Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Keit]

Don't we all?

Well, for a larger or lesser degree. But my point was that his analysis has a crucial flaw, and since he is a public figure and what he says carries weight for many, I thought that he should have exhibited same level of responsibility toward things he says, similarly to what JP is doing. And especially since they had such a fruitful debate. In any case, by saying that he is similarly stupidly naive, I meant this kind of stupid.

Cipolla’s five basic laws of human stupidity:

Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

No matter how many idiots you suspect yourself surrounded by, Cipolla wrote, you are invariably lowballing the total. This problem is compounded by biased assumptions that certain people are intelligent based on superficial factors like their job, education level, or other traits we believe to be exclusive of stupidity. They aren’t. Which takes us to:

Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

Cipolla posits stupidity is a variable that remains constant across all populations. Every category one can imagine—gender, race, nationality, education level, income—possesses a fixed percentage of stupid people. There are stupid college professors. There are stupid people at Davos and at the UN General Assembly. There are stupid people in every nation on earth. How numerous are the stupid amongst us? It’s impossible to say. And any guess would almost certainly violate the first law, anyway.

Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Cipolla called this one the Golden Law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is one who causes problems for others without any clear benefit to himself.

The uncle unable to stop himself from posting fake news articles to Facebook? Stupid. The customer service representative who keeps you on the phone for an hour, hangs up on you twice, and somehow still manages to screw up your account? Stupid.

This law also introduces three other phenotypes that Cipolla says co-exist alongside stupidity. First there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then there is the bandit, who benefits himself at others’ expense. And lastly there is the helpless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. Cipolla imagined the four types along a graph, like this:

The non-stupid are a flawed and inconsistent bunch. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are selfish bandits, sometimes we act helplessly and are taken advantage of by others, and sometimes we’re a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are paragons of consistency, acting at all times with unyielding idiocy.

However, consistent stupidity is the only consistent thing about the stupid. This is what makes stupid people so dangerous. Cipolla explains:

Essentially stupid people are dangerous and damaging because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person may understand the logic of a bandit. The bandit’s actions follow a pattern of rationality: nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality. The bandit wants a plus on his account. Since he is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your account. All this is bad, but it is rational and if you are rational you can predict it. You can foresee a bandit’s actions, his nasty maneuvres and ugly aspirations and often can build up your defenses.
With a stupid person all this is absolutely impossible as explained by the Third Basic Law. A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy.

All of which leads us to:

Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

We underestimate the stupid, and we do so at our own peril. This brings us to the fifth and final law:

Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

 

[goyacobol]

In any case, by saying that he is similarly stupidly naive, I meant this kind of stupid.

Well, you see him as stupidly naive and I am not sure which one of those 5 laws you think applies the most.

That is just not the way his ideas seemed me. I think he could have taken into account how the youth are being manipulated along with praising their innocent direct responses to some of our complex problems but to say he is "a bit stupidly naive" I just don't know.

To say he doesn't have the whole banana and he may be a less positive role model than Jordan Peterson I could agree with that.

I don't think he is stupid and as for his naivety I am not sure. If he is not naive and is deliberately leaving out information for his own benefit then that is not so good. His responsibility based on his influence does require more wisdom I think. Maybe he is lacking in the wisdom department or not as wise as someone like Jordan Peterson seems to be.

 

[Keit]

I don't think he is stupid and as for his naivety I am not sure. If he is not naive and is deliberately leaving out information for his own benefit then that is not so good. His responsibility based on his influence does require more wisdom I think. Maybe he is lacking in the wisdom department or not as wise as someone like Jordan Peterson seems to be.

That's how it appears to me. That there is a certain lack of understanding of deeper processes. Ponerogenic processes, to be exact. So can this be called a certain naivete? And since he has influence on others, sharing such views can be harmful for others and therefore stupid?

His debate with JP was my first introduction to his views, so perhaps I just don't know what he thinks well enough. By the way, here are the rest of the episodes he did for RT.

 

[goyacobol]

That's how it appears to me. That there is a certain lack of understanding of deeper processes. Ponerogenic processes, to be exact. So can this be called a certain naivete? And since he has influence on others, sharing such views can be harmful for others and therefore stupid?

His debate with JP was my first introduction to his views, so perhaps I just don't know what he thinks well enough. By the way, here are the rest of the episodes he did for RT.

Keit,

After watching those 3 videos I see what you mean. He does not mention ponerology because I don't think he has a clue which is another way of saying he is at least "naive " if not "stupid" in that area. It doesn't matter if his intentions are good or bad he will still never be able to address the cause of any of the issues which I think he describes better than most.

Having an awareness of the various dimensions of say the #metoo movement, "fake news" and the yellow vests movement is not enough to make any lasting changes for what "humanity" faces because you are not addressing the deepest root cause.

I think we are very fortunate to have Laura's work, this forum and such a wide range of interrelated fields of study available.

It seems to me more and more that the only hope for this world is the dissemination of more knowledge. Of course we know that depends on our having true "knowledge" ourselves and having others to share that knowledge with.

Thanks for choosing those particular videos, I think this gives us a better idea of what another meeting between Peterson and Zizek might produce. Although I think Jordan Peterson is not as naive as Zizek he might benefit from reading Political Ponerology too.

 

[Ca.]

What I've learned from Jordan Peterson

May 2, 2019 Kevork Almasian

 

[goyacobol]

What I've learned from Jordan Peterson

Cool to hear Kevork Almasian talk about Jordan Peterson. I think Kevork has covered the Syrian war with an intelligent insightful approach.

 

[Ca.]

Cool to hear Kevork Almasian talk about Jordan Peterson. I think Kevork has covered the Syrian war with an intelligent insightful approach.

His observation's are in line that adds to another Yahtzee, (to long a list of hit's), from well thought out inquiries, from the C's.

 

[goyacobol]

His observation's are in line that adds to another Yahtzee, (to long a list of hit's), from well thought out inquiries, from the C's.

I am guessing you mean the sex=power aspect?

 

[Ca.]

I am guessing you mean the sex=power aspect?

Yes, you are correct sir.

 

[Joe]

Great six minutes here from Peterson about aims and, basically, approaching life. Check out the way he sums it up at the end..."information".

 

[Voyageur]

Great six minutes here from Peterson...

Excelled, Joe!

Those are good words for all.

 

[RedFox]

I watched it and within the first minute or two what it made me think was that this is a silly video by a silly right wing website that engages in so much supposition and cherry picking and fails miserably to understand nuance, that it's literally laughable.

That said, the claim made by the video, that Peterson is attempting to neutralize the radical right, is pretty much true. Pretty much everything Peterson has ever said publicly makes it clear that he despises identity politics of any kind, and rightly so. His focus is on the individual and individual responsibility to the self, to family and society.

Modern identity politics and its desire to encourage and engage in social conflict cannot co-exist with that kind of individual responsibility. It's sad to see that so many people today are unable to see the bigger picture, and anyone with a public voice who doesn't clearly fit into their ridiculously limited boxes is some kind of shill for the 'other side' or 'George Soros' or something. God forbid that those same people might ever realize that SOMEONE needs to point out the ridiculousness of their extremism.

Just wanted to add to this with some personal anecdotes and a hypothesis.
I first came across the video posted to a JP Facebook group that no longer has an administrator, that has been brigaded and infested with self professed far-right types. having watched their tactics, you can see the same being used in the video - that of schizoidal types and followers creating narratives to make the average person adverse to Peterson, whilst only secondarily trying to insert the 'genetic superiority/white genocide' ideas.

The whole thing seems to be run from a position of maliciousness and the desire to tear him down.
I've heard from apparently rational people they now doubted Peterson because of that video.
So how does it hook people? A few ways as far as I can tell. Here's my working hypothesis:

Disagreeable/angry types who are leaning toward nihilism: the doubtful tone of the video + the disagreeable/hostile (strong) nature of the presenter + countering Petersons antidote to nihilism through personal responsibility is one hook. Any excuse to stay angry and nihilistic, rather than channelling disagreeableness and anger into positive things.

Jealousy of JP's success/anger at one owns lack of it - adding to the first point.

Conspiracy types: the mention of the UN/George Soros is enough to hook others (probably linked to the first elements).

Capitalists/success is evil: a low resolution understanding of the evils of the words. I originally fell into this camp, and it was Peterson and others who've helped change my ideas on 'success'. The low resolution view is that 'anyone who is hyper successful (such as Peterson) is a psychopath/materialist' - and has no compassion. Not an unreasonable conclusion to draw if you look at the world, and are inclined to notice the suffering of others.

The way out of all of that is to understand how pathology infects any system, that capitalism/success can be good/bad dependent on context. That with a better understanding, ones own disagreeableness/anger can be re-focused on the pathology and/or used for your own success (without becoming 'evil' - if guarded against, using the same knowledge of pathology).

 

[Rhythmik]

Australian government institutionalizing child abuse and child gender experiments

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

This is a good example of what kind of 'ideologically possessed' people and behavior the universities in the Western world seem to be producing these days. As the balance between conservative and liberal academic professors has shifted into overrepresentation of purely leftist ideas, it's clear how the idea of dialogue -or even a debate- between opposing parties is becoming less and less appreciated. Instead the world is being viewed more as a cynical 'us vs. them' power game.

At the same time -while the division between left and right has increased- this generation has been brough up in an overprotective environment that has been hostile against experience of negative emotions/events. One consequence of this is the appearance of terms such as 'safe space' and 'trigger warning', which are used to protect against ideas that are experienced as "offensive" (i.e unpleasant).

