ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Jordan Peterson: Inequality and hierarchy give life its purpose
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticized by the left and claimed by the right, Jordan Peterson’s ideas are a defense of traditional morality and leading a purpose-driven life. The Canadian psychology professor has become a TH-cam and IRL sensation, garnering tens of millions of views seemingly overnight. His claim that hierarchies help individuals create goals for themselves (and that goal-setting is a good life skill) seems to deprioritize equality-at least equality of outcome-as the primary goal of society. Such counterintuitive ideas run throughout his newest book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN PETERSON:
Jordan B. Peterson, raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt-plane, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with astronauts, and built a Kwagu'l ceremonial bighouse on the upper floor of his Toronto home after being invited into and named by that Canadian First Nation. He's taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and business people, consulted for the UN Secretary General, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an adviser to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe. With his students and colleagues at Harvard and the University of Toronto, Dr. Peterson has published over a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, while his book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief revolutionized the psychology of religion. His latest book is 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Jordan Peterson: If you don’t have anything to look up to, you don’t have anything to do, right? A lot of the meaning that people find in their lives is purpose driven. And in order to put effort into something, to work towards something, you have to assume axiomatically that what you’re working towards is better than what you have. Because why else would you do it?
And there’s a relationship, like, if it’s way better than what you have, it’s obviously proportionally difficult. So you try to balance difficulty with positivity, let’s say, something like that. But you’re always aiming up if you’re aiming. And if you’re not aiming then you don’t really have any purpose, and that deprives your life of meaning, and that’s not good because if your life is deprived of meaning then what you’re left with is the suffering. It’s not neutral, right, it’s negative.
So now the problem with having to aim up is that produces a hierarchy, because if you posit and aim then everyone arrays themselves along a hierarchy of “better at it” to “worse at it”.
And it doesn’t matter-if you create basketball as a game, 100 years later you create people who are hyperspecialized at basketball and they’re great at it, and virtually everyone else is bad. So it doesn’t matter. As soon as you produce a value proposition, you produce a hierarchy.
The problem with a hierarchy is it produces inequality. The problem with inequality is it produces resentment. Right, but you can’t get rid of the damn hierarchy just because they produce inequality and resentment, because then you don’t have anywhere to go. So that’s not an answer.
Okay, so let’s say you’re trying to deal with the fact that you have to put up with a hierarchy if you’re going to have any values. Well, how do you escape from the resentment trap? And the answer is you do an intelligent multidimensional analysis of your life.
It’s like, by the time you’re 30, I would say, you’re a pretty singular person. You’re unique and particular and your life has multiple dimensions. And you’re more or less successful-or not-along many of those dimensions.
But it’s a completely ridiculous game to pick someone else arbitrarily, who’s doing much better than you on one of those dimensions, to assume that you’re a failure because of that, or that the world is unfair because of that, without knowing in full detail all of the rest of the elements of their lives. I mean, look, we’re absolutely awash in stories of unhappy celebrities mired in interminable divorces or in affairs or in addictions. And that’s par for the course.
It’s not helpful. It’s helpful to have a goal. It’s necessary to have a hierarchy. It’s not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people...
To read the full transcript, please visit bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
@@danielfromearth2112 Not everybody has motivational & purposeful job like "climate change" try to be motivated toilet cleaner. I mean its not the ideal world my man, join the reality
If you're peterson, exercising the inner lobster.
P
The fact that Big Think would interview a man as demonstrably and objectively stupid as Jordan Peterson, immediately destroys the complete credibility of "Big Think". You people should be really ashamed of yourselves.
The unstated but critical point is that the hierarchy needs to be traversable and legitimate. You need to be able to rise to the top or sink to the bottom. Slavery and monarchy are non-traversable hierarchies, for instance: a slave could never hope to become the master, so it's pretty futile for a slave to strive to become a master. It also leaves open the important question of what hierarchies are legitimate. Some hierarchies and dimensions of inequality may well be arbitrary or unjust or pathological and worth questioning or dismantling.
What? There are hierarchies of competence that are both traversable and legitimate. Better doctors are preferred to worse ones, better writers to worse ones, better artists to worse ones, etc. They aren't perfect hierarchies, of course, but they aren't ridiculous.
I'm not arguing it is static. All that I think a hierarchy needs is some sort of stratification based on some quality and for higher strata to be preferable to lower strata, generally by some relative benefit or advantage. There is no requirement for the hierarchy to be fixed or rigid or static or for the benefit or advantage to be of any given sort or degree. I agree that opportunity is important: that's a key factor in the traversability of the hierarchy. Also, the hierarchy would lose its legitimacy if it becomes corrupted.
We do not have a static hierarchy, if you look at the one percent the majority of people in the one percent were not born there and will not die there. Almost everybody in American society traverse through the classes. Doctors don't get a good reputation then keep that permanently. You seem to be living in a fantasy world were everything is always remaining the same. Peterson does not reference any hierarchies, he is literally advocating that you improve your own life. You are consistently obfuscating and misrepresenting Peterson. Hierarchies are a necessary part of society, hierarchies are a necessary consequence of freedom. The only way you can get rid of Hierarchy is by eliminating freedom, which is inherently problematic.
Treeforged: I'm pretty sure there's a fairly high degree of correlation between where someone starts and where they end up. It's not static, sure, but it's not exactly some sort of social mobility superfluid. To strain the analogy, it's pretty viscous: it's unlikely for someone who starts out at some level to drift far from it. It can happen, sure, but it's rarer than its opposite. Wealth helps to secure future wealth. Being highly regarded comes with benefits and advantages that help you stay in high regard.
Improving your life might be difficult bordering on impossible. If I'm a slave, being all conscientious won't set me free. Peterson seems to be effectively arguing for the "rightness" of all existing hierarchies as they exist today. They are good because they give life meaning, nevermind that some may well be quite questionable. "Buck up and tackle them hierarchies, man" is a trivial way of avoiding any responsibility to scrutinize and potentially remedy any dysfunctional hierarchies.
Does freedom of religion produce hierarchies? Freedom to travel? Granted I'm being a little nitpicky, but not all dimensions of freedom produce hierarchies. Clearly, some freedoms undermine certain hierarchies and so much the better: everyone has the freedom of not being someone else's property which undercuts the master-slave hierarchy. Certain freedoms preclude certain hierarchies by design.
Nadav Kravitz okay I think this conversation has gotten a bit needlessly over complicated. I think Peterson here is presenting a reality where those at the top of the hierarchy provide a great service to those at the bottom in the form of an aspiration to become great beings who might one day become more like those great and honorable straight white men (all who totally deserve to be there cause corruption doesn't exist) at the top. So really all of us disinfranchised people of whatever demographic should be thanking the privileged (wealthy, able-bodied, etc) for providing us this great service of letting us dream of being more like those alpha male role models.
The problem is that is not how it usually works. Corruption is real and just because you have wealth, fame, or power, does not mean you inherently deserve more just because you happen to have more
I am very much on the left politically but can appreciate Peterson's arguments even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them. Also good on Big Think for getting people from across the political spectrum...everyone benefits from being pulled outside their ideological bubble!
The left-wing response / rebuttal to this video:
th-cam.com/video/agzNANfNlTs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/E4CI2vk3ugk/w-d-xo.html
@@Korean_Autist_AbsoluteMF More of a moderate rebuttal.
I am on the political right but I don't agree with him lol. He is talking about an individualistic society not a collective society structure. The purpose driven Life is a characteristic of western individualistic societies.
@@gamatoutsikos but thats not his main point
jordanpeterson is talking about how inequality and hierarchy are good, because, as he stated it, inequality leads people to (try to) improve themselves.
you mightve heard only the first half of the video, as thats the part he mentions "purpose in life", which is not even what he is trying to convince you of, it´s a fact
I recommend you read and look at a graph as to what the left represents. Over history not just now. Ask, seek and knock and you shall find.
His advice _really_ helped me: I'm 41 pounds lighter now, and I'm not actively suffering as much anymore... 🙌
Me, too and I am a woman! I am so glad he is not afraid of telling us the truth that we need to hear!
Funny you said that myself too
Good job
The sheer narcissism and lack of self awareness in your comment doesn't concern me so much as the number of updooting wannabe yes-man sycophants - assuming if I'm not just arguing with a bot network. 😄
That's something I noticed some time ago, that if I'm not progressing in some way I get depressed. Sometimes I worry about hitting a dead end, where their's nothing left to experience or improve. This happens all the time with video games because they are so much simpler than real life. But if you are imaginative enough it will never happen for real life in your lifetime, the more you learn the more you learn you don't know and that is the main thing that keeps you from reaching the depressing dead end of total mastery.
alexanderx33 I'm the same way, I found a cure for that by making things. I ALWAYS have some sort of project and it keeps me happy and provide more meaning in my life. For me it is woodworking, electronics, etc.
My advice to you is:
create something.
KingOfShenanigans Thanks. I like creating things too and traveling to places I've never been before. A cheaper option is looking at places I have already been to in different ways. Especially in natural settings, detail is so high you'll never really know everything about a place. It works best when I'm alone, and part of my brain isn't being forced to think about what others think about me.
alexanderx33 I see what you are saying. I'm a bit of a naturalist myself. Life can be really fucking hard and seemingly pointless at times. It was for me a couple of years ago. But my social situation and environment changed since then and I am happy now. I think every person should be able to get therapy or counseling for free. I hope everything works out for you.
if worrying about hitting a dead end because theres nothing left for you to experience, then the obvious solution is to focus on trying to assist all the people who arent worried about that because they havent experienced enough yet....
Its the "Paying it Forward" concept, and it will provide you with more fulfillment and purpose and meaning than you ever thought you would find for yourself...
I think this is why mods are so popular
The exact reason why i started to pick up my instrument. Only comparing myself to my future self and identifying areas of my playing that need improvement, looking to my superiors in my craft and seeing how i can be like them. (the answer everytime seems to be go to jazz school lol) Can't thank you enough JP, you've expanded my knowledge and awareness of my self so that i never stop improving.
I really like Jordan Peterson but most people don't have an issue with inequality we just have an issue with extreme versions of it.
But the people who show up to his lectures and scream at him calling him a Nazi actually do have an issue with inequality. This message was not targeted at you, it was targeted at them.
This! So many people seem to think that there's nothing wrong with capitalism and it's only natural that some people are filthy rich and some people are poor, because hierarchies are natural and there's nothing we can do about it. That's wrong! Some hierarchies are natural, but we should definitely do everything we can to end the extreme hierarchies.
I really dont mind with Bill Gates making another few billion next year.
@@nerios.v That few billion is a lot more useful for people other than Bill Gates.
@@adamromero Most of the "billions" they make are from stocks and company valuations, is not like they are sitting on piles of cash... the ignorance is incredible nowadays
Inequality doesn't give life meaning. Inequality *based on things you can possibly control, where there exists some mobility in the hierarchy* gives life meaning.
It's a very specific brand of equality. People being unequal because of their race, their gender, the wealth of the parents they happened to be born to, etc, doesn't give life any meaning. In fact, these types of inequality detract from the brand of inequality that actually does give life meaning.
You, sir, have won the internet.👏
+Kalvin I could not agree more.
Well said
Duh.
Martin Luther kings fight wasn't driven by meaning?
Everyone here is confused. You're yelling past each other.
The commentary is split between those focused on systemic injustice and those focused on personal opportunity. Almost everyone speaks as if these are mutually exclusive positions, which is tragically incorrect.
