Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[Fronk]

And others haven’t... like for example the places with the highest quality of life in the world right now...

It was just horrible that workers united towards the end of the 19th century to fight against 14h workdays, slave pay and child labor. Marxist ideas ends at Stalinist purges and nothing else.

 

[luckyshot]

Sure. The question raised is whether there is a down side of pursuing quality of life as an ultimate goal. For example, will innovation be stiffled?

That may be your argument. I don’t believe it is Peterson’s.

And I think it is an unconvincing argument. Germany, for example seems to have no problem being innovative AND happy. Neither do most of the other countries on that list.

It is a false dichotomy. Why can’t a happy, healthy population be just as innovative as a stressed-out insecure one? The most “innovative” companies go to great lengths to maintain happy, healthy employees.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

Wow this is fucking pathetic, what an ''intellect'' indeed.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It's the same story repeated every 100 years or so. Conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming into enlightenment like the dinosaurs they are.

Jordan Peterson is no different than the people who insisted that indigenous peoples were savages, women should be 2nd class citizens, blacks are less than human, etc etc etc, only now the boogeyman is transgenders and postmodernists.

Kind of funny that Jordan Peterson would be nowhere near Canada if his family didn't load up in a boat at some point in the past and sail across the Atlantic to spread their own brand of multiculturalism.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I like it when I see intellectually dishonest closet leftists hurl their flatfooted criticisms at Peterson, void of any real substance. It shows how desperate they are.

Yup. They attack without any substance because he isn't a pseudo-intellectual post modernist cuck.

Oh and because he "panders" to Trump supporters, whatever the fuck that means lol.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

Source?

Here is Peterson talking about inequality and wealth distribution for 25 minutes. I did not hear him say anything close to the bullshit you just pulled out of your ass.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It is interesting how the Dr. Peterson haters in this thread cannot be bothered to quote anything specific from Jordan Peterson. It is just a bunch of uninformed generalizations, personal attacks and people pulling shit out of their ass.

 

[Prokofievian]

Sure. The question raised is whether there is a down side of pursuing quality of life as an ultimate goal. For example, will innovation be stiffled?

I actually haven't found this to be the case, in my experience. Of course, the most innovation will occur in the United States, but it's sort of folly to expect a place like Finland to keep pace when they have about the population of Chicago. All the absolute best finns will go to Oxford, Cambridge, ETH etc. too. But in my time in Finland I met a lot of people who started quite serious businesses as consequences of their bachelors and masters theses. My friends in Canada, meanwhile, just went to work to pay off loans.

This is a common position everywhere, but I was surprised to hear it from the Finns' mouthes. ''We don't innovate.'' Personally I never found it to be the case, despite personally having this notion of the Nordics before moving there.

 

[IDL]

I actually haven't found this to be the case, in my experience. Of course, the most innovation will occur in the United States, but it's sort of folly to expect a place like Finland to keep pace when they have about the population of Chicago. All the absolute best finns will go to Oxford, Cambridge, ETH etc. too. But in my time in Finland I met a lot of people who started quite serious businesses as consequences of their bachelors and masters theses. My friends in Canada, meanwhile, just went to work to pay off loans.

This is a common position everywhere, but I was surprised to hear it from the Finns' mouthes. ''We don't innovate.'' Personally I never found it to be the case, despite personally having this notion of the Nordics before moving there.

Don't know much about Finnish culture, but I think innovation is correlated to risk taking. Maybe they have a more risk averse culture.

In the US I think there is a risk taking culture which leads to great successes but also more failure.

Not sure if that is true or not, but it seems like it.

 

[Prokofievian]

Don't know much about Finnish culture, but I think innovation is correlated to risk taking. Maybe they have a more risk averse culture.

In the US I think there is a risk taking culture which leads to great successes but also more failure.

Not sure if that is true or not, but it seems like it.

Nah. In my experience the lack of financial burden and spectre of financial ruin has a positive effect at persuading people to go for it. Massive student loans are like a bullet to the head of speculative ventures. You got bills to pay, homeboy.

I think a good bit of this ''welfare state discourages innovation'' is nonsense.

 

[IDL]

Nah. In my experience the lack of financial burden and spectre of financial ruin has a positive effect at persuading people to go for it. Massive student loans are like a bullet to the head of speculative ventures. You got bills to pay, homeboy.

I think a good bit of this ''welfare state discourages innovation'' is nonsense.

Ah, I misread what you were saying in your other post. I agree that there are factors such as financial burdens that likely stifle innovation to some degree. That sounds like common sense to me.

