Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Outer]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

"Due to these differences, can men and women really co-exist in the workplace?"  or "What do we do now that women have come to be in male dominance hierarchies?" or "Why don't we ban women from wearing make-up (which is only for sexual provocation, anyway) in the workplace?

So you REALLY think men and women will be banned from working together, women won't be allowed to compete, and women  will be banned  from  wearing make-up in the workplace? Those things are nonsense and no one, and by no one I mean 99%+ of people, want that. We also live in a democracy and women have the right the vote. None of that nonsense will ever happen and you know that.

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

But this is not what he's actually doing. What he's actually doing is leaving it to his audience to connect the dots that women and men can't co-exist together in the workplace and that women don't belong in male dominance hierarchies.

You're so right. That's so true. Wow!

You've said the exact same thing in multiple threads on multiple occasions.

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

And from there, it's only logical to come to the conclusion that all of the liberation that women have had in the past 60 years has been a wrong move and that we need to go back to more patriarchal times where women stayed at home and had kids and men went out and worked in the dominance hierarchy. And perhaps if we did that, the social decay would cease and the "golden age" would return.

Yeah that's the logical conclusion.

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, the dangerous part is not the falsehoods that he states. The dangerous part is how he NEVER MAKES A REGRESSIVE CLAIM

Might be because he's not a regressive!

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

yet he muses on regressive things in front of an impressionable audience just enough to have them connect the right dots on their own.

Yes you're right. His audience of Libertarian-Left and Libertarian-Right.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Outer

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I didn't say it 95% good advice and 5% poor advice. I said it's 95% good advice laced with 5% regressive propaganda to convert people to his ideologies. So, it isn't a matter of him just giving some shabby advice here and there. He's very calculated with how he gives his advice, as he hides his agenda in it.

You are being too generous to him when he wouldn't be as generous with you and isn't as generous with those he views as ideologically different from himself. He's more like 5% fact, 5% generic self help trope and 90% ideologically driven propaganda. He takes a little fact, a little common sense and then distorts the fact and advice to fit his belief paradigm preaching that it is the 'truth'.

As an example he cites a study about a variety of ants that showed that only 20% of them are working at a time. He then distorts this fact to suggest that this is like how in humans only 20% produce everything and the 80% who don't do anything are evil cultural marxist commies who want to take the hard work of others and redistribute it.

Yes, only 20% of ants are working at a time because of efficiency is actually fact but how he uses it is a distortion of what really is taking place that he weaves into a narrative to support his ideological propaganda. He's mastered the 'contemplative academic' posturing which he uses to disseminate his regressive belief system as you have correctly identified about him.

He constantly does this with animal studies and behaviors by distorting and transferring them to his ideology about how he believes that humans should be living. He popularity stems largely from him tapping into the emotional and mental vulnerability and anxiety of people who want a societal paradigm that had previously entitled them in it that now is changing.

[SOUL]

49 minutes ago, Outer said:

Might be because he's not a regressive!

Then why does he worship at the psychological alter of and preach a regressive ideology as a universal 'truth' for everyone?

[Forestluv]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:13 PM, Matt8800 said:

Green is more evolved overall than orange but they only understand subjectivism when it doesnt conflict with their own ideology.

Yes. Green has a rudimentary understanding of subjectivism/relativism. For example, Green believes that gender identity is relative to the person, yet Green doesn't understand that that belief itself is relative to the Green person holding it.

On 11/18/2018 at 3:13 PM, Matt8800 said:

JP is obviously orange but he points out facts that green rejects when it contradicts their beliefs, which is also a short-coming of green. Yellow could just as easily say that men and women are different, with different natural strengths and weaknesses, and many green people would react to yellow in the exact same way they react to orange on many levels.

Yellow is so far above Orange that I don't think it's fair to compare the two in this context. The jump from Tier1 to Tier2 is greater than all of Tier 1 combined. It is a totally different mode of thinking and being. Yellow is infinitely more capable of exploring issues within Green than Orange.

[Outer]

31 minutes ago, SOUL said:

As an example he cites a study about a variety of ants that showed that only 20% of them are working at a time.