Is there widespread systemic injustice? Does racism and sexism hold people back? Are your chances better if you're born in the right family? Are corporations and politicians desperately corrupt? Do the wealthy and powerful use every dirty trick at their disposal to cling to their wealth and power, indifferent to the resulting wake of destruction and suffering? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! That is all absolutely true. These are real problems that call for real corrective action. Some of the response needs to be in the form of changes to government policy. But a lot of the response will have to be in the form of cultural shift. And cultural shift is slow.
As far as I can tell, most of our progress toward justice has been a result of evolving attitudes across generations. Virtually all of us are in a much better position than those living short, miserable, ignorant, impoverished lives with no freedom and no hope as slaves on a lord's manor. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Things were worse 100 years ago and far, far worse 1,000 years ago. If it was worse then, that means it's better now. The culture of attitudes and expectations with regard to power, life, property and rights has changed radically over hundreds of generations. The problem is the rate of liberation has been (and continues to be) too gradual for any of us at any point to actually feel it happening. And it's obviously not happening for everyone at the same rate. Those of the wrong color or anatomical configuration still deal with more hurdles (although it has been worse in the past). Liberation is happening, but it ain't happening fast or equitably enough.
History's reformers didn't get to enjoy the fruit of their labor. We do. The story is the same for today's reformers; they have to have faith they're making a better world for their great-great-great-great grandchildren. Until someone comes up with an effective way to accelerate liberation, we're stuck with this frustratingly gradual trend. The pursuit of liberation and justice is the long arc of a 100 season TV series that is the story of civilization and our individual lives are merely a single scene of a single episode. That's where this Jordan Peterson talk is relevant. He's talking about YOUR single scene in the series. In your scene you can take stock of what's within your control and you can seize that opportunity to maximize your pursuit of happiness and satisfaction in this life. That's all he's saying. He's not addressing the long arc.
Yes the world is broken. But it's not completely broken. You still have some power. And most people don't come close to seizing the opportunity at their disposal. Anybody who has been in a position where they are held accountable for the behavior of multiple people (it doesn't matter if you're a VP of GloboCorp, the shift leader at the local greasy spoon, a teacher, or a parent) knows that people with the same opportunities have vastly different responses to them. It is this way all the time everywhere. Even if we eliminate all the injustice and unfairness, and we equalize opportunity for all, some will seize opportunity and others will squander it. JP is just telling you how to not be one of the squanderers.
At the same time, it's an error to believe that the only reason anybody can't get ahead is because they're not trying hard enough. Systemic injustice does leave people behind in holes too deep for them to ever climb out regardless of their effort. It denies them opportunities and makes them work harder than others to achieve the same outcomes. The personal opportunists here need to realize that.
We can (and should) focus on the long-term and the short-term simultaneously. The long-term focus means we need to address systemic oppression, discrimination, and corruption. The short-term focus means we recognize those problems won't get solved during our lifetimes and so we ascertain and seize the opportunity at our disposal. The short-term focus is all JP is talking about here.
Matthew Walton loved your take on this, much appreciated.
Someone forgot to take their meds
I think you perfectly differentiated the long-term and short-term focuses. Great comment, I hope it helps people to see the connection between the two:)
Clearly, finding personal opportunity in an unjust system is much harder.
Amazing comment
Step 1: Clean your room!
Step 2: Observe the lobsters. They know everything.
No!
Step 4: Sliiiiiiide to the left
Step 6: Level up
On a more serious sidenote, I think Jordan actually talks about cleaning up your room as being a good start for taking your life in your own hands.
But I've gotta save the world!
I can get behind the idea that it would be pretty much impossible to eliminate inequalities and hierarchies, but we can strive to reduce them, rather than letting the chasm grow ever wider. more equal (note not actually equal) societies are healthier and happier.
Laura Hamlyn Take the happiness research with a grain of salt. A running joke here in Finland (supposedly happiest country in the world) is that we are the happiest only because the sad committed suicide (one of the highest suicide rates). First hand experience: depressed af. Future plan: move to US to actually have a career worth working for. ‘Equal’ places are great if you want to lay back and chill on others’ expense, if you are into that sort of thing.
You assume that hierarchical organisation is not something people should strive for. How do you propose we arrange our societal structures then? Do you have a sensible alternative?
which would be exactly what he's been arguing. He's been clear equality has to be adressed properly.
I don't see reducing inequality as laying back and chilling at others' expense. How did the 'others' get so far ahead in the first place? It's only right that they pay their fair share in tax and that the wealth be redistributed.
we should be striving to flatten out the hierarchies and make it more possible for everyone at every level to have a voice
Why does the modern Left have such a chronic case of strawmanning people they disagree with?
I've looked at the various criticisms of Jordan in the comments and almost none of the criticisms relate to anything he actually said. Anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes watching Peterson knows that he does think too much inequality is a big problem.
+Gordon Freemason - Dude....You just straw manned people.....There was absolutely no reason to inject politically partisan labels like "left" and 'right" into things here....And zero reason to make a blanket statement out of it.....And I highly doubt you know enough about the people whose comments you read, to be able to determine whether or not they are "left" or "right", nor would that even matter here since nothing he said in this video had a god damn thing to do with politics or political labels...
This is the comment I posted here, before I saw your comment, and my initial criticism applies directly to what you started your comment off with:
+Big Think - Your channel is called big think, so Ill present alot of my thoughts here.....One of the problems i have with Peterson is based on the description you put on your video here...Far too often, people twist Peterson into a right-vs-left thing, and it makes it very difficult to have a substantive productive discussion about much of what Peterson talks about....I cant tell you how many times Im utterly dismissed or falsely labeled, just for questioning or criticizing Petersons statements or narratives....Whats more problematic for me, is that Peterson knows how often people turn things into this shallow partisan right/left thing, yet he doesnt try to correct it or tell his audience/fans that its not a productive way to discuss his messages..Actually, he often fosters it and encourages it...I simply do not agree with turning Petersons narratives into a right/left overly-generalized dichotomy...Criticism of Peterson should be discussed and presented without any vague politically partisan attachments, and people shouldnt be lumped into any politically p[artisan category just for agreeing with him or just for criticizing him...
That being said, I agree with Peterson that alot of the meaning people find in their lives is purpose driven.....But I disagree with him when he seemingly assumes that people only put effort into their actions because theyre trying to get something better than what they currently have...He asks "otherwise, why would you do it?".
Well, often times, people try to help OTHER people...But I didnt see him address that kind of non-selfish aspect here....He spoke entirely about individuals desire to better themselves. He didnt speak about individuals desires to better other people...
He said "And if you’re not aiming then you don’t really have any purpose, and that deprives your life of meaning, and that’s not good because if your life is deprived of meaning then what you’re left with is the suffering."
I disagree...."Purpose" does not require a person aiming towards something better than what they have...There are,and have been, plenty of people in the world who at least partially base their lifes meaning and purpose, on doing what they can to give other peoples lives meaning and purpose, even if doing so does not advance them in the kind of way that Peterson is talking about when he says "you have to assume axiomatically that what you’re working towards is better than what you have".
Peterson says "So now the problem with having to aim up is that produces a hierarchy, because if you posit and aim then everyone arrays themselves along a hierarchy of “better at it” to “worse at it”."...
...I completely disagree with that statement, for multiple reasons...First, hierarchies are not exclusive to humanity or even civilized modern humanity...Hierarchy exists in the animal kingdom, as well as non-modernized human cultures......Hierarchies deal with rankings, and authorities, status, that kind of thing.....Hierarchies exist regardless of any individual person or animals desires to better their lives......For example: military chain of command...its a hierarchical system....a soldier can aim up and try to attain a higher ranking, but its not the soldiers desire to aim up that creates the hierarchy....and if a soldier does not choose to try to aim up and get a higher ranking, that soldier still has a purpose, and its perfectly reasonable to believe that soldier finds meaning and purpose in doing what he does..also reasonable to believe that maybe he does not....but since he is part of a hierarchy, his ranking and duties still have purpose, even if that soldier feels useless....the soldier could feel useless, but still have purpose.....the soldier may feel like his career is meaningless to him, but he is part of a hierarchy and a society, so the purpose is there, whether that "means" anything to him or not....And since he is part of a hierarchy, it most likely means something to other members of that hierarchy.....
Apes and other animals have hierarchical structures....None of them were produced by a desire to "aim up"...None of them were produced because of the concept of "better at it or worse at it"....
In the animal world, the concept of "aiming up" is not applicable.....a hierarchy is just a word that humans use to distinguish the different members and roles of a group of animals.......but, just like certain human hierarchies, purpose exists regardless of individual desires...
Peterson says "The problem with a hierarchy is it produces inequality. The problem with inequality is it produces resentment."
...This is where Peterson starts to get way too assertive and presuppositional...He didnt substantiate his claim that "aiming up" produces a hierarchy....He merely expects his audience to agree with him...And he uses that expectation to lead to his claim that hierarchy produces inequality....And he expects the audience to agree with that even though he didnt substantiate it...And he uses that agreement to make yet another unsubstantiated claim of "inequality produces resentment'.....
Ill ask 2 questions that hopefully will make people think about things : 1)which comes first, inequality or hierarchy? .... 2)What is inequality?
...think about those 2 questions not only in a modern humanity context, but also in an animal/species/herd/flock/pack/troop context as well as an uncivilized primitive human group context....
Another question : were humans equal before humans created hierarchies? ....
Peterson says that "inequality produces resentment"
But hes making that claim as if the audience or readers have already accepted his claim that hierarchy produces inequality....he never substantiated that claim, so right off the bat i cant accept his claim that inequality produces resentment....
Sure, inequality can make people resentful....Its hard to disagree with that.....But its obviously not always the case...And obviously resentment can exist without inequality being a basis for resentment.......Again, Peterson is breezing quickly through a lot of vague claims that require a lot of nuance and substance before moving from one claim to the next claim....
And his following remarks get even more vague and convoluted and unsubstantiated...
Peterson says "Right, but you can’t get rid of the damn hierarchy just because they produce inequality and resentment, because then you don’t have anywhere to go. So that’s not an answer."
...... He didnt even explain what "get rid of the hierarchy" even means, and he still never provided nuance and substance to validate his claims about hierarchy producing inequality and resentment....Furthermore, what did he mean when he said "because then you dont have anywhere to go"????
What did he mean by that??? Was he saying that if you "got rid of" a hierarchy, that you wouldnt have nowhere to go because he claims that hierarchies produce resentment and inequality? Was he claiming that without inequality and resentment, that people wouldnt be trying to better themselves and "aim up"?
I dont know what he meant...He didnt bother to explain any of that....He just moves on to his next assertion as if I accepted his previous one that he didnt substantiate...
He then says "Okay, so let’s say you’re trying to deal with the fact that you have to put up with a hierarchy if you’re going to have any values. Well, how do you escape from the resentment trap? And the answer is you do an intelligent multidimensional analysis of your life."
....What "fact"??? .... When did he ever support the claim that peoples values are reliant upon hierarchies? And when did the concept "putting up with it" com into play here? .... Cant people have values, without "putting up with a hierarchy"???? ...... Again, no substance. No nuance.
WHAT "resentment trap"???? When did he ever prove or explain in any kind of detail, that resentment is some kind of a "trap"??? Resentment can occur with or without a person even thinking about the concept of "hierarchy"....
"an intelligent multidimensional analysis of your life".
WHAT?!?!?!?!
"by the time youre 30...youre a singular person....your life has multiple dimensions".
