Author Topic: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson  (Read 6419 times)

rob/d

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 55
  • Location: blighty
  • Grumpy ? me ?
12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« on: March 04, 2018, 06:09:57 AM »
 I been a fan of Mr Peterson from his "youtube" presence for years and his new book covers a lot of his more salient thoughts on life .
 I wish i had it  20 years ago .
 A great read for twenty somethings and an excellent read for most .
 His recent ding dong with channel 4 in the U.K has raised his status to sainthood in a lot of his followers  minds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&ab_channel=Channel4News
Enjoy.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4679
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2018, 06:24:42 AM »
What kind of a book can I expect if I have no idea who this guy is?

rob/d

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 55
  • Location: blighty
  • Grumpy ? me ?
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2018, 09:05:34 AM »
Sorry for my vagueness grant.
Maybe watch a few YouTube videos of his first and see if  you find his theology and theory appealing.
 Life analysis and personal growth type of thing without the flowery  overtone.

 

Zola.

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Location: UK
  • Let's do this.
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 09:56:19 AM »
worth a read?

I have listened to a podcast with him and Joe Rogan, and also the channel 4 news.

He speaks sense a lot, but I cant figure out if he is part troll.

maurice197

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2018, 11:40:48 AM »
I read it and found it generally useful/ interesting.  He makes good points about how to navigate a crazy world without becoming totally nihilistic.  My main complaint is that there are several long tangents regarding the "proper" reading of the bible.  If you aren't his brand of christian, it can be a bit off putting, but not directly offensive.  I'd recommend it, but be ready to skip a few pages every now and again.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Age: 1818
  • Location: CO
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2018, 03:40:13 PM »
Watched the video in the OP. Wow, this guy is awesome. I think I would have stood up and walked out after 5 minutes. She deliberately twisted everything he said to make him sound foolish. She must really hate what he stands for in order to attack like that.

"So you're saying..."
"No. I didn't say anything like that."

englishteacheralex

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Honolulu, HI
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2018, 03:59:18 PM »
Funny, somebody posted something from Jordan Peterson in a thread about divorce this weekend and I fell HARD through the youtube wormhole. I find him pretty entertaining and perfect to listen to while doing chores--stimulating but not too dense. Got a lot of dishes, floors, and laundry folding done to his lectures over the past four days.

I'm too cheap to buy his book--it's not in the library yet--and there's so much on youtube from him I think I'm getting the general gist of what the book has to say. I mean, there is literally an entire interview series on youtube with segments on each chapter in the book.

I quite like what he has to say about marriage, divorce, and raising children. Also appreciate his candid tone and the fact that he maintains a sense of humility and self-awareness--it really saves him from coming across as just another arrogant conservative blowhard.

I've listened to enough and read enough about him to cautiously consider myself a fan.

Forever Wednesday

  • Guest
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2018, 03:25:25 AM »
I'm a fan of Jordan Peterson, and I'm partway through his latest book.

When I was first exposed to him (via the Waking Up podcast, episode #62) I admit that I thought he was something of a religious crank. But after hearing him speak on other podcasts (Joe Rogan, Jocko Willinck) and various Youtube videos (including the infamous Channel 4 interview) I realize that his views are much more intelligent and nuanced than I first gave him credit for. I mention this because I think it's quite easy to get a bad first impression of Jordan Peterson given the unfair media reception he receives, and the controversial areas he often touches upon (religion, gender, politics).

rosarugosa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2018, 04:16:13 AM »
Funny, somebody posted something from Jordan Peterson in a thread about divorce this weekend and I fell HARD through the youtube wormhole.

Same here.  I liked a lot of what he said about marriage and relationships, but he lost me when he started talking about things like religion and gay marriage. I guess it proves that someone can have wisdom in a specific area, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wise in all areas.

Zola.

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Location: UK
  • Let's do this.
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2018, 06:18:28 AM »
I have his book now.... wondering when to start it... got many to read on my list!

