AuthorTopic: Jordan Peterson on Risk Taking and Investment  (Read 507 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Jordan Peterson on Risk Taking and Investment
« on: August 24, 2018, 07:40:48 AM »
Some examination of basic character traits that have to do with risk taking. One thing I see JP doing is examining EVERYTHING through a lens of how various behaviors affect reproductive selection. Not a bad filter. Makes good sense to me.

Males embrace risk taking because it favors reproductive success, basically.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1folk_w-CWs&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/1folk_w-CWs&fs=1</a>

A loss will hurt you more than a positive gain of the same magnitude will please you.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 07:44:29 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38936
    • View Profile
🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2019, 03:24:26 AM »
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/02/iq-equal-pay-for-equal-work-population-control-mao-and-communism/

IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control, Mao, and Communism

Part 6 of 6: The Utility of Jordan Peterson's Digressions

by Kim Petersen / February 18th, 2019


“Prepare for Struggle, Prepare for Famine, Work for the People.”

Jordan Peterson posits IQ tests as indicators of intelligence and predictors of long-term success.1 This is not scientific. Intelligence is definitionally problematic as is designing tests to measure whatever is deemed to denote intelligence. Nowadays, intelligence is considered a multi-faceted concept that cannot be measured comprehensively and accurately by a paper-and-pencil test. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to isolate a multitude of other factors and attribute any result exclusively to intelligence; e.g., parental upbringing, socio-economic levels, health, spiritual beliefs, personal inclinations, etc. Into this mix Peterson adds conscientiousness, with the same problems of how to define and how to measure. So such studies would be subjective, and at best any experimental designs would provide correlational statistics. Even resorting to multivariate analyses would not be without problems.

    Multivariate analyses are an aid to, not a substitute for critical thinking in the area of data analysis. Meaningful results can only be produced by these methods if careful consideration is given to questions of sample size, variable type, variable distribution etc., and accusations of subjectivity in interpretation can only be overcome by replication…. Perhaps a major cause of the continuing misuse of statistical methods is the insistence of many journal editors in psychology and related areas, on articles being laced with multivariate analyses, and on encouraging the pedantic use of signifance levels, i.e. the inevitable p less than minus, as if such inclusions lent an air of respectability to their journal which it might not otherwise have had…2

In addition, the argument on IQ tests and the role of conscientiousness in “success” and “happiness” is a mined territory because covertly it recalls the dark side of eugenics. If IQs and conscientiousness are the litmus tests for the rank and suitability of individuals in a given society, then how far are we from doctrines adopted by fascist states vis-à-vis their people? The argument becomes seriously explosive in the context of poverty, depending on how one construes the correlation between IQ and success. For instance, according to many sources, Americans living under the poverty line are over 40 million. A question: would Peterson be poised to say that their poverty is a direct function of their IQ and conscientiousness? Any one who dares to pose the question on IQ or conscientiousness must (1) examine their own shortcoming on both matters, and (2) examine the social, economic, and cultural factors conducive, functionally, to lower IQ and social adaptations. Caveat: examining is not a judgement but a process leading to assumptions that must be further tested for factual or theoretical validity.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Although physicists can unravel the mathematical laws of the universe and rocket engineers can calculate how to launch several probes on missions throughout the solar system, according to Peterson, humans are incapable of determining what is equal. “The introduction of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality for one simple reason: who decides what work is equal? It’s not possible. That’s why the marketplace exists.” (loc 5403) And just how fair or effective as a distributive mechanism is the marketplace?

First, since the dawn of time, world societies and their economic systems have varied from Babylonia, Pharaonic civilization, ancient China, Rome, Islamic civilization, aggressive Mongolian expansionism, etc through to modern systems such as capitalism, socialism, communism, Italian fascism, social democracies, etc. Equal pay for all or advocating for equality of pay to all never existed. Roman soldiers took less that centurions, and engineers and artists took more than qualified labor and artisans. Early Islamic social laws, as distinct from religious laws, had legislated that qualified artisans and poets receive special pecuniary treatment, so also that the fighters that took less than their commanders did. Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, and even Vladimir Lenin never advocated for equal pay because they acknowledged the important role of creativity and expertise in the making of a valid economic model.

Why does Peterson accept decision of payment being left to the marketplace regardless of equality for the work done? Is the marketplace an entity that popped into existence by itself? Or did it have human hands behind its creation? Of course humans brought about the formation of the marketplace. And which humans would be expected to benefit the most from such an entity? Or did he expect his readers to absorb his statement naively and leave it unchallenged? To make the point, is there a design behind Peterson’s many groundless assertions? In the end, it seems to me that Peterson’s phrase — “That’s why the marketplace exists” — is a poor ideological construct in terms of cause and consequence. Most likely, he came up with it to close a complex argument by pointing to the predictive power of personality characteristics, however, it does not develop as a compact sequential argument. And why should having a extroverted versus introverted personality, or an assertive versus relaxed demeanor demand differential pay for equal work? Peterson provides such as explanations for unequal pay for the same work; to be fair, he does not say such should be the case. But by leaving it up to the market to determine, Peterson by default chooses the status quo wealth and income allocation.

Second, Peterson is positing that the markets can better provide for fairness in remuneration. However, the grotesque inequality that exists in the world clearly adduces that Peterson is dead wrong.3 Does Peterson agree with a market that pays a CEO in a day what a company worker makes in a year? Remarkably, a system within which such unfairness and such inequality do exist is well known: it is called capitalism. Recently, a study has revealed that 26 persons own as much as 3.8 billion of the poorest people. How has this happened? What’s Peterson theory on the matter?

Yet Peterson writes, “Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?” (loc 2926)

And what if a person’s experience is unordered because of the mayhem of the state? What if the state is wreaking havoc with households? Did not the American Revolution occur because Great Britain was wreaking havoc with colonial households through unfair taxation? Does poverty not wreak havoc on households? By taking over a city, people may be able to implement a system and policies that bring about equality and peace. By equality, I mean equal opportunity to all people, with remuneration based on effort and sacrifice — although Peterson will throw up his arms and say something like we don’t know how to measure effort and sacrifice. But we will never know how to measure effort and sacrifice to Peterson’s pleasure until we start trying; because to leave things the way they are, to the caprice of the market, is just intellectual cowardice. We can be sure, however, that the marketplace itself does not know how to remunerate workers equitably for work done.

Peterson’s Rule 6 is: “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”

However, there are myriad personality, societal, and worldly factors (greed, sexism, racism, nationalism, war, etc) that work against setting up “perfect” order in one’s house. And what exactly is meant by “perfect” order, and is it even achievable? Perfection is an elusive, and probably unattainable, goal. Therefore, if perfection is unachievable, what Peterson in essence is telling us is tough luck, keep plugging away at trying to reach perfection, and in the meanwhile accept the world the way it is — however imperfect that may be.

If not the marketplace, then who decides what is equal pay for equal work? Of course we decide. We pool our brain power to determine criteria as to what is fair remuneration; afterwards we refine and tweak as is necessary. This is infinitely more sensible than sitting our collective butts and allowing the marketplace of fetid capitalism to lather the masses with inequity and penury.