WHAT?!?!?!?!? ..... I was a singular person long before I was 30...And since I have absolutely no clue what he means by "dimensions", I would have to say that my life has just as many "dimensions" as it ever has.....I think "dimensions" is an incredibly poor word choice there....Its almost as if he was purposefully trying to sound more profound than his message actually was...
And I say that because of what he said next.....He said "But it’s a completely ridiculous game to pick someone else arbitrarily, who’s doing much better than you on one of those dimensions, to assume that you’re a failure because of that, or that the world is unfair because of that, without knowing in full detail all of the rest of the elements of their lives."
THAT is DEFINITELY good, sound, positive advice...Its a clear and obvious message, and people can understand it easily....
However, nothing that Peterson said before that, needed to be said in order for people to understand and agree with that remark.....
If Peterson had simply started off with that remark, he wouldnt sound very profound or intellectual, would he? it would have just been an intelligent rational guy, saying an obviously reasonable and positive thing that tons of other people have said and that billions of people already know.....
That's not straw manning. I was responding to what was said.
Also, concerns about inequality are left-wing by definition. That's what the left is about.
+Gordon Freemason - You just presented ANOTHER straw man fallacious claim...
So far, IM the only person who replied to you on this thread,a nd you havent responded to anything I posted here about the video or about Mr Peterson...
Additionally, you provided ZERO definition of the term "the left".
You didnt provide a single ounce of substantiation to support your claim that concerns about inequality are exclusive to the term "the left" which you didnt provide an explanation or definition for.
You didnt even post a single one of the "what was said" comments that you were "responding" to...
And you didnt even respond to those comments that you didnt bother to post here..
I wonder if you would label me as "the left", based on what Ive said here so far......
I just posted a lengthy response to what peterson specifically said in this video....
If youre not going to respond to it, then you are straw manning me because of what you said originally here
My dude, do you have any self-awareness. Even non biased, neutrals can see that the right owns the whole deck when it comes to the strawman card.
... you don't have to treat life like it's an RPG where you're improving your numbers. You can also just appreciate the experiences, and derive meaning and a sense of wonder from contextualizing them. From exploration for its own sake. Or from relationships for their own sake.
And most of the people I know who are angry about inequality aren't angry that somebody else is doing better than them. It's because their life experiences are being dictated to them by enforced scarcity. Because somebody with far more than they need dictated the terms of life for those with less. So those with less have greatly diminished ability engage in appreciable experiences or relationships. They're stuck being automatons in someone else's corporate machine.
He's not wrong about much of what he says, but he's completely missing the point.
Hi SalmonGod! Interesting point. But, I think that's capitalism at its best or worst best. So that's is to say, that the system has some cons, just like everything else.
In conclusion, if a player or two don't want to aim high, rather chillax, so in regard don't you agree that he/she can't complain for having less simply because he or she doesn't want to acquire more wealth which is the only way of guarantee quality life?
When someone is born, that child is born into the system, wheather she likes it or not, she gotta play the game.
I'd say, what you're saying is that, you want to have the cake and eat it too, which is not possible in this day and era.
@@Srilankanenglishteacher Your response is pretty confusing. But here's some thoughts that I think address what you were trying to say.
Nobody worth listening to has ever argued that they deserve to get rich by sitting at home watching tv or whatever. Those who want to just chillax through life aren't complaining that they don't get to be billionaires at the same time. The issue is that people can work 100+ hours a week and still be poor, while it's literally impossible for the rich to be working thousands of times harder than that, yet they are thousands of times richer. There is very little correlation in reality between hard work and wealth. There has been actual research on this, and the rich are overwhelmingly rich because they had the advantage of generational wealth. Some of them are also hard workers. But that's not what made them rich.
We live in an age of incredible abundance. Food and shelter are not scarce. And society as a whole dedicates more resources to violence and denying people things than it does trying to give people things. It's the rich who pull all the strings to make the world this way.
And because of the way the rich influence the world, very few are able to enjoy life, because it's enforced upon them by violence that they have to live to work for the rich. You have to get up and grind, or you don't survive. If you show up to most jobs and your boss doesn't feel like your body and soul are dedicated to the company, they'll fire you. You become homeless, and liable to get killed by cops while just trying to find space to starve to death in peace. And it's all this way because that's how the rich get richer and increase their power.
If our socioeconomic system distributed resources instead of wasting them, and it was possible for most people to put in a reasonable effort to contribute to society and earn themselves a humble life, then there would be no public anger about inequality. Most don't really want much more than a decent home to live in and food to eat while they spend time with friends and family and some hobbies, and wouldn't care if someone else has more, especially if they worked harder for it. But we can't have that because everything is owned by the upper class, who doesn't share with those of the lower class unless they work to serve the upper class' interest of accumulating more. Thus working 100+ hours a week and still being poor, when we could have a world where we can secure a decent life working 20 hours a week on sane priorities.
And yeah, that's the system we're born into. But pointing out that the system is broken isn't trying to have your cake and eat it too. I can't understand why you would describe it that way. Are you saying it's spoiled to simply point out that things are bad and could be better?
@@salmongod9115 and so we should educate people on the system that we can change to make the quality of life more enjoyable for everyone tbh. I haven't been able to converse with a stranger a day to try and educate due to covid, but things can be better if we all try to make a change :)
I've given up lots of things as an American and hope that I can encourage others to follow along for the betterment of the world ❤️
I believe everyone derives meaning from sense of wonder, explorations and relationships. But life is difficult, and we have to sustain it through labor the amount of which can be greatly increased until you're able to reach leisure. Finding meaning through that labor, and constructing of a better future you and humanity is nice complement to this first meaning from wonder. I'd add that f you're not contributing to mankind's capacity to explore than why should you be able to partake in it? You should be able to do a rough share of the equivalent to a very small part of you building the roads, cars, airplanes, fuel lines, clothing, food, etc., which are all extremely complex to be thought about, designed, built, transported, so on and so forth. The complexity of the world can be missed many times.
You might think that technology and mecanization (all of which are investments that have to be payed for in the future) has increased productivity so much so that we should have access to much more, and I feel the same. I do believe government should do whatever it can to help make that access as good as it can, through whatever policy we can do cautiosly and test results. But inflation is a big problem. Don't you think the money is just gonna flow up back to the rich almost instantly? And it kills economies. I'd add to that that the wealth held by the top is invested, it's wealth directing the future. It's not consumption.
I agree it looks ugly. I don't know if we know what to do about it apart from just trying to be better everyday as individuals and make it so for everybody else around us.
If you can derive meaning from contextualizing experiences, why contextualize being poor as bad and being rich as good? Aren’t they neither good or bad, just different? In this way inequality is a non issue.
Thanks for featuring this speaker, Big Think.
@stringx90, not a speaker, a reciter
0:48 The absence of positivity is NOT negativity. It's just neutratlity.
1:34 Inequality produces suffering.
2:58 Self-inequality is suffering. Continual belief of one's own substandardness, despite one's determination of success, is perpetual psychosis incarnate.
3:49 Business-speak doesn't really help your case.
"The absence of positivity is NOT negativity. It's just neutratlity."
Peterson didn't say anything about "positivity".
He said if your life has no meaning, all you're left with is suffering.
And if you're attempting to claim that life without meaning is neutral, then implicit in that claim is that there is such thing as a human life without suffering.
“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.” Noam Chomsky
Define "legitimate". I think Peterson does a fantastic job of defining hierarchies that serve a purpose (and more importantly, that evolve out of the mere act of valuing something).
@@objectivereality1392 "legitimate" in this case probably means "morally acceptable" or "universally transversal". But it could also mean "sensical". That question is fundamental for the Left because the Left defies the legitimacy of the current socioeconomic superstructure on the grounds that it is immoral/amoral, unjust, and nonsensical. Whether or not you deem the structure nonsensical will depend on your morality for the most part.
@@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield The question from the Right is: Can you build a better one? It's best not to deconstruct or dismantle if you don't have a realistic plan that would actually improve things. Tearing down a superstructure can be catastrophic. Just asked anyone who lived through China's Cultural Revolution.
@@jem77469 yes a better one can be built. The theory is sound. The problem is that superstructures are cemented into reality and they have guns and are intent on maintaining it.
Quick we must rescue the people at the top of the hierarchy. Take away all their money so they can have pourpose in their lives again
😆😎✊
You did not even watch the video did you? I don't know if you realize this but people at the top of the hierarchy don't stay there for long because someone else comes and takes there position. We don't have to rescue people from the top people have been knocking people off the top of the hierarchy for thousands of years.
:))) That would certainly be an obvious conclusion that can be drawn. JP is the dumbest smart person there is.. toxic for civilization too.
Thomas Lange people at the top of society have a higher suicide rate
No offence intended you've misunderstood his point. Those at the top still need to aim "up" in their lives for meaning. Other people at their level also aim up and this will naturally create their own hierarchy at the top. A book about this phenomena is The Natural History of the Rich. It's about how the richest people on earth compete with one another
Lobsters
#LobsterLivesMatter
The best hierarchy to be
Lobster Nationalism is the future!!!
So what you're saying is lobsters and men will never be equal?
Look at him w that perfect posture
There are many hierarchies, many ways to improve yourself, many ways to make the world better. The trouble with conservatives is that they fixate on only one of these: the money/power hierarchy. Nothing else matters them.
Science, humanitarianism, the arts? “No thanks.”
So true!
seventh saucer
Indeed! Our current president doesn't even partake of artful cuisine, deigning only to spend his-our- money on the worst fast food ever created. He probably even snubs avocado on toast.
Haute Cuisine can be had through your butcher, your grocery deli chefs, and the Internet. All you have to do is ask them how to fix the groceries you buy to get that Haute Cuisine taste!
I bought some raspberry asparagus, and I asked how to make it. Steamed asparagus, raspberries, and a raspberry vinaigrette dressing!
And to make it extra special, you can arrange the asparagus and raspberries on a beautiful plate (I recommend Corelle) and then drizzle the vinaigrette back and forth across the plate over the asparagus and raspberries. Simple. Delicious. Relatively inexpensive -and Haute Cuisine!
It's a mistake to assume that that's the hierarchy that Jordan Peterson is interested in though.... Though he doesn't say it explicitly here, he's talking about hierarchies of competence. He's also not speaking about a single overarching hierarchy, but instead talking about a hierarchy for each and every skill that a human being can possess. He literally is talking about hierarchies of competence within the sciences, within humanitarianism, and within the arts, also in sports, in social ability, in productivity, and pretty much everything else.
He actually rails against the idea that power is what it's all about. As he mentioned basketball, that's the example I'll use. Basketball players don't strive to be better at the game to have power over those worse at the game than they are, they strive to be better because they want to be better, and being better brings perks, like the esteem of others. Sure., if one is extremely good at it, then also financial rewards, but those only come to the top 1% of the top 1% of the people who have ever dribbled a basketball... There is a sense of achievement when one has struggled to improve themselves and has made progress on that front and that is where people derive meaning in their lives, and that's all he's saying.
Peterson is literally a scientist who has many lectures about the arts, if he is a conservative then you are wrong.
Syd Science, humanitarianism and the arts are some of the “many hierarchies” to which I was referring.
JP on Big Think... get ready for a flame war in the comment section. This man is truly the McLuhan of our generation. Both the far right and left hate him it's the people in the middle who want to have a debate about him. Some praise his ideas while other are critical of him. It would be easier if he always spoke plainly but then you wouldn't have to think about his words.
Nah he is a hack. Found another cultist
People from the far right love Jordan. Keep spreading lies.
