Comments by "LS O\x27Brien" (@lsobrien) on "Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Responsibility" video.
-
7
-
But outside of the usual concerns about “SJWs” spreading their influence within, American, Canadian and British institutions are essentially above reproach for Peterson. He never allows himself — or anyone within screeching distance — a critique of the fundamentals. Even if these societies have come to be ruled by chaotic free markets, invisible hands, increasingly unwritten rules and the unaccountable high priests of Credit, his idealisation of the superstructure knows no bounds. And besides, all you need is competence, and you too could rise to the top of these dominance hierarchies. (Which, again, seemingly crumble outside of their respective national borders.) So what are you complaining about? Isn’t that all that matters?
Another epoch-defining quote:
“In societies that are well functioning — not in comparison to a hypothetical utopia, but contrasted with other existing or historical cultures — competence, not power, is a prime determiner of status. Competence. Ability. Skill. Not power. This is obvious both anecdotally and factually. No one with brain cancer is equity-minded enough to refuse the service of the surgeon with the best education, the best reputation and, perhaps, the highest earnings.”
I’m sorry, but is this really, truly one of the great minds of the age? Someone who thinks anecdotes and facts are by definition mutually exclusive (he embellishes a lot at dinner parties?), and thinks he can get by without ever defining what he means by vital, foundational concepts like competence and power?
He also has the tendency of insisting “competence is power,” even though, and he’s in a distinct minority among social scientists here, he suggests the latter shares no correlation with status. All without stopping to assess whether being competent in a position of power itself justifies the existence of those roles. And can we assume he means, here, those Anglo-American countries he typically heaps praise upon, even if he chose vagueness when committing ink to the page?
Consider how he appends the above with not a single scientific source, even though he assures us there are facts which support his case. Instead he returns to his screed against the usual suspects. What am I to conclude other than by asking, “what is Peterson fudging?”
2
-
1