Peterson opines:

    We are not equal in ability or outcome, and never will be. A very small number of people produce much of everything. The winners don’t take all but they take the most, and the bottom is not a good place to be. People get sick there, and remain unknown and unloved. They waste their lives there. (loc 1784)

“We” (a pronoun used often by Peterson) are all different, certainly in many, many ways. We have different predilections, different desires, and different levels of skills. I avoid stating “different abilities” because abilities can be developed to higher levels through proper training and sheer hard work. Not every person is interested or inclined to sharpen their skills in certain endeavors to exhibit a high level of ability.

Granted we are not equal; everyone is superseded by someone else in some facet. Besides, being ranked number one is often subjective and usually ephemeral.

And I disagree emphatically with Peterson; it is the workers that produce most of what the public consumes. Managers and executives supervise and issue orders but produce little by way of physical work — and perhaps much of the intellectual effort comes from workers. In fact, many of the bourgeoisie may be considered leeches on the working class.

Peterson acknowledges the greed of the “winners.” However, I would not construe a group of humans who selfishly grab an inordinate lion’s share for themselves as “winners” while relegating the rest to a sick, unloved ignominy — quite the contrary.

Why does Peterson prioritize production as deciding distribution of wealth by the marketplace? Is production the end-all and be-all of humans? Does it supersede human attributes such as love, empathy, caring, and sharing?

Peterson is advocating dog-eat-dog capitalism. Fuck the market! It all boils down to what kind of world we want. How do we want our societies to look like? Our societies are a mirror unto who we are, unto our our sense of morality. Do we want and accept a society, as Peterson describes, composed of winners and losers? Do we accept joblessness despite the unemployed being desperate for work? Do we accept homelessness, the hungry, shanty towns, hygienic conditions, etc for any among us? Do any of us feel comfortable walking past someone obviously down-and-out?

Do we desire a society free from the ills that define a sick society?

Or do we roll the dice for each person and let the dice (i.e., the market) decide our happenstance?

Because in a sane and morally centered universe, the most meaningful abilities are the ones whereby we can provide warmth, succor, dignity, compassion, and love to our fellow humans.

Dominance is abhorrent. Enlightened thinkers are well aware of that. Hierarchies, excessive self-indulgence, and profligacy are not to be admired. If a permanent hierarchy, then love and altruism must situate at the pinnacle of the human hierarchy. Even primates have evolved altruistic behaviors.

What does it mean have abilities and only use them for self-serving reasons? What purpose, besides self-love and egoism, does it serve to sit on top of some hierarchy (other than a hierarchy dominated by altruism, love, and goodwill)? When Albert Einstein reached the pinnacle of fame as a physicist, did he preen and become self-important? No, Einstein remains a beloved scientist because he loved his fellow humans. Naturally, Einstein was a socialist.

Importantly, the world would be a better place without inequality. A recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being,4 is a British empirical study that hearkens back to Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation that told of an age where equality and cooperation were the norm in society. A review of The Inner Level relates “how more equal societies reduce stress and improve wellbeing” for all of us.

The Monster Mao? China’s “one-child policy” and Cultural Revolution

Mao Zedong in Dandong, China 🄯 Photo by Kim Petersen
Peterson also takes potshots at Chinese communism, especially targeting Mao Zedong for vitriol. He employs wording designed to evoke the ire of the reader: “horrors,” “inferno,” “genocides,” “monster,” “totalitarians.”

“… the bottomless horrors of Hitler, Stain, and Mao.” (loc 2100)

“… the inferno of Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China…” (loc 3911) The wording of this sentence, however, points at the countries that Stalin and Mao live in rather than directly at the personnage.

“… the genocides of Stalin and the even greater monster Mao.” (loc 3947)

Peterson joins chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution with China’s one-child policy: “… the horrors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and its one-child policy.” (loc 5059)

Peterson is speaking loosely (although Peterson is emphatic about the importance of his words5 ) and inaccurately. First, the one-child policy was implemented in China in 1979. Mao Zedong died on 9 September 1976. During his life Mao was a mixed bag on child birth; initially he encouraged large families, but later he saw family planning as more important. It was in 1979 that the one-child policy was enacted under chairman Deng Xiaoping. Second, the one-child policy is not to be understood as an absolute. It applied particularly to the majority Han and especially in urban centers. Minorities and rural Chinese were not stringently regulated under this policy. Third, China had a rapidly growing population at the time the policy was enacted. China’s population has since reached 1.4 billion people. Some estimates say the policy resulted in 400 million fewer Chinese today. What would the population of China look like today without the one-child policy? And what demands would such a huge population pose for the environment, species extinction, quality of life, employment, and several other factors? Consider to what extent the one-child policy has had on curbing population growth and the fact that China today is the world’s largest economy slated to eliminate poverty in 2020.

As for the “monster Mao” a book review of Was Mao Really a Monster? wrote:

    The continued attacks by anti-Communist academics and authors on the reputation and standing of Mao Zedong continue unabated. Indeed, they will last as long as there is a bourgeois class trying to prevent socialist revolution, or having failed to prevent it, trying to undermine it in order to restore capitalism.

Peterson points specifically to “Mao’s murderous Cultural Revolution.” (loc 5434)

Dongping Han, a history and political science teacher at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina, wrote a book that presents a different take on China’s Cultural Revolution than that of the western narrative which portrays great tumult across China, targeting intellectuals for re-education, and rampaging hordes committing violence. There were horrible excesses that occurred. Chinese know well of this, and several Chinese films chronicle the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution. But there were also important improvements in Chinese society. Focusing on Jimu, a rural area in Shandong province, Han details improved living conditions, democracy, health and education, infrastructure, and agricultural practices during this time.6

Furthermore, the Cultural Revolution as some westerners allege did not impact negatively China’s economic growth.7

Nonetheless, the Cultural Revolution, as well as the Great Leap Forward, must be seen, in many respects, as colossal blunders — blunders that cost the lives of far too many people and caused much suffering. Mao as the leader is accountable for the mistakes under his leadership. He was misguided; he became a megalomaniac. But Mao’s goals for the Chinese masses were noble, and he still has a great following among Chinese people.

Population Control

Peterson seems to think the more people on the planet, the merrier.

    No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it? (loc 5091)

It is a false analogy. Peterson conflates religious identity, skin color, and nationality. Which sane person proposes this?

First, what Peterson’s hypothetical posits is alarming and genocidal, so morally based people do not express such an opinion. What betterment can be had by genocide?

Second, who claims it is “virtuous to propose” having a planet with fewer people? Whether such a proposal is virtuous or not is irrelevant. Relevant is whether managing the number of humans living in a finite ecosystem, such as Earth, would avert future dangers wrought by rampant population growth or even to bring about a betterment of the present human condition and the condition for the other species on the planet.

Third, as Peterson has worded it, what is proposed by others is depopulation, whereas a morally centered proposal would be for a lowering of the number of humans through birth control and not culling specific groups of people. If that is to be achieved through non-coercive means, then objection should be minimal. If through forced compliance, then there must be a logical and moral rationale for such a decision being reached, and it must have been reached through informed and genuine democratic means applied fairly across peoples and not result from a unilateral decision imposed on the entirety of peoples.

Fourth, there are logical and morally based reasons for limiting population growth that can be discussed elsewhere, among them are exacerbating global warming that imperils life on the planet, the scarcity of resources for sharing, extinction of animal life by human incursions into their territories, habitat despoliation by pollution, etc.