Jordan Peterson also seems to agree, and has talked about how Canada having universal healthcare has a positive effective of innovation for this very reason.

Student debt are a big problem for sure, and Peterson has also talked about this being a big issue. All valid factors in the discussion.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Ah, I misread what you were saying in your other post. I agree that there are factors such as financial burdens that likely stifle innovation to some degree. That sounds like common sense to me.

Jordan Peterson also seems to agree, and has talked about how Canada having universal healthcare has a positive effective of innovation for this very reason.

Student debt are a big problem for sure, and Peterson has also talked about this being a big issue. All valid factors in the discussion.

I don’t remember where, but I’ve heard Peterson say that the rising tuition costs are a big problem. He said while professor salaries rose some meager percentage, the administration salaries sky rocketed.

Seems he’s against bloated bureaucracy, not against leveling off the field of opportunity.

 

[Bamboozled]

Show me a Peterson video in which he discusses the importance of standing up to and challenging immoral systems and institutions and gives advice on the best way for every individual to go about doing that.

Again, you have to prove it exists. In Western society he openly admits its not perfect, look at any video on privilege he has. He doesn't say the system is immoral he says life isn't fair. I know you don't watch his videos because you come up with BS synopsis of everything he says.

 

[feelinCrisp]

I think one of the primary reasons Peterson "fans" or "followers" aggressively defend him is that the overwhelming majority of criticism aimed against him has no substance. There are lots of straw men arguments, misrepresentations, and 30 second snippets taken from 2 1/2 hour lectures.

The article in the OP is a perfect example, some minor decent points that have value and truth surrounded in a sea of utter shit.

I'm not going to quote anyone here specifically, but I'll address a few ideas I've seen come up and let the readers think on these points for themselves.

1. The idea that Peterson suggests inaction as the best possible recourse against social injustice / inequity.

This theme comes up a lot among his critics and it couldn't be further from the truth. Peterson suggests inaction as a better alternative to the interventionist approach that is being pushed by many groups across the cultural specrrum. The reason why is because the foundation that a lot of these groups are built on is the same foundation that is the root cause for some of the most disastrous social experiments in our history as a species.

If you take the time to delve a little deeper and do research through a lens of inquisition rather than criticism, you'll find he offers many ideas how people can actually solve the problems of inequality and injustice. I won't get into this topic too much because there is a lot of material, but the guidelines are roughly as follows.

Understand not only who, but what you are (biological history, our evolution; cultural and physical, the manner in which our brains function, how deeply ingrained these systems are into our genetic material, etc)

Speak as truthfully as you can. This means speak according to what you know, how confident you are in your knowledge and don't speak in a manner that can potentially bring harm to yourself.

Don't consider yourself a victim. Always ask yourself what you can do to empower yourself, for yourself, by yourself, take responsibility for the choices you have made and attempt to become a better version of yourself.

Behave in a manner that is not only conductive to your well being, but has the least possible negative outcome for people in your community as well.

2. Why is it okay to be vehemently opposed to Marxism and not Capitalism?

First, this is a strawman argument. Peterson is vehemently opposed to any ideologies thay do not offer a functioning system thay can be implemented as a replacement to the current state of affairs. The reasoning here is rather simple, even tyranny is favourable to the chaos that precedes and proceeds it. This idea isnt really disputable, and if you choose to dispute it you should brush up om your ancient and modern history and then return to the discussion.

I don't think there is a necessity to continue further, but I will anyway.

Life is unfair, society is unfair, the world is unfair. That is the nature of the world, the Universe does not care about equity, otherwise there would be no difference between stars and planets.

No living creature in existence has an equitable societal structure. It doesn't exist. There is always some manner of hierarchy, and there always has been and there always will be. The idea of trying to force an equitable outcome through human intervention goes against the very fabric of matter, literally. In short, this is why a capital based system that acknowledges these structures is the one that has been most functional.

The idea that Peterson is proposing is that if people behave in the manner proposed in the first response, they will make their lives better, and if all people behave in this manner it will make society better. This is the only feasible way to create a system that has less injustice and less inequality. There will always be inequality and injustice, Peterson proposes that ad a species, it is our responsibility to function in a manner that both acknowledges this, while trying to reduce it as much as possible.

I think one of the major problems with Peterson critics / fanboys is that they aren't willing to listen with an open mind. They listen to his words with their own ideas in their head, and as such they use him as a figurehead for their own ideas (wether it be as poster boy for right wing extremism or as a target against the white male patriarchy)

His message, when you clean it up is really simple:

Do your best to understand and be aware of your biology. Speak truthfully. Behave in a manner that lessens the suffering of yourself and others as much as you can.

