Jordan Peterson

[yung.carl.jung]

This thread is just moving too fast for me. @Yeekim I now definitely see where you are coming from especially wrt future automation of work places. And you are right that we should be discussing what Petey Pete is saying, now what he is implying. Though I have the faint idea that not a single person ITT has actually read "Maps of Meaning".

My post did not mean to say that Peterson is definitely advocating for genocide or eugenics, but rather that certain ways of thought keep popping up throughout scientific history and, if taken to their utmost extreme, have always lead to some marginalized group suffering. I feel like our focus on usefulnes/productivity as a member of society is our modern, adapted version of social darwinism, except now it is the "productive" (the rich, the influential, the industrious, the intelligent) that strive instead of the "strong".

I realize my posts are sometimes scattered and not as coherent as I would like, probably has something to do with language as well. Cheers and thanks for being a good debate partner.

 

[Hygro]

But when we call Peterson a fascist, and the right takes him into their fold with glee, we might be onto something.

Playing a losing move that brings glee to your opponents isn't "on to something".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You are incorrect about my intentions.

@Chose this always happens on here. You can't discuss these issues openly on here and have people treat you with any charity whatsoever. They will either misrepresent what you've actually said to be something entirely different, or at the very least they will just say that you're being dishonest and that they (somehow) know what you really think. Basically you have to toe the party line or shut up. It's unfortunate, it's sad, but it's just how it is on here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

First, pretend IQ is a meaningful measure of anything (it isn’t really, but for analogical purposes.) Imagine if society constructed an IQ binary. Everyone has either an IQ of 2 or 250. Obviously this is useless because intelligence exists on a huge spectrum, but this is a good analogy for gender identity and the gender binary.

It really isn't a good analogy because the actual IQ scale doesn't provide any scope for people having both an IQ of 2 and 250 at the same time, or to alternate between them at will, or to have "no IQ", or who measure an IQ of 150 but "feel" like they have an IQ of 70. A linear scale/spectrum just isn't a good model if you want it to encompass concepts like that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Of all the people in your life who have addressed you or referred to you as "he", "him", "sir" etc, how many of them asked you what you identified as first? How often do you do that when you meet new people, or have to interract with strangers? The fact is people just generally don't do that. They generally deduce your gender as one of two options based on how you present, then refer to you as such. So you're actually acting all incredulous as if this is standard behaviour, but you're actually asking for a fundamental shift in the basics of human social interraction. So yeah... if it looks like we're starting to go down the path of the current normal behaviour potentially leading to legal action, that's understandably worrying.

I wasn't suggesting that every time you meet someone you have to ask. I was suggesting that if whatever you use to start with prompts them to ask that you use something else there is no valid reason other than an obvious desire to be rude for you to then use something else.

Consider your name; Manfred. You might have a favorite aunt that still calls you Manny, has since you were little, and it makes you smile. You might sometimes elicit a moaned "oh Manny" under circumstances where deminution of your name is endearing. If the next time we have a disagreement I were to say, "c'mon li'l Manny, grow up" and started making a habit of calling you Manny there would be little doubt about my intent to be rude. If you were to say "I go by Manfred, not Manny," and I refused to comply that would eliminate any doubt at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The reason I disregard conservatism is not its simplicity, it is the substance of its theory. Disregarding communism due to a disagreement with its theoretical substance is fine.

I wasn't disregarding communism. I was disregarding a person who has so simplified their world view that they believe it can be expressed in a single word. The person you disregard because they are a "conservative" today is very unlikely to have everything in common with the person you disregard for the same reason tomorrow. They both, more than likely, have things in common with you, since despite your claim and my unwillingness to digress and explore the chances that you really have located yourself on every issue based on your one word simplification of view I'm confident that you really haven't...and also that they haven't.

