Jordan Peterson

[Chose]

Even if we assume you(r side of the debate) are correct and socioeconomic outcomes are merely reflecting inherent inequality between people, surely it is unjust to punish people for innate characteristics they cannot control?

I don't think socioeconomic outcomes are merely reflecting inherent inequality between people, I never said anything like that. Intrinsic ability doesn't matter much at all to this broader discussion of socioeconomic status, because morally there isn't much different between your intrinsic ability and your work ethic. Most important aspects of your environment and upbringing are outside just about any construction of control as well. So yeah, if I were you I wouldn't get too hung up on holding to some fictitious idea that we all start as a "blank slate", none of your politic opinions actually require that.

If you started at age 6, and devoted the same level of intensity and focus into sprinting as Bolt, yeah, you'd probably be somewhere in the vicinity.

Vicinity, as in maybe I could be within... 2 seconds? Possibly, it's almost impossible to say. I wouldn't be at the Olympics, that much is clear. Seeing the discrepancy between young kids before they have had any training can reveal a lot about intrinsic ability. Of course, their environment has already has been a factor, I'm not denying that. But it works in all directions, sometimes hindering those with crazy talent and boosting those without it. A lot of sports give advantages to basic strength and height differences. Both of those can be environmentally impacted but repeatedly minimizing the genetic component of them is... nothing short of silly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But if you believe that any measure to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor is an automatic self-own because it violates its own principles of fairness or whatever, you by default support the existence of a hereditary aristocracy, because that is what will emerge in the absence of any socially-sanctioned redistribution.

Logic doesn't follow from that statement. Even in the old days, being part of an aristocracy hardly guaranteed your grandchildren would be. It made it far more likely.

However, you still need some basis for "I want that guy's stuff because they have a lot of stuff, so I'm taking it" that differentiates this from theft. Claiming the other guy committed theft just by having it requires some extreme mental gymnastics, so I'm looking for an actual coherent basis.

You only think it's off-topic because you don't actually understand the arguments I've been making.

I'm not sure anybody actually understands self-inconsistent reasoning though.

Vicinity, as in maybe I could be within... 2 seconds?

Very likely. Unless you're older than me you might even get closer. Nobody in that picture is anywhere near 2 seconds behind him. This is on the order of the difference between the best and worst speed in the NFL, someone like Tyreek Hill or such racing an offensive lineman in the 100. You could probably do this with training, yes...but it doesn't change the reality of the discussion.

Incredible though his times are, 2 seconds slower wouldn't even qualify for the olympics. 3 seconds slower and I could beat the time when I was in high school easily. There is a big, big difference in those seconds .

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think socioeconomic outcomes are merely reflecting inherent inequality between people, I never said anything like that.

Well, welcome to the thread. That is the subtext of this conversation because it started with misogynists attempting to justify gender inequality by claiming it simply reflects inherent inequalities between men and women.

 

[Lexicus]

Logic doesn't follow from that statement. Even in the old days, being part of an aristocracy hardly guaranteed your grandchildren would be. It made it far more likely.

This is a banal statement. Duh, the rich today may fail to pass on their privilege to their children, because a meteor might hit the Earth and wipe out humans. That's about the difference between "guarantee" and "far more likely" you're talking about.

However, you still need some basis for "I want that guy's stuff because they have a lot of stuff, so I'm taking it" that differentiates this from theft. Claiming the other guy committed theft just by having it requires some extreme mental gymnastics, so I'm looking for an actual coherent basis.

I'm not really getting why it's so difficult for you to admit you that you believe all attempts to increase social inequality are based on "self-inconsistent reasoning". When your preferred policies have driven enough of the poor to near-starvation that they break down your door with the intention of killing and eating you, I'm sure telling them that their desire to take your stuff is based on "self-inconsistent logic" will stop them in their tracks.

 

[Ryika]

When your preferred policies have driven enough of the poor to near-starvation that they break down your door with the intention of killing and eating you, I'm sure telling them that their desire to take your stuff is based on "self-inconsistent logic" will stop them in their tracks.

Outside of maybe the failed country that is the US, policies have only increased the average living standard of the people in the Western World. The gap between the rich and the poor grows ever-bigger, but that's because the rich grow exponentially more rich, and the people in the middle are moving towards either of the ends, not because the lives of the poor become worse. Social Inequality itself does not mean suffering for those who are towards the bottom end up the spectrum.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is a banal statement. Duh, the rich today may fail to pass on their privilege to their children, because a meteor might hit the Earth and wipe out humans. That's about the difference between "guarantee" and "far more likely" you're talking about.

No. Not only is that not true today, said statement is inconsistent with reality even 800+ years ago. People found their way into and out of nobility with far more frequency than "meteor hits an estate". It was not civilized by today's standards, and not as common, but it still happened pretty often. It usually involved marriage or violence. Sometimes both (IE taking a weakly held title by force). In essence they could get away with incompetence as nobles, but only to a point. Go too far and another noble claps you and delegates some of your stuff to people who like him more or serve him better.