Nah, far right seem to fucking love this doofus.
meatrace Laat I checked they see him more as an enemy of their enemy than as a friend.
meatrace Far right.... man so vague... Id love to hear your definition of far right
He brings an interesting argument, but I'd like to know if he believes whether or not some of those high up in the "hierarchy" actually use their position to create more inequality as a way of maintaining their "status".
If I understand correctly: yes. First, in regards to value, producing inequality is not necessarily a zero-sum-game; you are not necessarily depriving someone else of value if you are producing inequality. Two individuals can engage in a business transaction, have inequal outcomes, and still mutually benefit.
Second, in regards to status, fairly or unfairly undermining those of a lower status in order to maintain your own status; that's a bit more complex and I'm not sure I understand his positions well enough myself. I think the closest he comes to talking about this is in simian dominance hierarchies, and how the strongest and most brutal ape is not necessarily a stable leader; one that can get along socially is a stronger leader.
jim40135 he does believe that existance is suffering tainted by malevolence. So on that point he'd say that there are malevolent people at the top, trying to do harm. Especially psychopaths who manipulate anyone, and they usually get to the top of the hierarchy aslong as they're not caught. But most people want to make the world a better place, not only for themselves but also society. "No one walks past a homeless sleeping person and is happy about inequality."
jim40135 Yeah. Like Bill Gates eradicating polio.
Like Stalin did and I'm sure many do. One great example includes what tech microprocessor companies like Intel and Nvidia did to their competitors.
For the Point Curation - if apes had even half a brain then the strongest most brutal ape would get rid of those most powerful around them way before they could overthrow him, humans did it this way, that's how you got Mao and Stalin killing millions of their own people. The ones who could have been any danger to them.
@@HoppingMadMedia Is that a joke? Bill Gates is a madman trying to use vaccines to sterilize and eradicate humans. This is why the his foundation is banned in India. All of the world's elite look at us as a disease and openly talks about wiping us out when they are the parasitic ones.
Much needed, rational and useful "defense" of hierarchy. Loved to hear it!
How so?
Hello there @@TheAtomC. Your question is much appreciated, because it made me think about the concept all over again, and thus helped me to re-examine my views on the subject. Thank you.
If I remember correctly, my original comment was based on 2 basic mental "visions":
1. If we were all equal in every way, no one person would be different or "special" in any way, therefore everybody (except one) would be actually redundant and USELESS. This all knowing, totally self-sufficient one, would (I am guessing) eventually desire something different out of sheer loneliness and boredom. When I was much younger, I thought that God created everything for that very reason; not to be ALONE..
On the other end, if none of us knew anything, and were equally unable to do anything, we would all perish for the lack of any "survival" skills.
In case we all had some, limited, but EQUAL knowledge of things, where and how would the "advancement" or growth happen? Would it happen at all, if no one person was different enough to start the process of "evolution" with some kind of initiative? Imagine a world populated by perfect clones...
2. Hierarchy is useful for many different reasons, both positive and negative:
- it can serve as meaningful goal (meaning) setter, and as a
- series of "sign posts" on one's life travel,
- it can function as a teaching/guiding tool, as one observes other people's "climbing experiences" and related consequences,
- it can serve as a moral/ethical guide,
- it provides for very useful emotional experiences of being a "leader" and a "follower"; learning accountability and responsibility.
In other words, it is actually crucial when it comes to human "spiritual" development.
There are many other useful aspects of it, which I am certain you can come up with by yourself.
Whether one sees inequality and hierarchy as GOOD or BAD, depends on what one believes life is all about. If one looks at life as an opportunity to become a SPECIAL, UNIQUE, INDISPENSIBLE, and IRREPLACEABLE LIVING BEING unlike any other in the whole universe, than this "world" (with ALL of its components, including inequality and hierarchy) is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT for its purpose.
There is one passage in the Bible (Old Testament), where God tells His people to be Holy as He (God) is. The word holy is a translation of the word "qodesh", which means consecrated, separate, set apart, different, special, unlike any other. What it does NOT mean is the SAME or EQUAL.
Does what I tried to say here make any sense to you? I would love to hear your opinion.
Most kind regards
Title is odd given JP was talking mostly about not comparing yourselves to others and comparing you to yourself. JP's self help stuff is pretty simple buts it's good and honestly doesn't need to be over complicated.
I just want a decent wage to pay off my bills and have a little left over to enjoy the things I love. Not everyone is an egomaniac who wants to own everything.
Once you accomplish that you will want more. It's just human nature. Humans don't like to sit around and do nothing, they want to have challenges that they can overcome, they want to have dragons that they can slay and mountains that they can climb.
@@psibarpsi Nope, that isn't everyone at all.
@@rikachiu I meant most of the people.
@@psibarpsi there's no proof for anything being human nature though. It's all subjective.
@@rikachiu For u it's a decent wage to pay off bills. For a kid in somalia it maybe a day's meal. That's all he wants. Not everyone is an egomaniac who wants to own everything.
1. You don’t necessarily have to have hierarchy to have a purpose. You can pursue a goal such as science and art, help others or solve problems in life… none of these involve “looking up to” or climbing the social hierarchy. So his conclusion that “if you don’t aim up your life would have no purpose” is a sweeping statement that is not always true
2. “The problem of hierarchy is inequality and inequality creates resentment.“ Inequalities create loss of opportunities, lack of resources and human suffering in the have-not’s - that’s where the resentment comes from. By telling people to just accept inequality and not resent, ignores the fact that inequalities creates suffering.
3. It is contradictory that he proposes that hierarchy gives us meaning and then immediately asks us to not compare ourselves in the hierarchy. If it is a source of our meaning then why not look at where we are at? There is something glaringly missing in here.
4. Fighting inequalities and challenging existing hierarchy also can give life meaning. History is full of examples such as French Revolution, American independence, ending apartheid. If everyone heeds to this advice and just essentially improve themselves and stay in their lane because “people higher up have their problems too”, we would not make the progress we have made so far and our lives would be a lot more miserable.
Agreed. He's basically saying obey and serve and keep striving without question. Materialism and status are the answers.
Hierarchies are good and natural. What's important is making sure those hierarchies are flexible and oriented in a way that minimises resentment and enables the best among us.
I’m impressed this very socialist-leaning channel had someone on here like Dr. Jordan Peterson who has intelligence and logic rather than the emotionally biased hate that usually plagues the guests.
I get your point about many leftists being oversentitive and emotional, and people like Peterson and Shapiro enjoy debating with them because they know they are stupid enough to be defeated. But Peterson and Shapiro are both intelectually dishonest when they refuse to debate leftist who actually know their shit. Shapiro avoids debating with Kyle Kulinsky and both Shapiro and Peterson avoid debating with Richard Wolff.
Thanks for letting Jordan on, he is great.
Big Think being balanced!!! What?!!! Props
Peterson is a right wing bigot masking his hateful ideology behind "clinical psychology". He's a charlatan.
Sebastian Elytron you are pathetic
wow your idiocy is showing sebastian
and what is his hateful idiology? genuinly curious. his ideas are indeed conservative but what makes them hateful?
Sebastian Elytron Maybe he's a bigot, but you're pretty damm stupid. His ideological standings don't dismiss his expertise in psychology.
The purpose of life is to be happy.
When you are happy, you don't care about anything else than what is, meaning you are fully living life.
Life is also not inherently negative, but the unenlightened ego is negative, which thinks in terms of death/separation, when that is transcended, one is free of illusion of self, and therefor always happy and at peace.
"It's not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people" and "Life is brutal". Very true.
Amazed you gave Peterson a chance here. Truly one of the best thinkers of today. We are so lucky to be able to have someone like Peterson speak Truth to Power. Cheers!
Some guy are u kidding me?! 😂
"he confirms by biases so he therefore 'speaks truth to power' "
What.. I am a progressive Liberal who voted for Bernie (wrote him in AND voted in primary + donated and phone banked hours of my life).
The reason I like Peterson is because he has shed light on what is happening in my country and with my party. I am all for working with countries around the world and getting fair trade deals. The TPP and NAFTA deals are shit for working people and Peterson has called out the left (of where I thought I was) to really just radical people who are privileged and don't care about worker rights. They just care about radical ideas that help their hedonistic tendencies run amok.
You're the reason I left the left. Disgusting. Open your mind man.
I base it on my experience of the last 10 years, being in progressive and liberal movements, where I look back at myself and all the people surrounding me, to find that I was led astray. All my friends come from college educated, middle-upper middle class families, who traveled extensively, all have cars, new computers, skiing and snowboarding with 2K worth of gear, iPhones, etc, and still find an issue with something, despite having the world handed to them.
I thought the Bernie movement would be a breaking point, but instead, it was my breaking point. All I found was me fighting with people when I deviated a little bit from some weird narrative that I somehow couldn't fit.
It's been a rough ride, but I see so many people that are like me, leaving the left because it isn't about ideas and acceptance. It is about protecting their intellectual bubble and closing off opposing views that threaten their reality.
I can't be apart of that anymore.
Some guy how do you "leave the left"?
I'm a protectionist too. Protectionism is a the position that Bernie Sanders has and has been fighting trade deals for decades. Protectionism is populist left. Look up 'Justice Democrats' they are all Bernie Sanders style democrats. Also, how could you be a Sanders supporter and agree with a person who argues that inequality is a good thing. You don't see that contradiction?
There's a massive difference between simple inequality, biological, skill-based, etc, and hierarchy. To believe that those at the top of our current society's hierarchy, or any society's hierarchy, gained this position because they are genuinely superior at certain skills, or have certain genetic predisposition to learning, decision-making, etc. It's purely ideological and it doesn't correlate with the reality: wealth is inherited, more people fall each year than rise, children are born into poverty, they are imprisoned and neglected, they die in poverty all the same, and to those at the top of the hierarchy all our lives are expendable for profit (not of their own choosing but due to the very nature of this economic system). If installing another oil pipeline may pollute the water source of several thousand people, they do it in a heartbeat and plan on dealing with the consequences one fine or lawsuit at a time.
This cult of self improvement and self help therapy, the idea that by learning some helpful skills and maintaining an optimistic outlook, it does not allow us to address the unjust hierarchy in question, at most it allows individuals who are being victimized to feel complacent with their suffering. On an interpersonal level maybe that's all they care about anyway, they're depressed, they see their position in the world as meaning and replaceable. They want to feel better about their place in life, and that's fine. But we're on a rapidly increasing march towards global, uninhabitable climate, and those in the position to immediately change it (at the top of the hierarchy) have no interest in reversing course. We've got constant imperialist wars erupting to secure natural resources and cheap labor for capitalist enterprise, and those who hold the nuclear codes have no problem with this endeavor. We've got homelessness and desolation all throughout the world, here in the US an estimated 1.5 million Americans living on less than $2 a day, 43 million living below the poverty line, 21% of children, and that rate has been stagnating and increasing for decades, so you want to tell me again how a hierarchy which renders millions of people, children who have absolutely no responsibility for their on circumstance, impoverished is supposedly just, fair, and inevitable?
So true!
Sure, but he didn't say any of that.
Prof. Genki I see you did justify valid reasons for describing your argument against inequality. But here, he is relating the effect of it that gives meaning and purpose in life. He is not for Hierarchy and Inequality but extrapolating the two for us to fully grasp the meaning of being equal which you gave a clear opposite description of on different contextual approaches. Otherwise, why would we consider giving meaning to anything or seek to. That's his point.
Sounds like you completely missed the point of what he was saying. Try looking it over again and actually listening this time.
Very well put
Hierachy 101: How beeing a slave gives your life purpose.