China and Communism

Communist China is currently world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Many critics deny that China is communist. So what is communism in China? Godfree Roberts lists some important features of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

    1. The Party’s Genesis. It was founded by Mao and others because Chinese governance needed a new look after the old one had apparently failed. In fact, it wasn’t that Confucian government had failed: it was because Chinese officials and the Emperor forgot Confucius’ instructions. So Mao called his revolution ‘communist’ even though Confucius’ teaching was much more radical than any written by Marx: The Common Good: Chinese and American Perspectives.

    2. Membership qualifications. They must swear to serve the people first and enjoy the fruits of their service last.

    3. Membership behavior. Most of the 90,000,000 Party members do, in fact, serve the people first and enjoy the fruits of their service last. That’s a lot of unselfish people and, when they act together, they can influence the whole country.

    4. Party power. They use their power democratically and have dismissed several heads of State since 1950. They do not tolerate underperforming leaders as we do.

    5. Leadership behavior. You can see that the Party’s leaders and theoreticians are substituting Confucian terminology for Marxist language. China is retiring to the Confucian roots it never left–only this time the Party is interpreting Confucius’ doctrine of compassion radically.

Roberts concludes by quipping, “Marx would be delighted.”

I will quibble with the conclusion of Roberts on point 5. Confucianism still has influence. However, CPC general secretary Xi Jinping stated, “In contemporary China upholding the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics means upholding Marxism in its truest sense.”8 Under Xi’s chairmanship a widespread crackdown on corruption has been ongoing.

In stark contradistinction with neoliberalism, Xi emphasizes public ownership dominance.9 The success of socialism with Chinese characteristics will be determined by measuring the benefits accrued to the Chinese people10 — such as rights to education, employment, health care and care for senior citizens.11 Moreover, the benefits are envisioned as for all the world’s people.12

Xi states China is anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, and anti-war. The rising dragon has a socialist market economy that strives for peace and universal security. This started with Mao Zedong leading his comrades to overthrow the despised Guomindang and establish communist governance in China.

Conclusion

Most of Peterson’s 12 rules are quite sensible. The rules, per se, are trite, cute, and sprinkled with home-cooked wisdom. My focus was Peterson’s digressions, many of which point to a self-assured intellect whose assertions and arguments often fall short. Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life became more than just rules. A self-help book became an anti-communist polemic. Capitalism, atrocities wrought and abetted by capitalism, as well as capitalist gulags eluded criticism. Peterson digressed into political economy, history, wealth distribution, dominance hierarchies, gender differences, religion, free speech and censorship, and more. Peterson’s 12 Rules left this reader feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed. The author needs to explain the deep themes that guide his elaboration and scope of work. Was his intention to grace readers with 12 idyllic rules of life, or was his undisclosed intent to warn us about the “evils of communism” over and above contemplating his rules?

Throughout 12 Rules, Peterson writes about the hardship of living: “Life is suffering. That’s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth.”13 A misleading statement because life must not be viewed through such a parochial prism. Life is ecstasy, rapture, sorrow, pain, anger, jealousy, hate, love, and much more. This all points to Peterson, on certain matters, being a polemicist. He chooses one end of the pole and pronounces; the other pole, or points along the continuum are often, if not outright denied, just marginalized or ignored.

It is often said that money cannot buy happiness, but unmentioned by Peterson is that money can avoid many of the hardships and suffering that life throws at you. Yet, Peterson is too intelligent not to be aware of this. He skips this because his thinking is not about finding solutions but rather to describe the world as he sees it. Nonetheless, the ability to pay rent, put nutritious food on the table, put clothes on one’s back, and afford necessary transportation go a long way to easing hardships in life.

There are examples of communist governments that have eased the hardships of life and brought great improvements to their people. Cuban communism must be singled out for the great strides it has made during and since the Cuban Revolution — despite US sanctions.14 It is only fair to point out the achievements made by the communist government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — despite US sanctions. Another, of course, is the communist government in China.

As Xi often states, China is only in the earliest stages of socialism,15 and communism is to be attained farther down the road.16 The CPC’s goal of ending poverty in China by 2020 is a massive step in the right direction. To the extent that Chinese socialism is successful, especially compared to the status of western capitalist countries, it poses a challenge to the capitalist classes in these countries. Why would the working class accept being relegated to the lower rungs of a society when they see Chinese in the future thriving in a classless China? China may become the template for an economic and social revolution that brings about a fairer distribution of income (something still lacking in China currently) elsewhere. China is an economic colossus whose success should throw light back on Cuba, North Korea, and also the great achievements made by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

Despite the bombast of Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump, socialism remains a viable force for change in the world.

    Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.17

    Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos, (Penguin Random House UK, 2018: loc 5372. [↩]
    BS Everett, Abstract to Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems, British Journal of Psychiatry. March 1975, 126: 237-40. [↩]
    See Part 5. [↩]
    Allen Lane, London 2018. [↩]
    Peterson’s Rule 10 is: “Be precise in your speech.” Ergo, the words in 12 Rules must be seen as an accurate reflection of Peterson’s thinking: “I’m very, very, very careful with my words” [↩]
    See Dongping Han, The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village (Routledge, 2001). [↩]
    See Gwydion Madawc Williams, “Was the Cultural Revolution a success?” Quora, 11 February 2018. [↩]
    Xi Jinping, On the Governance of China, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014): loc 230. [↩]
    Xi, loc 1275. [↩]
    Xi, loc 554. [↩]
    Xi, loc 707. [↩]
    Xi, loc 947, 4010. [↩]
    Jordan Peterson, loc 2947. See also locations 191, 335, 1787, 2768, 2909, 2959, 3780, 4048, 4765, and 5737. [↩]
    See Isaac Saney, Cuba: A Revolution in Motion, (Fernwood Publishing, 2004) and Arnold August, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, (Zed Books, 2013). Review. [↩]
    Xi, loc 352, 1566. [↩]
    It is anarchism that will bring about communal individuality and reduce inequality. See Alan Ritter, Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis, (Cambridge University Press, 1980): 76-83. pdf. [↩]
    Apologies for the delay in getting out part 6, but I was in East Africa without laptop. [↩]
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2019, 07:13:40 AM »
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/02/iq-equal-pay-for-equal-work-population-control-mao-and-communism/

IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control, Mao, and Communism

Part 6 of 6: The Utility of Jordan Peterson's Digressions

by Kim Petersen / February 18th, 2019


“Prepare for Struggle, Prepare for Famine, Work for the People.”

Jordan Peterson posits IQ tests as indicators of intelligence and predictors of long-term success.1 This is not scientific. Intelligence is definitionally problematic as is designing tests to measure whatever is deemed to denote intelligence. Nowadays, intelligence is considered a multi-faceted concept that cannot be measured comprehensively and accurately by a paper-and-pencil test. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to isolate a multitude of other factors and attribute any result exclusively to intelligence; e.g., parental upbringing, socio-economic levels, health, spiritual beliefs, personal inclinations, etc. Into this mix Peterson adds conscientiousness, with the same problems of how to define and how to measure. So such studies would be subjective, and at best any experimental designs would provide correlational statistics. Even resorting to multivariate analyses would not be without problems.