One word simplifications are the gateway to "I get to just disregard you completely." When people apply their one word filters to me they have to do it on their own, I won't do it for them. But if someone applies such a one word filter to themselves I seldom refuse the opportunity they offer. If they want to present themselves as a one dimensional cardboard cutout I relegate them to the distant background and leave them there where they belong. Life's too short to fight for their individuality.

 

[inthesomeday]

It really isn't a good analogy because the actual IQ scale doesn't provide any scope for people having both an IQ of 2 and 250 at the same time, or to alternate between them at will, or to have "no IQ", or who measure an IQ of 150 but "feel" like they have an IQ of 70. A linear scale/spectrum just isn't a good model if you want it to encompass concepts like that.

1. Bigender- imagine this as having an IQ of exactly 126, and not really feeling the concept of binary neutrality, instead feeling that your identity is best expressed as a mixture of the two provided binary options. Yes, this analogy is imperfect, but it seeks primarily to highlight the immense failure of a rigid gender binary where ones place and societally influenced personal identification with the binary is determined by some random and unrelated external factor.

2. Gender fluidity- again, imagine being somewhere between the two binaries but feeling at different times that you identify moreso with one of the binary options or another.

3. Agender- true, this analogy fails to provide a good comparison for agender identity. Perhaps imagine someone who feels wholly fed up with being evaluated on a basis of IQ because it’s such a fundamentally imperfect measure of intelligence, which is a relative spectrum that fluctuates heavily.

4. This fourth thing you refer to doesn’t exist. Nobody feels differently from their own gender identity because gender identity exists only as an interpretation of one’s feelings.

But ultimately yes I agree this is a very simplistic model for analogy. However it opens an important discussion: how effective is our current social concept of gender as an actual lens for analyzing the self and the individual’s interpretation of gender? This is a good way to talk about the sort of tendency to categorize shown by conservatives who get confused by the idea of variable gender identities. They want words to say, definitions to read, and clear-cut, rigid ideas to enforce. They’ll say it’s because gender queer people are demanding they change their ways but it’s important to recognize that the ways they have already are significantly worse and less efficient for analyzing gender than what gender queer and trans activists are seeking to popularize.

Here’s perhaps a better analogy: for all of history the world has been divided into two empires with closed borders. Secessionist movements are starting to pop up to claim sovereignty from these two oppressive empires, but it turns out even nation-states really aren’t the best way to achieve individual freedom. The ideal way would be no nations and no borders, individual sovereignty and autonomy across the world.

The ideal model for social gender constructs would be to assume each individual experiences gender identity uniquely, and that some don’t experience it at all. On the way to achieving this social model is the gradual deconstruction of the old ways of thinking about gender, and of the useless and ancient binary constraints to that thought.

 

[inthesomeday]

I wasn't disregarding communism. I was disregarding a person who has so simplified their world view that they believe it can be expressed in a single word. The person you disregard because they are a "conservative" today is very unlikely to have everything in common with the person you disregard for the same reason tomorrow. They both, more than likely, have things in common with you, since despite your claim and my unwillingness to digress and explore the chances that you really have located yourself on every issue based on your one word simplification of view I'm confident that you really haven't...and also that they haven't.

But this is useless. In almost any given discussion I know what I mean when I say Communist, they know what I mean when I say Communist, I know what they mean when they say conservative, and they know what they mean when they say conservative. If they don’t know then I just clarify for them, or don’t if I don’t care. It’s quick, I guess. I still don’t really get the complaint I think.

One word simplifications are the gateway to "I get to just disregard you completely." When people apply their one word filters to me they have to do it on their own, I won't do it for them. But if someone applies such a one word filter to themselves I seldom refuse the opportunity they offer. If they want to present themselves as a one dimensional cardboard cutout I relegate them to the distant background and leave them there where they belong. Life's too short to fight for their individuality.

I really don’t think identifying correctly that I’m a Communist destroys my individuality or something. It’s just a useful means for expediting discussion and research.

