No fan of Jordan Peterson but his response to twitter "banning" him is excellent.

It's like the good old days, what a refreshing throwback to see a "feminism has gone too far!" post.

What does he think has gone too far?

Yes, someone already explained it to me, without being patronising @EcoEcoIA

What? 🤔

A: Acting
B: YesBut a Trans Man may be as likely to have had that experience as a woman

It's a very good stance to take with twitter who are not at all for any freedom of speech.
I find JBP wonderful and think many feminists would benefit from listening to him like I have. He doesn't like feminists, and for good reason, it took me quite a while to get my head round some of his lectures but there's not much he has to say that I disagree with.

@beastlyslumber Sorry if I offended you. Cultural capital, one can't spend it anywhere these days. As we are discussing hierarchies I thought to invoke this deferential way in which one might tell one's boss that he is wrong. It's gentle satire. [Lord Copper's newspaper was called The Beast]

The two men dined alone. They ate parsley soup, whiting, roast veal, cabinet pudding; they drank whisky-and-soda. Lord Copper explained Nazism, Fascism and Communism; later, in his ghastly library, he outlined the situation in the Far East. "The Beast stands for strong mutually antagonistic governments everywhere," he said. "Self-sufficiency at home, self-assertion abroad."
Mr. Salter's side of the conversation was limited to expressions of assent. When Lord Copper was right he said, "Definitely, Lord Copper"; when he was wrong, "Up to a point."
"Let me see, what's the name of the place I mean? Capital of Japan? Yokohama, isn't it?"
"Up to a point, Lord Copper."
"And Hong Kong belongs to us, doesn't it?"
"Definitely, Lord Copper."
After a time: "Then there's this civil war in Ishmaelia. I propose to feature it. Who did you think of sending?"
"Well, Lord Copper, the choice seems between sending a staff reporter who will get the news but whose name the public doesn't know, or to get someone from outside with a name as a military expert. You see since we lost Hitchcock ..."
"Yes, yes. He was our only man with a European reputation. I know. Zinc will be sending him. I know. But he was wrong about the Battle of Hastings. It was 1066. I looked it up. I won't employ a man who isn't big enough to admit when he's wrong."
"We might share one of the Americans?"
"No, I tell you who I want; Boot."
"Boot?"
"Yes, Boot. He's a young man whose work I'm very much interested in. He has the most remarkable style and he's been in Patagonia and the Prime Minister keeps his books by his bed. Do you read him?"
"Up to a point, Lord Copper."
"Well, get onto him tomorrow. Have him up to see you. Be cordial. Take him out to dinner. Get him at any price. Well, at any reasonable price," he added, for there had lately been a painful occurrence when instructions of this kind, given in an expansive mood, had been too literally observed and a trick cyclist, who had momentarily attracted Lord Copper's attention, had been engaged to edit the Sports Page on a five years' contract at five thousand a year.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. I've never heard that before in my life!

I find JP a mixed bag. He's got some good points... and also some bananas ones (I wouldn't take dietary advice from him, that's for sure, and I'm sure he makes some bonkers points I haven't encountered because I've not taken a dive into his stuff, but I think he'd be capable of a decent debate at least). I'm waiting for a person in the goldilocks zone to rock up and speak sense but it just doesn't seem to be something that gets attention. In that video, the pride thing is a bit incongruent with the rest of his thoughts, I think.

No one's being rude! When someone says "Up to a point, Lord Copper" they're not saying you're an evil autocrat, they're making a joke. It's a purely humorous way of saying that you disagree with someone.

Not quite sure which part you are responding to here, but on the serotonin-and-lobster-hierarchies example people are discussing here, the WaPo article from 2018 (www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/) argues that lobsters are not a terribly good model for human hierarchies:

In the case of humans and lobsters, our most recent common ancestor was defined by the remarkable evolutionary innovation of a complete gut — meaning that the mouth and anus are two separate openings (the importance of this morphological novelty is clear when you contemplate the alternative). The living animal that probably most closely resembles this ancestor is the acoel, a mostly harmless marine worm no bigger than a grain of rice. Acoels’ social interactions are limited to mating — they’re typically hermaphroditic, so each individual acts as both “male” and “female” — or sometimes to cannibalism, if a hungry acoel encounters another small enough to fit in its mouth. I suppose cannibalism is a sort of dominance hierarchy, but acoels don’t engage in the complex displays of aggression seen in lobsters or form social hierarchies like primates. If the common ancestor of humans and lobsters lacked dominance hierarchies (which seems likely, based on what we know about living animals), then our two species’ social behavior evolved independently, and the one can’t inform us about the other.

