Jordan Peterson: Inequality and hierarchy give life its purpose


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. But it is useful to compare yourself to yourself. That’s the right baseline, right? That takes everything else into account. And it’s really practically useful. And I’ve done this in my clinical practice
very frequently. It’s like okay, let’s take stock of where
you are and then let’s hypothesize about where you would like to be. It’s a complex conversation because we want
to figure out what’s not so good about your present situation—exactly, precisely—and
then come up with a hypothesis about what your life would look like if it was better. And then we can work on incremental improvement. And the idea would be there’s some step
you could take, that you would take, that would make today or tomorrow fractionally
better than yesterday. And then you can iterate that. And that’s actually unbelievably powerful. You hit the effect of compounding interest,
let’s say, very, very rapidly if you do that. So there’s real utility in incremental progress. And you don’t have to improve your life
much in increments to start hitting the effect of compounding interest. You make one thing slightly better, and that
increases the probability that you’ll make the next thing slightly better—as well as
having its positive side effects. And so even if you make small steps forward
and you do that regularly, that can turn your life around very rapidly over a one- to two-year
period. I mean, that’s a long time, one to two years,
but it’s not a lifetime. And it certainly beats the hell out of going
downhill precipitously, which tends to be the alternative. It’s better and it keeps you out of the
resentment, you know. It’s also more realistic because it’s
not like everyone else doesn’t have their problems. You know, we have these fictitious, successful
people that it’s easy for us to compare ourselves to detrimentally and to become jealous
and bitter about that, but also to be very hard on ourselves because we’re not successful. If you talk to successful people, let’s
say—and I’m not trying to say that there’s no such thing as genuine accomplishment because
obviously there is—but even people who are successful have lives that are very difficult,
and they have an ill family member or aged parents or they’re suffering from some serious
illness themselves which is very, very common. Or they have a psychological problem that’s
not trivial or they have traumatic past. It’s like—life is brutal. And becoming resentful about your relative
position is a way to make it more brutal. It’s not helpful to you, and it’s not
helpful to anyone else.

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. Problem here is that other people put you into a social hierarchy. You can not compare yourself to others all you want, but you have to interact with other people who will generally put you into some sort of space along the hierarchy. Though it is true that a person's concept of self usually has little relation to their actual self. Some people feel like losers even though they are relatively successful and capable. Other people have huge egos but low ability. This is due to how others treat us and how we measure ourselves – the yardstick we use rather than the reality. So I guess you need to balance the two- in your own mind use a healthy measurement for yourself, but also realize your image to the outside world matters as well.

  2. This kills the possibility of enjoying doing something just for the sake of it… I deeply disagree with this. I realise most people abide by this purpose-driven life but doing something without a drive has some interests too. Look imagine you're doing some wood work, you're aware you're far from the best but you enjoy it this way and give up on competing with others and yourself just to continue what you used to enjoy to begin with. End of story! I get it, people strive for better, but better is comparison. Switch off internet and you instantly become the best person you know 😉

  3. "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.

  4. Hierarchy is not the problem. Problem is when climbing it up is impossible or assumed immoral by many people. Hence once singularity happens and the ultimate MMO is designed for humans to live in. It must have some sort of a Chaos faction where people at bottom of Hierarchy or top even can join and attack the system. This way people at the top can only keep power if they ensure people at the bottom are happy with the system or else the system dies and new one is reborn in the amidst the Chaos. Only then more entertainment can be achieved while people in the system won't feel like they are stuck in a repetitive static loop hole.

  5. The Big Think?…..as long as you are left leaning…and need a 'safe space' to run to when someone says something nasty to you like you are fat or have a big nose……

  6. i like the comments on here where people talk about how "dangerous" dr peterson is. my question is dangerous of what? he encourages people to take responsibility for themselves and to think for themselves. for those haters who disagree what views do you have that are so superior ?

  7. he's just uneducated and inaccurate and doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to post-modernist philosophy and especially Marx. Leftright false dichotomy cripples thinking process, apparently.

