Jordan Peterson

[Timsup2nothin]

Why would anyone think that this bizarrely tyrannical, dystopian proposition is somehow better than inequality?

How bizarre that you equate a dispassionate description of what it would actually take to produce "all men are created equal" as an endorsement. But given your routine full throated endorsement for elitism as long as you are the elite I suppose it's not so surprising.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're making the mistake of thinking that it is discrimination per se that I am against. I am actually fine with discriminating against the unfairly privileged to achieve fairer outcomes.

Quoted statement also is fine with using arbitrarily defined (and inconsistently applied) standards for what is "fair", which undermines the notion.

you evidently believe that some people are intrinsically superior to others, and that it is tantamount to "rejecting reality" to attempt to make society more fair or more equal.

Superior in what capacity? Is Usain Bolt intrinsically superior to you at running or not? Are people with 160 IQ intrinsically superior to people with 80 IQ at taking IQ tests or not? There are at least some measures where people obviously do not meet the definition of the word "equal".

Evidence dictates that in some capacities, people are not born with equal ability or even potential. If you create policy pretending otherwise, you're going to wind up with a flawed system because you have a flawed premise. Whether we should actually give more rights to someone who runs faster is another matter (we shouldn't IMO), but I'm not convinced said person shouldn't have access to more resources if he/she generates more. If they don't they have no incentive to generate more, and I don't see how that makes people better off.

 

[Lexicus]

Is Usain Bolt intrinsically superior to you at running or not?

Intrinsically superior? Highly doubtful. @Owen Glyndwr has made persuasive arguments that 'intrinsic' talent doesn't actually exist.

Whether we should actually give more rights to someone who runs faster is another matter (we shouldn't IMO), but I'm not convinced said person shouldn't have access to more resources if he/she generates more.

Generally speaking I think "generates more resources" simply means "is perceived to have a higher worth and thus will be perceived to generate more resources regardless of the reality of the situation."

All systems of inequality try to justify themselves as being "natural". Back in the day aristocrats simply claimed intrinsic superiority based on their "noble" blood. Nowadays they claim to "create more value" (or "generate more resources", same thing).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Intrinsically superior? Highly doubtful. @Owen Glyndwr has made persuasive arguments that 'intrinsic' talent doesn't actually exist.

Genetic disease makes even more convincing arguments that it does.

Generally speaking I think "generates more resources" simply means "is perceived to have a higher worth and thus will be perceived to generate more resources regardless of the reality of the situation."

All systems of inequality try to justify themselves as being "natural". Back in the day aristocrats simply claimed intrinsic superiority based on their "noble" blood. Nowadays they claim to "create more value" (or "generate more resources", same thing).

"Noble blood" doesn't have much predictive value for outcome measures, in contrast to other factors that do have predictive value.

 

[Ryika]

What argument against "talent" (if by that we mean differences in aptitude towards certain fields) could possibly be "persuasive"?

 

[sophie]

Intrinsically superior? Highly doubtful. @Owen Glyndwr has made persuasive arguments that 'intrinsic' talent doesn't actually exist.

It does and it doesn't. At the very top end .001% of any competition there are absolutely matters of physics that are impossible to get around, but we're talking about fractions of seconds at the top-end Olympic level.

Beyond that, skilled performance (in any field) is largely a matter of time invested perfecting the skill and efficiency of practice methodology. There's undoubtedly some genetic component to an individual's attention span and ability to stay focused on a goal long-term, but it's not really something we're at all capable of predicting at this time. If you want to call that talent, go for it, but that's generally not the definition of the term that people have in mind when they talk about Messi as a soccer talent.

There's a reason sports psychology and athletic coaching as an academic discipline is almost singularly focused on practice methodology currently, and that's because USSR and US researchers realized 40-50 years ago that trying to identify genetic advantages in potential Olympic athletes was generally a futile endeavor.

 

[Ryika]

But that's an argument against talent being a "free pass", not against natural aptitudes in general. Two people can work on something equally hard and equally efficient and will end up at completely different points in the same time span if one person's brain is simply better at understanding the subject matter than the other person's brain.