Here's this video's points concisely (with no commentary or bias from me):
1. If you’re aiming, you’re aiming up. If you’re not aiming, you have no purpose and meaning.
2. If you're getting better at anything ("up") there are other people doing that too and you will naturally array yourself into better and worse, hence hierarchies are inevitable.
3. Hierarchies produce inequality, and that's a problem (but you can't get demolish hierarchies because you'd also be demolishing all values).
4. Solution: Avoid resentment by not comparing yourself to other people. They are better and worse than you in many ways. Focus on improving yourself incrementally each day.
Point # 4 can be presented without needing any of the previous points to support it...
Points 1, 2, and 3 only contradict, convolute, and defeat point #4...
Point # 4 can be presented by itself, without any of the preceding points that peterson presented......however, if peterson didnt present any of those preceding points, he probably wouldnt be able to make himself appear as insightful and profound as he apparently is trying to appear..
Also, point #4 isnt really a solution to anything...Its just a simple and obviously decent piece of general advice....
Think about it.....If you started off by hearing point 4 and none of the preceding points, youd probably say it is a good piece of positive advice about life, right?
If so, then imagine starting off with point 4, and then going to point 1.......ok, its good to not compare yourself to others....its good to focus on improving yourself incrementally each day....
So point 1 kinda makes sense then also....youre focusing on improving yourself....aiming is aiming up.....dont really care about not aiming though, since I already agreed that improving myself incrementally every day is good....
point 2 - wait.....so other people will try to improve themselves incrementally each day, because Im trying to improve myself incrementally each day? ..... wait a second.... I will naturally array myself into better and worse, because I was focusing on improving myself incrementally each day? ........ so hierarchies are inevitable? But what do hierarchies have to do with it being a good idea for me to focus on improving myself incrementally each day? I thought doing that was a good thing to try to do....
point 3 - so what though? hierarchies have nothing to do with me wanting to improve myself incrementally each day..... wait, so my self-improvement efforts lead to hierarchies and hierarchies are problematic? .....So my self-improvement efforts are problematic?
So basically, i shouldnt compare myself to other people and i should just focus on improving myself incrementally....but if I do that, then other people will do it also....and that means people will compare themselves to me, because I focused on improving myself.....and because I focused on improving myslef, and because that leads to other people comparing themselves to other people, that creates a hierarchy....and hierarchies are a problem.....so the solution to the problem of hierarchies and resentment, is to do exactly the thing that creates the problems that Im supposedly solving by doing the the things that cause the problems Im supposed to try to be solving.....
Conclusion (concisely, WITH commentary from me, but stlll without bias...honestly, I dont even know why you included the part about not being biased) :
Point #4 is not a solution to a problem....Point #4 shouldve been Point #1, and there shouldnt have been other points if the conclusion was "avoid resentment. focus on improving yourself"
The "problem" with Petersons presentation here, is that he was trying to create problems, in order to offer a "solution" that was nothing more than run-of-the-mill everyday generic good advice that we have all heard many many times before.....and the way peterson twisted and convoluted things here, his "solution" was actually the cause of the "problem" he presented here.....So, it would be most practical and productive to pretty much ignore everythign else he said besides "avoid resentment. focus on improving yourself"....because if you focus on the other stuff he said, and actually think about it a little bit, it quickly becomes nonsensical and circular and self-defeating.....my belief is that he was purposefully trying to be convoluted and vague, and was hoping his fans wouldnt think very hard about anything besides his first sentence and his last sentence, aside from agreeing with both because of how deep and intellectual everything he said in between sounded....
@@IslamoradaHO jezzz mate.. What a waste of time. This is TH-cam pal.
Theres a few problems with this.
1. It depends what type of inequality you're talking about. Social and economic inequality are clearly different than say inequality at ones capability to play basketball.
2. Some inequalities are natural, like height, weight, or random biological factors, while others are not. In other words, they are a result of some type of rigged system or force.(Wealth inequality is very much like this)
3. Not all hierarchies are traversal. One problem with the wealth inequality that exists is republicans and conservatives sell people this meme of economic mobility that has mostly died and tries to convince people that their specific stage in wealth is simply a result of their own choices and nothing else.
4. Any power structure can make this claim, which is that inequality and hierarchy are good. Monarchs made this claim for centuries. Some people are meant to be kings, and others peasants, so just know your place.
The ideology you describe, is the one that most people cannot seem to grasp. The part of society whom accepted the hierarchy structure, from the constituted rules and regulations, formed by bureaucracy, are confined inside of a rigged game. They continue to promote and pursue this game, instead of challenging it. An example of this would be the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump. This is not a hierarchy, this is a tyranny, masterminded by a select few.
The controversy that these "select few" deserve to be in the top of this hierarchy is unwarranted due to the indoctrination they impose through various sources from the societies foundational principles and doctrines.
He is not talking of hierarchies of power but competence.
Congrats to big think for giving JP a platform. There is much more good stuff on his channel.
"It's helpful to have a goal, it's necessary to have a hierarchy. It's not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people, but it is useful to compare yourself to yourself."
But a hierarchy (within his reasoning) is skill and capability in comparison to others. Hierarchy REQUIRES comparison to other people in order to get the "meaning" out of it. Then he goes to say "it is useful to compare yourself to yourself" which doesn't in itself create a hierarchy yet still creates the goals and growth that his perspective of "meaning" comes from. I'm all for personal growth in comparison to yourself, but that has nothing to do with fitting into some hierarchical structure.
Jordan Peterson is debating imaginary super-communists. No one is trying to flatten all hierarchies, or do away with value systems. No one. He constructs the most grandiose strawmen imaginable -- so immense that I think his listeners can't even recognize the straw man anymore because it becomes damn near metaphysical.
Completely agree, can't believe anyone takes this guy seriously.
"It’s necessary to have a hierarchy" is verbal trickery. What is true is that, as Peterson indicates, if two or more people are involved in the same sort of activity, it will usually be possible to rank them in order of success. That makes hierarchies somewhat _inevitable_ , but if each individual engaged in the measured activity is simply striving for perfection in that activity, hierarchy is not _necessary_ .
"Value proposition" + "compounding interest" + the basketball analogy = How to Play The Game So You Too Can Be Wealthy and Successful
The hierarchy will always exist and there isn't any way to remove this without creating a dystopia. That being said, the hierarchy should NOT be the source of meaning in our lives. We shouldn't 'look up' to find meaning, we should 'look inwards'.
That explains why some people like celebrities don't feel happy with their lives despite their achievements because they lack inward reflection. The limelight distracts them from what truly matters.
People who are resentful of the hierarchy are 'looking outwards' for meaning and that's why they will never be happy. Happiness is not guaranteed even for those who climb the hierarchy. I guess that's why JP said you should only compare yourself to who you were yesterday. This is a form of self-reflection.
And for those who are talking about systemic inequality due to other reasons like capitalism, I don't think that's what JP was referring to. Despite this, I think JP should've made himself clear knowing full well that there will be comments like this.
happiness is a pointless goal
Looking inward for what exactly? Answer, the self, and what is the self? The individual's idiosyncratic motivations, passions, and axioms, i.e. the person's _values._ Values that immediately impose a hierarchy of value on the world which a person must act according to to have a meaningful life. That is the hierarchy Peterson is referencing, not something external (those are products of countless individual hierarchies of value interacting over time, part of the Jungian collective unconscious idea JP talks about a lot)
In other words, to "look inward" and define value that way is to impose a hierarchy on how you view the world. So yes, hierarchy isn't the _source_ of meaning, but it is the built-in, inescapable tool our brains employ to perceive reality and what makes us able to identify what is meaningful and pursue it. It is therefore what enables life to have purpose
Looking inwards until you loose your mind? We are social beings and have needs. I cannot imagine a world of gurus, who also have what to eat, wear, a house to live in, decent living conditions. Put your idea to the test.
+Cris S,
The only people I know (as a therapist) who have lost their minds looking inwards are people who have spent their whole lives avoiding it. Self-reflection is a very important trait and habit to have to live a meaningful and fulfilling life.
Self-reflection is by no means remaining idle and 'not doing anything' like a 'guru'. I'm not even sure how a guru lives so don't quote me. It simply means you consider your values very carefully (thanks Dick Boehner) and live your life according to those values.
Nobody loses their minds with self-reflection if they were taught from young not to avoid their own fears, insecurities, and madness. We're all a little mad. You can still be self-reflective while pursuing external rewards like fame and fortune as long as those are congruent with your values.
But if you valued 'friendship and loyalty' for example but realised that your pursuit of fame and fortune was depriving you of that, you need to then self-reflect and decide how best to proceed with life. This is what I meant by looking inwards and not outwards.
Circe Hmmm, i guess i am one of those you describe who lost their mind looking inwards and avoiding life. And really i was never taught anything, my folks missed the chance to teach(parent) me, lack of security made me close up, and when i crashed into my peer group i was already sealed up tight in my own little world. I have no values, no morals, all i have is cold inferences about the world derived from observing how natural world functions. I dont think self reflection have any point if you never actually became, if you werent encouraged at a early age into shape by external pressures. Lol, i guess that is what we call socialization. When i look inwards i see straight through to that animal that was shaped by millions of years of evolution, there is no values there besides survival and reproduction. That part of self you talk about from which we can learn about? Yeah, its just not there.
I'll save you 5 minutes:
"Some people are better at some stuff than others. Resenting that makes things worse. So work on improving yourself, little by little."
Incredible. Such sage wisdom never before uttered. What an indispensible luminary.
I'm providing a public service
Divergent If you're not able to see how utterly banal this guy is, and how he dresses up his banality with pure casuistry, you might be on the spectrum.
I reckon Peterson's fanbase are by and large degenerate 20-something neckbeards who have been feeding their video game addictions and poisoning their minds with lolicon hentai since middle school and now they blame feminists, racial minorities, trans people, "cultural Marxists," immigrants, just about anyone except themselves for why they can't move out of their parent's basement or get laid. I'm all for cleaning your room and getting in touch with your inner lobster or whatever, but if you need this soporific shitstain to inspire you to get your life together, my god. It's worse than you thought.
I mean if you think Good information and an argument can be understood in 5 mintues.. then it is up to the individual to seek out most of everything he has dispelled. If you dont you play right into social media's playbook. everyone knows that is where we go to get smarter! ....
Austin Calvert It's hard to make out what your point is, but suffice it to say: don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take longer than 5 minutes for the average individual to wrap their mind around one of Peterson's painfully boring "arguments." You act like the guy is Wittgenstein or Aquinas or something lol
i just think you may be possibly hearing the fanboys clout too much? If you read / listen / watch most of his shit... he is pretty god damn respectable. I went to an okay 4 year institution in the states. Peterson destroys any teacher I have ever had - and I paid a lot more for that shit.
Something about the context of Big Think makes me realize how many caveats, qualifications, and rhetorical question/answers JBP includes in his explanations. It really stands out as a unique style among prominent communicators.
He's a good communicator. One of his "12 rules for life" is to "Be precise in your speech". He nails that one.
I'm just here for the comments and the like/dislike ratio. Don't lie, you are too.
I'm here because I like Jordan Peterson. And those other thing.....
u got me
Testicles test the best of us...
The like to watch rate is now 22 902 views : 2.275K likes (596 dislikes) so 99 to 1. The number of likes is equivalent to 1% of all the viewers. That's 19% less than the *Pareto Principle* aka *80:20 rule* (lazy, and mostly cowardly viewers that do not want Peterson to show up on a list of what they like, though they obviously like him). It's a lot more than what *Price's Square root Law* would estimate(the law that Peterson keeps describing while calling it the *Pareto Principle).*
That's interesting but what you need to do is compare the like ratio to those in a random sample of other videos
He contradicted himself by saying "don't compare yourself to other people". Though before he said "You need hierarchy when aiming above". This by nature forces a person to make a comparison. A person cannot decide something or someplace is better without making a comparison.
