Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand chat for about 12 minutes on sex differences and personality, but that’s not where I want to focus commentary. What I will say is that Peterson continually conflates sex and gender, and I find that disconcerting for a research psychologist.
I’ve queued this video near the end, where Peterson delineates his conception of how the political right and left (as defined by him and the US media-industrial complex).
I feel he does a good job of defining the right, and he may have even captured whatever he means by left—radical left even—, but he doesn’t capture my concerns, hence I write.
To recap his positions,
- We need to pursue things of value
- Hierarchies are inevitable
- [One has] to value things in order to move forward in life
- [One has] to value things in order to have something valuable to produce
- [One has] to value some things more than others or [they] don’t have anything like beauty or strength or…competence or…whatever…
- If [one] value[s] [some domain] then [one is] going to value some [things in that domain] more than others because some are better
- If [one] play[s] out the value in a social landscape, a hierarchy [will result]
- A small number of people are going to be more successful than the majority
- A very large number of people aren’t going to be successful at all
- Hierarchies are justifiable and necessary
- Hierarchies … stack [people] up at the bottom
- [Hierarchies] tilt towards tyranny across time
I feel I’ve captured his position from the video transcript, but feel free to watch the clip to determine if I’ve mischaracterised his position. I have reordered some of his points for readability and for a more ordered response on my part.
To be fair, I feel his delivery is confused and the message becomes ambiguous, so I may end up addressing the ‘wrong’ portion of his ambiguous statement.
We need to pursue things of value
This is sloganeering. The question is how are we defining value? Is it a shared definition? How is this value measured? How are we attributing contribution to value? And do we really need to pursue these things?
Hierarchies are inevitable
Hierarchies may be inevitable, but they are also constructed. They are not natural. They are a taxonomical function of human language. Being constructed, they can be managed. Peterson will suggest meritocracy as an organising principle, so we’ll return to that presently.
[One has] to value things in order to move forward in life
This is a particular worldview predicated on the teleological notion of progress. I’ve discussed elsewhere that all movement is not progress, and perceived progress is not necessarily progress on a global scale.
Moreover, what one values may not conform with what another values. In practice, what one values can be to the detriment of another, so how is this arbitrated or mediated?
[One has] to value things in order to have something valuable to produce
I think he is trying to put this into an economic lens, but I don’t know where he was going with this line. Perhaps it was meant to emphasise the previous point. I’ll just leave it here.
[One has] to value some things more than others or [they] don’t have anything like beauty or strength or…competence or…whatever…
This one is particularly interesting. Ostensibly, I believe he is making the claim that we force rank individual preferences, then he provides examples of items he values: beauty, strength, competence, and whatever. Telling here is that he chooses aesthetic and unmeasurable items that are not comparable across group members and are not even stable for a particular individual. I won’t fall down the rabbit hole of preference theory, but this is a known limitation of that theory.
If [one] value[s] [some domain] then [one is] going to value some [things in that domain] more than others because some are better
We’ve already touched on most of this concept. The key term here is ‘better‘. Better is typically subjective. Even in sports, where output and stats are fairly well dimensionalised, one might have to evaluate the contributions of a single athlete versus another with lower ‘output’ but who serves as a catalyst for others. In my mental model, I am thinking of a person who has higher arbitrary stats than another on all levels versus another with (necessarily) lower stats but who elevates the performance (hence) stats of teammates. This person would likely be undervalued (hence under-compensated) relative to the ‘star’ performer.
In other domains, such as art, academics, or even accounting and all measurement bets are off.
If [one] play[s] out the value in a social landscape, a hierarchy [will result]
Agreed, but the outcome will be based on rules—written and unwritten.
A small number of people are going to be more successful than the majority
A very large number of people aren’t going to be successful at all
The notion of meritocracy is fraught with errors, most notably that merit can be meaningfully assessed in all but the most simple and controlled circumstances. But societies and cultures are neither simple nor controlled. They are complex organisms. And as Daniel Kahneman notes, most merit can likely be chalked up to luck, so it’s all bullshit at the start.
In the end, Peterson and people like him believe that the world works in a way that it doesn’t. They believe that thinking makes it so and that you can get an is from an ought. Almost no amount of argument will convince them otherwise. It reminds me of the time Alan Greenspan finally admitted to the US Congress that his long-held adopted worldview was patently wrong.
WAXMAN: “You found a flaw…”
GREENSPAN: “In the reality—more in the model—that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.”
WAXMAN: “In other words, you found that your your view of the world—your ideology—was not right. It was not what it had it…”
GREENSPAN: “Precisely. No, I… That’s precisely the reason I was shocked because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
To paraphrase musically