    Multivariate analyses are an aid to, not a substitute for critical thinking in the area of data analysis. Meaningful results can only be produced by these methods if careful consideration is given to questions of sample size, variable type, variable distribution etc., and accusations of subjectivity in interpretation can only be overcome by replication…. Perhaps a major cause of the continuing misuse of statistical methods is the insistence of many journal editors in psychology and related areas, on articles being laced with multivariate analyses, and on encouraging the pedantic use of signifance levels, i.e. the inevitable p less than minus, as if such inclusions lent an air of respectability to their journal which it might not otherwise have had…2

In addition, the argument on IQ tests and the role of conscientiousness in “success” and “happiness” is a mined territory because covertly it recalls the dark side of eugenics. If IQs and conscientiousness are the litmus tests for the rank and suitability of individuals in a given society, then how far are we from doctrines adopted by fascist states vis-à-vis their people? The argument becomes seriously explosive in the context of poverty, depending on how one construes the correlation between IQ and success. For instance, according to many sources, Americans living under the poverty line are over 40 million. A question: would Peterson be poised to say that their poverty is a direct function of their IQ and conscientiousness? Any one who dares to pose the question on IQ or conscientiousness must (1) examine their own shortcoming on both matters, and (2) examine the social, economic, and cultural factors conducive, functionally, to lower IQ and social adaptations. Caveat: examining is not a judgement but a process leading to assumptions that must be further tested for factual or theoretical validity.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Although physicists can unravel the mathematical laws of the universe and rocket engineers can calculate how to launch several probes on missions throughout the solar system, according to Peterson, humans are incapable of determining what is equal. “The introduction of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality for one simple reason: who decides what work is equal? It’s not possible. That’s why the marketplace exists.” (loc 5403) And just how fair or effective as a distributive mechanism is the marketplace?

First, since the dawn of time, world societies and their economic systems have varied from Babylonia, Pharaonic civilization, ancient China, Rome, Islamic civilization, aggressive Mongolian expansionism, etc through to modern systems such as capitalism, socialism, communism, Italian fascism, social democracies, etc. Equal pay for all or advocating for equality of pay to all never existed. Roman soldiers took less that centurions, and engineers and artists took more than qualified labor and artisans. Early Islamic social laws, as distinct from religious laws, had legislated that qualified artisans and poets receive special pecuniary treatment, so also that the fighters that took less than their commanders did. Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, and even Vladimir Lenin never advocated for equal pay because they acknowledged the important role of creativity and expertise in the making of a valid economic model.

Why does Peterson accept decision of payment being left to the marketplace regardless of equality for the work done? Is the marketplace an entity that popped into existence by itself? Or did it have human hands behind its creation? Of course humans brought about the formation of the marketplace. And which humans would be expected to benefit the most from such an entity? Or did he expect his readers to absorb his statement naively and leave it unchallenged? To make the point, is there a design behind Peterson’s many groundless assertions? In the end, it seems to me that Peterson’s phrase — “That’s why the marketplace exists” — is a poor ideological construct in terms of cause and consequence. Most likely, he came up with it to close a complex argument by pointing to the predictive power of personality characteristics, however, it does not develop as a compact sequential argument. And why should having a extroverted versus introverted personality, or an assertive versus relaxed demeanor demand differential pay for equal work? Peterson provides such as explanations for unequal pay for the same work; to be fair, he does not say such should be the case. But by leaving it up to the market to determine, Peterson by default chooses the status quo wealth and income allocation.

Second, Peterson is positing that the markets can better provide for fairness in remuneration. However, the grotesque inequality that exists in the world clearly adduces that Peterson is dead wrong.3 Does Peterson agree with a market that pays a CEO in a day what a company worker makes in a year? Remarkably, a system within which such unfairness and such inequality do exist is well known: it is called capitalism. Recently, a study has revealed that 26 persons own as much as 3.8 billion of the poorest people. How has this happened? What’s Peterson theory on the matter?

Yet Peterson writes, “Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?” (loc 2926)

And what if a person’s experience is unordered because of the mayhem of the state? What if the state is wreaking havoc with households? Did not the American Revolution occur because Great Britain was wreaking havoc with colonial households through unfair taxation? Does poverty not wreak havoc on households? By taking over a city, people may be able to implement a system and policies that bring about equality and peace. By equality, I mean equal opportunity to all people, with remuneration based on effort and sacrifice — although Peterson will throw up his arms and say something like we don’t know how to measure effort and sacrifice. But we will never know how to measure effort and sacrifice to Peterson’s pleasure until we start trying; because to leave things the way they are, to the caprice of the market, is just intellectual cowardice. We can be sure, however, that the marketplace itself does not know how to remunerate workers equitably for work done.

Peterson’s Rule 6 is: “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”

However, there are myriad personality, societal, and worldly factors (greed, sexism, racism, nationalism, war, etc) that work against setting up “perfect” order in one’s house. And what exactly is meant by “perfect” order, and is it even achievable? Perfection is an elusive, and probably unattainable, goal. Therefore, if perfection is unachievable, what Peterson in essence is telling us is tough luck, keep plugging away at trying to reach perfection, and in the meanwhile accept the world the way it is — however imperfect that may be.

If not the marketplace, then who decides what is equal pay for equal work? Of course we decide. We pool our brain power to determine criteria as to what is fair remuneration; afterwards we refine and tweak as is necessary. This is infinitely more sensible than sitting our collective butts and allowing the marketplace of fetid capitalism to lather the masses with inequity and penury.

Peterson opines:

    We are not equal in ability or outcome, and never will be. A very small number of people produce much of everything. The winners don’t take all but they take the most, and the bottom is not a good place to be. People get sick there, and remain unknown and unloved. They waste their lives there. (loc 1784)

“We” (a pronoun used often by Peterson) are all different, certainly in many, many ways. We have different predilections, different desires, and different levels of skills. I avoid stating “different abilities” because abilities can be developed to higher levels through proper training and sheer hard work. Not every person is interested or inclined to sharpen their skills in certain endeavors to exhibit a high level of ability.

Granted we are not equal; everyone is superseded by someone else in some facet. Besides, being ranked number one is often subjective and usually ephemeral.

And I disagree emphatically with Peterson; it is the workers that produce most of what the public consumes. Managers and executives supervise and issue orders but produce little by way of physical work — and perhaps much of the intellectual effort comes from workers. In fact, many of the bourgeoisie may be considered leeches on the working class.

Peterson acknowledges the greed of the “winners.” However, I would not construe a group of humans who selfishly grab an inordinate lion’s share for themselves as “winners” while relegating the rest to a sick, unloved ignominy — quite the contrary.

Why does Peterson prioritize production as deciding distribution of wealth by the marketplace? Is production the end-all and be-all of humans? Does it supersede human attributes such as love, empathy, caring, and sharing?

Peterson is advocating dog-eat-dog capitalism. Fuck the market! It all boils down to what kind of world we want. How do we want our societies to look like? Our societies are a mirror unto who we are, unto our our sense of morality. Do we want and accept a society, as Peterson describes, composed of winners and losers? Do we accept joblessness despite the unemployed being desperate for work? Do we accept homelessness, the hungry, shanty towns, hygienic conditions, etc for any among us? Do any of us feel comfortable walking past someone obviously down-and-out?

Do we desire a society free from the ills that define a sick society?

Or do we roll the dice for each person and let the dice (i.e., the market) decide our happenstance?

Because in a sane and morally centered universe, the most meaningful abilities are the ones whereby we can provide warmth, succor, dignity, compassion, and love to our fellow humans.