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2018, 06:26:35 PM »
I am little confused about your aversions to the religion side of things. As far as I can tell he reads the bible from an archetypal and mythological viewpoint, not from a purely religious one. Have you watched the bible lectures? They are actually quite interesting and made me appreciate the bible even as a non-christian.

His newest podcast with Warren Farrell is excellent, and something that needs to be talked about in society, but is largely ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O_FLUWYmg

I haven't really heard his thoughts on gay marriage, can you link a video or summarize?

grandep

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2018, 04:02:18 PM »
He's been making the interview rounds recently with his new book coming out. He did an interview with The Economist and with The Art of Manliness. I agree with what other posters have said, I think he is generally well-spoken and thoughtful, and while I don't agree with everything he says I appreciate his voice and his contributions. He is a conservative so the media don't typically portray him very fairly (Vox in particular wrote a piece on him that I thought was incredibly skewed and unfair, and I tend to really like Vox).

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2018, 08:31:56 AM »
I've listened to quite a few of his interviews and lectures.

I find him a bit too bellicose at times, but his underlying views are pretty compelling.

The hit pieces that have been done on him tend to grasp at straws. For example the NYT did a story that pointed out the hypocrisy in his advice to "stand up straight with your shoulders back" while at the same time wearing jeans and socks when the camera is aimed at his top half, a blazer and collared shirt. Vice seemed to point their camera to highlight this as well. And while it does showcase his less than stylish tendencies, it doesn't really amount to any significant rebuttal to his worldview. But at least it's better than the straw man attacks that other left leaning publications will do on him.

I prefer the tempered nature of someone like Jonathan Haidt. Peterson kind of veers back and forth between being overly scholarly in tone, with phrases like "postmodern neo-marxist" and being hypermasculine with his notion that the threat of violence underlies all interactions between two men.

Haven't read the book, but I'm sure I'd get something out of it based on what I've heard so far.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2018, 10:03:36 AM »
I'm a fan from various podcasts and youtube videos and am halfway through the book. I don't agree with his entire worldview and find him unnecessarily prickly at times but the life advice in 12 Rules is super solid, if sometimes too weighed down by the myth, archetype and "post modern neomarxist" talk.

Many people who only know him from youtube and the recent political controversies don't realize he was a practicing clinical psychologist for 25 years (or so) and the 12 Rules advice comes as much from direct experience helping struggling people as it does from his professorial career.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2018, 10:16:34 AM »
I don't know anything about this author/book but was a little annoyed no one bothered to list the 12 things in this thread. From Wikipedia:
Quote
  • Stand up straight with your shoulders back
  • Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
  • Make friends with people who want the best for you
  • Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
  • Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
  • Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
  • Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
  • Tell the truth or, at least, don't lie
  • Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
  • Be precise in your speech
  • Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
  • Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Bayou Dweller

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Spend less. Live more. SWAMI.
    • Just Stop Spending
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2018, 07:40:42 AM »
Is there any point in reading this book if I've listened to most of his podcast, his interviews, etc.? I've been following him for a while but I feel like I won't get much new out of the book. Thoughts?

lemanfan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2018, 08:46:51 AM »
Is there any point in reading this book if I've listened to most of his podcast, his interviews, etc.? I've been following him for a while but I feel like I won't get much new out of the book. Thoughts?

No, I don't think you'd get very much new out of it. The underlying message about the "existentialist" view that you can create your own circumstances are common his message, regardless of which medium is consumed.

The book feels a little bit more condensed and to the point than his talks, but the underlying message is the same.  Many or moste of the points from the book are mentioned in his spoken contents.

Bayou Dweller

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Spend less. Live more. SWAMI.
    • Just Stop Spending
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2018, 10:40:06 AM »
Is there any point in reading this book if I've listened to most of his podcast, his interviews, etc.? I've been following him for a while but I feel like I won't get much new out of the book. Thoughts?

No, I don't think you'd get very much new out of it. The underlying message about the "existentialist" view that you can create your own circumstances are common his message, regardless of which medium is consumed.

