Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying?

Why is that a problem? There’s a group of laborers that you’ve divided somewhat arbitrarily by sex. At what level of analysis is a disparity between those two groups a problem? Is it just a problem if the disparity is salary? What about disparity in hours worked, or a disparity in disciplinary action? Are those problems too? Are men and woman only equal if they are exactly the same? Is that how social equality works?

Also,is it only a problem between different sexes, or can any disparity between any arbitrary division be a problem? Do blue eyed laborers make more than brown eyes ones? How about people above and below 5 feet 10 inches tall? Should we be concerned about the statistical lack of one legged red headed midget Scandinavians in STEM fields?

Every time you divide a group along an arbitrary fracture line you will generate a disparity. This is only a problem if you believe that individual equality means that everyone is exactly the same.

 

Because this particular arbitrary class division has been given a particular amount of symbolic significance over the entire history of mankind by a lot of people thinking some pretty dumbass things, leading to institutional consequences.

 

So then wouldn’t an attempt to engineer equality be entirely symbolic? What’s the point of such a symbolic equality? Do you think people are too stupid to realize the difference between a real and a symbolic equality?

Hierarchies of value exist objectively, not symbolically. After all, your so called problem is measured in objective quantities of value. You’re not going to get the objective value of of something to change by forcing people to pretend that the value is different.

And that’s why Peterson ties this idiocy to Marxism. Centrally re-engineering society’s hierarchy of value is the fundamental principal of Marxism, and it’s specifically due to the desire to level symbolic inequalities. Factory workers in Russian cities felt unequal to rural farmers so to engineer equality they stole all Kulak’s food and killed them all. Shortly thereafter they realized it’s hard to grow food and they started to starve as well. Go figure, right? Who would have thought that a revolutionary change to the entire food production system could have had disasterous consequences?

Playing field leveling has been tried many times, and has been shown to spectacularly fail every time because the engineers don’t even know what game they are playing. Instead of realizing that fact, its proponents simply rename the game peices and continue to attempt to push them around the board with the same strategy. Instead of a rich v poor class struggle it becomes a oppressor v oppressed struggle. Instead of self interest v altruism it is privilege v intersectional disadvantage.

So this is why Peterson tells people to clean their room. Because creating order out of chaos is increadibily difficult. How in the hell do you think it’s going to happen at the scale of the entire society, if you can’t even figure out how to get your own life in order? Who are you to tell an entire society to get its act together if you can’t get your own act together?

 

Capitalism has totally degenerated into an extended exercise in symbolic exchange. If you're looking for something "real" or "authentic", give up. The world has moved on from that. Capitalism began as the process of commodity accumulation and exchange, but as feedback loops, positive and negative, have developed to keep capitalism stable and accelerating towards faster and faster growth, more and more layers of abstraction have been piled on. With the dawn of media technology, even senses and emotions can be commodified and integrated into the grander ideological and productive apparatus of capitalism. Capitalism is an empty machine that serves no purpose whatsoever except continuing to exist.

So yeah, it's symbolic, but the real died a long time ago, and symbol is all we have left.

You should be more skeptical towards "objectivity". Your mindset lends itself to uncritically accepting everything an authority tells you. Just because something says it's objective doesn't mean it is.

Peterson ties all of this to marxism because he's a generic reactionary dipshit who doesn't understand any of the philosophical underpinnings of the **** he tries to talk about. He should stick to psychology.

Playing field leveling has not worked because capitalism contains stabilizing mechanisms that act against disruptions. It's a self correcting, evolutionary, accelerating process. In addition, you don't seem to realize that contemporary marxists and post-marxists view all oppressions as different expressions of capitalism rather than truly separate in any meaningful sense.

I think that the only way out of the hell we're in is through. We need to prepare to be left behind in rubble by capitalism and then we need to try to get out of the way of all the destructive **** it's too late to stop.