EXACTLY!!!! He says to focus on yourself and try to improve yourself incrementally every day....but then he goes on to say that aiming up is a problem because it produces a hierarchy which produces resentment....and then he says to solve that problem by avoiding resentment and focusing on improving yourself.....but he started off by saying that aiming up is a problem......
hmmmmmm......maybe thats why he chose to replace his starting remarks about "aiming up" with his concluding words of "improving yourself".....
they mean the exact same damn thing...he just wants his audience to not realize that....
That's a superficial critique. His point in comparing yourself to who you were yesterday is simply so that you don't criticize yourself into oblivion, because of how easy it is to see your own faults, and give up on trying to improve yourself.
Also, a hierarchy doesn't have to be social structure, and Peterson recognizes this as well. For example, you have to contsruct a hierarchy of values just to act in the world.
+Doubt - did you really need jordan peterson to tell you that its a good idea not to criticize yourself into oblivion? Did you really need jordan peterson to tell you that its a good idea to avod resentment and to try to improve yourself incrementally each day?
Thats all some basic dr suess type stuff that we all heard and comprehended when we were children....peterson isnt telling you anything you didnt already know....but he IS getting you to post vague convoluted nonsense like "you have to construct a hierarchy of values just to act in this world"...none of that "hierarchy" stuff has anything to do with his simplistic obvious advice that you mentioned in your first paragraph...
+Gin Martin's criticism wasnt superficial...he was pointing out how superficial petersons messages are.....and he was pointing out that digging deeper past the surface simplicities of his narratives that he wraps up in a thick layer of faux-profundity, , will often uncover contradictions, hypocrisies, irony, and superficiality.....
+Gin Martin was calling out petersons superficiality....and yet you said gin martin was being superficial....
thats exactly why i do not like mr peterson.....his defenders and supporters and fans often do what you just did : accuse his critics of being superficial, when it was his critic that was pointing out petersons superficiality....
All that crap about "hierarchy" was not in any way necessary for peterson to talk about here......he couldve left all that stuff out, and your first paragrpah of your comment would still be valid....peterson injects that gibberish into his presentations specifically because he knows that he needs to convolute things and give his fans something to argue about when other people criticize him for being a disingenuous bullshitter.....
If peterson left out that stuff about hierarchies, he wouldnt have been saying anything that any of us didnt already learn about in elementary school....
So he injects shit like "hierarchy" into things, in order for people to argue about something irrelevant and convoluted, so that they forget to realize how utterly simplistic and superficial he is....
FishBayVI420H20 If you don't understand the reason for Peterson positing a hierarchy of values, it's because you don't understand the problem he's aiming to solve. He's spent his career trying to give people a way out of nihilism and moral relativism, and some of the things he says are specifically aimed at criticizing those ideas. So if you aren't inclined toward nihilism, then a the hierarchy of values statement will seem obvious.
And I personally don't need someone to tell me not to criticize myself out of action, but evidently it's useful advice, because Peterson is a successful clinical psychologist, so clearly certain people need to be told the obvious. I don't know how you could have gone through life and not know that.
I'm not saying that stating simple advice makes Peterson a great thinker. Some of the things he says are basic things you could hear from any competent clinical psychologist. However he grounds the basic advice in a ethic that people can't easily uproot philosophically, which is what his lectures are largely about.
Doubt Thank you for taking the time to be reasonable and polite in the face of vitriol.
It's never been about replacing hierarchy with equality. It's been about creating equal opportunity. But justice requires a level playing field. You can't simply stop discriminating and wipe your hands clean, when certain groups hit the starting line with privilege and other groups are handicapped by poor education, diet, etc. That is not level by any definition. I don't know how this shakes out in Canada, where Peterson is from. But the nature of this playing field is a big point of controversy in the U.S.
That might be your personal goal but its not the goal of people like Hillary Clinton and many politicians and social activist hear in the U.S. Equality of outcome is the main goal for people like Hillary Clinton, that is why they constantly point out statistics such as the earnings gap between men and women but never points to a single example of a man having more opportunities then a women. They point out the fact that there is not 50% women in politics but do not point out a single example of men getting more opportunities to be in politics then women do. If we focused on pointing out inequalities in opportunity instead of inequalities of outcome then there would be no controversy of any kind in the U.S.
Treeforged You have a point there. But let me call on my statistics background and suggest that one can use the null hypothesis in the Hillary examples you mention, to assume that, all things equal, one can expect no significant difference in the representation of men and women in politics. Given that the reality is far from the case, then one can go on to ask why. Equal opportunity might be a factor among many others. Hillary doesn't do herself any favors by leaving the steps out. I think maybe they are assumed in order to make the "pitch" simpler?
Just keep in mind that you might not be advocating for equal opportunity, but equal *outcomes*.
Just because someone is poorly educated and has a bad diet (for example) doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to eat better and get a better education. When we criticize lack of opportunity, we have to be very specific.
Ok... so, what if I choose to self actualize by fighting against the hierarchical gate keeping and valuation of the means of subsistance?
Well then you're a contemptible commie according to Peterson, the shallowest pseudo-intellectual to have ever gained such a large public platform and a prime example of the corrupt state of our culture.
I understand that I exist in a system defined by hierarchies, however that does not mean I hold the same system of value as others. I dont seek a need to overcome the hierarchy because to me; power lies in the creative mind, in the compassionate soul and the will to act in a way that corresponds to the system of values I believe in. My happiness does not come from looking down upon others, and I am defined by my actions and choices that reflect my values. Peterson may look at me as a failure because I dont travel the world and speak at conferences, but I view myself as a success because I am needed by many for my kind willingness to help, and not step on them to get ahead of the competition.
In this video Peterson literally says to compete with yourself not others and do not compare yourself to others. He never said that you have the same values as anyone else, he even says in this video that by the time you are thirty you are an extremely unique individual. "Peterson may look at me as a failure" he doesen't and you have no rational reason to believe that he does. He never said that people lower on the hierarchy are failures, he made no judgment of any kind he simply pointed out that freedom necessarily creates a hierarchy whether you want it or not, which you seem to accept so I don't see what your problem is.
Small correction, Jordan; it gives life its purpose for those who can overcome obstacles. But everyone who isn't a man, or isn't straight, or isn't cisgender, or isn't a man? They have more hurdles to reach those obstacles.
Not that he has to face those things.
Its a sad world we live in where Peterson's talks are considered profound when for generations what he said was considered......normal.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are so smart man OMG
Common sense seems revolutionary in such absurd times.
Inequality drives innovation.
Cooperation and education drive innovations. Inequality and hierarchy naturally make those things inaccessible
@@Huddy52 it's really weird how people say the opposite of what true. Thanks for clearing that up, the Op was clueless.
@@emmashalliker6862 The bootlicking among peterson fans and right wingers knows no bounds. The closest they can come to caring about people is telling themselves that suffering creates gumption or something.
@@Huddy52 Well, Peterson says he's a classic liberal not a conservative
@@darkwolf4434 soo... functionally a conservative
If you're a lobster, or peterson high on drugs, hallucinating that peterson's a lobster.
Wow my eyes have been opened. All Peterson's work putting people down was really just to give their lives meaning. What a hero.
How does anything he just said show that "inequality and hierarchy give life its purpose"? Like, he quickly shows that there will always be some inequality and hierarchy inherent to our social structures, but then immediately gives the advice to ignore those kinds of inequalities and hierarchies because they can only affect you if you let them (in the form of resentment). In fact, he directly says here that hierarchies are "not helpful" and that "It’s not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people." By these quotes, inequality and hierarchy do *not* give life its purpose according to Peterson.
The psychology advice at the end here is legitimately good stuff. You can indeed to great things for your mental health over a period of 1-2 years with incremental positive improvements towards a personal goal. I just don't understand why the video has a title directly that contradicts his point.
He is not saying hierarchies are not helpful he is saying being resentful of your place on the hierarchy is not helpful. It isn't useful to compare yourself to others because comparing yourself to others will never get you higher on the hierarchy his point is that you should focus on improving yourself so you can move up on the hierarchy. The purpose that the hierarchy gives you is something to work on and improve which will benefit you in countless ways if you work hard and succeed. You sound like your intentionally obfuscating his message. The reason why the video has a title that contradicts his point is because Big Think controls what the title is, and they want to get more clicks on the video so they make more money from ad revenue, its called click bait.
We need to acknowledge how people in the same hierarchical group treat each other, not just those in different ones.
All we need to acknowledge is that hierarchy is not "a thing". There are many hierarchies, and some of the patenly need dismantling for the good of the average. Slavery and women's voting rights ar etwo obvious example. I'd posit that corporate lobbying rights and external corporate ownership of news media are oters of near-equal importance. Peterson, I highly doubt, would agree with the last part.....
Dr. Peterson is a genius.
Great video.
So you're saying videos with ZERO women are "great"?
#Joel it was good for a laugh
Yeah
Great.
It is, as long as you ignore all the stupid stuff. Like how a system built on oppression and exploration of those on the bottom is a good thing.
If a hierarchy is built from individual talent or cooperation that obtains and uses resources efficiently and nonviolently,
Then great
But our hierarchy is built by violence
the idea of the zero sum game and false scarcity
Our economy is built on competition
It is built on waste instead of distribution
It’s built on hoarding and inflation/markups
Those high in the hierarchy got there by generations before them violently taking resources and labor from others
Personal growth does not justify or validate hierarchy
Set goals for yourself! Unfortunately some people don't or can't achieve them. Who could disagree.........oh
I can listen to Jordan Peterson all day on psychology.
Heraldo Jacques and still not learn anything
Heraldo Jacques for comedy?
Probably because he's an accomplished psychologist and professor.
Zucchinna I think it's very amusing how so many TH-cam comments experts like yourself have debunked dr. Peterson since he became ultra famous.
Before this point I watched countless videos of people who may not agree with him entirely but almost all of them highly respected him. And usually they were highly articulate speakers and academics. But now that he is more famous idiots like yourself seem to think you have him figured out because you watched a few out of context videos that support your preconceived notion of who he is and what he represents.
The masses truly are horrible. Group think is all most of you are capable of.
I believe it's important to separate his political views from his knowledge on psychology. Even if i don't agree with his politics, I do believe that he's a very smart man with a lot of good information to share.
What about just doing what you like and not being obsessed with being better than?
what about better than you were yesterday?
Following daily pleasures?
Some people like cocaine.... do you think doing what you constantly like is sustainable? Cocaine is mighty expensive
Ian Conway I am not talking about cocaine or any pleasure, I am talking about doing what you are passionated about. If you really find meaning in what you do, you don't need to be better than.
doing what id like would be staying home all my life never getting a job.
but theres no equal outcome so i want money.
If you really find meaning in what you do, you don't need to be better than.
Generally if you find meaning in your life then you will be better than, if you passionately apply yourself to your job a hobby you will rise up in the hierachy... That's basically the definition of better than.
Having a hierarchy with a select few at the top has done tremendous harm.
And also has never not been observed... hunter gather societies have social hierarchies... And those at the top... got a disproportionate amount of the meat from kills, and got a disproportionate amount of the females.... it's not a western idea... it's a permanent never ending feature of humans. There has not been a soceity without some form of hierarchy and inequality... the data has been looked at. You look at hunter gatherer societies, inequality, you look at agrarian societies, inequality, you see modern societies, inequality.
