Hindsight Man said:
So I think he views them as more or less human,not as an intra species predator that wears human skin.
It certainly appears so. In fact some recently uploaded short clips clarify where he currently sits on this topic:
https://youtu.be/N9qKRhZmaYs
Note that there are some insightful comments in response to that video contradicting him. Also, he does start the video saying he hopes that what he says is not naive, so he considers that possibility. His argument is more or less, "We don't know enough to say that people can be doomed from birth," and that "the classic psychopathy theorists [he mentions Hervey Cleckley earlier] fail to sufficiently address the question of why psychopaths are motivated to be malevolent." (Paraphrased quotes.) Is that really true, though?
In any case, I would say that maybe in the technical sense he's correct here, but in the meantime we have to do something about psychopathy in practice. The trouble is, if the world really is filled with power positions occupied by psychopaths - and they know what they are in some sense - then giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't work... unless there were something we could do to render ourselves - and ideally society as well - immune. But how to survive in the meantime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12TrvtDaFQE
(After about the 3 minute mark the topic shifts.) In this video he directly attacks the idea of psychopaths in power, basically saying that it's overblown, that our hierarchical structures usually work. First he points out that the highest markers for success in We stern society are Intelligence and Conscientiousness (a trait marker for hard work):
Jordan Peterson
said:
...so who gets ahead? Smart people who work hard. Now, that doesn't account for every bit of the difference between people in terms of their hierarchical structure because hierarchies aren't perfect: They're corrupt, people get to the top because they're psychopathic; although, believe me, a hell of a lot less than you think, because a psychopath has to keep moving from place to place, because once he reveals himself as deceitful and untrustworthy he has to go find new suckers to fleece.
So the idea that, you know, there's no distinction between a CEO and a psychopath - that's only made by a person who A) knows nothing about psychopaths; B) knows nothing about CEOs; and C) has something fundamental against the entire capitalist structure, because it's simply not true.
Corrupt? Sometimes. Greedy? Sometimes. Shortsighted? Sometimes running companies that are doing their best to auger themselves into the ground and so it's bad people running a dying organization. But, generally speaking, it's not the case. Our hierarchies of competence are reasonably functional. And not only functional, they're valuable; we need to know who the competent people are, and we need to reward them. And, even more importantly, we need to tell young people, "hey, there are some hierarchies of competence out there, like a thousand of them. Go be a plumber, man, but be a good one, be an honest one.
https://youtu.be/12TrvtDaFQE
I think this video also helps to clarify his view about psychopathy: he says a person can get a lot worse than psychopathic: when they don't care if they hurt themselves, as long as they hurt others in the process. He uses the example of people who shoot up schools and then kill themselves. But from a pragmatic perspective, is that really "worse" than a psychopathic group which with some degree of success enslave an entire nation and cause great deals of suffering, death and chaos?
I think in part he's orienting against the fact that people will lean on the idea of psychopaths in power as an excuse to not make efforts to accomplish, be useful, and improve themselves. Also, the idea of networks does not seem integrated into his system of concepts as well as it could be, maybe? After all, networks are just as universal as hierarchies, and the two interpenetrate or occupy different levels simultaneously. His idea about dialogue and the logos seem to flirt at the edges of the idea of networks sometimes.