The book feels a little bit more condensed and to the point than his talks, but the underlying message is the same.  Many or moste of the points from the book are mentioned in his spoken contents.

Very good to know. Thank you.

cgenco

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2018, 10:38:10 AM »
I've been devouring Jordan Peterson's work recently. The depth he speaks at is incredibly compelling. Every word he says is carefully chosen and backed by a lot of thought. 

Here's my outline of 12 Rules for Life: https://christian.gen.co/books/12-rules/

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2018, 07:02:41 AM »
I've heard a lot of good things about this book. I may check it out at the library and see what it's all about.

Zola.

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Location: UK
  • Let's do this.
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2018, 09:13:12 AM »
I am no reading it. His prose is amusing at times, the book can seems to go in waves up and down.... early into it but will keep going.

pegleglolita

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2019, 02:12:16 PM »
Mayhaps take a peek at some of these takes before fully immersing in Peterson-land.  He's not evil, more like a pseudointellectual hack who has some phenomenally messed up attitudes about women that he sort of ninja-sandwiches in between not-very-novel "be a decent human being, take personal responsibility, yadda yadda" style advice.  Careful, here be dragons... 

https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/997570050105135104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2019, 05:53:49 PM »
Who has some phenomenally messed up attitudes about women

You mean  you disagree with his views, therefore his views are "phenomenally messed up" ?

Bayou Dweller

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Spend less. Live more. SWAMI.
    • Just Stop Spending
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2019, 09:09:23 AM »
Mayhaps take a peek at some of these takes before fully immersing in Peterson-land.  He's not evil, more like a pseudointellectual hack who has some phenomenally messed up attitudes about women that he sort of ninja-sandwiches in between not-very-novel "be a decent human being, take personal responsibility, yadda yadda" style advice.  Careful, here be dragons... 

https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/997570050105135104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

Serious question: Have you actually listened to a lot of his lectures? Or have you just heard what others have said about him?

I've listened to hours of his lectures and podcast interviews and I've never gotten that vibe from him. I feel the message he has is actually quite realistic and positive. Also, his assessment of modern society is also quite accurate in my eyes.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4679
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2019, 09:47:58 AM »
Are you disputing that he said the quotes in the article or are you disputing that the quotes in the article are problematic? This seems to be a fairly explicit endorsement of misogyny:
Quote
“The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,”

mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2019, 03:05:21 PM »
Misogyny: noun.  "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"

Dr Peterson's quoted statement in no way can be considered an endorsement of misogyny, unless said person wants to interpret it in that way.

pegleglolita

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2019, 04:30:47 PM »
Umm...how else could you possibly interpret that statement?  He is literally proposing that the current societal structures that grant men more power exist because men are MORE COMPETENT.  Also, extolling the benefits of "enforced monogamy" while ignoring the historical and ongoing epidemic of violence against women (that has been facilitated by a power-based de facto enforcement of marriage/partnering) is really dangerous thinking. 

Seriously, you should watch that youtube video by ContraPoints.  It is thoughtful and funny.  I admit that Peterson does say some things that resonate with me in terms of personal responsibility, integrity, etc.  You should be able to be impartial and honestly critical of the things he says that maybe don't sit so well, or at least understand what upsets others and why.       

mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2019, 06:26:01 PM »
Easily.  Competence doesn't mean ingrained ability or worth.  It means the ability to do something.

Women in society over millennia have been homemakers and child-raisers due primarily to biology.  Men developed technologies and tamed the world, because they had the time, inclination and the need to do so (on average).  Society developed around that simple fact. That in no way means that there was an oppressive patriarchy.  Both sexes needed the other, they contributed in different ways.  Indeed, as technology has freed women somewhat from those biological chains, society is changing.  An oppressive patriarchy would not permit the change.  Go check out some actual patriarchal societies in Africa and Asia.

I have no intention of taking this thread way off-topic into discussions of "epidemic of violence against women".  Suffice to say I'm not a fan of the latest wave of feminist victim-labelling.