 

[Synobun]

Synsensea - while that's the general namechanging rule, when it comes to gender change, all you need to do (at least in Quebec, and Quebec is usually pretty hardcore on name change rules) is meet the requirement for a legal gender marker change to get a complimentary name change along with it.

Does that still apply if your residency is in another province? The person linked in that human rights ruling lives in Vancouver but traveled to Montreal for the operation (and then was back in Vancouver two weeks later).

 

[Evie]

That might complicate things, yes. And, like I said, I don't know what British Columbia's rule on this particular matter are (and I do know Quebec's rules were changed to what I described fairly recently).

 

[Berzerker]

No, there isn't evidence either is. Usually people by "predetermined" are referring to biological factors. I was talking about mostly environmental factors about conservatism. Regardless, I'm just pointing out it is very difficult to weave these things apart and say "That is biological, that is environmental, that is a choice, etc..". If you have a gene that you can point to that determines some physical characteristic, I'll accept that. Otherwise, it's mostly a guessing game.

You said maybe conservatives are just wired to be conservative, maybe you're right. Reminds me of research suggesting religion is hard wired. I think there's a world of evidence trans is hard wired, just like every other sexual classification. People dont wake up one day and decide who turns them on, or how to view themselves. Well, they do in one way - 'sexual awakening' is realized at some point when we're youngsters, when nature has predetermined our introduction to the world of sexuality. Nobody chooses that.

I love chocolate ice cream. I love juicy rib eyes. This attachment I have is the product of god only knows how many eons of evolution. I didn't choose to like these foods, but I did choose to eliminate them from my diet because they aggravate my reflux.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really don’t think identifying correctly that I’m a Communist destroys my individuality or something. It’s just a useful means for expediting discussion and research.

You are agreeing. Once you choose to identify as a one dimensional cardboard cut out I can expeditiously relegate you to the background of life and move on to someone interesting. @Chose, who you might want to relegate with the one word label "conservative," disputes the label. While he clearly sympathizes with some elements of the conservative cause (as do I, for that matter) it is unlikely that he is just a cardboard cutout and it is worth it to me to explore.

Now, before you get defensive, I will repeat that I don't actually believe you are the cardboard cutout that you claim to be and I have nothing against communism. As I said earlier, it is very likely that I support as many or more aspects of the communist position as you do, and it is almost a certainty that my lifestyle embodies more communist principles than almost anyone else here. I just don't have time to participate in discussions that are "expedited" by starting from a single word and then expanding into a handful of standardized platitudes and having to work through that before getting to the meat of what your actual positions are.

 

[inthesomeday]

You are agreeing. Once you choose to identify as a one dimensional cardboard cut out I can expeditiously relegate you to the background of life and move on to someone interesting.

Good for you, I suppose. That’s your thing, I’m not really bothered by it.

@Chose, who you might want to relegate with the one word label "conservative," disputes the label. While he clearly sympathizes with some elements of the conservative cause (as do I, for that matter) it is unlikely that he is just a cardboard cutout and it is worth it to me to explore.

Right, then at this point it’s a matter of personal preference. I feel it’s something of a waste of time to explore.

Now, before you get defensive, I will repeat that I don't actually believe you are the cardboard cutout that you claim to be and I have nothing against communism. As I said earlier, it is very likely that I support as many or more aspects of the communist position as you do, and it is almost a certainty that my lifestyle embodies more communist principles than almost anyone else here. I just don't have time to participate in discussions that are "expedited" by starting from a single word and then expanding into a handful of standardized platitudes and having to work through that before getting to the meat of what your actual positions are.

I find this is faster than sort of dancing around labels. Labels are pretty important these days in political discussions, so it’s faster and more convenient to me to just put it out there from the top, and to accept that others put it out there too and to behave accordingly.

I wouldn’t much mind being a cardboard cutout, either. If it made it so liberals let me be I’d welcome it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn’t much mind being a cardboard cutout, either. If it made it so liberals let me be I’d welcome it.

