The intellectual dark web

[Thor]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

My son went to his sold out show in Detroit on Sunday night. He thought it was great. He discovered Peterson through Joe Rogin podcasts and has really enjoyed a lot of his lectures directed toward young men. Sunday he talked about being a good partner, good father/mother, the Soviet Union, Nietzsche, Jung, the Toronto van incident, Columbine.

That's the thing, if he is teaching all these young people these important ideas (which are not new) then great, I can ignore all his other nonsense which he seems to be distancing himself from these days.

What was an eye opener for me was my friend in Iceland who is a rabid fan of his, he's 27 bought his book, I have over the years sent him all kinds of neat and though provoking youtube videos, so he loaned me the book and was very excited to talk to me after I read it.

I realized just how little people under 35 have any conception of what I and older people take for granted, young men are not taught life skills, they are lost and looking for direction.

No matter how laughable his weird christian religious beliefs, his word salad, he does reach a positive message to young men who clearly need it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Thor

That's the thing, if he is teaching all these young people these important ideas (which are not new) then great, I can ignore all his other nonsense which he seems to be distancing himself from these days.

What was an eye opener for me was my friend in Iceland who is a rabid fan of his, he's 27 bought his book, I have over the years sent him all kinds of neat and though provoking youtube videos, so he loaned me the book and was very excited to talk to me after I read it.

I realized just how little people under 35 have any conception of what I and older people take for granted, young men are not taught life skills, they are lost and looking for direction.

No matter how laughable his weird christian religious beliefs, his word salad, he does reach a positive message to young men who clearly need it.

That's how I feel as well. He has clearly reached an audience that is looking for direction, maturity, and father figures and leadership in their lives. It's these groups that it's often the most difficult to motivate and change because they naturally reject authority.

I disagree with his theological beliefs and find that more than ever, this celebrity is allowing him to sacrifice his intellectual honesty to jump to hyperbole. But if Peterson's message has made an impact and made his voice an authority figure for them, all the best to him because I believe there's something very positive in this message.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

So it's important to consider what equality of opportunity means and which countries and societies best exemplify what you mean by that. Some might argue that the United States is the best example of that in action. On the other hand, if one goes by social and economic mobility within a society, then Scandinavian social democracies seem to do the best job at providing an environment where people can succeed from varying backgrounds, while a place like the US is probably the worst in that respect among rich nations.

Yes, the U.S. and UK have less equality of opportunity than Canada or Sweden. It's mainly down to the degree to which parental income affects the educational attainment of children in the former.

However, the increasing emphasis on identity politics hurts efforts to address this. Lack of economic mobility hurts the poor, regardless of race. Addressing it would help the poor, regardless of race. But racial injustice gets far more attention in the U.S. (and increasingly in Canada), by an order of magnitude, than the lack of economic mobility. More attention in politics. More attention in the media. More attention in pop culture. For some reason, a narrative of white oppressing people of colour is more emotionally engaging to a lot of people than a narrative of the wealthy and upper-middle class stifling opportunities for the working class and poor.

I've seen commentators in the UK, where they have always had a much stronger tradition of recognizing class in politics, suggest that identity politics is in fact a cynical ploy by the wealthy to keep the working class at each other's throats, rather than recognizing their common interests. I wouldn't go that far. But it seems pretty clear to me that the emphasis on race and gender, and the deep divisions it's cleaving in society, is making it harder, not easier, to address the lack of economic mobility.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Thor

That's the thing, if he is teaching all these young people these important ideas (which are not new) then great, I can ignore all his other nonsense which he seems to be distancing himself from these days.

What was an eye opener for me was my friend in Iceland who is a rabid fan of his, he's 27 bought his book, I have over the years sent him all kinds of neat and though provoking youtube videos, so he loaned me the book and was very excited to talk to me after I read it.

I realized just how little people under 35 have any conception of what I and older people take for granted, young men are not taught life skills, they are lost and looking for direction.

The most dismaying thing about the hostile interviews of Peterson is how they all include the remark your audience is mainly young men, though, isn't it, said in a accusatory tone. As if appealing to young men is, of itself, something ugly and shameful.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Equality of outcome is perhaps the most insidiously wicked ideal ever conceived. Not only does it lower the living standard for everyone it takes near dictatorial control by the government to even try and enforce due to natural differences in intellect and productivity between individuals.

I’m not in favour of a government mandating equality of outcomes for all, but to suggest that doing so would lower the living standard for everyone isn’t accurate. If last year in the US over 80% of all the wealth created went to 1-2% of the population, redistributing any amount of that money could only have a direct negative impact on 2% of the population max, and even then how much of an impact(if any) that the redistribution actually has on that 1-2%’s quality of life would vary.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The most dismaying thing about the hostile interviews of Peterson is how they all include the remark your audience is mainly young men, though, isn't it, said in a accusatory tone. As if appealing to young men is, of itself, something ugly and shameful.