Dominance is abhorrent. Enlightened thinkers are well aware of that. Hierarchies, excessive self-indulgence, and profligacy are not to be admired. If a permanent hierarchy, then love and altruism must situate at the pinnacle of the human hierarchy. Even primates have evolved altruistic behaviors.

What does it mean have abilities and only use them for self-serving reasons? What purpose, besides self-love and egoism, does it serve to sit on top of some hierarchy (other than a hierarchy dominated by altruism, love, and goodwill)? When Albert Einstein reached the pinnacle of fame as a physicist, did he preen and become self-important? No, Einstein remains a beloved scientist because he loved his fellow humans. Naturally, Einstein was a socialist.

Importantly, the world would be a better place without inequality. A recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being,4 is a British empirical study that hearkens back to Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation that told of an age where equality and cooperation were the norm in society. A review of The Inner Level relates “how more equal societies reduce stress and improve wellbeing” for all of us.

The Monster Mao? China’s “one-child policy” and Cultural Revolution

Mao Zedong in Dandong, China 🄯 Photo by Kim Petersen
Peterson also takes potshots at Chinese communism, especially targeting Mao Zedong for vitriol. He employs wording designed to evoke the ire of the reader: “horrors,” “inferno,” “genocides,” “monster,” “totalitarians.”

“… the bottomless horrors of Hitler, Stain, and Mao.” (loc 2100)

“… the inferno of Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China…” (loc 3911) The wording of this sentence, however, points at the countries that Stalin and Mao live in rather than directly at the personnage.

“… the genocides of Stalin and the even greater monster Mao.” (loc 3947)

Peterson joins chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution with China’s one-child policy: “… the horrors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and its one-child policy.” (loc 5059)

Peterson is speaking loosely (although Peterson is emphatic about the importance of his words5 ) and inaccurately. First, the one-child policy was implemented in China in 1979. Mao Zedong died on 9 September 1976. During his life Mao was a mixed bag on child birth; initially he encouraged large families, but later he saw family planning as more important. It was in 1979 that the one-child policy was enacted under chairman Deng Xiaoping. Second, the one-child policy is not to be understood as an absolute. It applied particularly to the majority Han and especially in urban centers. Minorities and rural Chinese were not stringently regulated under this policy. Third, China had a rapidly growing population at the time the policy was enacted. China’s population has since reached 1.4 billion people. Some estimates say the policy resulted in 400 million fewer Chinese today. What would the population of China look like today without the one-child policy? And what demands would such a huge population pose for the environment, species extinction, quality of life, employment, and several other factors? Consider to what extent the one-child policy has had on curbing population growth and the fact that China today is the world’s largest economy slated to eliminate poverty in 2020.

As for the “monster Mao” a book review of Was Mao Really a Monster? wrote:

    The continued attacks by anti-Communist academics and authors on the reputation and standing of Mao Zedong continue unabated. Indeed, they will last as long as there is a bourgeois class trying to prevent socialist revolution, or having failed to prevent it, trying to undermine it in order to restore capitalism.

Peterson points specifically to “Mao’s murderous Cultural Revolution.” (loc 5434)

Dongping Han, a history and political science teacher at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina, wrote a book that presents a different take on China’s Cultural Revolution than that of the western narrative which portrays great tumult across China, targeting intellectuals for re-education, and rampaging hordes committing violence. There were horrible excesses that occurred. Chinese know well of this, and several Chinese films chronicle the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution. But there were also important improvements in Chinese society. Focusing on Jimu, a rural area in Shandong province, Han details improved living conditions, democracy, health and education, infrastructure, and agricultural practices during this time.6

Furthermore, the Cultural Revolution as some westerners allege did not impact negatively China’s economic growth.7

Nonetheless, the Cultural Revolution, as well as the Great Leap Forward, must be seen, in many respects, as colossal blunders — blunders that cost the lives of far too many people and caused much suffering. Mao as the leader is accountable for the mistakes under his leadership. He was misguided; he became a megalomaniac. But Mao’s goals for the Chinese masses were noble, and he still has a great following among Chinese people.

Population Control

Peterson seems to think the more people on the planet, the merrier.

    No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it? (loc 5091)

It is a false analogy. Peterson conflates religious identity, skin color, and nationality. Which sane person proposes this?

First, what Peterson’s hypothetical posits is alarming and genocidal, so morally based people do not express such an opinion. What betterment can be had by genocide?

Second, who claims it is “virtuous to propose” having a planet with fewer people? Whether such a proposal is virtuous or not is irrelevant. Relevant is whether managing the number of humans living in a finite ecosystem, such as Earth, would avert future dangers wrought by rampant population growth or even to bring about a betterment of the present human condition and the condition for the other species on the planet.

Third, as Peterson has worded it, what is proposed by others is depopulation, whereas a morally centered proposal would be for a lowering of the number of humans through birth control and not culling specific groups of people. If that is to be achieved through non-coercive means, then objection should be minimal. If through forced compliance, then there must be a logical and moral rationale for such a decision being reached, and it must have been reached through informed and genuine democratic means applied fairly across peoples and not result from a unilateral decision imposed on the entirety of peoples.

Fourth, there are logical and morally based reasons for limiting population growth that can be discussed elsewhere, among them are exacerbating global warming that imperils life on the planet, the scarcity of resources for sharing, extinction of animal life by human incursions into their territories, habitat despoliation by pollution, etc.

China and Communism

Communist China is currently world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Many critics deny that China is communist. So what is communism in China? Godfree Roberts lists some important features of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

    1. The Party’s Genesis. It was founded by Mao and others because Chinese governance needed a new look after the old one had apparently failed. In fact, it wasn’t that Confucian government had failed: it was because Chinese officials and the Emperor forgot Confucius’ instructions. So Mao called his revolution ‘communist’ even though Confucius’ teaching was much more radical than any written by Marx: The Common Good: Chinese and American Perspectives.

    2. Membership qualifications. They must swear to serve the people first and enjoy the fruits of their service last.

    3. Membership behavior. Most of the 90,000,000 Party members do, in fact, serve the people first and enjoy the fruits of their service last. That’s a lot of unselfish people and, when they act together, they can influence the whole country.

    4. Party power. They use their power democratically and have dismissed several heads of State since 1950. They do not tolerate underperforming leaders as we do.

    5. Leadership behavior. You can see that the Party’s leaders and theoreticians are substituting Confucian terminology for Marxist language. China is retiring to the Confucian roots it never left–only this time the Party is interpreting Confucius’ doctrine of compassion radically.

Roberts concludes by quipping, “Marx would be delighted.”

I will quibble with the conclusion of Roberts on point 5. Confucianism still has influence. However, CPC general secretary Xi Jinping stated, “In contemporary China upholding the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics means upholding Marxism in its truest sense.”8 Under Xi’s chairmanship a widespread crackdown on corruption has been ongoing.

In stark contradistinction with neoliberalism, Xi emphasizes public ownership dominance.9 The success of socialism with Chinese characteristics will be determined by measuring the benefits accrued to the Chinese people10 — such as rights to education, employment, health care and care for senior citizens.11 Moreover, the benefits are envisioned as for all the world’s people.12

Xi states China is anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, and anti-war. The rising dragon has a socialist market economy that strives for peace and universal security. This started with Mao Zedong leading his comrades to overthrow the despised Guomindang and establish communist governance in China.