Indeed, there's lot of young people and adults who simply cannot handle any opposing views and opinions in a healthy psychological way - especially if it's challenging their core ideological beliefs. In this case merely seeing "the enemy" (who is peacefully expressing his opinion based on his civil rights) triggers primitive anger and rage in this woman, who at the same time probably sees herself as a very tolerant and virtuous person.

One reason why these SJW's hate free speech is that they don't need it themselves. There's no need for free speech, if it's some politically correct doctrine that is dictating what and how to think. In an ideal situation people use free speech in order to express thoughts they've formulated by themselves, and then to engage with others in order to get feedback and refine these ideas. These radical leftists have it all figured out, free speech is useless for them!

 

[Woodsman]

This is a good example of what kind of 'ideologically possessed' people and behavior the universities in the Western world seem to be producing these days. As the balance between conservative and liberal academic professors has shifted into overrepresentation of purely leftist ideas, it's clear how the idea of dialogue -or even a debate- between opposing parties is becoming less and less appreciated. Instead the world is being viewed more as a cynical 'us vs. them' power game.

At the same time -while the division between left and right has increased- this generation has been brough up in an overprotective environment that has been hostile against experience of negative emotions/events. One consequence of this is the appearance of terms such as 'safe space' and 'trigger warning', which are used to protect against ideas that are experienced as "offensive" (i.e unpleasant).

Indeed, there's lot of young people and adults who simply cannot handle any opposing views and opinions in a healthy psychological way - especially if it's challenging their core ideological beliefs. In this case merely seeing "the enemy" (who is peacefully expressing his opinion based on his civil rights) triggers primitive anger and rage in this woman, who at the same time probably sees herself as a very tolerant and virtuous person.

One reason why these SJW's hate free speech is that they don't need it themselves. There's no need for free speech, if it's some politically correct doctrine that is dictating what and how to think. In an ideal situation people use free speech in order to express thoughts they've formulated by themselves, and then to engage with others in order to get feedback and refine these ideas. These radical leftists have it all figured out, free speech is useless for them!

Wow.

The thing that grabs me about these types of videos is that sometimes I feel like I know where the attacking person is coming from. (Other times, I can't; they just seem like aliens or monsters running on incomprehensible black box logic). But in this case, I've met and talked at some length with people who remind me a lot of the young woman in this video. That's all based, of course, on my own pattern recognition; a few seconds of video is hardly enough to determine the true content of a person's soul, (or even the presence of whatever passes for a soul!), but the tenor of her voice and the many subtle cues of body language...

A kid who has been filled to the brim with programming from her classes and friend groups, who has not yet experienced the full and complete cycle of living in an echo chamber. -To do that, you need to be an empathic person with some smarts, enter a philosophical bubble which is filled with powerful, refined ideas, become ideologically overwhelmed and then possessed, wound up to the point where she's running the argument in her head over and over so that a temporary snap in her control (Did she eat that day? Is she sugar-crashing? Did she sleep well enough?), is enough to see her act out, and then suffer the consequences. And hopefully, if she has the wherewithal and the influences, examine the whole experience post-operative, and learn from it. It might take ten years before she is able to say, "When I was a kid, I was such a dummy!"

But like I said, I'm 100% projecting my own internal experiences onto a bunch of patterns I happen to recognize, so I may be totally wrong, but my immediate impulse is one of compassion. I feel for her, because I sense earnest longing and earnest reactions, well-meaning mistakes, but I know they are mistakes, I know something of what's coming for her now and how difficult it is going to be, but also that if the process of learning carries through successfully, it will be of benefit to her and those around her. It's just a hard lesson where you don't want to pull your punches, (like not call the cops and press charges, for instance), but you still hope for the best and want her to be okay in the end.

Incidentally, my reaction to the crazy purple haired guy in Toronto who karate-kicked an anti-abortion protester (an event which was weirdly similar to this incident, both in circumstance and the physicality of the perpetrator), was NOT the same as this. There seems to be a line people cross where, even though I can sort of recognize or rationally plot the path they took to get to where they are mentally, I consider too far along to empathize with; the work and repair needed to come back to sanity is too great for my little brain to see as possible. (They'd have to learn how to eat and sleep properly before any significant work could even be begun, and they would resist every step of the way, possibly violently... Oh, god.., why even bother trying..?)

I don't know what that key point of departure is. It may be that this young woman was a woman, and that she looked like she was well dressed and had a level of personal physical hygiene which didn't engage my internal "Disease Vector!" alarms. The Toronto guy looked gross, was a poor example of masculinity, and those two things made him revolting to me above and beyond his violent politics and eratic behavior. -Just an observation.