Not There Yet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2019, 09:15:08 AM »
Yeah, everything would be swell if wimminfolk just knew their place.

https://www.bodyforwife.com/jordan-peterson-revealed-as-a-mens-rights-activist/


« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 09:18:10 AM by Not There Yet »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2019, 09:37:18 AM »
Easily.  Competence doesn't mean ingrained ability or worth.  It means the ability to do something.

When you say that 50% of all people (who have very clearly experienced oppression through history, and continue to experience oppression in most of the world) are less competent than the other 50%, you are making a pretty clear statement about their ingrained ability and worth.

Women in society over millennia have been homemakers and child-raisers due primarily to biology.

You're of the opinion that women are biologically designed to stay at home and raise children?  Can you expand on this a bit?  What research are you referencing that proves this?

developed technologies and tamed the world, because they had the time, inclination and the need to do so (on average).

Would having a wife as property to act as your servant to do things like raise your kids, cook your meals, and clean your house free up a lot of this time you're referring to?

Society developed around that simple fact. That in no way means that there was an oppressive patriarchy. Both sexes needed the other, they contributed in different ways. 

This is factually incorrect for many reasons, but the easiest to point out is the legal status of women.

Through much of history, women were legally treated as property.  They had no right to vote, no right to own property, and extremely limited right to defense of person (husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives for example).  If you don't call that an oppressive partriarchy, what would you call it?

Indeed, as technology has freed women somewhat from those biological chains, society is changing.  An oppressive patriarchy would not permit the change.

The oppressive patriarchy fought against the very slow changes of giving women rights, and continues to do so.  Resistance against women's rights is entirely why the legal status of women had to be explicitly codified into law,  Laws which, are still regularly broken today.  If there was no patriarchal pushback, then this would have been entirely unnecessary.


Go check out some actual patriarchal societies in Africa and Asia.

You don't think that the US should hold a higher standard than that?

I have no intention of taking this thread way off-topic into discussions of "epidemic of violence against women".  Suffice to say I'm not a fan of the latest wave of feminist victim-labelling.

Perhaps if there were fewer victims, you would see less mention of them.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2019, 05:54:36 PM »
Quote
Would having a wife as property to act as your servant. Through much of history, women were legally treated as property.  They had no right to vote, no right to own property, and extremely limited right to defense of person (husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives for example).  If you don't call that an oppressive partriarchy, what would you call it?

This is a classic example of presentism, which is all too common these days. You might as well claim men intentionally delayed all the necessary technological and material advancements to prolong their oppression over women.

Note presentism is not the same as moral relativism. Presentism is about judging the past when there were no better alternatives given the constraints on economic productions and min/max trade-offs. Moral relativism is about not judging the present when alternatives are readily available.

Rights come with responsibilities, equal rights meant equal responsibilities. Social equality is built on the foundation of economic equality, which in turn, relies on what one could do to fulfill their share of economic output. In an agrarian society where brute strength was in short demand, individuals with higher capacity of labour would be more valued. A person that could dig 500lb of x is going to be more valued than a person that could dig 300 lb, all else equal.

Note it was not until the industrial revolution, where machines began to replace raw human strength, and women could actively produce as much as men, all else equal, we began to pay more attention to better their experiences.

Pretending social/political right is a natural right and free of any obligation and responsibilities is a daydream. Every pursuit in equality of outcome regardless of individual circumstances ended in failure.

People are NOT equal in terms of abilities, never have been, and never will be. Modern technologies drastically reduced the innate inequalities of people's physical abilities, it is also making progress on reducing various forms of cognitive differences, give it more time.

EDIT: I should add, if you are so grieved by the past injustices suffered by this one group, shouldn't you be actively seeking to eradicate the same injustices being done today in large parts of Asia and South America? Or is your moral relativism stopping you from doing that?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 07:19:16 PM by anisotropy »

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4679
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2019, 06:36:57 PM »
Anthropologically speaking, everything you're saying is bullshit.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2019, 09:32:10 PM »
Anthropologically speaking, everything you're saying is bullshit.