His basic premise is right, inequality gives people the incentive to become better and raise themselves up.
However what we see today is excessive inequality and it will be addressed.
In ages past the monarchy was dethroned. Today the plutocracy needs to be dethroned.
I rather call it progress, than hierachy.
Hierachy to me sounds more about being better or worse than others in society. While progress is becoming better than what you are.
I also think "value system" is possible, although that order is hierachical in nature, since I compare and judge each imaginary version of myself against each other, and then organize them accordingly. For example, ideally my most fulfilled and best imaginary version makes most of my decisions. Not someone else or a social hierachy, but a psychological hierachy within myself.
I can't speak for how he meant it here, and I'm not a fan of the word "hierachy" either because of its many bad associations, like self-deprecation, oppression, rejection, etc. It can also sound very Christian, which of course is not for everyone.
(I wonder if there's a more precise term. "Value system" isn't a good replacement even in the way I proposed it, because the "hierachy" is a part of the structure of said value system.)
Ever play "King of the Hill"? On top of a hill in the neighborhood, everybody climbs the hill till someone reaches the top. The game doesn't end there. When others get up there, the king of the hill must fight them off and keep from being pushed off or being dragged down. And it doesn't end. Whoever becomes the new king must do the same thing, even continuing to contend with the old king. The upward mobility brings more people the king must fight, and there is always someone climbing up. You use your teeth and feet to bite, pinch, sock, and beat to stay king of the hill. And you do this ALL THE TIME.
In the real world, it doesn't matter who's the king. You will do this, too. It doesn't leave much time to live life.
Purpose can be found beyond inequality and heirarchy. Such as working together equally to seek into space but inequality and heirarchy is not wrong by itself. Ranking by wealth can be misleading but ranking by wisdom seems more friendly.
This is also a straw man .. Non one claims that people have the same aptitudes and skills and talents. No-one claims that there is no hierarchy in knowledge and achievements. There is . BUT it has ALMOST nothing to do with the economy and how much $ you make.. The reason there is so extreme inequality is NOT that rich people are so much "smarter" but because they use public funded high tech and public credit and infrastructure for FREE to produce and accumulate wealth ..
Control and responsibility. The one percent have the majority of control and give everyone else the majority of the responsibility. For over twenty years I lived pay cheque to pay cheque and was told I just had to work harder. Only in the last five years did I find out that our wages had been artificially suppressed by the one percent while they pocketed the difference. The tax burden shifted off of the one percent and corporations on to everyone else. The one percent and corporations also effectively hide their incomes from taxation so, that's a two-shot swing.
So, if inequality and hierarchy give life its purpose it is not a purpose that you chose for yourself. It's a purpose assigned to you by those at the top of the hierarchy.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream.
The one percent did not shift the tax burden, the 99% American people who disagree with your political ideology did. There is no such thing as the one percent anyway considering almost nobody stays in the one percent for there entire lifetime and family wealth dissipates after the third generation.
Inequality is not some kind of synonym for a bad tax plan unfair wages. The term inequality is much more then just a word used for your political propaganda.
My my what an edgy comment there OP. What other information do you have for us Cpt Obvious?
Good for you, opening your eyes to class struggle and structural inequality.
Damn. Super cynical outlook. But, rather than get into the weeds about where I disagree I’d only point out that you need to either start believing you can bring value to others & you will define that value OR find out what those 1% (hate that lazy term) value and find out how to bring it to them. Whether capitalism or socialism, people will still measure value, whether economically or sociAlly. We can value all people equally (meaning their eternal value & dignity are equal regardless of worldly usefulness) but when real life hits, and everyone has limited time, resources, attention, & energy, then they will naturally have to value some things & people over others. I would also add, that I somewhat share your frustration with being a number, which I why I always gravitate towards small, family owned employers. They can still suck, but st least you have a easier path to showing your “value” to the ultimate decision maker, rather than one shift supervisor, at one of the branches, in just one of the cities that a company happens to serve. I’m not concise, so I’d have to fully explain my point over a few beers with you. Just saying I get your attitude & sometimes share it, but it’s also a self limiting POV & there is opportunity to grow (at least in America, & maybe easier in some locations than others)
"find out what those 1% (hate that lazy term) value and find out how to bring it to them" That is an ultra-bootlicking position. Groveling at the feet of the 1% will do you no favors as they will keep kicking you in the teeth while stripping you of the fruits of your labor. Read the OP; it is correct.
I was born into a poor family, but I never blamed society for it. I blamed my parents. It was their irresponsiblilty that caused my suffering. I was a mistake. I never asked to be born, it just happened. So I wasn't promised anything for being a living human being. Therefor I never felt entitled to anything. I knew that I was involuntarily brought into a world ran by other people who were also involuntarily brought into the world long before me. I hate feeling dependent on other people, so I try not to ask for much. I'm currently in a much better position than I was before. I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea of striving to become more competent really resonates with me.
This is very touching. Peterson is at his best when he is at this comparatively calmer state of mind when he is not being attacked by vicious opponents. Thanks, Mr. Peterson.
why all the dislikes ???????
Cuz some people (myself included) think what he's saying is aligned with a complacency to systemic injustices and selling the (in my opinion) faulty American Dream. I don't think there is an honest and equal opportunity to climb the hierarchy, nor do i measure the success of my life or find meaning by the money I own or social class I'm in. I also think that a life measured solely by class success is one completely wasted.
Edit: wording
Max, I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson wouldn't deny the existence of systemic injustices. The thing is what you do about it.
When you say “climb the hierarchy”, what hierarchy are you talking about? Are you against any type of hierarchy? Almost every form of human project, including voluntary ones, needs leaders. Take the open source software community, it naturally organises itself in hierarchy even if there's no outside force imposing it.
Also, you refer to the “American dream” as if it's some type of con scheme. But the American dream is an economic, social fact. There are countless people who have “climbed the hierarchy”. So, I think you have to be more specific when you criticise hierarchy, capitalism or the american dream, because we have positive examples of it. I'm pretty sure these things aren't perfect. But we need to point EXACTLY WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. Otherwise we're just wasting our time and brains.
Juan In 2015 43 million Americans lived in poverty (I pulled that from Wikipedia). I don't think that these people chose to be poor, I think that there really wasn't an opportunity for them to climb the hierarchy. If you think about it there is a restricted amount of CEO positions and market niches for people to occupy and say that they are on top of the hierarchy, along with limited positions earning 100 k or more so to say that everyone can be successful seems to me to be dishonest. Technically anyone can be successful but for every successful person there MUST be multiple unsuccessful people (at least in our economy). Also, much of wether or not you succeed is prescribed to you based on circumstances. For example if you are born into poverty you are nearly garunteed to stay out of the 1%, and almost all of the 1% born into an above average amount of money. If you were born to a single mother in a crappy neighborhood that spends nothing on education and you can't afford to go to college, you have almost no chance of "success" due to no fault of your own. Also what are your thoughts on finding meaning in money or class?
Entitled lefties
Max Read Thomas Sowell m8
Jordan Peterson's deep philosophy= remember children[kermit the frog voice], stranger danger, look both ways when you cross the streets. More importantly clean your room.
What about the purpose one can find in affairs having nothing to do with hierarchy? Helping others? Making creative, artistic, or scientific breakthroughs? Why is hierarchy necessary for these pursuits?
Would you want somebody at the bottom of the hierarchy (therefore completely incompetent - or worse) to be in charge of helping others, for example, by being a doctor or a nurse?
For arguments sake you are having a heart attack and you go to a hospital which (surprise surprise) you’d find people there to help you, now answer the question, who do you want helping you?
Scientific breakthroughs are the most competitive things in existence. Just a few historical examples look up the competition between Newton and just about everyone including Hooke and Leibnez, of course the notorious Tesla and Edison feud and just about every scientific discovery in history. Art is also notoriously competitive, Michal Angelos competition with De Vinci. Helping others is also incredibly competitive and hierarchical, just look at all of the world hunger corporations who actively compete with one another for funding, everyone is always competing with one anther about what charitable endeavor should take priority, should breast cancer be the issue or aids or what? Charitable people take pride in knowing that they help people more then the lazy selfish people do, which is a form of competition.
It's not exactly necessary in terms of needing to get from point A to point B, but it's definitely useful in terms of knowing where you are in relation to A and B. Consciously knowing that I ought to improve my speaking ability is more useful than not knowing that I'm a poor speaker and having no idea why I am not finding success there. Hierarchy has value because with it, we can go from an "is" to an "ought".
Why is hierarchy necessary?? for the same reason I get excited when theres a new burger out at McDonalds. who wants the same thing day in day out? we live for improvement, advancements, bettering and challenging ourselves and this will naturally always create a hierarchy..even in creative artistic and scientific fields.
If you’re in the market for a strategy that will help you rise from the ashes, Jordan Peterson is your man. And that’s regardless of sexuality, gender, race, religion, or political affiliation.
One answer is that you have several hierarchies upon which any number of people might possibly go.
The hierarchy of basketball skill, as well as the hierarchy of skill in track, or debate, or business. Just because my niche is not in one area does not mean it can't be in another.
There's also the objective hierarchy and the subjective hierarchy; I may not be top dog in the customer service hierarchy, but perhaps the best I can do is to be a general manager rather than a CEO, and perhaps that's where I will excel in life personally.
Thank you Big Think for having this man on your show.
Not everyone values money and power though.. I value world peace, abundance and equality for everyone. I despise greed, thievery and hierarchy. I'm sure every other abused slave out there will agree that life is very difficult for us slaves.. and I don't want to lie cheat and steal just to get ahead.. it doesn't feel right to me
Yeah, and he's wrong
Heklep Nicely said. Great one!
Whoa, you’re a slave?! I’d suggest instead of bloviating about world peace on the Internet, focus on getting out of your situation. Also, do you think JBP had to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead... or perhaps was it hard work and patience?
Heklep I understand that we all create our own reality however why are we all forced to chase the exact same ideal just to avoid suffering? Shouldn't we be free to naturally go our own way and do our own thing instead of all chasing after the same goal? Having us all conform to a competitive consumerist society creates dissonance which creates suffering. The man made grid is not natural, that's why everyone is so stressed out
Heklep I'm not sure if you are referring to the idea of collecting stuff.. toys.. money but I don't think stuff can really make a person happy.. I was an Interior Designer for a lot of years and no.. money, expensive wine and food and trips do not end suffering in fact I think an endless need for more stuff is just like a heroin addiction. They look like they're having fun but peel off a few layers and you will discover a broken person inside
"You can't get rid of the damn hierarchy that produces inequality and resentment because then you don't have anywhere to go"
Um what?
Yes the statement is true. Hierarchy can be binary like a simple yes and no or spectral like the amount we earn. Multidimensionally, we set ourselves in that hierarchy and have some power to change them by ourselves. You can't remove it. Otherwise people lose purpose in life when all seems blurry, and anxiety arose when they see inadequacy in their life, but never grateful for what they have now.
Wow
My purpose can be enjoying the world
I can be content with what I have
With who I am and the world around me
Our economy hates contentment
I don’t want anything wealthy people have
All I want is good food and adequate shelter
And I respect other people who want a family
Everything else is nonsense society tells you that you should have
And society even makes it hard to attain food, shelter and family for some people
Maybe our purpose isn’t to gain wealth or possessions
Don’t buy his idea that a hierarchy is necessary
The freedom to live as you choose is necessary
Life is brutal because others make it brutal
Doesn’t have to be this hard
"Don't buy the idea that a hierarchy is necessary" so has there ever been a successful equal society? What about every other animal species to ever exist? Every single pack animal? The biological kingdom in general? The natural way of how we auto organize ourselves into hierarchy? Household units, classrooms, government, religion??