It's called the Pareto principle. It's been observed in many places, humans included. It also was that approx 20% of ants do 80% of the work in that study. Here you can read more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Quote

Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.

Quote

"80% of sales come from 20% of clients"

Quote

global income is very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.

Quote

"15% of the all the players last year produced 85% of the total wins with the other 85% of the players creating 15% of the wins

Quote

The Dunedin Study has found 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals

etc

[Outer]

48 minutes ago, SOUL said:

He then distorts this fact to suggest that this is like how in humans only 20% produce everything and the 80% who don't do anything are evil cultural marxist commies who want to take the hard work of others and redistribute it.

I think the context he's brought up the Pareto Principle and Marxism is when he spoke about the Communists in the Soviet Union. They stole all the land from the productive farmers and redistributed it. Since the land was given to unproductive farmers, mass starvation ensued and millions died of starvation.

You can read more about the Holodomor Голодомо́р here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

 

[Outer]

55 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Then why does he worship at the psychological alter of and preach a regressive ideology as a universal 'truth' for everyone?

Jordan has hundreds of hours of  lectures and content in YouTube, how much have you watched? Have you read anything he's written? For instance pages out of 12 Rules for Life or Maps of Meaning?

[Matt8800]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

Yellow is so far above Orange that I don't think it's fair to compare the two in this context. The jump from Tier1 to Tier2 is greater than all of Tier 1 combined. It is a totally different mode of thinking and being. Yellow is infinitely more capable of exploring issues within Green than Orange.

Read the below according to what the words precisely say without any assumptions:

Orange could make a statement, "Generally speaking, men and women tend to have differently structured brains which has a tendency to cause a predisposition to different behavior, strengths and weaknesses".

Yellow could make a statement, "Generally speaking, men and women tend to have differently structured brains which has a tendency to cause a predisposition to different behavior, strengths and weaknesses".

That statement could be supported by neuroscience and green would still, in many cases, have a strong aversion or rejection to that statement. The aversion would be to an equal degree because it is the same statement.

My point is this - There are many things that JP says that are foundationally correct that green irrationally reacts against due to their strong bias. Ignoring the bias mechanism when one forms beliefs is a yellow trait IMO. 

Regarding your point that JP believes in an objective morality - Yes, JP believes in the existence of an objective morality but that is not what green rejects. 

People seem to forget that humans are animals. They reject it when some of those animals act according to animal drives. Some of the controversy surrounding JP stems from green's expectation to live in the world as it should be, rather than what it is.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Matt8800

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

It's called the Pareto principle. It's been observed in many places, humans included. It also was that approx 20% of ants do 80% of the work in that study. Here you can read more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

etc

It isn't 20% of the ants do 80% of all the work, it's that 20% of the ants are working at a time... but they mostly all do work, not just at the same time. It's not that 80% of the ants do nothing at all and live off the other 20% so he's distorting the fact to fit his belief paradigm and his propaganda.

As far as property ownership and income distribution that isn't only 20% working or willing to own land while 80% are not, it's an example of a small percentage of people manipulating the system to their own advantage and to disadvantage others. It doesn't imply that the 80% aren't working hard, just that they aren't getting paid as much for their labor and is a result of the previously mentioned economic and societal manipulation.

Similarly that crime breakdown isn't an accurate reflection of how it plays out in reality. Out in the real world it's 20% of the people who get prosecuted and convicted or crime because of social influences, not that only 20% commit crime. There's plenty of people who don't get convicted of crime but surely commit it. Steal food to feed your family and go to jail, steal the wealth and homes of millions get a bonus and a bailout.

The Pareto principle is most relevant in randomized circumstances not ones that are purposefully influenced even if those similar ratios are found. It may be that this principle is the reason ants randomly express their work patterns that way, but JP's conclusion about the fact is flawed and application of it equally erroneous.

There definitely is something to it in some distributions but there are countless other examples of distributions that don't fit those ratios but since they don't fit aren't included because they don't confirm the idea of the principle, not that they don't exist. This is one of the reasons I view with skepticism whenever it is invoked without other variables considered like JP and others do. It's just confirmation bias.

