Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[John G]

It's important to see this as US dollars though, which is a fiat currency in the service of an economic system that runs literally on war, slaveryimprisonment, and poisoning the land and its people through GMO monocultures and the pharma/vax cartel. If people are becoming richer, it is because it is becoming easier and easier to participate in this sort of extractive system that continues to convert the living earth into dead commodities. So people are becoming "richer" in the sense that the system owes them more... probably more than it could ever provide, being run by psychopaths and all. But the cost is an increasingly abnormal life, disconnected evermore from the natural living system.

None of this implies that anything being said in the video is wrong per se, but the picture on the ground is always more complicated.

Yeah the profit isn't just production related. Besides extracting money while ruining production, there are making money off money schemes that are more gambling than production related. There's also making money off debt schemes that overall aren't good for an economy.

 

[luc]

I think this deserves its own thread - maybe a mod could split it off?

Well, this video deserves a trigger warning for those of us who have grown up as lefties :D I found it very interesting and thought-provoking and I think it's good practice to not look for flaws right away based on emotional thinking, but to make his arguments as strong as possible.

What stood out for me was his assertion that 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome' are mutually exclusive. This of course flies in the face of all the leftist concepts such as 'inclusion': they say they want to give everyone the same 'opportunities for participation', when in fact, they want to level the playing field in terms of outcome! Because if opportunities are equal, differences in outcome are maximized. For example, if someone has "learning difficulties", he will naturally be worse off if given the same opportunities than someone who does not. But if you give him a head-start by, say, adjusting his grades based on his "disability", you have an inequality of opportunities. So whatever you think should be the right way of dealing with such things, the fact remains: you cannot have both equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, no matter what.

I think he has a point with the 'plunder' vs. 'profit' argument as well. Indeed, we tend to forget the other half of the economic transaction - the goods and services. If someone gets rich in a really free market, it's because people value his products/services more than their own products/services/labor is valued. And yes, the 80bln dollars Steve Jobs had in the bank when he died is a representation of debt on the part of society - society owes him. In the case of plunder though, riches are achieved through the coercive force of the state, and that's what many mega-corporations do.

Good point as well that in terms of goods and services, there is much more equality than you'd think: yes, you can look at salaries and bank accounts and mourn the inequality, but you could also look at: how many people have a car? A roof over their heads? A smartphone, TV and laptop? Central heating etc.? Suddenly, things don't look so unequal after all!

All in all, I can't detect much flaws on his level of analysis. The thing is, the question whether we are "better off" or "worse off" is a philosophical question, not an economic one. You might say, well, someone in the third world getting access to electricity doesn't care about philosophy. Fair enough. But it's a fact that the West - arguably the richest civilization that we know of - is in a huge spiritual crisis. Smartphones and credit cards don't help with that. As Collingwood says when he discusses historical progress, if there is a change, the new environment must solve the problems that the old environment solved as well; if it only solves new problems, we can't speak of progress. So, for example, it's great that we have central heating and all of that., but the old way of life had spiritual features that are different from those of the present; some problems were solved then that aren't solved anymore, and as Collingwood says, in such cases it's impossible to answer the question whether we are "better off" or "worse off". Here, we have to talk about purposes, meaning etc., which aren't economical dimensions.

But this is a different level of analysis, although a crucial one, but the presentation of the guy wasn't about that at all, so it's not sound to criticize him on that level, except perhaps insofar as he (and if) he sends the implicit message that all of that doesn't matter.

So, it seems the left doesn't have very good economic arguments at all, but of course always tries to mold reality into their ideology. What it should criticize instead is the spiritual crisis; but nowadays, the left is one of the main drivers for this crisis, so this can't be done - instead, the right kind of criticism comes from conservatives these days, osit.

Just some initial thoughts - it's all very difficult :)

 

[Cosmos]

Here is something I'm not sure about.

In myth 3 "We understand what inequality means" starting at minute 7 (https://youtu.be/Jtxuy-GJwCo?t=7m), he presents a picture of people in a straight line, separated by 4 different income categories represented as circles. And he says:

"Let's suppose that the people on the left earn..."

followed by him saying from left to right respectively:

"30.000, 40.000, 60.000 and 70.000 Dollars of income"

A year? he doesn't state that.

Then he says:

"But imagine that these people are in different stages of their careers: The people on the left have just started their jobs. The people in the middle are mid level career people. These are people, on the right, who have spent lots of time in the workforce. They've achieved lots of education, lots of experience, and commensurately high incomes."

Then he continious:

To the left of these people [those 4 categories of income] are students who are learning skills and preparing to enter the workforce [and therfore are not yet in the 4 categories to the right]. We have inequality here.

Now he starts to move the people through time to the right and says:

And if I move time forward, you will see that this inequality persists. Always we have inequality. People on the left earning less. People on the right earning more. However, over time each person has moved through each circle, and so each person has earned, over the course of his or her career, a total of $200,000. That is in this example. We have persistent inequality, and yet everyone is completely equal.

So now here is where I'm not sure about. Is he talking about all americans statistically speaking or the global population? What is he referring to? I guess he means the american people as a whole. He says that "over time each person has moved through each circle". If I look at that statement, he seems to imply that everyone is earning 70.000 Dolllars a year at some time during his work career? If so, on what is that statement based? Is that really so, or is he basing it on the net end result (sum) of the income of every person im america statistically speaking at the end of their work career? Is there data that support this claim of "everyone moves through that circle over time"? Well, my "intuition" tells me that this is not so. If I think about "most people" who are working, I'm not sure that "everyone is moving through the 70.000 Dollars circle" at one point over time... It "seems to me" that most people pretty much never get over a certain amount of income a year. Not everyone moves up the income ladder to those highs of income a year. In fact from the looks of it it doesn't "seem right". I mean, many people earn much less, right, and never even approach the "70.000 Dollars a year" circle? Or is it? If he is only talking about america, would the same be true for the rest of the world? But then again he say in the beginning of that example "suppose" and "imagine" that this is so and later he says his argument is true "in this example".

 

[munaychasumaq]

My God! What he's protesting is fascism under the guise of 'political correctness' which is being legislated as thought crime. Saying the wrong thing, being judged on the outcome, not the intent, which may have been simply benign or a mistake. And the university taking 'advice' from a black rights supremacist and a fraudster! :O

"Equality of outcome". That's all that matters to these people. It truly is the ponorisation process where you see the introduction of mediocrity. Mr Peterson said "they all end up in the rubble - equally dead".

Good for him for speaking up about it. It's shocking when exposed. I did wonder when Lobaczewski said that this introduction first happened in universities. I thought to myself, why not everywhere, at the same time? It's kind of ironic that they're both psychologists and both observing it happen while at universities.

Yup. And I think that the main ponerization processes begin among "intellectuals" at universities because those are the guides and teachers of the young. Universities train teachers of even younger children, and thus it becomes easy to poison an entire society in a single generation if you have the power to determine what is "correct". Lobaczewski also talked about the corruption and abuse of psychiatry/psychology as a key part in the process.

What is really horrifying is that this is being done at ALL universities and it really is Fascism in the guise of "political correctness" or "Liberal and Progressive Values."

You are right Laura,the ponerization process "needs"to begin among "intellectuals".The more young they are poisoned, the easier it will be to install a pathocratic government.But there is another kind of intellectuals than they refused to accept subjective argument as the "true". It is the case of Ben Shapiro in this link.He gives a brilliant argument against the idea of sex and gender are malleable .This idea is not based on any serious scientific study,he says.

https://youtu.be/wnXUYJLI6uI

 

[luc]

Here is something I'm not sure about.

I think these numbers are made up to illustrate his point, they are not based on real data. His point being, you can't just look at two people and compare their salaries, and then come to the conclusion that there's inequality because they have different incomes. You need to look at the whole life span - for example, someone might start earning money at age 16, whereas someone else gets his first job at age 30. Now, ten years later, the second guy - maybe having a law degree - might earn a high salary, whereas the first guy earns much less. But if you look over a longer time period and add the numbers, it turns out that they may have earned exactly the same, because obviously the first guy has earned money for a longer time period. So in this sense, there is much less inequality when looking at things this way than there is if you just take a snapshot.

Now, whether this argument is statistically sound I don't know, but it seems logical - things tend to even out over longer time spans, though of course not completely.

 

[Divide by Zero]

I think he has a point with the 'plunder' vs. 'profit' argument as well. Indeed, we tend to forget the other half of the economic transaction - the goods and services. If someone gets rich in a really free market, it's because people value his products/services more than their own products/services/labor is valued. And yes, the 80bln dollars Steve Jobs had in the bank when he died is a representation of debt on the part of society - society owes him. In the case of plunder though, riches are achieved through the coercive force of the state, and that's what many mega-corporations do.