 

Its because men and women are different.. both physically and mentally and I'm not talking about who is smarter i'm talking about what makes men happy vs what makes women happy, what men are looking for in life vs women.. there is a lot of overlap.. but a lot that is different.. like what they are looking for in a career. Its just how life is.. I know you want to believe that everyone is equal but they are not, thats not how life works..

 

Look pard, your economic system cannibalized itself and the entire planet saw the american aristocracy beg for socialism to bail themeslves out across "both" a "conservative" and then a "liberal" administration.

 

Then get on bottom and shut up.

 

is this a sexual reference?

 

Capitalism has taken about 1 billion people out of extreme poverty the last 20ish years..
Marxism has killed over 110million by genocide and starvation..

Marxism has more the doubled the deaths then every war combined in the 20th century..

 

They're paid less overall, because they're attracted to jobs that generally pay less. Teaching SHOULD pay more, which would lessen the gap, but that's about it. Maybe women would make more if we allow them to graduate at higher numbers or give them more scholarships...whooops, we've been doing that for more than a decade now=) Peterson already said it. Choose to ignore the facts or continue on.

 

I don't hear what any psychologist says. Why would this guy be any different?

 

Because as usual you are wrong and easily proven so.

 

I agree. It's not journalism. But cable news is by no means journalism. Not sure it ever was, going way back to Walter Cronkite.But this is the USA, free speech and all. Don't want to talk to asshats who you know will just build strawmen, don't go on their show. Let them eat cake.

 

Peterson made a fool out of Newman. This argument is old yet the left clings to "gender inequality" as if the evil white man's world set things up that way. The left uses willful ignorance to stick to a narrative they see benefitting them politically.

But why would anyone buy into the lefts phony narrative?

Narcissism is one big reason. Many women buy into because they like to play the victim and have something to blame failures in their lives on. If you are being kept down by "the man", you do not have to take any responsibility for your life.

Men fall for this obvious garbage because they are simply vitue signalling. Again because they are narcissistic. By standing up for women they are saying "look at what a good person I am" for standing up for the "oppressed".

If you notice this "gender inequality" phony narrative comes up mostly near election time. It is the dems trying to drive their base to the polls. Democrats have no policies on the economy or anything else so they need to resort to these tricks.

 

Not exactly

Let’s say there was a time in which black suffered discrimination that resulted in lower wages
... well then the logical corporate response would seem to be to hire lots more blacks to take advantage of their lower wages. But that did not happen. And the fact that hiring did not happen does not prove there was no discrimination

 

That’s nonsense talk. The fact that we exchange tokens of value in the form of currency does not negate the fact that the tokens represent real value. The “symbolic” value you’re attempting to advocate for, however, is a value that does not exist, and cannot be conjured into existence through force.

That’s a whole lotta nothing talk. No argument. No rational thought. Just garbage.

And you do understand, right? Otherwise, how could you tell he doesn’t? Are you going to tell me that Nietzsche predicted the outcome using the same philosophical argument, but Nietzsche should have stuck to psychology? Solzhenitsyn lived through it and professed the same philosophical argument. Did he not know what he was talking about? Please. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Playing field leveling has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is a description of a system that exists as a function of natural trade mechanisms. It’s not a social construct. It’s a biological one.

 

. - some guy with no idea what he was talking about in 1885...

 

Some Russian guy who had no idea what he was talking about.

 

Here's more (please read the whole thing at the link):

 

Peterson is a genius. He reminds me a lot of Sowell, and is just as intriguing.

His ability to articulate the should-be-obvious in a way that deconstructs opposing arguments in a way that can't be refuted is awe inspiring.

 

The univaried vs. multivaried moment was hilarious. You could see her head internally explode.

 

Every author of a snide article such as this should simply have a chat with Peterson himself, on camera, so we can all watch the smugness drain from their faces as he dissects their pathetic fantasy with truth scalpels.

 

I have watched several of his interviews and talks. The best one is when he and Russel Brand sit down.

 

Yeah, that's all it is. lol

 

Here's more: