You wanted a debate since not having a debate is tyranny. Let's have the debate.The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.
I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.
Blacks are according to their evidence simply not as capable as whites or asians (exceptions will exist). It would be wrong to pretend that they are and fund equal education for all. The main difference between races is not discrimination but IQ (something inherent within races, not what society imposed on them). So your claim about discimrination is menaingless, the econmic status of blacks is simpy a reflection of their cognitive disabilities.The authors also note that adjusting for socioeconomic status does not eliminate the black-white IQ gap.
the authors also repeat many of the analyses from Part II, but now compare whites to blacks and Hispanics in the NLSY dataset. They find that after controlling for IQ, many differences in social outcomes between races are diminished
The authors discuss the possibility that high birth rates among those with lower IQs may exert a downward pressure on the national distribution of cognitive ability
Evidence for experimental attempts to raise intelligence is reviewed. The authors conclude that currently there are no means to boost intelligence by more than a modest degree
The authors criticize the "levelling" of general and secondary education and defend gifted education.
That was a good read. Many good points about Peterson's incessant, needless overcomplicating of verbiage. That said, much of the focus of this piece seemed to be Peterson's entire body of work and not as much his most recent book, which along with his YouTube appearances seems to make up the bulk of his current fame.If you're still investigating Peterson but haven't read the Current Affairs piece somebody posted earlier, here is the link again (be warned, long read - but I thought it was well written): https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
And a sneak peek:
That's true. But the impression I got from the article is that the "12 rules for life" (or whatever it's called) in essence is nothing more than basic self help packaged in difficult words ...That was a good read. Many good points about Peterson's incessant, needless overcomplicating of verbiage. That said, much of the focus of this piece seemed to be Peterson's entire body of work and not as much his most recent book, which along with his YouTube appearances seems to make up the bulk of his current fame.
The harder people have to work to figure out what you’re saying, the more accomplished they’ll feel when they figure it out, and the more sophisticated you will appear. Everybody wins.
I think the reason why 12 rules for life has connected so broadly is because it seems to focus on personal responsibility as well as act as a response to what Peterson calls the post-modernist view that power and identity politics are intertwined. Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.That's true. But the impression I got from the article is that the "12 rules for life" (or whatever it's called) in essence is nothing more than basic self help packaged in difficult words ...
Consider this summary of principles from the end of 12 Rules for Life:
What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.
What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.
What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.
What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.
What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.
These are pompous, biblical ways of saying: tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example, and, uh, give confident and long-winded lectures to your adoring crowd of fans
Based on the article and the few interviews of his I've seen (including the recent Bill Maher appearence you linked, the Newman interview, the interview with some asian guy where he's borderline implying that women are asking for sexual assault by wearing make up and stuff thus sexualizing the workplace. "or maybe not". "I think we should have a discussion about that".) the only way I can make sense of his fame is by the major drought conservative intellectualism is having atm which he at least appears to fill.
By definition, only 1 can be alpha.Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also quite a few grown adults, up to middle age.Yeah, it’s a completely meaningless phrase obsessed over by (usually young) insecure men with self-esteem issues. That’s a sizeable enough market, mind you.
Sure. It’s just that young men are more likely to be insecure and worried about how they are perceived by other people.Also quite a few grown adults, up to middle age.
Tens of millions of beta males are celebrating him. This is true.I think the reason why 12 rules for life has connected so broadly is because it seems to focus on personal responsibility as well as act as a response to what Peterson calls the post-modernist view that power and identity politics are intertwined. Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.
Both Alpha and Beta I would imagine. His schtick is well timed around the fumes of the MeToo movement.Tens of millions of beta males are celebrating him. This is true.
I hate both terms. Bro culture walking around saying "alpha as feck" and a generation of misogynistic socially maladjusted young men raised on the internet where their social construct of the world lacks the consequence of shit talking a 6'4 220 pound dude who is as broad as he is tall, and who call anyone they disagree with a ****, or a beta.Both Alpha and Beta I would imagine. His schtick is well timed around the fumes of the MeToo movement.
Also probably a way for those insecure men to try and simplify complex issues. People - and by extension life itself - are complex things, and so packing them into two or three different social 'groups' is basically a simple way for them to try and classify people.Yeah, it’s a completely meaningless phrase obsessed over by (usually young) insecure men with self-esteem issues. That’s a sizeable enough market, mind you.