I consider Steve Jobs a plunderer. Why? Well, instead of making a better product, they made better public relations and advertising. All of which is a psychological plundering, making people line up for hours to get the new phone. He didn't start it, of course, but in general advertising has gone worse and worse with brainwashing since Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) took psychology and used it to manipulate people. It's much like how casinos manipulate games to make people think that they are getting good value- a chance to come out ahead- when we know the fact that the casino delivers a lie.

Of course, he could say that it's up to the people who buy into the dream and that is some value that they get in return.

 

[Pierre]

So, myth number four, the middle class is disappearing. The fact is, it is. It's joining the upper class. And the poor classes are disappearing, as well.

There might be a few inconsistencies with the reasoning that leads to Davies' conclusion: 'the middle class is disappearing. The fact is, it is. It's joining the upper class. And the poor classes are disappearing, as well'.

First, even if you use the data provided by Antony Davies (we'll see further down that those data might not be very reliable), you can see by pausing the video at 12:38, that between 2000 and 2013 (the three vertical bars on the right: purple, light blue and orange), that actually the proportion of people in the 'poor' category increases while the proportion of people in the 'middle class' and the 'rich' category decreases. That is just the opposite of Davies observation (over the 1970-2013 period).

Second, and more importantly, the earning brackets are, as mentioned by Davies 'inflation adjusted'. That is 1000 dollars in 1970 is equivalent, let's say, to 2000 dollars in 2013 in terms of purchase power. The whole reasoning is valid only if the inflation figures are true (or better if they are overestimated). Unfortunately, many experts point out that inflation is grossly underestimated.

Here are a few articles explaining how and why the inflation is underestimated:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-11/how-much-does-cpi-understate-inflation
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-inflation-measurement
http://inflationmatters.com/much-cpi-underestimates-inflation/
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.0450.pdf

In a nutshell, the governments benefits from underestimated inflation because this way it pays less pensions (which are inflation adjusted) and cashes in more income tax (tax brackets being inflation adjusted).

The underestimating of the inflation takes several forms:
- some major (and overall inflationary) expenses like housing are excluded from the inflation basket
- the basket is not fixed but 'quality adjusted' (also known as 'hedonic process'), for example if an anti-pollution additive is added to oil by law, the price of this additive won't be included in inflation calculations. However, the consumer does pay more for oil with additive wether he wants the additive or not.
- while the price of goods is decreased because an alleged quality improvement, the price of goods whose quality dropped remains unchanged. For example, there has been no pricing adjustment to the 'air travel for the destruction of travel convenience with the advent of the TSA, or from the downward spiral in U.S. air traveler comfort and convenience resulting from the effects of mergers and acquisitions, and from increasing flight delays due to economizing on aircraft maintenance'.

In summary, based on real inflation figures, the middle class does disappears and it's not moving upwards but downwards into poverty. As a result, today, there are 47 million Americans (15% of the population) below the poverty level and this figures is on the rise since 2000. Moreover, keep in mind that those figures are the excessively optimistic official ones based on a underestimated inflation.

Last but not least, Davies focuses his statistical analysis on the US which is in a unique and very favorable position. The power of the US empire creates an artificial domestic wealth based, among other factors, on the forced purchase and therefore funding of the US debt by the rest of the world (petrodollars and dominant position of Wall Street). As a consequence, the disappearance of the middle class is even more pronounced in other developed countries (Southern Europe for example) that don't benefit from imperial advantages.

As a side note, notice also how easily can statistics be used and twisted to back up any kind of claim. The arbitrary choice of category is one of the tools statisticians use to convey the desired result. This practice is very common in clinical trials in order to hide side effects within a specific population category (age, gender, race, etc.)

We find such a trick in the graph mentioned above (12:38 in the Davies video), the 'poor' proportion increased while 'middle class' and even the 'rich' proportion decreased. More poor people, less middle class and rich people? So where does the money go? Allegedly, the GDP is growing so if there are more poor people, there should be more rich people too, right? (growing inequality in income).

That's where the statistician trick comes into play: notice that the upper income bracket is '200.000 and above'. So from 2000 to 2013, the proportion of individuals within this bracket decreased. But if the upper bracket had been chosen to be '1 million and above', the proportion of individuals in the upper bracket would have shown a sharp increase (instead of a decline)

From the above it seems that, at least since the beginning of the 90's, there's been a major transfer of wealth from the middle class and moderately upper class to the millionaires and above.

