Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[FIMN]

National healthcare implies nothing about a parallel private system. My comment about Franklin has a greater context. In an earlier conversation about the leanings of professors at universities, particularly in the humanities, he told me he had never heard a professor support the notion of equality of outcome. I didn't believe him. Then in this thread he said that national healthcare is an equality of opportunity system (or a meritocratic system). This is absurd, it is clearly dishonest and quite frankly obviously intentionally so. No intellectual could spend 30 seconds considering the issue could reasonably come to the conclusion that a national healthcare system is not inherently, ideologically an equality of outcome system. I was calling him on his bullshit.

Is the claim here that countries with a form of UHC have equality of outcome for their patients health? I'm not really following.

 

[FIMN]

I am the one that says that white males are the most persecuted group in society and nobody has ever even attempted to dispute the issue with any kind of real facts.

What's the toughest part about being persecuted for you?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[Kindacrazy]

What's the toughest part about being persecuted for you?

Not being considered for government or high level tech industry jobs and contracts because of the color of my skin? Having post secondary institutions use my race as a black mark during admissions? How about the fact that my race/sex combination is literally the only one that doesn't carry with it special legal status as a protected class? How about the fact that socially I am part of the sole group that people can legally make fun of with little risk of losing social status? Honestly I could go on and on and on literally.

I don't really complain quite frankly as I don't think that white males are persecuted to any real extent, but they are undoubtedly and easily provably the group who experiences the most systemic bias by far. I only ever really point it out when I hear people arguing over the conditions of their own class and then proceed to bring up issues that are caused by either the culture of that class, as the direct result of the behavior of that class, or as the result of individual bias that can't really be adjusted for at a social level (and shouldn't be as it removes all incentive for social assimilation).

 

[Kindacrazy]

Is the claim here that countries with a form of UHC have equality of outcome for their patients health? I'm not really following.

No, the claim was that the system itself is an equality of outcome social structure. In this case the result of UHC is that people all receive a level of healthcare. That is clearly the outcome. The health of the individual is irrelevant. Its not a controllable factor and never could be. By attempting to frame the conversation as "healthcare as a right" its supporters are being utterly and completely dishonest. That leaves people like me who support it for rational reasons on the outside because I can't support the the notion of "healthcare as a right" because its so damn ignorant and socially damaging. It's also why someone (Cortez) is so ignorant and so poorly educated on the arguments surrounding the issue that she can't realistically take on a political talking head in Ben Shapiro on the issue of healthcare which may just be the single easiest argument that socialists actually have.

Johnathan Haidt did a poll recently and found that the left were far more ignorant of the stance of my right wingers then the reverse, and this is a perfect example of why. When you dishonestly reframe every issue in order to push an ideology you produce an incredibly ignorant group. That is what these people have become in general, an incredibly ignorant group who can't seem actually understand any of the basic factors in any of these arguments. It makes it difficult to even have a productive conversation when even people on my side of the conversation are attacking the ability to have the conversation instead of actually considering the issues and formulating rational opinions.

 

[helltoupee]

National healthcare implies nothing about a parallel private system. My comment about Franklin has a greater context. In an earlier conversation about the leanings of professors at universities, particularly in the humanities, he told me he had never heard a professor support the notion of equality of outcome. I didn't believe him. Then in this thread he said that national healthcare is an equality of opportunity system (or a meritocratic system). This is absurd, it is clearly dishonest and quite frankly obviously intentionally so. No intellectual could spend 30 seconds considering the issue could reasonably come to the conclusion that a national healthcare system is not inherently, ideologically an equality of outcome system. I was calling him on his bullshit.

National healthcare does not preclude a private system - that would be a natural product of the markets, if there is a need for it. It does not place a ceiling on what kind of healthcare you could attain, if you can afford something over what is provided nationally. Maybe @MayhemMonkey can elaborate.

The alternative is a profit driven model, and I don't believe everything of value is profitable. That creates a real problem.