  8. We must defend the hierarchy. We must cherish it and strive to make it meritocratic and climbable for everyone, so that the best fitted can get to the top and benefit all.
    I think the best way to do it for the left is to invest in a world of opportunity for the kids:contrast poverty, provide health, education, same opportubities. Not by demolishing the structure you make it better… That's stupid.

    I'm a rare chimera, a lefty who like peterson: if you find this comment fill blessed cause you are

  9. "Hierarchy is simply a model used to distinguish by contextual importance or ability, and has two primary sub-categories: “Dominance hierarchies” and “Empowerment hierarchies”, both of which are naturally occurring for organizational purposes, but not equal. In its most basic terms, Dominance Hierarchies use violence and coercion to dictate order of resources and control others. It is a “Service to Self” oriented worldview, essentially treating others as either resources or competition at the bottom line. We see this throughout the animal kingdom, from fish, to birds, to chimpanzees, one of humanity’s closest relatives. Empowerment Hierarchies, on the other hand, prefer to see things as a “Wholearchy” where compassion, non-coercive cooperation, and empowerment mutually strengthens the inherent interdependence within social groups. This is a more “Service to Others” oriented worldview which not only benefits both self AND others simultaneously, but also has an inherent respect and balance for the environment upon which it depends. We see examples of this with bee and ant colonies, the cells and organs in our bodies, and Bonobo monkeys- humanity’s other closest relative. Since humanity has tended much more toward Dominance Hierarchies, it’s no wonder that many people see the terms “hierarchy” and “order” with an oppressive, rather than empowering, natural connotation.

    But then, even if all individuals lead themselves, who “leads” society? Depending on whether in a Dominance or Empowerment Hierarchy, the distinctions of contextual importance and ability which distinguish the hierarchy naturally inherently bestow a dynamic of power which is then construed as either “Authority” in the dominance model, where authority gets to boss people around, and “Leadership” in the empowerment model, where cooperation to empowering leadership is voluntary, seen as advise, and people retain their autonomy. Also, people freely have the right to opt-out and leave a voluntary, society if they disagree with it. So, essentially, the worst thing that could happen from no longer having violent thugs (government) violently ruling over people is that circumstances don’t work out and the community decides it wants to re-instate a government. The worst thing that could happen is that things stay the same (which really says a lot, when you think about it). So what’s the danger in striving for an empowering, voluntary society and allowing it to happen?"

    -Humberto Braga

    Here is a video, demonstrating the effects that hierarchies can have on societies, with bonobo monkeys as an example.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDTAX7V5Ew&index=83&list=WL

    Here is the article that i referenced
    https://humbertolvx.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/voluntarism-anarchism-what-why-and-how-part-9-of-9-in-how-to-solve-all-social-problems/

  10. In which jpb explains why comparing yourself to the status of other people is absolutely useless and no one should do it but society depends on it to function

  11. In any population there should be a bell curve distribution of outcomes — and that is fine. The problem is when there are classes of people who receive more privilege, which allow them to compound on their success even more. It is as if they are playing outside the rules of the game. If the top1% had to pay a progressively higher tax rate to promote a more equal wealth distribution instead of actually paying LOWER taxes (capital gains are taxed lower and are the primary income for super wealthy), then it would be fair. As it stands though, GROSS inequality and stratified hierarchy are insidious problems that eat away at democracy and capitalism — as the super wealthy can consolidate more and more power and wealth over time, and thus taking an even more inequitable share of the pie.

  12. One cliche is that left wingers are against individual responsibility – they are not.
    Another is that the left does not believe in working hard – this is incorrect.
    Or that the left think there is nothing you can do as an individual to improve your life – this is also a cliche.

    The thing is that left wing approaches contain all those elements… but ALSO a focus on collective action, on how wider social issues affect us.

  13. His opinion on hierarchies that somehow generate purpose for other people seems interesting at first sight. But then it becomes self- contradictory immediately. A hierarchy arises when most of members of a society believe that a value is kind of more important or valuable so to speak. So what you get, is actually a hierarchy of values that obviously some people excel at those values (quoting Peterson himself) and go to the top. So far  Peterson is right but when he says that you should not compare yourself with them, it becomes problematic. Because how can you not think they’re better than you when you believe that the values they have are more “valuable”? If you think their values are not better than yours then, you actually believe that hierarchy is not legitimate. That’s the contradiction

  14. I still believe in hierarchy but I don't know if I believe in capitalism. Every time capitalism is reformed it keeps coming unreformed. Maybe mankind is meant to share resources equally and power unequally. The weak and the strong must learn to live in peace. Money is not merit.