A lot of the rebuke he gets is because the whole 'be a man', be 'responsible' message isn't exactly what has been promoted by the media and post secondary the last decade. Now suddenly someone is standing up and saying exactly the opposite of what they have been teaching and they can't stand it.

There is nothing wrong with women rights, equality, etc, etc.....but it is a lot like supposed white privilege these days. At some point personal responsibility and betterment is going to bring you further in life than playing the victim card and complaining that you are not as 'privileged.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not in favour of a government mandating equality of outcomes for all, but to suggest that doing so would lower the living standard for everyone isn’t accurate. If last year in the US over 80% of all the wealth created went to 1-2% of the population, redistributing any amount of that money could only have a direct negative impact on 2% of the population max, and even then how much of an impact(if any) that the redistribution actually has on that 1-2%’s quality of life would vary.

Except it isn't as simple as actually just 'redistributing' the wealth.

Even countries with lower levels of poverty and a higher average standard of living or quality of life than the US have rich people who constantly accumulate the majority of the wealth in their respective countries each year.

It is hard someone making $75k per year to compete with someone making $35 million in trying to generate more wealth. At some point we need to accept that there will be rich people, and there will be poor people, and the solution is class mobility and not wealth redistribution.

The problem in the US is that the middle class is eroding and turning into the 'poor' class, and the poor class is stuck where they are at because they don't have any proper class mobility. You can attribute that to a variety of different things, all of them not having anything to do with rich people getting richer.

At the end of the day, rich people are going to get richer no matter what you do.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except it isn't as simple as actually just 'redistributing' the wealth.

Even countries with lower levels of poverty and a higher average standard of living or quality of life than the US have rich people who constantly accumulate the majority of the wealth in their respective countries each year.

It is hard someone making $75k per year to compete with someone making $35 million in trying to generate more wealth. At some point we need to accept that there will be rich people, and there will be poor people, and the solution is class mobility and not wealth redistribution.

The problem in the US is that the middle class is eroding and turning into the 'poor' class, and the poor class is stuck where they are at because they don't have any proper class mobility. You can attribute that to a variety of different things, all of them not having anything to do with rich people getting richer.

At the end of the day, rich people are going to get richer no matter what you do.

Yeah, but based on the evidence of various countries around the world, the places with stronger class and social mobility almost invariably have lower income inequality, higher taxes, a more robust social welfare system, and higher rates of union membership than places that have poor mobility.

So like it or not, wealth redistribution through higher taxes and economic systems encouraging income equality appear to be a key component in ensuring strong economic mobility. And you see this effect even within countries. Just as the countries with higher taxes and higher union membership rates have the strongest class mobility, so too do the the regions of the US that have those things when you compare them to the rest of the country.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not in favour of a government mandating equality of outcomes for all, but to suggest that doing so would lower the living standard for everyone isn’t accurate. If last year in the US over 80% of all the wealth created went to 1-2% of the population, redistributing any amount of that money could only have a direct negative impact on 2% of the population max, and even then how much of an impact(if any) that the redistribution actually has on that 1-2%’s quality of life would vary.

My point though is in a capitalist system made up of consensual transactions, people generating wealth usually do so by creating products or services which everyone uses. These people are naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large so freeing them to rise above makes them richer yes, but also creates products for the rest of us. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, etc

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

My point though is in a capitalist system made up of consensual transactions, people generating wealth usually do so by creating products or services which everyone uses. These people are naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large so freeing them to rise above makes them richer yes, but also creates products for the rest of us. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, etc

Yes but this happens in communist states too, just by less honest means.

There cannot be equal outcomes. In socialist/communist countries where outcomes are supposedly equal, it just causes lazy people to be backstabbed by ambitious people and asskissers who then get the bigger slice of an equal pie. The guy at the top distributing the equal pie is the 1%.

It's who you know, not what you know multiplied by 100.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

My point though is in a capitalist system made up of consensual transactions, people generating wealth usually do so by creating products or services which everyone uses. These people are naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large so freeing them to rise above makes them richer yes, but also creates products for the rest of us. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, etc

I agree that there needs to be incentive to promote new services and innovation, but I disagree with the notion that the individuals who succeeed do so as a result of being naturally smarter and more productive than others. Using yourself as an example, imagine the difference between if you graduated from high school in a situation where you can have all of your post secondary education completely paid for compared with if you had to pay your own way. You could still end up in the same position in the end but it’s unlikely you would despite having the same intelligence and drive as an individual in both scenarios.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Thor

That's the thing, if he is teaching all these young people these important ideas (which are not new) then great, I can ignore all his other nonsense which he seems to be distancing himself from these days.