Gosh, well, I can't see what I've done to deserve that moniker! It's a shame people feel the need to be rude and insulting just because there's a disagreement. It's often an effective tactic to stop the other person from engaging, but it doesn't actually win the argument.

It comes from Evelyn Waugh's satirical novel Scoop:

Lord Copper, the newspaper magnate, has been said to be an amalgam of Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook: a character so fearsome that his obsequious foreign editor, Mr Salter, can never openly disagree with him, answering "Definitely, Lord Copper" and "Up to a point, Lord Copper" in place of "yes" or "no".

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_(novel)#Background

(The ??? are for the lord copper bit - I don't know what this means. Presumably some kind of insult.)

Up to a point Lord Copper

???

He's just saying that as a society we are driven by biological and evolutionary forces, just as any animal society will be.

Why aren't you a fan of capitalism?

@nepeta He's just posing a question there.

I don't think the bit you've quoted argues this, though? Isn't he just saying 'like lobster society, human society also has an unequal distribution of resources' and then goes on the discuss that distribution? He's not making the argument that this distribution is based on the neurochemical mechanisms that we share with lobsters - I mean, he might do that elsewhere, I don't know? But not in what you've quoted. I agree he's pointing to evolutionary and biological factors to explain some of the ways that societies are organised but I don't think he's arguing that we are no different than lobsters.

Up to a point Lord Copper. In the bit I quoted he does not directly refer to the same neurochemical mechanisms. You have to read the whole chapter to get that he is writing about the same neurochemical (serotonin/octopamine) mechanism. The bit I quoted 'The Principle of Unequal Distribution' comes directly after 'The Neurochemistry of Defeat and Victory' and continues talking about the defeated and victorious lobsters.

He is not just saying 'like lobster society, human society also has an unequal distribution of resources', he is making a direct comparison and making a statement about the extent of the disparity in distribution of resources, "It’s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent [11] — and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion." The use of "just as it is" is a very direct comparison. I don't beleive it is "just as it is". He's stretching, over-stating his case. He overstates the degree to which biological factors affect wealth distribution. Economic and technological advances have made the accumulation of wealth quite a bit removed from direct conflict over territory, an accumulation that can happen automatically, in the absence of the person. For example the Amazon website is there accumulating wealth world-wide 24/7 for share holders, and most of those share holders are passively accumulating wealth, with Amazon employees working on their behalf to compete in the marketplace).

Of course he isn't arguing we are no different from lobsters. But he is saying "when we are defeated, we act very much like lobsters who have lost a fight."

The part of our brain that keeps track of our position in the dominance hierarchy is therefore exceptionally ancient and fundamental. [17] It is a master control system, modulating our perceptions, values, emotions, thoughts and actions. It powerfully affects every aspect of our Being, conscious and unconscious alike. This is why, when we are defeated, we act very much like lobsters who have lost a fight. Our posture droops. We face the ground. We feel threatened, hurt, anxious and weak. If things do not improve, we become chronically depressed. Under such conditions, we can’t easily put up the kind of fight that life demands, and we become easy targets for harder-shelled bullies. And it is not only the behavioural and experiential similarities that are striking. Much of the basic neurochemistry is the same.

Consider serotonin, the chemical that governs posture and escape in the lobster. Low-ranking lobsters produce comparatively low levels of serotonin. This is also true of low-ranking human beings (and those low levels decrease more with each defeat). Low serotonin means decreased confidence. Low serotonin means more response to stress and costlier physical preparedness for emergency—as anything whatsoever may happen, at any time, at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy (and rarely something good). Low serotonin means less happiness, more pain and anxiety, more illness, and a shorter lifespan—among humans, just as among crustaceans. Higher spots in the dominance hierarchy, and the higher serotonin levels typical of those who inhabit them, are characterized by less illness, misery and death, even when factors such as absolute income—or number of decaying food scraps—are held constant. The importance of this can hardly be overstated.

