Jordan Peterson

[Rhett]

I recently discovered Jordan Peterson, a Canadian 'superstar' academic lecturer clinical psychologist. I have watched a few videos of him and havent disagreed with a single point so far. Its quite remarkable.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Recently at this forum this thread was started on Peterson. Perhaps, if you agree, I can merge this one as there are some interesting views collected from members on the topic. His work also touches on many philosophical themes.

The recent story about his addiction on some strong anti-anxiety drug, to deal with his wife's cancer diagnosis, challenges his own main thesis on the choice to withdraw from suffering or to face and transcend it. Or perhaps his unusual meat diet destabilized his hormonal stress response.

[Rhett]

Thanks. I will read through the thread and get back to you.

[Rhett]

I notice the previous Jordan Peterson thread is in the Genius Forum. I dont think Jordan is enlightened, or specifically leading people towards enlightenment. I think he belongs in Worldly Matters. So i would like my thread to stay here as it is.

So far i have looked at the first ten or so posts in the previous thread. I havent yet come across the material of Jordan's that people are talking about.

Regarding what i have seen of him so far, i have found his understanding of psychology to parallel some of my own understandings of psychology, and he has other interesting statistics and tidbits. He seems to approach politics in a rational, precise manner, looking at specifics and statistics, and trying to avoid emotionalism and sensationalism. Like a scientist.

[Rhett]

I have seen a video where Jordan rightfully points out that equality of outcome is logically flawed.

For example, when Usain Bolt held the title of fastest runner in competition, how and why should we aim to make everyone run equally as fast? How can it be seen as fair to take away Usain's deserved triumph in this field? Do we hobble Usain, or enable everyone else to go faster in proportion to their deficit? Creating equality of outcome removes competition, it removes motivation and personal effort from the equation, it creates a situation where everyone is headed for the same score, regardless of how hard they try. It is the imposition of a flawed ideology that requires an extreme amount of input on an ongoing basis for questionable rewards.

The same applies to women and the highest paid jobs in the workforce. Statistically, males of all species have the highest variability in pretty much all measures. There are much more men of very low IQ, and of very high IQ, than women in these categories. That is the main reason why there are so many more men in prison, and so many more employed as CEO's, than there are women in these situations. Given this, how and why should equality of outcome be obtained? Do we increase rates of incarceration of women? Beat some women over the head with a baseball bat to lower their IQ? Beat some men over the head with a baseball bat to lower their IQ?

Here is a similar but slightly different example. Lets say an aim of equality of intelligence was adopted, and we were capable of implanting computers into the human brain to make it work better. Do we IQ test everyone and then help everyone in proportion to their deficit compared to the guy with the highest IQ? Or do we make the best technology available to everyone and let the best minds really soar if they so choose? If the former was adopted people would deliberately do badly in the test in order to get a better computer implanted, thus creating and encouraging corruption. Or would it really be corruption? I am pretty sure the guy with the highest IQ would see it as corrupt that he is barred from this opportunity to improve that everyone else has been given. He could rightfully say that the system does not give equality of outcome in terms of improvement. The scores on improvement would by nature be highly variable, from zero to more than a quadrupling of IQ.

[Glostik91]

If the medicine helps him, then he might as well take it. We are little different from ancient man searching for alternative food sources in new and various environments. I recall reading somewhere that a shaman was once asked how they found the right combination of plants in ayahuasca. He said the plants talk to them. Maybe they do. Maybe they do. There's little difference between a plant cooked in a brew and one caked in a pill.

[Rhett]

Hey Diebert, i think the above was accidentally posted in the wrong thread.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Glostik responded on my earlier remark in this thread about Jordan Peterson seeking treatment

Peterson had been prescribed clonazepam—a type of anti-anxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class—to help manage the stressors associated with the recent devastating news of his wife’s cancer diagnosis.

My point was not if he should or not should take drugs or if it's a sin to get addicted to them but I was more questioning his own often stressed point about the choice to withdraw from suffering or to face and transcend it. It's easy to preach but difficult to practice? Life is suffering, life is to be transcended. Perhaps it shows how Peterson is more a moral teacher than a philosopher of any kind. He tries to apply deep philosophical ideas to construct a road map to find a way in our social reality. And there's a massive, craving audience for it but it created a lot of traps and pit falls...