But yes, of course, completely ignore his repressive ideology propaganda in favor of focusing on a small 'fact' one thinks proves him 'right' so then implies everything he bases it on is 'right', that's the JP defense mechanism of his minions.

So, 20% of the people spread 80% of the bullshit and 20% of his words are fact, 80% fiction.....lol.

Only 20% of the time it fits the Pareto principle but 80% it doesn't. Heh

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by SOUL

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Outer said:

So you REALLY think men and women will be banned from working together, women won't be allowed to compete, and women  will be banned  from  wearing make-up in the workplace? Those things are nonsense and no one, and by no one I mean 99%+ of people, want that. We also live in a democracy and women have the right the vote. None of that nonsense will ever happen and you know that.

I don't believe that Jordan Peterson has that kind of power on his own. So, no, I don't believe that will happen because of Jordan Peterson. But if you look around, there is a regressive attitude that is quite contagious in the current state of society. And Jordan Peterson is like kerosene to that fire. So, even though I don't believe that society isn't in such a state that this type of thing is a danger at present, there are definitely some really disturbing regressive patterns that I see as a ticking time bomb. And this is true in many facets beyond gender as well. This was just a for-instance. 

So, I try to nip these patterns in the bud as I'm seeing them grow, because I want to do everything in my power to discourage regressive ideologies and the collective shadow from taking hold of humanity.

But if you think our democracy is so strong that it could never succumb to regressive ideologies, then I would encourage you to question that notion. And if you think that 99% of people are on board with egalitarianism and democracy, I would encourage you to look around the internet a bit and really question whether or not that's true. People flip on those values easily... all they really need is a little push. 

5 hours ago, Outer said:

You're so right. That's so true. Wow!

You've said the exact same thing in multiple threads on multiple occasions.

I say the same thing because I see a wolf in sheep's clothing in Jordan Peterson. He has the veneer of an open-minded person, but he is anything but. But the particular point that JP was bringing up about women in male dominance hierarchies is just one example among many. And his worst affront doesn't have to do with gender specifically. It's his end goal of turning the world back "Blue", which would effect a lot of people negatively and would keep us going down the road toward repression of the feminine principle. The effects of which stretch far beyond gender, and have the lion's share to do with how people treat the Earth itself. 

So, I consider these regressive ideologies an enemy to the planet itself. And if there are huge swaths of the population buying into the words of someone like Jordan Peterson, I consider it a loss less likely that humanity will make the jump in time to salvage the planet. So, understand that this is why I try to really stick this point.

5 hours ago, Outer said:

Yeah that's the logical conclusion.

The worldview that he's advocating for assumes certain things to be true, just like any other worldview. That's the way every worldview works. It has no truth on it's own. But worldview have certain assumptions of truth, and then all the other beliefs within the worldview are scaffolded upon those assumptions. And then beliefs are stack on beliefs are stacked on beliefs until you have something that seems solid and airtight.

And when you have a worldview, there are certain ideas that are logical conclusions that stem from them. So, because he advocates for a Blue worldview, the most logical conclusions to come through from that worldview are that men and women should cleave to traditional gender norms or the social order will get thrown out of whack. And the idea that men and women should both be able to step out of the traditional gender norms are logically inconsistent with the inherent assumptions of the Blue framework. 

It's only when you get more into the Orange framework that breaking free of limiting gender norms makes sense and is logically consistent. 

So, yes. With Jordan Peterson's worldview that he advocates for, the most logical conclusion within it is that men and women are best following traditional gender norms, and that deviation from this "natural" order is causing social decay. Therefore, if you want to stop social decay, get women out of male dominance hierarchies and back at home taking care of children. But this is only a logical conclusion if we're trying to regress society back to an earlier form of itself... which is what Jordan Peterson is trying to do.

But again, this is just one example of Jordan Peterson's advocacy for regression. 