Conclusion

Most of Peterson’s 12 rules are quite sensible. The rules, per se, are trite, cute, and sprinkled with home-cooked wisdom. My focus was Peterson’s digressions, many of which point to a self-assured intellect whose assertions and arguments often fall short. Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life became more than just rules. A self-help book became an anti-communist polemic. Capitalism, atrocities wrought and abetted by capitalism, as well as capitalist gulags eluded criticism. Peterson digressed into political economy, history, wealth distribution, dominance hierarchies, gender differences, religion, free speech and censorship, and more. Peterson’s 12 Rules left this reader feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed. The author needs to explain the deep themes that guide his elaboration and scope of work. Was his intention to grace readers with 12 idyllic rules of life, or was his undisclosed intent to warn us about the “evils of communism” over and above contemplating his rules?

Throughout 12 Rules, Peterson writes about the hardship of living: “Life is suffering. That’s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth.”13 A misleading statement because life must not be viewed through such a parochial prism. Life is ecstasy, rapture, sorrow, pain, anger, jealousy, hate, love, and much more. This all points to Peterson, on certain matters, being a polemicist. He chooses one end of the pole and pronounces; the other pole, or points along the continuum are often, if not outright denied, just marginalized or ignored.

It is often said that money cannot buy happiness, but unmentioned by Peterson is that money can avoid many of the hardships and suffering that life throws at you. Yet, Peterson is too intelligent not to be aware of this. He skips this because his thinking is not about finding solutions but rather to describe the world as he sees it. Nonetheless, the ability to pay rent, put nutritious food on the table, put clothes on one’s back, and afford necessary transportation go a long way to easing hardships in life.

There are examples of communist governments that have eased the hardships of life and brought great improvements to their people. Cuban communism must be singled out for the great strides it has made during and since the Cuban Revolution — despite US sanctions.14 It is only fair to point out the achievements made by the communist government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — despite US sanctions. Another, of course, is the communist government in China.

As Xi often states, China is only in the earliest stages of socialism,15 and communism is to be attained farther down the road.16 The CPC’s goal of ending poverty in China by 2020 is a massive step in the right direction. To the extent that Chinese socialism is successful, especially compared to the status of western capitalist countries, it poses a challenge to the capitalist classes in these countries. Why would the working class accept being relegated to the lower rungs of a society when they see Chinese in the future thriving in a classless China? China may become the template for an economic and social revolution that brings about a fairer distribution of income (something still lacking in China currently) elsewhere. China is an economic colossus whose success should throw light back on Cuba, North Korea, and also the great achievements made by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

Despite the bombast of Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump, socialism remains a viable force for change in the world.

    Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.17

    Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos, (Penguin Random House UK, 2018: loc 5372. [↩]
    BS Everett, Abstract to Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems, British Journal of Psychiatry. March 1975, 126: 237-40. [↩]
    See Part 5. [↩]
    Allen Lane, London 2018. [↩]
    Peterson’s Rule 10 is: “Be precise in your speech.” Ergo, the words in 12 Rules must be seen as an accurate reflection of Peterson’s thinking: “I’m very, very, very careful with my words” [↩]
    See Dongping Han, The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village (Routledge, 2001). [↩]
    See Gwydion Madawc Williams, “Was the Cultural Revolution a success?” Quora, 11 February 2018. [↩]
    Xi Jinping, On the Governance of China, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014): loc 230. [↩]
    Xi, loc 1275. [↩]
    Xi, loc 554. [↩]
    Xi, loc 707. [↩]
    Xi, loc 947, 4010. [↩]
    Jordan Peterson, loc 2947. See also locations 191, 335, 1787, 2768, 2909, 2959, 3780, 4048, 4765, and 5737. [↩]
    See Isaac Saney, Cuba: A Revolution in Motion, (Fernwood Publishing, 2004) and Arnold August, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, (Zed Books, 2013). Review. [↩]
    Xi, loc 352, 1566. [↩]
    It is anarchism that will bring about communal individuality and reduce inequality. See Alan Ritter, Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis, (Cambridge University Press, 1980): 76-83. pdf. [↩]
    Apologies for the delay in getting out part 6, but I was in East Africa without laptop. [↩]

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38936
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2019, 07:24:14 AM »
You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Are you insinuating I am stupid?  That is Ad Hom.

I have no intention of arguing with you.  I just put up an article of interest.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2019, 07:38:24 AM »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fuck you.
Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.
Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.
And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2019, 07:54:01 AM »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fuck you.
Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.
Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.
And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."

No, you've just decided to channel Smokey, and I won't play that shit. Get educated or leave me the fuck alone.

I study what I write about. I'm not just an aggregator. Just because you find some cheezie hit piece on JP, it doesn't mean you have some valid point to make.

Your attack dog comments on Ashvin are largely ad hom, and you know that. I don't always agree with Ashvin either. But you and RE are using him for sport, in my opinion.

And your knowledge base on JP  (neither one of you) is adequate to make an original cogent comment.

Have fun turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post. I'm interested primarily in collapse, not this silly political red-wash bullshit.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38936
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2019, 07:57:45 AM »
I'm not just an aggregator.

Are you now insinuating we are "just aggregators"?

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Jordan Peterson on Risk Taking and Investment
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2019, 08:12:28 AM »
I'm not insinuating anything.

You went looking for a hit piece on JP, whom you know very little about, having never spent more than five minutes checking him out.........

You did it for the express purpose of refuting Ashvin, and you found one, from one of your usual commie sources.

JP says things that piss off a variety of delusional SJW's and academic communist morons, and there is plenty of blow-back. Every blow-back piece I've read, including the you just posted, is clearly propaganda.

You know that, because you really AREN'T stupid. You just want the Diner to support communism, which is your political bent.

I don't mind you being communist, either one of you. I just don't like you maligning somebody who is a good guy. Which you are. So I'm calling both of you out.

Post some more commie crap and you can push this off the page before anybody with a brain sees it. Better hurry.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38936
    • View Profile
Re: Jordan Peterson on Risk Taking and Investment
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2019, 08:32:59 AM »
I'm not insinuating anything.

Of course you are.  You have already accused me of being a "cut & paster".

Quote
You went looking for a hit piece on JP, whom you know very little about, having never spent more than five minutes checking him out.........

I did not.  I was doing my usual rounds of websites looking for articles to drop on for discussion as I do every night when the clock turns over.  The article was top of the list most recent article published on Dissident Voice, so I added it here.  I know JP is of interest to you, so I figured you might find it interesting.

I don't need to go spend hours watching JP videos.  You provide plenty of information here to let me know that his viewpoint is just a reflection of your own.  The day you spend an hour listening to one of my audio files is the day I'll spend an hour listening to JP.

Quote
You did it for the express purpose of refuting Ashvin, and you found one, from one of your usual commie sources.

I don't bother with Watson, Surly is doing a fine job of wiping the floor with him.

See above how I came across the article and why I dropped it on the Diner.


As for the rest of your opinions expressed in that post, I have no interest in engaging in that kind of useless accusatory nonsense either.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2019, 12:48:41 PM »
These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

I skimmed the article... I may bite and respond to some of its points. Show these guys how a real though out dialogue about the substantive issues can go. You're right, though, at first glance most of it seems to be a complete hit piece on straw men arguments that have little or nothing to do with JP's actual ideas. We'll see.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2019, 01:08:32 PM »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fuck you.
Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.
Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.
And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."