Oh, but Dr Peterson I think it can be overstated.

He argues that the same neurochemical mechanisms that create unequal territorial distributions in lobsters are the same mechanisms that create the unequal distribution of wealth in human societies.

I don't think the bit you've quoted argues this, though? Isn't he just saying 'like lobster society, human society also has an unequal distribution of resources' and then goes on the discuss that distribution? He's not making the argument that this distribution is based on the neurochemical mechanisms that we share with lobsters - I mean, he might do that elsewhere, I don't know? But not in what you've quoted. I agree he's pointing to evolutionary and biological factors to explain some of the ways that societies are organised but I don't think he's arguing that we are no different than lobsters.

I'm surprised you write that Peterson has not given an indication as to what level of stratification is to be expected. Here is his 'The Principle of Unequal Distribution' from 12 Rules of Life - An Antidote to Chaos:

The Principle of Unequal Distribution

When a defeated lobster regains its courage and dares to fight again it is more likely to lose again than you would predict, statistically, from a tally of its previous fights. Its victorious opponent, on the other hand, is more likely to win. It’s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent [11] — and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion.

That same brutal principle of unequal distribution applies outside the financial domain — indeed, anywhere that creative production is required. The majority of scientific papers are published by a very small group of scientists. A tiny proportion of musicians produces almost all the recorded commercial music. Just a handful of authors sell all the books. A million and a half separately titled books (!) sell each year in the US. However, only five hundred of these sell more than a hundred thousand copies. [12] Similarly, just four classical composers (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky) wrote almost all the music played by modern orchestras. Bach, for his part, composed so prolifically that it would take decades of work merely to hand-copy his scores, yet only a small fraction of this prodigious output is commonly performed. The same thing applies to the output of the other three members of this group of hyper dominant composers: only a small fraction of their work is still widely played. Thus, a small fraction of the music composed by a small fraction of all the classical composers who have ever composed makes up almost all the classical music that the world knows and loves.

This principle is sometimes known as Price’s law, after Derek J. de Solla Price, [13] the researcher who discovered its application in science in 1963. It can be modelled using an approximately L-shaped graph, with number of people on the vertical axis, and productivity or resources on the horizontal. The basic principle had been discovered much earlier. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), an Italian polymath, noticed its applicability to wealth distribution in the early twentieth century, and it appears true for every society ever studied, regardless of governmental form. It also applies to the population of cities (a very small number have almost all the people), the mass of heavenly bodies (a very small number hoard all the matter), and the frequency of words in a language (90 percent of communication occurs using just 500 words), among many other things. Sometimes it is known as the Matthew Principle (Matthew 25:29), derived from what might be the harshest statement ever attributed to Christ: “to those who have everything, more will be given; from those who have nothing, everything will be taken.”

There is so much there to unpick, but I'll stick to discussing wealth. He argues that the same neurochemical mechanisms that create unequal territorial distributions in lobsters are the same mechanisms that create the unequal distribution of wealth in human societies. But he has not provided enough evidence to make that claim. One way he could support his claim would be to provide statistical evidence that the distribution of the areas of lobster territories is the same (to some high degree of confidence) as the distribution of human wealth. He hasn't done the work. It's intellectually lazy. That is why I find his claim to be unconvincing and unscientific. Taleb's alternative theory (see my previous posts) based on economic mechanisms of investment and accumulation of wealth has a better mathematical basis.

There is much to admire in Peterson's stance on academic freedom, and his attempts to maintain standards of rigour in the precise use of language. But I find him exasperating when he makes pseudo-scientific claims that aren't backed up by evidence. Perhaps I'm unfairly singling Peterson out here as he is such a prominent public intellectual. I'm critical of much that passes for logic and evidence in the social "sciences".