 

[Kindacrazy]

National healthcare does not preclude a private system - that would be a natural product of the markets, if there is a need for it. It does not place a ceiling on what kind of healthcare you could attain, if you can afford something over what is provided nationally. Maybe @MayhemMonkey can elaborate.

The alternative is a profit driven model, and I don't believe everything of value is profitable. That creates a real problem.

I never said it did. I said it didn't imply anything about it either way. I agree with you that free market economics do not operate in a workable way in the health care industry. I could right a small book on it. Which is my point, the reframing is done for no reason but habit in this case. There is no need to try to reframe this argument. It is a trivial win for the left (or at least should be) but isn't because of this behavior. The right states their objection as being ideologically based in the reality that its a socialist system (it clearly is), then the left feels it is for some reason necessary to say that its not because? Stick to the facts and it is easy to defend, socialist or not. The population doesn't fear the term socialist nearly as much as people seem to think.

I think that a parallel system can work to some extent but it has a tendency to kill the efficiency gains seen by an entirely healthcare system. Before partial privatization of the Canadian system they spent years running at 3% administration cost. That is borderline unbelievable, in the US the landed cost is closer to 20%. These types of efficiency gains can more then make up for any actual loss of private sector based efficiency gains. Then there is the issue of medical research overwhelmingly being publicly funded and then privately marketed. Public healthcare is just one of those circumstances where effectiveness should trump ideology.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

National healthcare does not preclude a private system - that would be a natural product of the markets, if there is a need for it. It does not place a ceiling on what kind of healthcare you could attain, if you can afford something over what is provided nationally. Maybe @MayhemMonkey can elaborate.

The alternative is a profit driven model, and I don't believe everything of value is profitable. That creates a real problem.

na, you've pretty much got that spot on. You have both a public system and the option to go private.

 

[helltoupee]

I never said it did. I said it didn't imply anything about it either way. I agree with you that free market economics do not operate in a workable way in the health care industry. I could right a small book on it. Which is my point, the reframing is done for no reason but habit in this case. There is no need to try to reframe this argument. It is a trivial win for the left (or at least should be) but isn't because of this behavior. The right states their objection as being ideologically based in the reality that its a socialist system (it clearly is), then the left feels it is for some reason necessary to say that its not because? Stick to the facts and it is easy to defend, socialist or not. The population doesn't fear the term socialist nearly as much as people seem to think.

I think that a parallel system can work to some extent but it has a tendency to kill the efficiency gains seen by an entirely healthcare system. Before partial privatization of the Canadian system they spent years running at 3% administration cost. That is borderline unbelievable, in the US the landed cost is closer to 20%. These types of efficiency gains can more then make up for any actual loss of private sector based efficiency gains. Then there is the issue of medical research overwhelmingly being publicly funded and then privately marketed. Public healthcare is just one of those circumstances where effectiveness should trump ideology.

I'm not exactly clear on what it is you are disagreeing with - maybe there is some miscommunication going on - if that's on my end, my apologies.

As far as why Dems don't label it as a socialistic endeavor, well, that would probably be suicide given the immense amount of propaganda that went into selling the cold war/red scare. That's a no-no word in America, akin to heresy.

 

[franklinstower]

The point is that JP's entire basis for determining that atheists were not a "persecuted group" (big book sales and media coverage for guys like Dawkins and Harris) is now, following his own ascent in the marketplace, used by critics of JP to discount and deride his own, massive persecution complex.

But JP now declares those same arguments, his own, pre-fame arguments, facile and illegitimate. The shoe is on the other foot and suddenly there is much more to the story. It is the definition of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

That is a good catch man. I did not catch that after watching the clip.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Wow... Peterson is really getting further and further detached from consensus reality as a result of his increasingly enlarging ego.

JP, a clinical psychologist, recently made the claim during a BBC interview that he is an "evolutionary biologist".