 

[Cosmos]

As a side note, notice also how easily can statistics be used and twisted to back up any kind of claim. The arbitrary choice of category is one of the tools statisticians use to convey the desired result. This practice is very common in clinical trials in order to hide side effects within a specific population category (age, gender, race, etc.)

We find such a trick in the graph mentioned above (12:38 in the Davies video), the 'poor' proportion increased while 'middle class' and even the 'rich' proportion decreased.

Thanks Pierre for your analyses. My suspicion tells me that there are far more flaws in his analysis. Giving that he seems to be a bright guy, I have to ask: is he using those tricks on purpose to present a certain overall picture? Or is it simply a lack of knowledge in this area? Is there an agenda? What is the overall message he is delivering with that talk? If he is doing it on purpose, I would say that it is a pretty nefarious thing to do. He is a good speaker and all sounds very logical and believable at the surface.

Another case in point that should be seriously investigated are his statements about deaths related to war and pretty much any other point he brings up here:

This is housing conditions. Fewer households have leaking roofs. Fewer households have problems with pests. Fewer households have plumbing problems. In all sorts of ways, not only does the average American household have more appliances, it also has better housing conditions. The neighborhoods and communities are also better. People's basic needs are better. In all these various ways, what we see worldwide, we also see in the United States, that on average, people have access to better qualities of life today than they did a generation ago.

Over the past one or two generations, the rate of firearm deaths are down 50%. The rate of nonfatal firearm crimes are down 75%. The rate of deaths due to war are down 95%. Child labor rates worldwide are down 50%. Global income inequality is down 3%. Global gender inequality is down 15%. Global longevity and education are up 20%. And finally, global income is up 40%. All of this stuff over the past one or two generations. So, myth number five is, people are becoming worse off, and the fact is, it's the exact opposite.

 

[luc]

Thanks Pierre for making the effort to set the record straight on this one. The 'everyone is moving up the ladder' argument sounded strange to me, even if you take the imperial plunder out of the equation - I guess we all can see around us how people are worse off in many ways economically than in past decades. Still, I kind of fell for the guy's presentation, so this is a good reminder to always do your homework and be aware of the tricks people can play.

Thanks Pierre for your analyses. My suspicion tells me that there are far more flaws in his analysis. Giving that he seems to be a bright guy, I have to ask: is he using those tricks on purpose to present a certain overall picture? Or is it simply a lack of knowledge in this area? Is there an agenda? What is the overall message he is delivering with that talk? If he is doing it on purpose, I would say that it is a pretty nefarious thing to do. He is a good speaker and all sounds very logical and believable at the surface.

My suspicion is that he is under the spell of 'liberal' (in the economic sense) ideology, which proclaims that everything the state does economically leads to disaster by definition and that capitalism and free markets can only lead to glory. Plus the ignorance of the deeper levels, such as imperialism etc. Still, he does bring up some interesting points IMO and it's useful to think about them and really get to the bottom of it.

 

[Pierre]

is he using those tricks on purpose to present a certain overall picture?

I don't know if Davies does it on purpose, maybe he just used available statistics including the above mentioned biased wealth brackets.

In any case his presentation follows a clear line of force: the Western civilization brings progress to individuals, particularly social progress. This point is one of the foundations of Western ideology. As described by Collingwood, during the 19th Century, Darwinism was transposed to human societies. As a result, like animals, societies were supposed to keep evolving towards the more and the better.

Progress is one of the main premises on which the materialist/atheist ideology is based. While religions promised salvation, science promised 'progress'. You've probably heard some of those premises: 'in 10 years cancer will be eradicated by genomics', 'vaccine will erase infectious diseases from the planet', 'soon all house chores will be done by robots', 'electric cars will save the planet', etc.

When you think about it, the deep belief in progress is very pervasive and broadly echoed by opinion leaders (journalists, experts, politicians...) because if people stop believing in progress, they might start doubting Western ideology.

That's probably also one of the reasons why catastrophism is fought by official science. Indeed, a uniformitarian vision of history removes any catastrophe-induced setbacks that would falsify the dogma of the never-ending, all-encompassing progress.

The above doesn't deny the reality of progress but social progress is not as straightforward as technological progress for example. To be established, social progress requires moral and social norms (defining what is good/bad for the individual in society) and here we encounter one of the numerous contradictions of the Western ideology which, on one hand, advocates for relativism (there's no good/bad) and, in the other hand, claims that social progress is happening (thanks to this ideology of course).

