RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
September 30, 2018 at 6:00 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2018 at 6:04 pm by GrandizerII.)
@bennyboy,
I don't know if I am reading you right, but if you do acknowledge white people have privilege in the USA and most of this world, then that's white privilege in action, regardless of why that is the case. It may be because they have been successful in conflicts, it may be they have had better opportunities by random luck to thrive and prosper in this world throughout the last couple thousand years compared to other groups, it may even be the case that "white" skin color is perhaps more appealing to our human psyche (thus we may be generally wired to trust white people over most other groups). Whatever the reason(s) may be, white people do tend to be privileged in this world, and that's all I'm arguing about basically. Peterson is mistaken in arguing that other factors such as wealth and majority are more important factors to consider here because if that was the case, we'd see just as many top rich black people as there are white people and it doesn't explain why South Africa, with white people comprising less than 10% of the population compared to black people being the vast majority, displays a clear example of white privilege in action.
About power hierarchies, I don't think we're wired to favor only power hierarchies. As a progressivist, I think we have the potential to build a world where hierarchies are mainly based not on power, but on merit and skills. It's just, as a species, we haven't had enough resources and technologies to advance these goals, and I think we are only just starting to get there. Keep in mind the hindrances humankind have had to face because of restrictive institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages (and even today, to a lesser extent) and the right-wingers of today. It's going to take a lot of time (beyond our lifetimes) to get to an ideal point where such things as white privilege is no longer a thing, but it'll happen eventually.
The lobster argument isn't a good example of how social animals favor power hierarchies because how lobsters are wired vastly differs from how we are wired. And since we're wired differently, whatever neurochemical effects occur in lobsters that make them want to maintain power hierarchies so strongly cannot have much say on whether or not we really are biologically set to favor the same things they do. I personally don't think the human tendency for power hierarchies is so biologically ingrained that it can't ever be undone by better policies, better collective ethics, better goals and better attitudes in society, shared by the majority of its members. I think hierarchies or (organized societies) are important social constructs, but they need not be power-based hierarchies.
There is class privilege, yes. But white privilege is just as significant a thing as class privilege. If you're both white and born wealthy, you're even more privileged than someone who is white but not born into a wealthy family. In general, black people (and other non-white groups), including wealthier ones, are still at a disadvantage compared to white counterparts.
I don't know if I am reading you right, but if you do acknowledge white people have privilege in the USA and most of this world, then that's white privilege in action, regardless of why that is the case. It may be because they have been successful in conflicts, it may be they have had better opportunities by random luck to thrive and prosper in this world throughout the last couple thousand years compared to other groups, it may even be the case that "white" skin color is perhaps more appealing to our human psyche (thus we may be generally wired to trust white people over most other groups). Whatever the reason(s) may be, white people do tend to be privileged in this world, and that's all I'm arguing about basically. Peterson is mistaken in arguing that other factors such as wealth and majority are more important factors to consider here because if that was the case, we'd see just as many top rich black people as there are white people and it doesn't explain why South Africa, with white people comprising less than 10% of the population compared to black people being the vast majority, displays a clear example of white privilege in action.
About power hierarchies, I don't think we're wired to favor only power hierarchies. As a progressivist, I think we have the potential to build a world where hierarchies are mainly based not on power, but on merit and skills. It's just, as a species, we haven't had enough resources and technologies to advance these goals, and I think we are only just starting to get there. Keep in mind the hindrances humankind have had to face because of restrictive institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages (and even today, to a lesser extent) and the right-wingers of today. It's going to take a lot of time (beyond our lifetimes) to get to an ideal point where such things as white privilege is no longer a thing, but it'll happen eventually.
The lobster argument isn't a good example of how social animals favor power hierarchies because how lobsters are wired vastly differs from how we are wired. And since we're wired differently, whatever neurochemical effects occur in lobsters that make them want to maintain power hierarchies so strongly cannot have much say on whether or not we really are biologically set to favor the same things they do. I personally don't think the human tendency for power hierarchies is so biologically ingrained that it can't ever be undone by better policies, better collective ethics, better goals and better attitudes in society, shared by the majority of its members. I think hierarchies or (organized societies) are important social constructs, but they need not be power-based hierarchies.
(September 30, 2018 at 3:34 am)paulpablo Wrote:(September 30, 2018 at 12:07 am)Grandizer Wrote: But if they are both of equal wealth, who do you think the seller is more likely going to sell the house to?
Anyway, that's her experience of what she has observed when compared to her black peers. That you, bennyboy, and Peterson can't accept that skin color must be playing a role doesn't mean that you're right. Who is Peterson anyway? He's not a sociologist, nor is he a lawyer, an evolutionary psychologist, or an expert on evolution in any way. He's a psychoanalyst with some some weird views on certain topics and not very good critical thinking skills. Psychoanalysis isn't really a credible field.
I'll get back to you later, benny.
He doesn't say skin color isn't playing a role, he says in relation to the woman's claim that she can buy a house anywhere she wants to live, that wealth plays a more important role, which it does. It's a more reliable variable to look at if you were trying to guess who has more options when it comes to buying property.
It's the privilege someone gets when they have money, and if they live in a country where they are the majority it's even more linked to the privileges she mentions, being able to meet people of her race when she wants to, see people in the media who are of the same race.
There is class privilege, yes. But white privilege is just as significant a thing as class privilege. If you're both white and born wealthy, you're even more privileged than someone who is white but not born into a wealthy family. In general, black people (and other non-white groups), including wealthier ones, are still at a disadvantage compared to white counterparts.