Because ethnocentrism is not the cardinal sin of anthropology right?  ;)

What I just described is Cultural Materialism: behaviors and traditions are responses to practical problems of everyday life, in making best use of scarce resources. Don't they still teach that? How about Etic and Emic, surely those are still being taught?

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/cultural-materialism/
https://www.thoughtco.com/cultural-materialism-3026168

« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 09:39:50 PM by anisotropy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2019, 09:48:47 AM »
Quote
Would having a wife as property to act as your servant. Through much of history, women were legally treated as property.  They had no right to vote, no right to own property, and extremely limited right to defense of person (husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives for example).  If you don't call that an oppressive partriarchy, what would you call it?

This is a classic example of presentism, which is all too common these days. You might as well claim men intentionally delayed all the necessary technological and material advancements to prolong their oppression over women.

Note presentism is not the same as moral relativism. Presentism is about judging the past when there were no better alternatives given the constraints on economic productions and min/max trade-offs. Moral relativism is about not judging the present when alternatives are readily available.

Rights come with responsibilities, equal rights meant equal responsibilities. Social equality is built on the foundation of economic equality, which in turn, relies on what one could do to fulfill their share of economic output. In an agrarian society where brute strength was in short demand, individuals with higher capacity of labour would be more valued. A person that could dig 500lb of x is going to be more valued than a person that could dig 300 lb, all else equal.

Note it was not until the industrial revolution, where machines began to replace raw human strength, and women could actively produce as much as men, all else equal, we began to pay more attention to better their experiences.

Pretending social/political right is a natural right and free of any obligation and responsibilities is a daydream. Every pursuit in equality of outcome regardless of individual circumstances ended in failure.

People are NOT equal in terms of abilities, never have been, and never will be. Modern technologies drastically reduced the innate inequalities of people's physical abilities, it is also making progress on reducing various forms of cognitive differences, give it more time.

Interesting.

You're of the opinion that it was OK historically to oppress women by denying them rights (the right to vote, to own property, and to marry the person of their choosing, etc) because the could physically dig less dirt than a given man.

Physical abilities are far less important today than two hundred years ago.  This is true.  In the modern world, intelligence is far more important than physical strength to the economy.  Are you of the opinion that the right to vote, to own property, and to marry a person of their own choosing for stupid people should now be taken away . . . creating second class citizens (in the same way that women were mistreated)?  I suspect (based on the evidence surrounding Trump voters) that the results of the last presidential election would be far different if this rule were enforced.



EDIT: I should add, if you are so grieved by the past injustices suffered by this one group, shouldn't you be actively seeking to eradicate the same injustices being done today in large parts of Asia and South America? Or is your moral relativism stopping you from doing that?

What has led you to assume that I think social injustices in Asia and South America are OK?  There are injustices around the world.  Pointing out that the US does things wrong certainly doesn't excuse any other country of misdeeds.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2019, 11:50:10 AM »
Quote
You're of the opinion that it was OK historically to oppress women by denying them rights (the right to vote, to own property, and to marry the person of their choosing, etc) because the could physically dig less dirt than a given man.

Physical abilities are far less important today than two hundred years ago.  This is true.  In the modern world, intelligence is far more important than physical strength to the economy.  Are you of the opinion that the right to vote, to own property, and to marry a person of their own choosing for stupid people should now be taken away . . . creating second class citizens (in the same way that women were mistreated)?

I am of the opinion that past social norms and traditions were responses to practical problems of everyday life, in making best use of scarce resources at the time. And any attempt to insert present values while neglecting past constraints are fundamentally flawed if not worthless.

Regarding the "stupid" people as you mentioned, that was *more or less* the historical norm until recently. Once again it was modern progress, including the spread of public education, that uplifted the group of below average intelligence. I don't need to remind you of the atrocities done to these people, including sterilization, social/political prosecution, and mass murder.