The same writer has a good article on Shapiro as well: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopherBut here the left and academia actually bear a decent share of blame. Why is Jordan Peterson’s combination of drivel and cliché attracting millions of followers? Some of it is probably because alt-right guys like that he gives a seemingly scientific justification for their dislike of “social justice warriors.” Some of it is just that self-help always sells. Another part of it, though, is that academics have been cloistered and unhelpful, and the left has failed to offer people a coherent political alternative. Jordan Peterson is right that people are adrift and in need of meaning. Many of them lap up his lectures because he offers something resembling insight, and promises the secrets to a good life. It’s not actually insight, of course; it’s stuff everybody already knows, dressed up in gobbledegook. But it feels like something. Tabatha Southey was cruel to call Jordan Peterson “the stupid man’s smart person.” He is the desperate man’s smart person, he feeds on angst and confusion. Who else has a serious alternative? Where are the other professors with accessible and compelling YouTube channels, with books of helpful advice and long Q&A sessions with the public? No wonder Peterson is so popular: he comes along and offers rules and guidance in a world of, well, chaos. Just leave it to Dad, everything will be alright.
This is a long read but it does a good job of discussing the issues people have with Peterson: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
The same writer has a good article on Shapiro as well: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher
I guess some of the smartest people also lecture at universities, write less-read books and are invited to public talks much fewer people ever hear of. It's not like there aren't any academics or scholars beyond people like Peterson.Is it by a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide.
What a bizarre post.Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
I’m still waiting to see you explain how Shapiro didn’t literally mean ‘Arab people like to live in sewage’.These are great articles if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. They're myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
Shows how pointless measuring intelligence is, there’s a good chance that some of the brightest academics wouldn’t have a chance at learning the knowledge of London, have the creativity and dexterity to become a great hairdresser or the insight to understand why Pogba can work in a midfield two if he pulls his finger out.Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
I’d say they could probably do all of the above, if they devoted enough time to it.Shows how pointless measuring intelligence is, there’s a good chance that some of the brightest academics wouldn’t have a chance at learning the knowledge of London, have the creativity and dexterity to become a great hairdresser or the insight to understand why Pogba can work in a midfield two if he pulls his finger out.
So was mineI’d say they could probably do all of the above, if they devoted enough time to it.
His post was - I think - some sort of sarcastic reductio ad absurdum argument that anyone who expresses any doubts about any of Jordan Peterson’s work is trying to claim that they’re more intelligent/educated than he is.
I’m willing to accept that Jordan Peterson is more intelligent and well educated than me but I still think he talks a load of impenetrable nonsense and is a borderline misogynist. Being intelligent doesn’t make you a reasonable or kind person.
The fact that some intelligent people decide to use their intellect to appeal to the gut of the masses in order to gain fame and inflate their ego doesn't make them dumb. It just makes them morally bankrupt arseholes.Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
Could you elaborate on why you* think they're myopic or biased?These are great articles if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. They're myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
Yeah, at least Peterson gives the illusion of having hidden depths.I don't quite get the admiration people seem to have for Shapiro. Peterson I can sort of understand, judging by the little time I've spent listening to him and watching clips of him on youtube, but Shapiro is just an annoying little twerp.
your question is great if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. It's myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.I’m still waiting to see you explain how Shapiro didn’t literally mean ‘Arab people like to live in sewage’.
I see what you're saying but frankly, I think the same whenever I hear those two speak. That's just them getting the same treatment they dish out to others which at least proves that they aren't the prophetic geniuses their fans portray them to be.These are great articles if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. They're myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
Mea culpa, sir. My feeble mind cant possibly comprehend the greatness of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Perterson.your question is great if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. It's myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
Pretty much this. Its an old story that works because it often gives purpose to the people that hear it, this is just the 2017/18 version.I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
This is pretty much my view. He seems to be pretty knowledgable about the subject matter he talks about, which can at times be very interesting and at others a bit tedious. The main problem as I see it isn't Peterson, its the people who have latched on to him as some sort of guru of all things anti-liberal orthodoxy/victimhood culture/post-modernism etc. Those are all very interesting arguments from his end, but the fact that so many members of the right have suddenly gravitated towards him is bound to make him more controversial than problem solving.I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
I think that’s more or less on the money but Peterson’s message isn’t secular. He’s actually quite religious.I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
More like 'stop/don't be a cnut'.Pretty much this. Its an old story that works because it often gives purpose to the people that hear it, this is just the 2017/18 version.
But if people are surprised why it has appeal even outside of what you might call the alt-right (and the numbers seem to indicate that it does), you do need to reflect about what the current "liberal message" (for lack of a better definition) says to white men in particular about their place and especially mission in society. "Step aside" isn't much of a mission to live-up to, and doesn't translate to very much in your day-to-day life. Self-improvement does.