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

[bennyboy]

You can insert the dominant demographic in any situation, and put the word "privilege" after it.

No shit, but this doesn't address what makes privileged groups "dominant" in the first place.

It's because they succeed in conflict.

But on what basis should those in power be expected not to act on it? If there really IS white privilege, why shouldn't every white person say, "Wow man. Thank God I was born white, my life is fantastic!"

Because it makes one a shit person to only think about oneself, and fuck the sufferings of others. Plus, the world would be heaps better when everyone is happy and living a productive life, and all are treated with basic dignity and respect (not just a select few).

Hmmmm. . . let's hold that thought for a second.

That's the part in all this discussion that nobody has ever brought up-- if it IS white oppression, and if black people can't or won't challenge that oppression, then what of it?

Black people have been doing this for quite a while now. Where have you been, man?

No, they haven't.  Marching in parades isn't the kind of conflict that we're talking about.

Is there something intrinsically wrong with taking advantage of favorable circumstances, or in preventing others from turning the tables?

Of course. Why would you want to make it difficult for others to enjoy some success in life?

Because there's limited pie.  Are you saying that I have an obligation to share what I have with those who have less than I do? Should I be willing to take a reduction in my quality of life for those who are worse off than I am? Who am I to bring under the umbrella of my magnanimity? Are people I dislike included? How about other species?

The comparison made is that competition for resources is so fundamental  to the process of evolution that it is found among lobsters-- a particularly ancient species.

What's the point? No one is asking for every single human being on this planet to spread their genes around. It's about making sure all people are treated equally in society. Or, if not equally, fairly.

It's not all about what you say it's all about.  It's all about genetic fitness.  The rest, including all moral ideas, are cognitive attempts to mediate between the environment and our instincts.

I'm pretty sure lobsters don't have much of a brain, if any ...

Plus, even if they did, you do realize the same neurotransmitters can cause different bodily/behavioral changes depending on the type of receptors being acted upon, right? And between lobsters and human beings, there's a world of difference in terms of neuronal structure and functioning, so that the effects of such chemicals as serotonin are not going to be the same in lobsters as they are in human bodies.

The mechanism isn't the point.  It's the ubquity of dominance hierarchies.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but let's be accurate here. Humans are of course animals, but it's not like their brains are purely "reptilian". We are advanced primates with a highly complex nervous system that cannot be dismissed so easily as just a tool to act like vicious beasts. We have evolved to a point that we can really think about the things we do, and we can (and should) do better as a result.

Individually, we can.  As a species, probably not.  We've had thousands of years to come up with superior moral ideas and put them into effect.  Why, then, don't we live in a perfect world?  It's because our more primitive instincts are able to take hold of our conscious processing power.

[GrandizerII]

And going back to what Jordan Peterson is saying, wealth and being a racial majority are more important in relation to the things mentioned in that list.  

A white and black clone go to buy a house, wealth is a more important to the seller of that house than race.

Skin colour won't directly get you the privilage of buying the nicer house.

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.

[bennyboy]

I'd argue that in social animals, the things Peterson said about power hierarchy probably apply to tribes, as well. You will get entire tribes of people who are high on themselves because they're hitting nothing but net, and entire tribes of people who feel that they are inferior because they've lost recent conflicts.

There's not doubt that there's deliberate racism. I even doubt that all white people, when selling a house, would choose a higher bidder if they were black-- they might have "concerns for the neighbors who they always got along with" or whatever.

The reality of the situation is this: for the better part of the last 2000 years, the cultures that have really been succeeding in the world have mostly been white. Certainly, in the past few hundred years, it's pretty much been a white world.

But I'm pretty sure that legitimate challenges will be launched soon-- from outside by China, and from inside by minorities who realize that there are more brown people than white people (it's coming up soon!). Then we'll see what's what.

My prediction is that once the spell of invincibility is broken, white people will become a groveling bunch of sniveling cowards.

[paulpablo]

And going back to what Jordan Peterson is saying, wealth and being a racial majority are more important in relation to the things mentioned in that list.  

A white and black clone go to buy a house, wealth is a more important to the seller of that house than race.

Skin colour won't directly get you the privilage of buying the nicer house.

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.

[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.

---

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.

[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)

[paulpablo]

@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.

---

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.

It's nowhere near as significant.  It's all to do with what other people value.  The amount of people who value race over wealth is statistically insignificant.  A rich white person can buy up property in black majority places in Africa (he might have the disadvantage of being more of a target to crime or some type of con)  Nigerians who are rich enough buy up high end value property in London.  And they will face consequences of not being a majority race in London.
I can't think of a disadvantage a non white rich person faces unless they don't have the other privilege Jordan Peterson spoke of which is important, majority privilege.  For white privilege to have any effect it needs to be because someone values whiteness as superior.  This might happen in African countries for black people to value whiteness over their own race but in those rare circumstances I suspect it goes back to the other privilege of them valuing wealth.  Or they might just be black and racist against their own kind.

[bennyboy]

I gotta say, thanks to racism in Asia, white guys get laid a lot. Now, that's privilege I can get behind! Pretty sure I'd do fine in Africa or India too. Here's the thing-- I don't think white people are just grabbing privilege in a game of political keep-away. I think the human lobster-brain, pretty much across the entire world, is conditioned to let the guy in power maintain it.

My wife is an example. She dated pretty well before me. Doctors, lawyers, just wasn't doing much for her. Then along comes some Canadian kid with nothing but a twinkle in his eye, and three months later we got married. Think there's any chance that it's largely because America was swinging a big dick around Asia 70 years ago? I'll bet $150 it was!

I'm also curious how much of privilege is held by force, and how much is offered up as unconscious tribute because of the white aura surrounding the world today?

[GrandizerII]

Not only that, we get the best technology because a history of wealth and intellectual enlightenment has put us ahead.

Intellectual enlightenment is often an outcome of having wealth and living a life of luxury, rather than a cause.

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.

Let's not forget they are also white.

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?

If everything stays the same as it is now, of course black people wouldn't be proportionally represented in this overly simplistic scenario, and all because of such things as white privilege. The whole system needs change from bottom to top, not just impose an artificial enforcement (which, for now, is good enough nevertheless).

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)

Not sure. Could go any direction. Need to know more details.

---

@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.

It's nowhere near as significant.  It's all to do with what other people value.  The amount of people who value race over wealth is statistically insignificant.  A rich white person can buy up property in black majority places in Africa (he might have the disadvantage of being more of a target to crime or some type of con)  Nigerians who are rich enough buy up high end value property in London.  And they will face consequences of not being a majority race in London.
I can't think of a disadvantage a non white rich person faces unless they don't have the other privilege Jordan Peterson spoke of which is important, majority privilege.  For white privilege to have any effect it needs to be because someone values whiteness as superior.  This might happen in African countries for black people to value whiteness over their own race but in those rare circumstances I suspect it goes back to the other privilege of them valuing wealth.  Or they might just be black and racist against their own kind.

Note the subtle readiness to blame black people for their misfortunes instead of acknowledging that these misfortunes occur partly because of the racist attitudes against them by white people.

Almost everything you said here is contradicted by reality.

[Rev. Rye]

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.

Umm... the first machine gun (the Gatling Gun) was invented in 1862 and was first used by Union forces during the American Civil War, long after the British were the ones killing the Native Americans. Firearms, maybe, but not machine guns.