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, SOUL said:

You are being too generous to him when he wouldn't be as generous with you and isn't as generous with those he views as ideologically different from himself. He's more like 5% fact, 5% generic self help trope and 90% ideologically driven propaganda. He takes a little fact, a little common sense and then distorts the fact and advice to fit his belief paradigm preaching that it is the 'truth'.

As an example he cites a study about a variety of ants that showed that only 20% of them are working at a time. He then distorts this fact to suggest that this is like how in humans only 20% produce everything and the 80% who don't do anything are evil cultural marxist commies who want to take the hard work of others and redistribute it.

Yes, only 20% of ants are working at a time because of efficiency is actually fact but how he uses it is a distortion of what really is taking place that he weaves into a narrative to support his ideological propaganda. He's mastered the 'contemplative academic' posturing which he uses to disseminate his regressive belief system as you have correctly identified about him.

He constantly does this with animal studies and behaviors by distorting and transferring them to his ideology about how he believes that humans should be living. He popularity stems largely from him tapping into the emotional and mental vulnerability and anxiety of people who want a societal paradigm that had previously entitled them in it that now is changing.

That's true. I am being a bit generous with my numbers. But the main thing I was trying to drive across is that his ideological ways are not noticed by a lot of people. So, it becomes the pill inside the peanut butter, that people just don't notice they're taking

But the example you brought up is a perfect example of how he twists things.

In one video that I watched from him, he was talking about IQ. And he was saying that he had a client with an IQ of 85. And he had to teach that guy how to fold letters, and it took him over 40 hours to teach him just how to do that satisfactorily.

Now, he never advocated for genocide of all people with low IQs. And he never made any implications about race in the video. 

But his entire comments section was rife with Alt-Right talking points about how "black people have an average IQ of 85". And lots of people were advocating for genocide against those who had lower IQs because of the burden that they place upon society. And there were lots of people mixing up both these lines of thought on race and IQ and ethnic/IQ cleansing. 

This was really the first time I had realized what he was doing. He even said in one of his videos, (paraphrased) 'Watch the effect that a person is having, and you will find their intentions'. And that really rings true with him. 

He never says anything for sure that you could point out as advocating for regressive and dangerous ideologies. But if you look at the effect that his words have on people, you will see the effect he's trying to have. 

[Outer]

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

It isn't 20% of the ants do 80% of all the work, it's that 20% of the ants are working at a time... but they mostly all do work, not just at the same time. It's not that 80% of the ants do nothing at all and live off the other 20% so he's distorting the fact to fit his belief paradigm and his propaganda.

I took up the original article and it was 30% of the ants do 70% of the work while digging tunnels.

https://news.gatech.edu/2018/08/16/more-workers-working-might-not-get-more-work-done-ants-and-robots-show

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

As far as property ownership and income distribution that isn't only 20% working or willing to own land while 80% are not, it's an example of a small percentage of people manipulating the system to their own advantage and to disadvantage others. It doesn't imply that the 80% aren't working hard, just that they aren't getting paid as much for their labor and is a result of the previously mentioned economic and societal manipulation.

It depends on where you live. Some systems are better than others, some are more corrupt, like the U.S.A with all of the donors influencing politicians, etc. If you think the Pareto principle is only due to corruption and nowhere due to competence, like the grocery stores you buy your food from, then I have the good news is that it's mostly not due to corruption. Income isn't only about working hard.  It's about providing value. A grocery-chain business owner provides a lot of value.

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

Steal food to feed your family and go to jail, steal the wealth and homes of millions get a bonus and a bailout.

Which is corruption and unfair.

 

[Outer]

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't believe that Jordan Peterson has that kind of power on his own. So, no, I don't believe that will happen because of Jordan Peterson. But if you look around, there is a regressive attitude that is quite contagious in the current state of society. And Jordan Peterson is like kerosene to that fire. So, even though I don't believe that society isn't in such a state that this type of thing is a danger at present, there are definitely some really disturbing regressive patterns that I see as a ticking time bomb. And this is true in many facets beyond gender as well. This was just a for-instance. 