Peterson is taken down hard here by the esteemed (actual) biologist, PZ Myers.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Wow... Peterson is really getting further and further detached from consensus reality as a result of his increasingly enlarging ego.

JP, a clinical psychologist, recently made the claim during a BBC interview that he is an "evolutionary biologist".

Peterson is taken down hard here by the esteemed (actual) biologist, PZ Myers.

I wonder if it's as bad as his takedown of Steven Pinker.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I wonder if it's as bad as his takedown of Steven Pinker.

Do you have a link? I would like to see it.

 

[ultramanhyata]

That is a good catch man.

 

[jimmas99]

Wow... Peterson is really getting further and further detached from consensus reality as a result of his increasingly enlarging ego.

JP, a clinical psychologist, recently made the claim during a BBC interview that he is an "evolutionary biologist".

Peterson is taken down hard here by the esteemed (actual) biologist, PZ Myers.

If you have time to listen, I can recommend Hugo & Jakes review of 12 rules of life. JP must be the most overrated "intellectual" on the planet.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Wow... Peterson is really getting further and further detached from consensus reality as a result of his increasingly enlarging ego.

JP, a clinical psychologist, recently made the claim during a BBC interview that he is an "evolutionary biologist".

Peterson is taken down hard here by the esteemed (actual) biologist, PZ Myers.

Do you have a link to the original interview where he claims to be an evolutionary biologist because that clip that was shown was cut so short as to be useless in determining any kind of context and I have never seen him make this claim.

 

[Kindacrazy]

I'm not exactly clear on what it is you are disagreeing with - maybe there is some miscommunication going on - if that's on my end, my apologies.

As far as why Dems don't label it as a socialistic endeavor, well, that would probably be suicide given the immense amount of propaganda that went into selling the cold war/red scare. That's a no-no word in America, akin to heresy.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am pointing out the dishonesty of another poster. You can't simultaneously fabricate definitions for outcome based programs vs merit based programs while arguing that you never hear people talk about outcome metrics in a positive light without being a bullshit artist.

There is virtually no stigma to the term socialist anymore and hasn't been for years, and that changes nothing about the nature of the argument itself. There is a difference between trying to sell something as some sort of rebrand (as distasteful as that is), and attempting to dishonestly argue constructs based upon the objective definitions of those structures. Selling abortion as, "Pro choice" is one thing, saying that, "Pro choice" isn't a euphemism for abortion isn't.

 

[helltoupee]

I am not disagreeing with you, I am pointing out the dishonesty of another poster. You can't simultaneously fabricate definitions for outcome based programs vs merit based programs while arguing that you never hear people talk about outcome metrics in a positive light without being a bullshit artist.

There is virtually no stigma to the term socialist anymore and hasn't been for years, and that changes nothing about the nature of the argument itself. There is a difference between trying to sell something as some sort of rebrand (as distasteful as that is), and attempting to dishonestly argue constructs based upon the objective definitions of those structures. Selling abortion as, "Pro choice" is one thing, saying that, "Pro choice" isn't a euphemism for abortion isn't.

Ok. Well, I'm getting a little lost in the weeds here, so I'll back out of whatever conversation you were having with someone else.

As to using the term "socialist" in a positive light in America? I'll have to disagree with you about the connotation it invokes, and given how short most Americans' attention spans are, I just don't see people sitting still for a critical explanation of such, no matter how correct it may be.

 

[jeffk]

I watched the talk with dillahunty and Peterson and Peterson came off poorly.

Same but not to the same degree with Peterson and Harris first talk. I have not seen the second night yet.

Peterson is good on free speech and compelled speech. He also did very well with the so you are saying lady.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Do you have a link to the original interview where he claims to be an evolutionary biologist because that clip that was shown was cut so short as to be useless in determining any kind of context and I have never seen him make this claim.

Start at 11:45. This was not a selective edit. Peterson has what can only be described as a "Trumpian" (ie, bat shit crazy) relationship with facts and truth. Especially as regards his own self-perception.