No, you've just decided to channel Smokey, and I won't play that shit. Get educated or leave me the fuck alone.

I study what I write about. I'm not just an aggregator. Just because you find some cheezie hit piece on JP, it doesn't mean you have some valid point to make.

Your attack dog comments on Ashvin are largely ad hom, and you know that. I don't always agree with Ashvin either. But you and RE are using him for sport, in my opinion.

And your knowledge base on JP  (neither one of you) is adequate to make an original cogent comment.

Have fun turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post. I'm interested primarily in collapse, not this silly political red-wash bullshit.

Having created over 100 original blog posts for this blog, I feel the accusation of "cut-n-paste" is unwarranted. Like other posters, I place other articles here every day. So what? Where is the harm in that.

"Just an aggregator?" Yes, I aggregate every day to put the Doomstead Diner daily  together. And I paste some of the articles here. I didn't know this activity upset you so. Oh, my.

You note that my "attack dog comments" on Fucko are largely ad hom. But you remain mute as the tomb about the ones that are not. Also silent as the Sphinx about the fact that ASHVIN STARTED IT. He went ad hom first (old white man, etc.). So the best he gets is the back of my hand. So spare me the crocodile tears for "poor Ashvin." If he is sport, it's because he's made a game of it.

You cannot imagine that any of this is pleasant. As I told someone else today, these pissing matches leave the forum reeking of stale urine, like an alleyway where drunks piss. They annoy the regulars and scare the noobs and lurkers. But I am not going to permit free market fundamentalism go unchallenged while I am sucking a breath. And if you think that is "turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post," you are a lot less thoughtful than I gave you credit for being. Or choose to turn a blind eye.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
what is absurd is that Jordan Peterson is NOT somehow serving the elites
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2019, 02:37:54 PM »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fuck you.

Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.

Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.

And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."


No, you've just decided to channel Smokey, and I won't play that shit. Get educated or leave me the fuck alone.

I study what I write about. I'm not just an aggregator. Just because you find some cheezie hit piece on JP, it doesn't mean you have some valid point to make.

Your attack dog comments on Ashvin are largely ad hom, and you know that. I don't always agree with Ashvin either. But you and RE are using him for sport, in my opinion.

And your knowledge base on JP  (neither one of you) is adequate to make an original cogent comment.

Have fun turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post. I'm interested primarily in collapse, not this silly political red-wash bullshit.

Having created over 100 original blog posts for this blog, I feel the accusation of "cut-n-paste" is unwarranted. Like other posters, I place other articles here every day. So what? Where is the harm in that.

"Just an aggregator?" Yes, I aggregate every day to put the Doomstead Diner daily  together. And I paste some of the articles here. I didn't know this activity upset you so. Oh, my.

You note that my "attack dog comments" on Fucko are largely ad hom. But you remain mute as the tomb about the ones that are not. Also silent as the Sphinx about the fact that ASHVIN STARTED IT. He went ad hom first (old white man, etc.). So the best he gets is the back of my hand. So spare me the crocodile tears for "poor Ashvin." If he is sport, it's because he's made a game of it.

You cannot imagine that any of this is pleasant. As I told someone else today, these pissing matches leave the forum reeking of stale urine, like an alleyway where drunks piss. They annoy the regulars and scare the noobs and lurkers. But I am not going to permit free market fundamentalism go unchallenged while I am sucking a breath. And if you think that is "turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post," you are a lot less thoughtful than I gave you credit for being. Or choose to turn a blind eye.


Well elucidated, Surly.

FWIW, I wish to point out the irony of Eddie complaining about "attack dog and largely ad hom comments" when Eddie has never hesitated to unload "Trailer Park Jesus" and "Loser" ad hominem attacks on me , with obvious relish, whenevah he feels like it.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 02:40:04 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: what is absurd is that Jordan Peterson is NOT somehow serving the elites
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2019, 05:50:44 PM »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on JP, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fuck you.

Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.

Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.

And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."


No, you've just decided to channel Smokey, and I won't play that shit. Get educated or leave me the fuck alone.

I study what I write about. I'm not just an aggregator. Just because you find some cheezie hit piece on JP, it doesn't mean you have some valid point to make.

Your attack dog comments on Ashvin are largely ad hom, and you know that. I don't always agree with Ashvin either. But you and RE are using him for sport, in my opinion.

And your knowledge base on JP  (neither one of you) is adequate to make an original cogent comment.

Have fun turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post. I'm interested primarily in collapse, not this silly political red-wash bullshit.

Having created over 100 original blog posts for this blog, I feel the accusation of "cut-n-paste" is unwarranted. Like other posters, I place other articles here every day. So what? Where is the harm in that.

"Just an aggregator?" Yes, I aggregate every day to put the Doomstead Diner daily  together. And I paste some of the articles here. I didn't know this activity upset you so. Oh, my.

You note that my "attack dog comments" on Fucko are largely ad hom. But you remain mute as the tomb about the ones that are not. Also silent as the Sphinx about the fact that ASHVIN STARTED IT. He went ad hom first (old white man, etc.). So the best he gets is the back of my hand. So spare me the crocodile tears for "poor Ashvin." If he is sport, it's because he's made a game of it.

You cannot imagine that any of this is pleasant. As I told someone else today, these pissing matches leave the forum reeking of stale urine, like an alleyway where drunks piss. They annoy the regulars and scare the noobs and lurkers. But I am not going to permit free market fundamentalism go unchallenged while I am sucking a breath. And if you think that is "turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post," you are a lot less thoughtful than I gave you credit for being. Or choose to turn a blind eye.


Well elucidated, Surly.

FWIW, I wish to point out the irony of Eddie complaining about "attack dog and largely ad hom comments" when Eddie has never hesitated to unload "Trailer Park Jesus" and "Loser" ad hominem attacks on me , with obvious relish, whenevah he feels like it.


Eddie wants to accuse me of being Smokey (from TBP) but Smokey was a crude and classlesslout, whereas I, Surly, am a full-service, 24-7 insult machine willing to snap the spine of any right wing fantast who presents itself. I unleashed on Fucko (a deliberate appropriation and adaptation of "Bucko,"a favorite Jordan Peterson meme: “Sort yourself out, bucko.”)

It's good to maintain a thick skin when participating in online forums. RE can attest to this, as he himself has many years in as an online troll, which doubtless informed his desire to permit as free a speech as possible with minimal moderation. l try to post thoughtfully myself, but on'e's freedom to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose. Fuck with me, and I will take off your fucking head. I'm tired of taking shit from servants of Moloch, and simply won't anymore.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2019, 07:11:00 PM »
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/02/iq-equal-pay-for-equal-work-population-control-mao-and-communism/

IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control, Mao, and Communism

Part 6 of 6: The Utility of Jordan Peterson's Digressions

by Kim Petersen / February 18th, 2019


“Prepare for Struggle, Prepare for Famine, Work for the People.”

Jordan Peterson posits IQ tests as indicators of intelligence and predictors of long-term success.1 This is not scientific. Intelligence is definitionally problematic as is designing tests to measure whatever is deemed to denote intelligence. Nowadays, intelligence is considered a multi-faceted concept that cannot be measured comprehensively and accurately by a paper-and-pencil test. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to isolate a multitude of other factors and attribute any result exclusively to intelligence; e.g., parental upbringing, socio-economic levels, health, spiritual beliefs, personal inclinations, etc. Into this mix Peterson adds conscientiousness, with the same problems of how to define and how to measure. So such studies would be subjective, and at best any experimental designs would provide correlational statistics. Even resorting to multivariate analyses would not be without problems.