What was an eye opener for me was my friend in Iceland who is a rabid fan of his, he's 27 bought his book, I have over the years sent him all kinds of neat and though provoking youtube videos, so he loaned me the book and was very excited to talk to me after I read it.

I realized just how little people under 35 have any conception of what I and older people take for granted, young men are not taught life skills, they are lost and looking for direction.

No matter how laughable his weird christian religious beliefs, his word salad, he does reach a positive message to young men who clearly need it.

He's clearly made a difference in my son's (24) outlook, it's been a positive influence for someone who was struggling with a lot of things over the past couple of years.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I disagree with the notion that the individuals who succeeed do so as a result of being naturally smarter and more productive than others

Of course a union zealot would think that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Of course a union zealot would think that.

Care to comment on the example I gave or are you only interested in (capable of?)drive by comments?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Thor

That's the thing, if he is teaching all these young people these important ideas (which are not new) then great, I can ignore all his other nonsense which he seems to be distancing himself from these days....

....No matter how laughable his weird christian religious beliefs, his word salad, he does reach a positive message to young men who clearly need it.

He definitely helped straighten me out. I can’t even really explain why. I don’t agree with everything he says either. It’s just something about him and the way he explains things syncs with my brain.

[White Out 403]

ugh nm. god im abrasive.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dre

Equal of opportunity is that we are all equal before the law. It is a right.

No being equal under the law is not equality of opportunity.

I think this is the error in logic that many people make. The law does not eliminate prejudice or provide mitigations for poverty. So if the initial conditions are different for different people you can't say the opportunity is equal.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

... but I disagree with the notion that the individuals who succeeed do so as a result of being naturally smarter and more productive than others...

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The number of people that achieve any meaningful level of success, despite not being naturally smarter and / or more productive than others are the exception. A complete anomaly. A fluke.

Telling yourself otherwise might be comforting ("he's not smarter than me, he's just luckier" or "She doesn't work harder than me, I just got a ####ty break"), but that's all it is.

Through my career and work experience, I'm fortunate enough to meet and interact with a lot of very successful people, like the top 1% of the 1%. I can say, without exception, than none of the people I know in this group are anything but exceptionally intelligent and (at least and one point in their lives) highly productive. I'm sure some of them have been extremely lucky and some of them might be ####ty people, but none of them are anything less than intelligent and hard working.

I think most in this conversation seem to agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to overall success. I suppose opinions will vary when it comes to the degrees of importance of those factors, but (IMO), the single greatest common factor when it comes to determining success is intellect.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

My point though is in a capitalist system made up of consensual transactions, people generating wealth usually do so by creating products or services which everyone uses. These people are naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large so freeing them to rise above makes them richer yes, but also creates products for the rest of us. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, etc

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is a fantastic book on this subject. Gates was successful because of his intelligence, work ethic, and ability to think into the future.

He also had unlimited access to computers when very few people in North America did and had a good support system in place that allowed him to seize the opportunity.

NHL Hockey players birthdays might be the best example. They trend toward January as a result of the age group cut offs in minor hockey. Yes their are December birthdays that succeed but those with earlier birthdays have an inherrant advantage.

Now apply this same concept to every decision anyone makes in life. So while many successful people are exceptional random chance has a much greater affect on people's lives then they would care to admit.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by you&me

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The number of people that achieve any meaningful level of success, despite not being naturally smarter and / or more productive than others are the exception. A complete anomaly. A fluke.

Telling yourself otherwise might be comforting ("he's not smarter than me, he's just luckier" or "She doesn't work harder than me, I just got a ####ty break"), but that's all it is.

Through my career and work experience, I'm fortunate enough to meet and interact with a lot of very successful people, like the top 1% of the 1%. I can say, without exception, than none of the people I know in this group are anything but exceptionally intelligent and (at least and one point in their lives) highly productive. I'm sure some of them have been extremely lucky and some of them might be ####ty people, but none of them are anything less than intelligent and hard working.

I think most in this conversation seem to agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to overall success. I suppose opinions will vary when it comes to the degrees of importance of those factors, but (IMO), the single greatest common factor when it comes to determining success is intellect.

You can both be right you know?

You are saying that the wealthiest people are people who are highly intelligent and productive. I believe you are correct.

I believe he is saying that they are not always more intelligent or productive than the regular person.



It's a simple venn diagram. Smart, productive, wealthy. You can have smart people who are not wealthy. You can have productive people who are not wealthy. You can even have smart, productive people who are not wealthy. But the area of the diagram that is wealthy is probably mostly overlapping the smart AND productive. You're just looking at and focusing on different parts of the same diagram.