Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[bennyboy]

@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.

It's kind of two sides of the same coin, isn't it? White people have privilege because they have money, and they more easily get money because they have privilege. Not only that, we get the best technology because a history of wealth and intellectual enlightenment has put us ahead. That's why the US bombs parties of brown people at will, and why the one time America was ever on the receiving end of an attack, it was treated like the end of the Universe.

The reason the dutch in South Africa established themselves as the local power was because they had a competitive advantage in every regard-- money, technology, communication, and so on. Look at how the English would mow down entire fields full of Indians with their shiny new machine guns, and it's not hard to see how this privilege was arrived at.

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.

If you press the "reset" button on world society, say by a nuclear holocaust or a disease that kills off 95% of us, what will happen? The most capable and skillful men will establish a powerful patriarchy, corner the resources, and start impregnating the many women who will want to be impregnated by them because they are powerful.

And there's a problem with your idea. There's already affirmative action in schools in the US. What happens when you remove that artificial enforcement, and just let each kid apply on his or her own "merits and skills," and you find out that black people aren't proportionally represented?

This is the dilemma of the left, isn't it? Either you allow true equality of opportunity, and accept how the chips fall, or you enforce equality of outcome, in which case you end up with a true communism and all the obvious failures that entails.

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.

Every hierarchy is power-based. Who gets to say what goals are "better," or what collective ethics, or what attitudes in society? The answer should be immediately obvious-- whoever has the competitive advantage in that arena.

In Korea, there are gangs and guilds of mothers who pressure schools and after-school programs, who bring new students (and their money) to schools or tear them away on a whim. The level to which they cut each other down, replace each other in their little groups, and so on, is quite the sight to see. Why do they do this? Because each of them thinks her ideas should be represented in the actions of the entire group; those who resist will be undermined and, if possible, removed from all position of influence. And once one woman achieves this a couple times, she's won the game-- she calls the shots, because the others wish to stay part of that powerful little group than to go off on their own to practice their own ideas with no numbers.

If you don't think it's instinct, then take a couple dozen kids in a room, and throw in about 100 red bouncy-balls and one green one. Any guesses what's going to happen? (hint: better have a first-aid kit ready)