@@philosophyman necessary and instinctual are two different things
Rape is instinctual. Not necessary
Animals generally organize in families, with parents at the head
Humans did this too
@@sjacks3281 well i can give you examples of people that dont rape and i can give you failure statistics of communes. Can you give me 1 successful example of anything large?
Hierarchy is the problem. That's why very hierarchical societies have high rates of depression, unhappiness etc. People that are high in the hierarchy look down and treat people lower than them poorly. This is the problem. Pick a goal in life independent of others and do it...
brilliant man
because most of us are average - those who are driven, are a percentage but not the majority
Having avoided Peterson and the entire debate around him I feel a great sense of relief having watched this that I never have to think about him again. About as intellectually meaningful and deep as a fortune cookie.
Not an argument
He's been a prof for top Univesities and a PH.D clinical psychologist. What "intellectually meaningful" thing have you done in your life?
T K It’s just your fortune cookie brain that cannot comprehend. Go watch his lectures and think yourself. Deliberately putting yourself in a box helps no one.
Yeah, because by having heard him talking for five minutes about an specific topic you've got everything he has to say figured out, and have righteously concluded this is the most intellectually meaningful and deep of it.
I wonder why you have avoided everything directly involving him for so long, and then feel relieved after finally coming up with a lazy and dishonest, yet good enough in your eyes, excuse to keep doing so.
Much love.
T K It's a good objective observation. We all have different ideas of what we understand and seek. You are right to disagree with what is being projected specially if it does not fit. Nice one!
I had adopted the motto awhile ago... "I'm working on myself, for myself by myself." I do use my resources at hand, it's not particularly "all by myself," but it's void of caring about other's negative comments.
@Simon Bolduc Yes, I agree with you. I understand and practice the same motto as you were taught.
As I've gotten older I've realized that many people are only out for themselves. When people are in need and I am physically and/or financially able to help them, such as; help pushing their car out of the intersection instead of driving by, or giving a homeless man sitting outside of a Starbucks a breakfast sandwich when I walk out of the store with my own breakfast and coffee. Although, I don't focus on other people's successes or faliures. I pay forward, but I don't focus on the noise that surrounds it all. 😊
Take care. 😇
Who listens to this video, actually hears and understands this video and yet hits dislike? This is helpful, insightful and as I see it important.
Because he is speaking on the virtue of hierarchy
And speaking on personal growth
They don’t have anything to do with each other
He hasn’t actually proven the usefulness of hierarchy
Almost sounds like he contradicts himself
And he ignores the idea of contentment
And the idea that a person could be content with the natural world
Or just want food and shelter and to be left alone
He doesn’t speak on manufactured purpose
Or societal indoctrination that tells us our purpose is to increase the wealth and wellbeing of those higher in the hierarchy
And this weird idea that will Somehow In order to increase our own wealth
Some good points being offered here for self improvement, but it woefully ignores people's internal potential. The issues of inequality aren't being addressed over simple discrepancies of success, but rather the suppression of people's potential by way of systems that want to keep people in their posts. In this way Hierarchies remove purpose from people's lives by attaching roles systematically. At a personal level Mr. Peterson offers good advice, but at a macro level its a troublesome idea that can enable negative disparities in modern civilization.
But that's your ideology that has convinced you into thinking there are these imaginary 'systems'. Far left wing identity ideology says there's a 'system' that's keeping you down. Peterson is telling you that that is nothing but excuses. You are blaming your failures on everything *but yourself*.
Personal responsibility is more important than that. He is saying DESPITE those "systems" being in place, you can overcome them, and not everyone will be born with the same freedoms and positions in life. If you try to remove these imaginary 'systems' you risk violating other people's human rights. We already seeing that right now with the suppression of free speech under the guise of protecting against "hate speech".
You forgot something very important. If you need someone above you to go up how does the top person get any higher? Your Philosophy is flawed. It’s human curiosity and intelligence that take us higher.
Wait, a flaw in Jordan Peterson's philosophy??? Stop the press!!
😉
Christopher Brunty isn't that why he said comparing oneself to others doesn't really help, and to instead compare oneself to his own self?
The people at the top are motivated to stay on top, not that complicated to understand. Looking at his metaphor with basketball and hierarchy, Lebron James is clearly at the top, he cannot get any higher, he is the best player in the NBA by far, maybe second best all time, but if he stops trying to improve himself, he falls into complacency and loses that top stop, so he is motivated to stay on top. derr
What you're chasing doesn't have to have manifested itself as a living person. People aim for becoming an improved version of who they were in the past, who they wish they were, who they think others are and even the unreachable ideal.
adding to the other good answers ( by Control Theory and Heklep): One of the ways of conceptualizing God is as the "high point" that can never be reached. That is one of the reasons for the instruction to "worship god *above* all else". There will always be someone/something above.
You cited curiosity and intelligence. Intelligence is the tool that allows you to recognize "what/who" is "above". Curiosity is the natural consequence of such realization.
Boy this man thrives on ambiguity .
I completely agree with Dr. PETERSON. EVERYONE HAS A STORY. NO ONE IS WITHOUT PAIN AND SUFFERING AT SOME TIME OF THEIR LIFE. NO ONE. We all struggle. EVERYONE just HANDLES IT DIFFERENTLY. DONT COMPARE YOURSELF AND MOVE ON. LIFE IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT. AND I WOULD NEVER WANT SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE IN EXCHANGE. BE HAPPY BEING YOU AND MAKE YOU BETTER. Never covet someone who does not belong to you. LIFE is NEVER FAIR AND NEVER will BE. But why ruin someone else's life?
ENJOY LIFE WHEn YOU CAN😍😘 and love the one you"re with....do not think about someone else.
WHY ARE YOU YELLING????
“The problem with a hierarchy is it produces inequality.”
>>Really? Then what inequality exists between USA gov officials as a direct result of the hierarchy they abide by? What inequality exist between a citizen of the United States of A and its President?
“The problem with inequality is it produces resentment.”
>>What? I can look at every single possible inequality that can exist and no, there will be inequalities that do not produce resentment. Having no kids, for example, does not produce a resentment of those with kids-do you want kids? If not then inequality be damned, there’s nothing to resent.
Dr. JP in the house!!
You mean oink the clown.
You're missing the point. It's not about whether you have 1 million or 2 million dollars, it's about providing the basics of the maslow pyramid. The kid given millions of dollars didn't earn anything and the child born into a war zone isn't guilty of resenting that lucky kid. Be aware of the systemic injustice and the idea of be happy with working full time to be below the poverty level is absurd. Our society will be strengenthed by raising everyone to a minimum level. You're missing the point.
You clearly missed the point, he in no way said anything about systemic injustice. Your point is in complete agreement with the one Peterson made. He is talking about self improvement. You are completely mischarecterizing what he is saying because of your own political bias. Our society will be strengthened if, as Peterson has argued in this video, people start looking at themselves and start improving themselves and stop comparing themselves to others there would be less depression, less anorexia and less mental illness in general if we stop comparing ourselves to others. Nobody said " be happy with working full time to be below the poverty level". Your just putting words in his mouth because you can't argue against any of his positions. You are missing the point.
Thank you, tree dude!
Birds on islands with no predators quickly lose their wings. I am afraid if we raise everyone to a "minimum level". That minimum will continue to rise. There is an infinite amount of work, and a finite amount of wealth. By natural law a "minimum level" of wealth is impossible to generate for free. So one of two options occurs. A universal basic income creates a "bottom" class of debt slaves, forever ruled over by controllers of Fiat currency. Or; the bottom "drops out", and the whole system falls apart and people start wiping their ass with dollar bills, because it's harder to get toilet paper.
JP Fanboys will come and tell you that you have misrepresented his view, that he is talking about a self war to self improvement, but this is disingenuous, he has a hidden agenda to justify inequality, he uses true psicology tenets with right wing ideas to make them palatable.
Danilo Vega He never justifies inequality. He weeps over it like everyone else. The difference is that Jordan Peterson doesn't lay the burden of inequality at the feet of man. He lays it at the feet of God.
After so much crap on Big Think, we get a good speakers once again.
Having a hierarchy is great, as long as society empowers people and gives equal (or at least close to equal) opportunity.
Hierarchies are needed but they can be positive or negative or even neutral. It might be subjective to some people
but if the majority believes the hierarchy in their society is negative and corrupt, then it is a "bad" hierarchy and
should be replaced.
Social hierarchy and inequality are the basic principles of every right-wing philosophy so I'm not suprised at all that Peterson thinks that these concepts are "necessary". However, I disagree. You can easily have purpose in life without living in a hierarchically structured society.
Wait so based on this comment section this crowd has a problem with JP? Yeah idk if we can be friends. This man talks logic, tremble before it
Pent A well from my experience I am friends with people that disagree with me significantly on a number of topics. In fact, I think it is necessary to befriend people of conflicting perspectives (not the fringe types though) so as not to be stuck in an echo chamber. That said, I do admire JP.
I am mostly aligned with JP's positions on a lot of ideas, but I think that's fine if someone else simply disagrees with him. We don't need to "win" the debate about JP, being able to have peaceful and productive conversations is more valuable. So long as we can agree that JP is human and not perfect or evil, then we can have a conversation.
How else can this cultural divide be fixed, if we can't tolerate rational disagreement?
His logic here is jumbled
The assumption that a person not aiming for hierarchical material acquisition cannot have a purpose driven life is fundamentally flawed and demonstrably incorrect. It is the exact replica of "if there is no god or heaven then there is no reason to live a moral life". This thinking is very 19th-20th century. To assume people ONLY achieve to gain hierarchy is very basic thought and counter productive to a society that wants to extend its reach beyond one planet. Buckminster Fuller (a greater mind than Peterson by far) recognized that the notion that everybody must struggle to live is absolute bullshit propagated by an establishment that thrives on separation. When a person's basic needs are met it opens up their ability to think beyond themselves.
LIFE gives life meaning, period! Inventors don't invent for the specific furthering of their hierarchy. They invent to make life easier, for themselves and everyone else. Stephen Hawking didn't think about black holes to get rich. He did it because he had to and for the betterment of knowledge of mankind.
Well said sir
He said literally nothing about material acquisition. He never said that people achieve only to gain hierarchy. Everybody must struggle to live, if you think that Bill Gates is not struggling then you are full of shit, he struggles everyday with the thought of the million people who die each year because of malaria. Even extremely rich people struggle. Nobody is arguing against people getting there basic needs met. Peterson wants people to have there basic needs met just as much as you or I do. Getting everyone's basic needs met does not illuminate hierarchy or inequality. Your arguing against a strawman. Life does not give life meaning that is why people struggle with suicide so often. Inventors create hierarchy through there inventions, hierarchy between people who can aford there inventions and thous who cannot. Steven Hawking create a hierarchy because he dedicated himself to bettering himself and other people did not, and when he became more successful then others he created a hierarchy of inequality. When people are free to improve themselves some will do more then others which creates hierarchy and inequality, it is the consequences of benevolent acts not the motivation.
I personally like John Demartini's (guy from the secret) answer on social comparison better. You won't compare yourself to other people as much if you have a deep understanding of your own unique personal values. Everyone has a different value system. Focus on greater self-awareness and you will focus less on comparing yourself to others.
Cooperation is just as important in hierarchical organizations as it is in non-hierarchical ones.