 

[sophie]

But that's an argument against talent being a "free pass", not against natural aptitudes in general. Two people can work on something equally hard and equally efficient and will end up at completely different points in the same time span.

Not completely different points. Roughly the same point, with maybe a micro-difference between the two.

 

[Ryika]

And the evidence for that is?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not completely different points. Roughly the same point, with maybe a micro-difference between the two.

That's inconsistent with my observations. Which recorded observations show this?

 

[Lexicus]

"Noble blood" doesn't have much predictive value for outcome measures, in contrast to other factors that do have predictive value.

Go back 500 years and it would have an enormous predictive value for outcome measures.

 

[Broken_Erika]

How bizarre that you equate a dispassionate description of what it would actually take to produce "all men are created equal" as an endorsement. But given your routine full throated endorsement for elitism as long as you are the elite I suppose it's not so surprising.

All men ARE created equal; It's just that some are more equal than others.

Elites are the most Equal of all!

 

[Chose]

Intrinsically superior? Highly doubtful. @Owen Glyndwr has made persuasive arguments that 'intrinsic' talent doesn't actually exist.

This level of ignorance is something I don't see too often, even on the Internet.

 

[Lexicus]

This level of ignorance is something I don't see too often, even on the Internet.

Please read post #1506

 

[Ryika]

Are we disputing the genetic component in IQ, too?

 

[sophie]

And the evidence for that is?

Anders Ericksson and Robert Pool, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016).

Hume, Patria A. (Patria Anne), Deborah A. Kerr, and Timothy R. Ackland. Best Practice Protocols for Physique Assessment in Sport. Singapore: Springer, 2018.

Richard H. Cox, Yijun Qiu and Zhan Liu, et al. Handbook of Research On Sport Psychology. New York : Toronto : New York: Macmillan ; Collier Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan International, 1993.

Are we disputing the genetic component in IQ, too?

IQ as a measure of "intelligence" is not well regarded by psychologists today. That said, I did note:

There's undoubtedly some genetic component to an individual's attention span and ability to stay focused on a goal long-term, but it's not really something we're at all capable of predicting at this time. If you want to call that talent, go for it, but that's generally not the definition of the term that people have in mind when they talk about Messi as a soccer talent.

 

[inthesomeday]

People born before 1980 are snowflakes obsessed with being special who can’t handle the thought that maybe all their talent came from their parents money

 

[Berzerker]

You mean I can compete with Usain Bolt in the 100yd dash if I work as hard as he does?

And I suppose I could have come up with the theory of relativity if I spent the same amount of time as Einstein thinking about it.

the fact some people are superior to me doesn't bother me... There's a saying in golf, play your own game.

 

[Chose]

Please read post #1506

I did. Maybe you don't know, but running is more talent heavy than most sports, and Usain Bolt is an even more special exception. It isn't highly doubtful that Usain Bolt is intrinsically better than you at running, it's about as certain as you can be about anything. He has crushed every other person who has also devoted their lives to running and who also have very good genetics for it.

Skill sports, like Hockey, your level of focus and training is especially important. I bet a surprising number of people could reach the NHL if they put in the ice time and had good training. Hockey is a game of skill. But only a tiny fraction could be as good as Sidney Crosby. In sprinting, training is of course extremely important as well, but to a lesser degree. There are things you can do, after you learn proper form it's really just about the amount of force you can generate by stomping down your foot divided by your weight . There are some amazing programs developed to vastly increase your 100 meter time. Actually, I have done some of them myself. They help a lot, but given my genetics, I could never be actually competitive with something like sprinting. Even after working at it for some time, I know a lot of friends who are overweight, don't workout, and can still beat me in a short sprint.

 

[Broken_Erika]

People born before 1980 are snowflakes obsessed with being special who can’t handle the thought that maybe all their talent came from their parents money

On a related note. Bagels made before 1980 don't taste very good.