Who the hell is this person and what does he know about the accuracy of psychometric study of IQ and temperament? Various aspects of intelligence can be measured very well with IQ tests, and they DO correlate to positive long-term life outcomes, along with conscientiousness. Does he have ANY studies to refute that? I didn't think so.


Quote
In addition, the argument on IQ tests and the role of conscientiousness in “success” and “happiness” is a mined territory because covertly it recalls the dark side of eugenics. If IQs and conscientiousness are the litmus tests for the rank and suitability of individuals in a given society, then how far are we from doctrines adopted by fascist states vis-à-vis their people? The argument becomes seriously explosive in the context of poverty, depending on how one construes the correlation between IQ and success. For instance, according to many sources, Americans living under the poverty line are over 40 million. A question: would Peterson be poised to say that their poverty is a direct function of their IQ and conscientiousness? Any one who dares to pose the question on IQ or conscientiousness must (1) examine their own shortcoming on both matters, and (2) examine the social, economic, and cultural factors conducive, functionally, to lower IQ and social adaptations. Caveat: examining is not a judgement but a process leading to assumptions that must be further tested for factual or theoretical validity.

Now the person backtracks completely, basically admitting that the FACTS are the FACTS and IQ and conscientiousness play a role in long-term positive life outcomes. Peterson has said MANY times that intelligence is not the same as wisdom, not even slightly connected to each other, and that WISDOM is the mark of a truly good and successful person. Once we put that part back in, the one he chose to ignore, all of his meanderings about Eugenics becomes a moot point. He also fails to understand the simple idea that recognizing something that fundamentally exists is not the same as endorsing it as good.

Quote
Equal Pay for Equal Work

Although physicists can unravel the mathematical laws of the universe and rocket engineers can calculate how to launch several probes on missions throughout the solar system, according to Peterson, humans are incapable of determining what is equal. “The introduction of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality for one simple reason: who decides what work is equal? It’s not possible. That’s why the marketplace exists.” (loc 5403) And just how fair or effective as a distributive mechanism is the marketplace?

First, since the dawn of time, world societies and their economic systems have varied from Babylonia, Pharaonic civilization, ancient China, Rome, Islamic civilization, aggressive Mongolian expansionism, etc through to modern systems such as capitalism, socialism, communism, Italian fascism, social democracies, etc. Equal pay for all or advocating for equality of pay to all never existed. Roman soldiers took less that centurions, and engineers and artists took more than qualified labor and artisans. Early Islamic social laws, as distinct from religious laws, had legislated that qualified artisans and poets receive special pecuniary treatment, so also that the fighters that took less than their commanders did. Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, and even Vladimir Lenin never advocated for equal pay because they acknowledged the important role of creativity and expertise in the making of a valid economic model.

Why does Peterson accept decision of payment being left to the marketplace regardless of equality for the work done? Is the marketplace an entity that popped into existence by itself? Or did it have human hands behind its creation? Of course humans brought about the formation of the marketplace. And which humans would be expected to benefit the most from such an entity? Or did he expect his readers to absorb his statement naively and leave it unchallenged? To make the point, is there a design behind Peterson’s many groundless assertions? In the end, it seems to me that Peterson’s phrase — “That’s why the marketplace exists” — is a poor ideological construct in terms of cause and consequence. Most likely, he came up with it to close a complex argument by pointing to the predictive power of personality characteristics, however, it does not develop as a compact sequential argument. And why should having a extroverted versus introverted personality, or an assertive versus relaxed demeanor demand differential pay for equal work? Peterson provides such as explanations for unequal pay for the same work; to be fair, he does not say such should be the case. But by leaving it up to the market to determine, Peterson by default chooses the status quo wealth and income allocation.

Second, Peterson is positing that the markets can better provide for fairness in remuneration. However, the grotesque inequality that exists in the world clearly adduces that Peterson is dead wrong.3 Does Peterson agree with a market that pays a CEO in a day what a company worker makes in a year? Remarkably, a system within which such unfairness and such inequality do exist is well known: it is called capitalism. Recently, a study has revealed that 26 persons own as much as 3.8 billion of the poorest people. How has this happened? What’s Peterson theory on the matter?

Anyone who has listened to Peterson will know that he wants people to think about all of the factors that go into unequal pay between people, including between genders. There are very few cases of people doing the exact same work and getting less pay (this is a media soundbite the radical leftists latch onto). The real issue is that women tend to have occupations and make life choices which lead to lower incomes than men. The countries with the most targeted gender egalitarian policies (Scandinavia) are producing the MOST differentiated occupations between the genders.

Eddie was right, this guy is complete trash and I can't waste any more time or brain power on his disingenuous, straw man rants about Peterson, who he clearly has not listened to at all. He is just taking isolated phrases from the book out of context and using them to write the most lazy and nonsensical hit piece I have read so far.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: 🤨 Jordan Peterson: IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control...
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2019, 07:45:57 PM »
You note that my "attack dog comments" on Fucko are largely ad hom. But you remain mute as the tomb about the ones that are not. Also silent as the Sphinx about the fact that ASHVIN STARTED IT. He went ad hom first (old white man, etc.). So the best he gets is the back of my hand. So spare me the crocodile tears for "poor Ashvin." If he is sport, it's because he's made a game of it.

You cannot imagine that any of this is pleasant. As I told someone else today, these pissing matches leave the forum reeking of stale urine, like an alleyway where drunks piss. They annoy the regulars and scare the noobs and lurkers. But I am not going to permit free market fundamentalism go unchallenged while I am sucking a breath. And if you think that is "turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post," you are a lot less thoughtful than I gave you credit for being. Or choose to turn a blind eye.

How do you LIE so effortlessly? You are so deep down the rabbit hole of ideological possession and narcissism, you don't know which way is up anymore. You are fragmented in every direction and confused to the extreme.

Eddie and everyone else who has some critical thinking neurons left can see that you, AG and RE ALWAYS start in on the ad hom attacks before anyone else does. It's what you do when your precious ideological axioms are threatened.

Don't act like you are an unwilling participant here. You radical ideologues start these things because you crave the feeling of power it gives you. You view the whole world as a pissing match between power groups and you fantasize about being the one on top. That's why you automatically put down and label anyone who even slightly criticizes your dogmatic beliefs about marxism, socialism, victim culture, etc., without even stopping to consider what is actually being written. Everyone who doesn't tow your ideological line is a radical fundamentalist right-wing free market blah blah blah.

Old Major Dickhead here has no intellectual backbone or integrity - he will post marxist propaganda pieces supporting revolution by the dozens, and then cowardly say "no I'm not about violent revolution". Except you also said you would "settle" for RE's Orkin Man plan if something less drastic doesn't work.  When I said i was afraid of the radical left trends to impose collective guilt on people due to their race and gender, you said I should be afraid because your activist crowd is rising up against their "rich" oppressors, like... me and Eddie  :laugh: 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
127 Views
Last post June 07, 2018, 07:41:39 PM
by Palloy2
5 Replies
242 Views
Last post August 24, 2018, 08:36:24 AM
by Surly1
2 Replies
132 Views
Last post September 26, 2018, 06:26:07 AM
by Eddie