better predictive of outcomes than the current gestalt derived from things closer to the "established facts and empirical evidence" you describe.

But thinking we are discovering reality in the process? Hardly.

Agreed on some points, but I think you're trying too hard here. We can wax philosophically about the nature of reality or if there even is an absolute reality or if everything is subjective and so on. While discussions like that are interesting, I find that saying "oh well, what is reality" is usually used as a cop-out to discredit basically anything you want. By you I obviously don't mean you specifically, just making a general observation.

 

[Maxima1]

No, it's just relying on a different definition of discrimination and it's not worth talking about as it will inevitably descend into pedantry.

The most egalitarian societies are the ones where women show a preference for less demanding jobs, so that's a funny way of looking at it. For example, despite the vast majority of nurses being female here, there are a lot of male CRNAs, which requires an extra ~2 yrs of schooling.

 

[interchange]

Agreed on some points, but I think you're trying too hard here. We can wax philosophically about the nature of reality or if there even is an absolute reality or if everything is subjective and so on. While discussions like that are interesting, I find that saying "oh well, what is reality" is usually used as a cop-out to discredit basically anything you want. By you I obviously don't mean you specifically, just making a general observation.

Actually talking about the nature of reality is my only interest here. Well, I'd restate it. I'm interested in the nature of subjectivity. My critique of your statement is only to illustrate that you are laying an argument for your subjectivity -- not describing reality. I will also point out that your defense is: prove to me why you are right that I am wrong. I am not asserting that you are wrong. I am asserting that you cannot prove you are right.

 

[realibrad]

Actually talking about the nature of reality is my only interest here. Well, I'd restate it. I'm interested in the nature of subjectivity. My critique of your statement is only to illustrate that you are laying an argument for your subjectivity -- not describing reality. I will also point out that your defense is: prove to me why you are right that I am wrong. I am not asserting that you are wrong. I am asserting that you cannot prove you are right.

A very important distinction. I also appreciate that you are able to point this out with out receiving the negative feedback that others get. Still trying to figure out how its accomplished honestly.

 

[interchange]

I think its pretty clear that there is a very good argument that a strong safety net actually raises participation.

I believe a lot of that has to do with reducing unneeded suffering that causes long term damage. Sometimes people come up against things that are not of their own doing. There is no utility in having those people suffer for things they did not cause. A safety net prevents them from taking on damage that might reduce their long term productivity.

I think it also allows for future investment. Allowing some people to focus on things like college where the net outcome is far more returned to society than the expense of that hit to the social safety net.

So, I think that is enough signaling to answer your question to see if I was an ideologue willing to ignore reality to keep my preferred ideas.

You've missed the mark both in addressing my question and imputing its intent.

Consideration of my hypothesis is not accomplished by laying down logic as to how your alternative is correct.

We agree that social safety nets in society correlate to greater economic mobility. I do not dispute that finding.

What I desire you to consider is that this correlation does not imply causality. Causality is not proved by the existence of logic.

I think if you were able to dissociate from your beliefs and approach the problem purely intellectually you have the tools to establish solid logic that supports the idea that the association between workforce participation and economic mobility is either correlated in dependent fashion or even associated via a confounder entirely unrelated to their correlation.

 

[whm1974]

Actually talking about the nature of reality is my only interest here. Well, I'd restate it. I'm interested in the nature of subjectivity. My critique of your statement is only to illustrate that you are laying an argument for your subjectivity -- not describing reality. I will also point out that your defense is: prove to me why you are right that I am wrong. I am not asserting that you are wrong. I am asserting that you cannot prove you are right.

I will add that I view Reality as Objective meaning that it exist, and exist outside of Human beings.

 

[ecogen]

Actually talking about the nature of reality is my only interest here. Well, I'd restate it. I'm interested in the nature of subjectivity. My critique of your statement is only to illustrate that you are laying an argument for your subjectivity -- not describing reality. I will also point out that your defense is: prove to me why you are right that I am wrong. I am not asserting that you are wrong. I am asserting that you cannot prove you are right.

Sure but following that line of thinking every argument ever is pointless is it not? If everything is subjective, nothing can ever be proven.

 

[ecogen]

I will add that I view Reality as Objective meaning that it exist, and exist outside of Human beings.

And then you run into the trap of that objective reality being useless to us since we can never define it or perceive it as it is (or prove that it is as we perceive it), simply because we are human beings. Welp.

 

[realibrad]

You've missed the mark both in addressing my question and imputing its intent.

Consideration of my hypothesis is not accomplished by laying down logic as to how your alternative is correct.

We agree that social safety nets in society correlate to greater economic mobility. I do not dispute that finding.

What I desire you to consider is that this correlation does not imply causality. Causality is not proved by the existence of logic.

I think if you were able to dissociate from your beliefs and approach the problem purely intellectually you have the tools to establish solid logic that supports the idea that the association between workforce participation and economic mobility is either correlated in dependent fashion or even associated via a confounder entirely unrelated to their correlation.

Oh, ok.

Well, I don't believe that its proof. I often argue that correlation is a good indication, but, is not proof of causation. So, I look at those other places and think it should be given a try to test it out. I think logic comes into it, because the first test is if there are logical reasons to move further ahead with it.

I think I disagree with your 2nd part though. To dissociate my beliefs is confusing. I believe my beliefs are built upon what I think is logical. To put my beliefs aside would be to put aside my logic.

For example, I am a free market person. I see safety nets and think that a free market model would say safety nets are a net negative to productivity. I then weigh that against what we observe and see a different outcome. That then means my model and or perception is flawed and should be reexamined. I also then say that I should go with what seems to work best until there is something that disputes that.

 

[whm1974]

And then you run into the trap of that objective reality being useless to us since we can never define it or perceive it as it is (or prove that it is as we perceive it), simply because we are human beings. Welp.

Humans are part of Reality. The Universe will continue to exist after we are long gone. That is what I meant.

 

[ecogen]

Humans are part of Reality. The Universe will continue to exist after we are long gone. That is what I meant.

No argument there, I was trying to tie it in with the thread. I also believe that there is an objective reality and an objective "truth". They're still kinda useless for our purposes if our very nature prevents us from perceiving them.

 

[whm1974]

No argument there, I was trying to tie it in with the thread. I also believe that there is an objective reality and an objective "truth". They're still kinda useless for our purposes if our very nature prevents us from perceiving them.

And yet we can do science and charge our environment.

 

[pmv]

The most egalitarian societies are the ones where women show a preference for less demanding jobs, so that's a funny way of looking at it. For example, despite the vast majority of nurses being female here, there are a lot of male CRNAs, which requires an extra ~2 yrs of schooling.

How are you defining 'less demanding'?

Being a cleaner or a care-worker, say, seem pretty demanding to me. They demand more than I care to give, to be honest.

Why should that be the ideal?

What do you see as the cost benefit of outcome vs opportunity.

I would also like to point out that saying nobody wants outcome over opportunity should be ended as clearly that is not true.

Because, as I just said, because if you don't have it as an ideal you have no chance of achieving anything close to 'equality of opportunity'. Empirically that's what seems to happen. Without some attempt at equality-of-outcome, you get a trend towards self-sustaining stratification and a caste-system.

Again-and-again, in practice, appeals to 'equality of opportunity' conceal a hidden-agenda of not really caring about equality of any kind. A particular example would be the fetishisation of selection in schooling, e.g. grammar schools.

("It creates a meritorcracy! It leads to equal-opportunity" - translation "I want to be sure my middle-class kid gets to fully cash-in their class advantages and not have to mix with the plebs they'll spend their career bossing around")