I'm not really getting why it's so difficult for you to admit you that you believe all attempts to increase social inequality are based on "self-inconsistent reasoning".

Because it does not follow that since the arguments so far have been self-inconsistent --> all future/possibly presented arguments will be self-inconsistent. "Flies are insects because grapefruits are composed of moon rocks" is not a coherent progression of thought, but this does not allow me to accurately conclude "flies are insects" to be false.

When your preferred policies have driven enough of the poor to near-starvation and they break down your door with the intention of killing and eating you, I'm sure telling them that their desire to take your stuff is based on "self-inconsistent logic" will stop them in their tracks.

I'd rather prefer to avoid setting policies that place more people in this scenario in the first place. Actively disincentivizing productivity does not feed starving people.

 

[Lexicus]

No. Not only is that not true today, said statement is inconsistent with reality even 800+ years ago. People found their way into and out of nobility with far more frequency than "meteor hits an estate". It was not civilized by today's standards, and not as common, but it still happened pretty often. It usually involved marriage or violence. Sometimes both (IE taking a weakly held title by force). In essence they could get away with incompetence as nobles, but only to a point. Go too far and another noble claps you and delegates some of your stuff to people who like him more or serve him better.

"Feudal aristocracies had plenty of social mobility and were actually quite meritocratic"

K, good luck with that groundbreaking historical thesis

I'd rather prefer to avoid setting policies that place more people in this scenario in the first place. Actively disincentivizing productivity does not feed starving people.

So let's have some examples of things you believe "actively disincentivize productivity"

 

[Chose]

Well, welcome to the thread. That is the subtext of this conversation because it started with misogynists attempting to justify gender inequality by claiming it simply reflects inherent inequalities between men and women.

I've been reading the thread, I know it's the subtext. My point is that it's a stupid to think you have to hold to incorrect ideas about the "blank slate" to care about equality of opportunity. The only reason that you would want to deny innate talent or desire is if you do actually think the goal should be 50/50 representation, which I keep being told no one actually advocates. Well, if no one advocates for 50/50, I'm wondering what exactly is the problem if men are more likely to prefer to go into Physicals, Engineering and Philosophy and women are more likely to prefer to go into Biology, Nursing and English. If that is what they prefer, then hopefully you agree there is no problem. To the extent these differences are from discrimination, then we should work to eliminate them and come up with better ways to measure how we are doing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Feudal aristocracies had plenty of social mobility and were actually quite meritocratic"

That's not just disingenuous, it's a straight up dishonest representation of what I wrote and I'm calling it out as such.

So let's have some examples of things you believe "actively disincentivize productivity"

Equality of outcome.

 

[Senethro]

Actively disincentivizing productivity does not feed starving people.

If you think progressive taxation disincentivizes productivity, you should take a look at some european figures.

Outside of maybe the failed country that is the US, policies have only increased the average living standard of the people in the Western World. The gap between the rich and the poor grows ever-bigger, but that's because the rich grow exponentially more rich, and the people in the middle are moving towards either of the ends, not because the lives of the poor become worse. Social Inequality itself does not mean suffering for those who are towards the bottom end up the spectrum.

This I'm not sure about. Within the society there must be some limited resources that scale with population rather than total wealth, that would then be unjustly distributed towards the rich due to intra-society competition. School places maybe?
Depends if you consider injustice as suffering I guess.

Edit: fixed

 

[Lexicus]

My point is that it's a stupid to think you have to hold to incorrect ideas about the "blank slate" to care about equality of opportunity.

I don't believe in a 100% blank slate, but I certainly do believe in a helluva lot blanker slate than the "inherent inequalities between people explain most or all inequality in observed outcomes" crowd.

That's not just disingenuous, it's a straight up dishonest representation of what I wrote and I'm calling it out as such.

Posterity will be the judge I guess.

Equality of outcome.

What, like, 100% equality of outcome? Or like any outcome more equal than a slave-master relationship?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What, like, 100% equality of outcome? Or like any outcome more equal than a slave-master relationship?

100% equality of outcome. Rather, arbitrary efforts to redistribute wealth using entitlement logic that doesn't actually amount to more than "I want stuff that guy has".

It should be possible in principle to define standards for this and apply them consistently. I dislike the idea of letting people die. I also dislike the idea that de-identified applications can somehow be considered "unfair" with a straight face. I see no reason these dislikes contradict each other.

I expect that there are, in fact, some kinds of basis for redistribution of wealth that are coherent. Let's take an extreme example: orphaned child whose parents died but already demonstrates great aptitude. This is a tough example to argue against for people who are *globally* against redistribution (I expect very few people would say to refuse this person help/let him die), and it's why I refuse to "admit all attempts to decrease social inequality are self-inconsistent". I expect there are actually numerous examples like this. Any one person who reflects on this long enough can probably draw the line somewhere and make a set of criteria that lets them determine if redistribution is appropriate.