Modern technologies drastically diminished the differences in productive capabilities between an average person and a person of below average intelligence. It is a good thing, we are more equal politically today because we are more equal in terms of our economic capabilities to produce goods.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2019, 12:13:10 PM »
Quote
You're of the opinion that it was OK historically to oppress women by denying them rights (the right to vote, to own property, and to marry the person of their choosing, etc) because the could physically dig less dirt than a given man.

Physical abilities are far less important today than two hundred years ago.  This is true.  In the modern world, intelligence is far more important than physical strength to the economy.  Are you of the opinion that the right to vote, to own property, and to marry a person of their own choosing for stupid people should now be taken away . . . creating second class citizens (in the same way that women were mistreated)?

I am of the opinion that past social norms and traditions were responses to practical problems of everyday life, in making best use of scarce resources at the time. And any attempt to insert present values while neglecting past constraints are fundamentally flawed if not worthless.

An office job in the 1950s didn't require significant brawn.  Yet women were routinely discriminated against and prevented from getting these jobs.  What technological advances have occurred since the 1950s that changed this?



Regarding the "stupid" people as you mentioned, that was *more or less* the historical norm until recently. Once again it was modern progress, including the spread of public education, that uplifted the group of below average intelligence. I don't need to remind you of the atrocities done to these people, including sterilization, social/political prosecution, and mass murder.

Can you provide some research that supports your theory that there has been a reduction in below average intelligence in the world?

I'd assume that roughly the same percentage of people are below average intelligence today as there were 100 years ago (although as a whole people in the world are better educated).



Modern technologies drastically diminished the differences in productive capabilities between an average person and a person of below average intelligence. It is a good thing, we are more equal politically today because we are more equal in terms of our economic capabilities to produce goods.

Please provide a source for your theory that the productivity gap between above and below average intelligence workers has been reduced.

I'd be surprised if this was the case . . . a couple hundred years ago, a stupid person with a strong back was about as productive as a smart person with a strong back, because (as you mentioned) the tasks they were given were more likely to require strength than intelligence.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2019, 03:39:12 PM »
If you want to get technical then we need to be precise with what we mean, and if you want objective data then we will have to base the discussion on measureable intelligence quotient.

Paper from 2006 shows Intelligence (70 to 130) is correlated (0.297) to income, but has almost no link to wealth.

"Since intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth, individuals with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped in achieving financial success, nor should high intelligence people believe they have an advantage."

Note the IQ data is from 2006 1980, given Flynn Effect, the "comparable" low-end of the curve would have be roughly 50-55 in 1920s. What happened to people in that range back then? I prob don't need to remind you. Now, let's focus on the treatment of this particular group, of whom today we would label "ID" or "borderline ID".

Quote
A couple hundred years ago, a stupid person with a strong back ....

A couple hundred years ago, a "stupid" person had no right and couldn't even manage their own affairs or "income". 13th century England declared ID people to be incapable of making decisions or managing their affairs. Fifty years ago the cutoff was 50-70 (comparable to 65-85 today), Today, that cut off is usually around 60.

For a person of ID group, being physically strong was almost a necessary trait if they were to have any hope to be self-sufficient in the past, but today, we have a huge variety of jobs suitable for ID people that may not be physically strong. Visited a bottle depot recently? Assembly line quality control? Not to mention all the jobs that consist of mundane but repetitive tasks but not strength based.

In the 18th and 19th centuries ID people were removed from their families and housed in large "professional" institutions. The lucky ones went by as farmhands, many were treated as criminals (men) and prostitutes (women). They were not even "allowed" to work, in which case the correlation between ID group vs "average" group to income would have been much higher than today's 0.297.

What changed? A whole bunch of things: commercial fertilizers, popularization of plastics, electronic hardware, etc. More importantly, the Western nations had an abundant surplus product:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009

Social equality is built on economic equality. Economic equality, essentially a wide redistribution of an abundant surplus product, cannot come to pass until that society's ability to produce wealth is built up enough to satisfy its whole population and to support marginalized groups.