 

[whitecoast]

This is kind of an open-ended question. I'm going to be seeing Jordan Peterson on Friday, and I may have an opportunity to ask him a question, which would be answered and streamed online. In the event that no burning question comes to me, is there anything in particular peeps on here would like to ask?

 

[luc]

The above doesn't deny the reality of progress but social progress is not as straightforward as technological progress for example. To be established, social progress requires moral and social norms (defining what is good/bad for the individual in society) and here we encounter one of the numerous contradictions of the Western ideology which, on one hand, advocates for relativism (there's no good/bad) and, in the other hand, claims that social progress is happening (thanks to this ideology of course).

Exactly - real progress can't be measured in economical terms alone; it certainly plays a role and it would be stupid to deny this, but it has little to do with real progress. After all, you can have a perfect brave new world with no disease, no hunger, and everyone living on pleasure island. But this isn't progress at all.

Reading Speculum Mentis is fascinating in that regard, Collingwood really shows how we are regressing, even though he couldn't know how bad it would become now. The postmodernist thought, in Collingwood's analysis, is really a step backwards: it reverts to the childish state of capricious "play". The postmodernists even use that language when they talk about everything being a "play" with "socially constructed roles" and so on! But to reach a really higher state and go beyond mere convention, you need to pass through that stage as an individual, learning to be a good obyvatel so to speak, before you can venture to the next level. Reverting back to a childish, narcissistic attitude doesn't cut it, on the contrary.

What's also interesting is that both "rationalists"/"enlightenment warriors" AND the postmodernists have blind faith in the linear progress of history. They both hate each other, but they both believe in this; the enlightenment warrior types think that everything before the enlightenment, including of course religion, was mere superstition and "dark ages". The postmodernists go one step further and think it's progress to overcome the enlightenment with its "white patriarchy" and so on. It's such a mindboggling lie and delusion!

To Jordan Peterson's credit, he seems to maneuver this situation in an interesting manner: he uses the enlightenment warriors in his fight against postmodern insanity, and in a sense rescues what is positive about the enlightenment tradition. On the other hand, he sneaks in doubts and shows that there was a lot of wisdom in ancient times and in religion, with similar arguments that Collingwood uses against the "rationalists" who blindly attack religion for all the wrong reasons. But in his fight against postmodernism, trying to counter the zeal to "overthrow the patriarchy", he sometimes falls a bit too much for the "progress ideology" himself, it seems. But maybe this is just what is needed on that front at the moment to at least stop the further degeneration and keep the level of enlightenment thought?

 

[luc]

This is kind of an open-ended question. I'm going to be seeing Jordan Peterson on Friday, and I may have an opportunity to ask him a question, which would be answered and streamed online. In the event that no burning question comes to me, is there anything in particular peeps on here would like to ask?

Cool! I think it might be best if you ask a question that you really want to ask. Personally, if I could ask him a question, maybe I would ask if he is familiar with the works of Thomas Nagel and Ruppert Sheldrake, and how he sees the materialist/reductionist model of the world that is still so prevalent in science. I know he talked about such things a bit here and there, but since many of his followers come from an atheist background, maybe such discussions would benefit them and make them aware of the problems of this view of the universe.

Don't know, really. Anyway, enjoy and maybe you can share your impressions!

 

[herondancer]

Great opportunity!

Have you thought about giving him a copy of Ponerology? Even if he doesn't read it right away, the description of the subject matter and the fact that it is based a psychoanalysis of the Soviet Communist system he is so interested in, might intrigue him.

 

[whitecoast]

I ended up seeing Jordan B. Peterson twice on Friday/Saturday. I didn't get to speak with him in person, and private time for photos and hand-shaking were nominally reserved for those with VIP passes who made it to the lineup early on, but one thing I thought was really cool was that JBP did wander around at the Saturday event (a Students for Liberty conference) casually. He allowed himself to be accessible to the crowds of people for questions, offerings of appreciation and thanks, and photos. I saw him close up and he took all of this in with humility, and actually listened to what people were telling him when they asked about their personal struggles and questions. It actually filled me with a lot of hope, especially when he said on stage that he received maybe 5 pieces of hate mail, compared to the thousands of items he received coming out in support and gratitude for his work. I feel like he paid his dues dealing with the pathological radicals he faced, as well as the timidity of the university administration during the Bill C-16 controversy. I am glad he is receiving the love and support he deserves.

There was a bit of discussion about psychopathy in the Q&A period, but I don't think that's online yet. It gave me a bit to think about in terms of ponerology and what we're studying with the neurocriminology reading list.