Where people draw that line is different, but what matters is where society as a whole draws it and that the reasoning stays consistent.

 

[inthesomeday]

Outside of maybe the failed country that is the US, policies have only increased the average living standard of the people in the Western World.

At the expense of hundreds of millions of brown lives and the destruction of the planet’s habitability. But eh who cares as long as white people have freeze peach

 

[Broken_Erika]

At the expense of hundreds of millions of brown lives and the destruction of the planet’s habitability. But eh who cares as long as white people have freeze peach

I demand my 32 oz. premium starshmucks latte! And my premium handbags enriched with the tears of poor underage sweat shop workers!

 

[Lexicus]

100% equality of outcome.

K, well, no one is arguing for that. But it's nice that you will countenance enough redistribution to prevent orphans who demonstrate a certain level of aptitude from starving to death. I guess that means you're marginally less evil than Ebeneezer Scrooge.

 

[Ryika]

This I'm not sure about. Within the society there must be some limited resources that scale with population rather than total wealth, that would then be unjustly distributed towards the rich due to intra-society competition. School places maybe?
Depends if you consider injustice as suffering I guess.

Of course access to education is unjustly distributed towards the rich. Just like most things are.

Point is, our productivity is so big, that even with the unfair distribution where the rich get the most of what is created, the situation of "the poor" has been improving over time, not declining. Overall education levels are higher than they ever were, for all classes in society.

At the expense of hundreds of millions of brown lives and the destruction of the planet’s habitability. But eh who cares as long as white people have freeze peach

Both are not of importance to the false narrative that Lexicus was creating, where the poor would "rise up" because of social inequality. Social inequality does not automatically equate to suffering for the people who get the smaller part.

As for the destruction of the planet's habitability... I would argue that's mostly a blind spot, something that we did not understand until relatively recently. Society is a stiff construct, so it's not surprisingly that we would not immediately steer away from, but Europe has since started moving towards more sustainable models. Even many companies in America have, while the failed country has tried to steer against it.

About brown lives... don't you mostly mean black lives? But sure, in pursuit of ever-more profit we have not been kind to the developing world, which is an undeniable fact, but not a requirement for high productivity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where people draw that line is different, but what matters is where society as a whole draws it and that the reasoning stays consistent.

You omitted a key point, that being how we pull people up to the line we have drawn. For example, let's say we decide that people just ought not to be without shelter, and that our 'minimum line' is that they should be allowed a tent with enough square footage to keep the rain off their grubby mattress. Now, that can be provided by every homeowner in suburbia allowing a single tent on their block, or we can have the people in the poor neighborhoods allow one tent in every yard. These both provide the same minimum standard, but which one is "more fair"? Which one is more likely?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

K, well, no one is arguing for that. But it's nice that you will countenance enough redistribution to prevent orphans who demonstrate a certain level of aptitude from starving to death. I guess that means you're marginally less evil than Ebeneezer Scrooge.

I stated that as an "extreme example" quite clearly. "Posterity will be the judge" indeed, but talking about what you're actually addressing would be a useful start.

You omitted a key point, that being how we pull people up to the line we have drawn. For example, let's say we decide that people just ought not to be without shelter, and that our 'minimum line' is that they should be allowed a tent with enough square footage to keep the rain off their grubby mattress. Now, that can be provided by every homeowner in suburbia allowing a single tent on their block, or we can have the people in the poor neighborhoods allow one tent in every yard. These both provide the same minimum standard, but which one is "more fair"? Which one is more likely?

Maybe we draw the lines at tents, maybe somewhere else.

The logistics of the "how and who pays" always matters. Not just with this. Let's say we set the line as you say, tents. Maybe we want one on every block. Maybe we prefer them near a clean source of water, maybe we're not that generous and don't want to look at them so we centralize them and let businesses near "tent districts" cost compete. I doubt you'd get anybody to openly admit that though.

I have no idea what that looks like, and I doubt think this is where I'd put the line so it's not useful to consider in too much depth unless this is actually the average preference.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not just disingenuous, it's a straight up dishonest representation of what I wrote and I'm calling it out as such.

He put quotes around a straw man?

Several people here do that, just follow the likes

 

[Lexicus]

I stated that as an "extreme example" quite clearly. "Posterity will be the judge" indeed, but talking about what you're actually addressing would be a useful start.

I had much more specific answers to the question in mind than some grand abstraction like "equality of outcome." Like, in the US we have an estate tax that applies when you try to leave more than $5 million to your kids. Does that in your view constitute an arbitrary discrimination against rich people? Is it disincentivizing productivity?

How about the fact that we have a bracket system that requires you to a higher percentage of your income the more you make? Unfair discrimination that disincentivizes productivity?