Uh huh.

Consider that this immediately strikes a false chord.

But, should you actually want advice on how to be left alone by pesky liberals send me pictures of your devices and I will locate the off switches for you.

 

[inthesomeday]

Uh huh.

Consider that this immediately strikes a false chord.

But, should you actually want advice on how to be left alone by pesky liberals send me pictures of your devices and I will locate the off switches for you.

My participation in these forums is 30% educational and 70% masochistic

 

[Broken_Erika]

My participation is 3% Educational, 84% Lunacy, 37% Coffee-Flavored Door Hinges and 19% Bad Math.

 

[Truthy]

First, pretend IQ is a meaningful measure of anything (it isn’t really, but for analogical purposes.)

As has been mentioned a bunch of times on CFC, this seriously isn't true. It isn't a perfect metric because intelligence is multifaceted, but it is a meaningful one and there's a broad consensus in the life sciences about this. It correlates strongly with lots of other measures and is one of the best predictors for life outcomes. It's one of the best studied metrics in psychology. Political issues or misinformation constantly convince people it's meaningless or is "just a measure of how well you do on some test," making these ubiquitous misconceptions.

 

[Yeekim]

The ideal model for social gender constructs would be to assume each individual experiences gender identity uniquely, and that some don’t experience it at all. On the way to achieving this social model is the gradual deconstruction of the old ways of thinking about gender, and of the useless and ancient binary constraints to that thought.

Each individual is, doubtless, unique in his experiences. How do you propose going even further? Would that essentially amount to abolishing the notion of "gender" in its entirety?
Have you considered that the whole reason gender binarism is so deeply rooted is because it is efficient and absolutely works for ~99,9% of the people? I understand that less than 1% of e.g. U.S population identifies as trans - and even of this 1% most(?) just wish to live as if they were the other sex, i.e. they don't necessarily have problem with binarism.
There is no debate that strictly binary approach to gender is bad for intersex individuals and possibly for those with gender dysphoria or similar issues. It is likewise evident that overly strict and outdated gender norms are unnecessarily limiting for many more. But gender is essentially how we deal with being sentient, sexual beings. For most of us, gender norms as such are useful in offering guidance/support/reassurance, in sharing and transferring our experiences between peers and generations. As a society we should sacrifice some of the abovementioned efficiency to be as accommodating as possible to those who otherwise get left behind, but binarism is not "useless" just because it is not universally applicable.

Cheers and thanks for being a good debate partner.

Likewise.

 

[Chose]

Well then if we back our scope back all this way then it’s really no use to have this conversation because then everything in the world is deterministic, which is valueless regardless of how philosophically true it is. The point is that gender identity, like birth sex, race, ability, and class, is not something that one has much control over, and is thus in my value set off-limits to reasonable prejudice. Meanwhile conservatism is a fairly conscious choice that takes significant action to maintain. Nobody is born conservative; plenty of people are born with gender identities incompatible with the one forced on them by birth sex.

So ultimately it’s clear why saying “I dislike black people, trans people, gay people, and women on the grounds of those social identities” is pretty thoroughly more despicable than saying “I dislike conservatives on the grounds of their political self-identification”, or indeed “I dislike communists on the grounds of their political self-identification”.

I don't think you have established why gender identity is basically biological, like sex or race. Gender identity seems to be quite fluid, and people have often changed their ideas about what their gender identity is over time, and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. That seems to suggest it isn't strictly predetermined. I mean, don't you think it is oppressive to tell people they are born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it?

There is a video with Jordan Peterson and someone by the name of Nicholas Matte, a lecturer for Trans-gender Studies at the University of Toronto. He straight up said there is no biological basis for sex. I'm not sure if you endorse that view, but being told that gender identity is biologically predetermined, and also that there is no basic biological basis for sex, is quite funny.