That's why his critics are constantly greeted with "You don't understand", for reasonable people his message is a positive one, it makes sense, and if everyone lived by it the world would be a significantly better place.

 

[helltoupee]

 

[helltoupee]

Peterson is vehemently opposed to any ideologies thay do not offer a functioning system thay can be implemented as a replacement to the current state of affairs. The reasoning here is rather simple, even tyranny is favourable to the chaos that precedes and proceeds it. This idea isnt really disputable, and if you choose to dispute it you should brush up om your ancient and modern history and then return to the discussion.

The idea that 'tyranny is more favorable than the chaos that precedes or proceeds it' is a matter of perspective. Tyranny is more favorable to who?

I mean, this is kind of a vague and short-sighted statement, imo. Nobody is arguing that the transition is a smooth process, but it is a somewhat necessary evil if progression is desired. If it were some indisputable fact that tyranny is more favorable than the chaos of revolution, we'd all still be living in feudalistic societies.

Jordan Peterson doesn't seem to understand that the very freedoms he enjoys are the result of people not accepting tyranny as the better option than revolting against such.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Here's also a good post about this particular interview courtesy of @Caveat (who for his part was responding to similar remarks about this interview made by @panamaican):



I get why people might find frustrating what they see as a sense of the "uncriticizability" of Peterson and his ideas, but it's important to keep in mind that that's not coming from Peterson himself, as he actually encourages criticism of ideas, whether or not the ideas happen to be his. There's plenty of shit that Peterson's said/written to which pressure can be applied, for which reformulations might be warranted, and which is plainly wrong. But none of that will ever come to light - which means conversations will never amount to shit - if Peterson's ideas aren't approached seriously and if instead everything that he has to say is trivialized, caricatured, or reconstituted out of straw.

Holla.

The article in the OP is probably the best attempt at a takedown so far, but though it's been everywhere on my social media I've been trying to resist going back at its eternal length point by point.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

And others haven’t... like for example the places with the highest quality of life in the world right now...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/us-news-world-report-10-countries-with-the-best-quality-of-life.html

1. Canada
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Norway
5. Australia
6. Switzerland
7. Finland
8. Netherlands
9. New Zealand
10. Germany

It has been established over the last 20 years that the Northern European model of socialist democracy undeniably produces the most positive societal outcomes.

The real fucking insult is that Peterson is sitting there in socialist and happy Canada preaching the “dangers of socialism” to his (largely) American audience that doesn’t enjoy things like the guaranteed healthcare and affordable education that Peterson and his fellow Canadians TAKE FOR GRANTED.

All those countries you listed are FINISHED by alt right nutter standards.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Again, you have to prove it exists.

Prove what exists?? I'm asking you to prove that part of Peterson's positive life directives involve the individual working to oppose and seek reform of unjust or immoral political or economic systems.

I have already stated JP offers no such directives (that I have ever come across). In fact, his directives on the subject (that I have seen) counsel in the opposite direction. Yet he, personally, spends vast amounts of his own energy attempting to do this very thing.

It is a contradiction.

I know you don't watch his videos because you come up with BS synopsis of everything he says.

If I hear or read three presentations from Peterson in which he says X on a particular subject, and you then present me with a fourth source in which he says the opposite of X, exactly whose problem is that?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Here is Peterson talking about inequality and wealth distribution for 25 minutes. I did not hear him say anything close to the bullshit you just pulled out of your ass.

This appearance on JRE and his appearance with Brand (where JP states his position on inequality more concisely) happen to be two of the sources on which I based my synopsis.

Where is what I stated inaccurate? Peterson says that inequality is a huge danger, presents no practical remedy for the situation and indicates that the remedies offered by others (like GI) are bad ideas and will only make the situation worse.

Sorry you don't like JP's mumbo-jumbo broken down so nakedly. But the facts are the facts.

The flaw in JP's entire premise is his confusing the unalterable, radically unequal intelligence and creative ability of individuals within the human family with an economic system's method for allocating resources and revenue. His inability to consistently delineate between the two borders on idiocy.

If I said I will administer an IQ test and award the smartest guy in the room 1000 chips and the dumbest guy 1, then, following the test, ask Peterson why one person has 999 more chips than the other, he would answer, "Because he's the smartest guy in the room! And there's nothing you can do to change that!" lol