Because those credits accurately reflect Elliot Page’s identity at the time. Also, it’s clear Jordan Peterson’s just being pedantic. He knows nothing about Page beyond the news he’s skimmed and is not appropriately qualified to judge her mental capacity since they are not paired as a doctor and client.

When Peterson became Dr. Peterson, I’m sure his previous school records were not corrected to say “Dr.” Now that he’s a doctor, though, it would be inaccurate to describe him as anything else unless his license is revoked. If someone accused Peterson of not having a doctorate and lying about his doctorate, Peterson could sue this accuser for libel or slander because that is not an accurate statement (like calling Page by his dead name and feigning wonder over why Page’s dead name remains on past movies).

Let’s be real: Peterson’s being a transphobic horror toward Page by acting as though gender reassignment surgery is mutilation when all surgery is mutilation. Anyone could describe cataract surgery in menacing detail.

While Peterson makes some logical points about the flaws of wokeism, I still find him petty and largely illogical. I remember an interview where he agreed to call an alt-right trans woman, Theryn Meyers, by her preferred name and pronouns, but he in that same interview, he can’t seem to understand that as a professor he ought to use the preferred name and pronouns his students request? Here’s the link: m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=kasiov0ytEc&feature=emb_logo

If I were responding to Peterson, I’d say classes are meant to be safe for students to learn, so invalidating a student’s identity amounts to bullying and harassment and is not conducive to healthy learning. As Peterson should well know, freedom of speech (or freedom of expression as it’s called in Canada) doesn’t exist as fully in unis as it does in wider society. Professors agree to a code of conduct when they’re employed. Upon accepting their assignment, professors agree to forego certain freedoms they’re otherwise entitled to as citizens.

I can’t remember what else I disagree with (vaguely I remember finding his assessment of gender roles for children unimpressive), but on the whole, I find him arrogant, obnoxious, and hateful. He’s celebrated by many men, and some conservative women I’ve known, so he’s not very oppressed because of his beliefs. I will admit that there’s a culture of fear right now where his logical points sometimes are hard to utter in classrooms, but I find him just as self-righteous and ridiculous as the woke left he disdains.

I don't think his goal was really to offer insight into power hierarchies in human beings but to say they are biologically rooted at a chemical level.

I think he's a pretty big fan of democracy as a way to mitigate certain kinds of exercise of power.

Yes, but that doesn't matter to what he's saying. If he wanted behavioural analogies he's not choose any sea creatures I'd imagine, certainly not primitive ones. He's just saying that human behaviour is based on chemical structures that predate us being human, we aren't going to escape them. It would be like trying to escape the influence of amino acids.

That's true, of course. The point is that some of the primitive sea creatures which also share those biological building blocks don't have power hierarchies, and the ones both we and lobsters share as an 'ancestor' is far too primitive to have anything like that at all. The point is that power hierarchies in humans and in lobsters were created by evolutionary paths and what lobsters do is not necessarily going to increase our understanding of human power hierarchies.

So what those shared chemical building blocks mean is less clear than what he'd like to argue.

I personally don't think that we can completely dispense with power hierarchies, but we can certainly try to ground them on something different than inherited wealth or threat of physical violence or even simple gender stereotypes.

Voting for leaders is one way to try to keep the powerful in politics accountable to the masses, choosing people for high-level jobs with tests, formal qualifications etc. is another, and creating various balancing mechanisms (such safeguarding for children and vulnerable adults) also helps. But all those must ultimately be based on democracy and the institutions of democracy.

Yes, but that doesn't matter to what he's saying. If he wanted behavioural analogies he's not choose any sea creatures I'd imagine, certainly not primitive ones. He's just saying that human behaviour is based on chemical structures that predate us being human, we aren't going to escape them. It would be like trying to escape the influence of amino acids.

It's a response to the idea that we could remake human behaviour through politics and social conditioning to be perfectly egalitarian so that we don't have to have any social conflicts at all. He is saying for that to work we would have to materially change what it is to be a living human being.

This is an utterly ridiculous view.

Page did the film as Ellen, so they're not going to change it, why would they? Ellen did the film.

He's a transphobe for dead naming and he deserves his ban.