The way he thinks that the chances lessens that that time bomb is to be realized is to reject identity politics, and focus and unite on the individual. Everyone must reject identity politics, on all sides. No more culture wars. No more tribalism. You are the Individual. You are not your "group" or your "gender" or your "race". You're the divine individual that transforms the state through truthful speech.

 

[Forestluv]

@Matt8800 Yellow has transcended Orange AND Green. In addition, Yellow has advanced even higher with it’s own Yellow develop. It is much further advanced than Blue/Orange. It is like comparing a child from a small town to an adult that speaks four languages, has traveled around the world and has graduate degrees in art, mathematics and biology. Then, asking the child and adult to critique a High School system in a multiethnic area of New York City and write a proposal to increase ciricular effectiveness in a community in which less than half the population speaks fluent English. The child would propose free candy, games and long recess hours. Other children would cheer his proposal.

To Yellow, JP has the conscious level of a child. He isn’t even close to transitioning into Green. He hasn’t embodied anything about Green. He doesn’t understand Green because he has not reached that level of development. He has a very limited perspective at his low level of development.

Another analogy: it’s like asking a slave owner to write public policy for the ethical teatment of humans. This is incomprehensible to the slave owner. His level of development is too low. JP is only one conscious level higher than a slave owner (red/blue).

JP’s level of development is too low to comprehend higher conscious perspectives. His mind is incapable of understanding Green and Yellow. He is not part of a higher conscious solution. He is part of a lower conscious problem that society is trying to evolve upward from. Yellow and Green are trying to pull upward. JP is trying to pull downward. He is part of the problem, not solution. 

Hiwever, JP can help raise Red and lower Blue up to high Blue/Orange. 

[Outer]

55 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's his end goal of turning the world back "Blue", which would effect a lot of people negatively and would keep us going down the road toward repression of the feminine principle.

All he wants is not another Communist Russia or Nazi Germany. It's by staying at Orange if I use SD, not by going back to Blue. Moving to Green must include traditional Green values like FS vs. the state and other liberal ideas. Otherwise it's just a descent.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

and have the lion's share to do with how people treat the Earth itself. 

So, I consider these regressive ideologies an enemy to the planet itself. And if there are huge swaths of the population buying into the words of someone like Jordan Peterson, I consider it a loss less likely that humanity will make the jump in time to salvage the planet. So, understand that this is why I try to really stick this point.

They have some more ignorant people than others. ChapoTrapHouse embraces veganism far more than JordanPeterson on reddit. That's the time for truthful speech. The error is in seeing them as the other.

 

[RichardY]

 

[Outer]

59 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But his entire comments section was rife with Alt-Right talking points about how "black people have an average IQ of 85". And lots of people were advocating for genocide against those who had lower IQs because of the burden that they place upon society. And there were lots of people mixing up both these lines of thought on race and IQ and ethnic/IQ cleansing. 

Which is YouTube comments as usual. 1% or less people comment. Just look at anyone's comments on YouTube.

Here's what the Alt-Right thinks of J.P.

[Outer]

Here's some more.

https://i.imgur.com/JTnEXJZ.jpg

Edited November 20, 2018 by Outer

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Outer said:

Which is YouTube comments as usual. 1% or less people comment. Just look at anyone's comments on YouTube.

Here's what the Alt-Right thinks of J.P.

Red / Lower Blue will not like JP. 

[Outer]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Red / Lower Blue will not like JP. 

I only learn about Spiral Dynamics from writing to you and reading on the forum, and I realized that the problem with moving to Green is not  green itself, but abandoning certain values from Orange but not other stages. For instance abandoning Individualism by moving to Green in favor of collectivism won't ever move you up to Yellow. In truth of postmodern Green you should abandon collectivism and identity politics, and technically Individualism too. So you abandon collectivism at Blue, to gain Individualism at Orange, and then you abandon both at Green OR not Individualism to move towards Yellow. I have a problem with Green collectivism which is actually more like a Red / Blue value that won't move you to Yellow Individual Collectivism, which is what Jordan speaks of. That the group is subordinate to the Individual, that the group consists of individuals. That humans are a social animal, but that we should not organize around groups but around the individual  IN the group.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Outer