First, pretend IQ is a meaningful measure of anything (it isn’t really, but for analogical purposes.) Imagine if society constructed an IQ binary. Everyone has either an IQ of 2 or 250. Obviously this is useless because intelligence exists on a huge spectrum, but this is a good analogy for gender identity and the gender binary.

We use some external, essentially unrelated but somewhat correlated feature to determine from birth whether a person belongs to Binary A or Binary B. Let’s say cranial circumference within some threshold of literal externally observed . For their entire life this Binary, and their place in this binary, is enforced heavily.

Little Jimmy is born a genius. Actual IQ 350. However, because he was born with a small head for unrelated reasons, he is now placed in the other binary, and is treated his whole life like he has an IQ of 2. This affects everything— the clothes he gets to wear, where he is expected to shop, what careers he finds opportunities in. Gradually, this builds up into a massive dysphoria. He adopts the binary identity B.

Now it’s true that in an ideal world jimmy would be able to express his identity exactly how it was, at 350. Indeed, this IQ binary is harmful even to people who come very close to the binaries in their actual measurements. However, his dysphoria, and the contrast between the binary identity he was raised into and what is presented as the only alternative, which he comes much closer to identifying with, has pushed him into a position where he must adopt this binary identity.

Furthermore, while it’s true that environmental factors definitely changed his IQ at least a few points, maybe even 10 or 20, it’s unlikely they were able to affect him anywhere near enough to disturb which binary he identified with.

Now imagine all the same but for gender identity. Gender identity as a spectrum is much more complex than IQ, of course, but this analogy should hopefully help you to understand the function of the binary and its effect on the personal interpretation of gender identity.

I think IQ is probably highly malleable by environmental factors. But even if I'm wrong about that, in general I just don't agree with this analogy because I think gender identity is ill defined, often in an explicit self-contradictory way. I don't see why I should think gender identity isn't this thing that is planted inside of you at birth. Even if I think it is something like your preference for chocolate ice cream, I see no reason to think that preference wasn't shaped in partly, or even largely, by your environment.

Subconsciously for some, overtly for others.

I don't think you understand conservatives very well.

You said maybe conservatives are just wired to be conservative, maybe you're right. Reminds me of research suggesting religion is hard wired. I think there's a world of evidence trans is hard wired, just like every other sexual classification. People dont wake up one day and decide who turns them on, or how to view themselves. Well, they do in one way - 'sexual awakening' is realized at some point when we're youngsters, when nature has predetermined our introduction to the world of sexuality. Nobody chooses that.

I love chocolate ice cream. I love juicy rib eyes. This attachment I have is the product of god only knows how many eons of evolution. I didn't choose to like these foods, but I did choose to eliminate them from my diet because they aggravate my reflux.

Well, I said there are a lot of environmental factors that lead to someone being conservative, which isn't really the same as saying you are hard-wired. People don't wake up one day and decide to be conservative, either. My point is the lines people try to draw around things that are choices, and thing that are not, tend to be very ill formed. People try to say some things are a choice using one line of argument. And then, using a completely contradictory line of argument, they say other things are not a choice.

Yes, you didn't choose to like juicy rib eyes, but the reason you like them so much is almost certainly at least partly a product of your environment, not just 'hard-wired'. Most people in Zimbabwe absolutely love to eat a Mopane Worms, it's high in fat and other nutrients. I have no doubt if I grew up there, I would like them too. But, being how my environment was, I can hardly stand to even watch someone eat one, seeing the guts pop out literally makes me want to throw up.

Also, you could probably intentionally or unintentionally train yourself to actually not like the taste of rib eyes. You could become a vegan, and over time, you may grow to be disgusted at the sight and smell of the blood. This has happened to many people.

 

[Synobun]

Worth keeping in mind here that something about the self being predetermined doesn't mean that the individual's understanding or perspective of it is also predetermined or set in stone. Our experiences, biases, and traumas can all play a part in whether or not we acknowledge or embrace an aspect of our self.