With the abundant resources we were able to form various programs to help the ID groups realize their full potential and become more equal with the rest of the population, not only in income, but also socially.

Prof. Peterson gives Marxism a lot of crap, and rightly so, but his interpretation on how social progress is made (mainly fueled by technology) is similar to the Marxist view.

Quote
An office job in the 1950s didn't require significant brawn.  Yet women were routinely discriminated against and prevented from getting these jobs.  What technological advances have occurred since the 1950s that changed this?

Office jobs were not common back in the 50s, as can be seen in bls report. When the demand for office worker picked up in the 60s and outpaced qualified men, women, with the help of the pill, arguably one of the most important tech advancement in human history, filled the void.

a simple wiki yields:
"In the first place, it was more effective than most previous reversible methods of birth control, giving women unprecedented control over their fertility.[170] Its use was separate from intercourse, requiring no special preparations at the time of sexual activity that might interfere with spontaneity or sensation, and the choice to take the pill was a private one. This combination of factors served to make the pill immensely popular within a few years of its introduction.[108][115]"

"Claudia Goldin, among others, argue that this new contraceptive technology was a key player in forming women's modern economic role, in that it prolonged the age at which women first married allowing them to invest in education and other forms of human capital as well as generally become more career-oriented. Soon after the birth control pill was legalized, there was a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[171] "

"From an economic point of view, the birth control pill reduced the cost of staying in school. The ability to control fertility without sacrificing sexual relationships allowed women to make long term educational and career plans.[172] "


Culture, is a response to the physical constraints that societies face.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 05:11:12 PM by anisotropy »

johnmcafee

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2019, 05:08:12 AM »
I heard so many positive feedbacks on this book but unfortunately wasn't able to read it. Hope to change that in a recent future.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2019, 05:47:42 PM »
I think it's important to point out that you can read someone's book and not agree with absolutely everything they say. People can have good points and bad points and disagreeing here and there is actually okay. Words are just words. You don't need to be a disciple of someone to say "Hey, that's an interesting thing he said there" and you don't need to hate someone and want to ban them just because you say "Wait a second. I think you are totally off-base there." This actually used to be the default mode in society about twenty years ago.

YummyRaisins

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2019, 09:19:20 PM »
While I'm sure his book has some value (disclaimer: haven't read it), I'm not convinced JP is a great choice for a guru to orient your life around.

Quote
  • Be precise in your speech

From what I've heard of Jordan Peterson, he employs this double-speak that allows a listeners to infer deep meaning what he says, when there really isn't much there at all. It's very odd to me. It also makes it very hard to pin down exactly the point he's trying to make. Words words words, but not much substance.

Quote
  • Tell the truth or, at least, don't lie

I listened to a podcast between JP and Sam Harris where Sam could not get him to agree on what "truth" is. Apparently, JP believes for something to be true, it has to satisfy some Darwinian requirement on top of being factually accurate (i.e. 3 + 3 can equal 13 if it helps you reproduce). Could not figure out what he was even getting at.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: 12 Rules for Life (An Antidote to Chaos ) by Jordan peterson
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2019, 12:23:06 PM »
A lot of what Prof. Peterson says is really just common sense, he even mentioned that several times in his various interviews. His books are certainly not easy to read; he places large weight on mythos in his writings, which can appear to be nonsensical to a lay person.

Unfortunately, that's largely a "tradition" within the clinical psychology field, which I am definitely not a big fan of. Those crazy diagrams with dragons and such? Those are Peterson's variation of Jungian diagrams, but to an unlearned person (or someone lacking the background, like Robinson), that would just look batshit crazy.

He definitely misspoke regarding female/male doctor ratio, there are currently more male doctors than female. However, there are reasons to believe he was talking about female/male ratio in terms of  medical student. Note these numbers are consistent with the Canadian and US situation.

Regarding Robinson's "transcript" of Peterson's talk: often when you switch mediums, you just can't accurately capture or even understand what is being said. If you have 17 minutes, you can view the original video here, and see for yourself.