  15. Well, what Peterson might have missed here is not that hierarchy and inequality are needed. Instead, hierarchy and inequality are INEVITABLE. The underlying problem is the ethics behind it, whether or not the inception of hierarchy is intentional. If it is intentionally created, there is some authoritarian shit happening, but if it's not, it's just the matter of social class gaps caused by unwavering economic nature of human to pile up wealth. Regardless of what system is applied, a gap will always be there. The only thing we can mend is about how we tighten that gap as small as possible. Just like poverty, it's always there but the borderline is always contingent. Today, the rate of absolute poverty is way lower than 50 years ago and yet poor people still exist, but perhaps not as poor or helpless as in the past.

  16. It is very very very very! a wrong logic I agree with the basic idea that the world should be strict and sometimes cool, but it is very difficult to accept it as a matter of course that can only be created by a completely rational system. The world is multifaceted and complex. In other words, too many factors are based on error, inconsistency, and, of course, much of them are based on malice, inconsistency and malice just because they occur in a rational way. Living in a world where a professor lives can be a world where there is a sense of warmth to a basic human being, but very few people on Earth. The reality is not only cold, but also very often malicious.

  17. The problem with the hierarchy that we are talking about here is its feature of creating a subservient, obedient, and exploitable class from which labor value is extracted and economic power is funneled upward.

  18. This guy assumes we all have the same motivations to inspire to be what one wants to be. He is so in the box. You should take this down because it’s a small think from a big headed guy.

  19. title is misleading . he never said or will say inequality gives life purpose, he said free will comes at a cost of hierarchy which is based on competence. Extreme left shit heads never get that. They want equity = equal outcome => which make life pointless.

  20. There was never a case against hierarchy, the question is is the hierarchy legitimate and who organises the hierarchy? Because a hierarchy isnt just by definition merit based. Especially in todays corporations it is solely based on obidience and how you can help to maximize profits for the owner and his family. If you coincidently have to compete with the daughter of the boss for a position you can bet on that you will lose doesnt matter how hard you work. If companies would be organised democratically and its hierarchy would be organised from the bottom up then we could have a real meritocracy where we could come the closest to "the harder you work the more you get". But Jordan Peterson doesnt want a meritocracy, he simply has one job, make propaganda for the people who fund him and of course like Orwell said then it has to be "war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength", dont question the hierarchy, dont demand democracy!

    Jordan Peterson is also in no way an individualist. Private corporations are collectivist institutions, internally they are hardly less totalitarian as dictatorships like the USSR.

  21. leave it to ol' JP to give a wonky defense of the establishment. Oh yep, things are fine just the way they are, so long as we don't have to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns. The existence of impoverished ghettos and people with more personal wealth than entire countries is part of what makes life worth living! Thanks, Professor Kermit.

  22. We need to acknowledge how people in the same hierarchical group treat each other, not just those in different ones.

  23. The argument of hierarchy of control as a concept of best at it, to worse at it does not work in the real world. Some workers have more skills/knowledge than those above them. That does not make a good manage worse at being a manager. It's just that he has to engage with his staff. Most business doing something hard, have managers that promote the good ideas of staff and reward them. Business that are not basket ball teams, require co-operation over a wide area of skills.

    Most of the time these different skills areas form departments that don't really talk to one another. They have there own hierarchies and only speak to common leaders above them in the tree. Most of these leaders can't have the skills to make decisions and more often than not impose decisions on those below them without listening or consulting lower parts of the hierarchy tree.

    So most of the real issues that prevent productivity and good management is profit maximation for share holders. You need a hierarchy of control to impose bad decisions that maximise profit at the expence of everything else. The short term profit at the expense of long term profit. This is why conditions, training and investment in workers is secondary. Some business don't even pay enough in wages so their workers can make ends meet. They can't even feed themselves, some live in the parking lot of their employers business.

    This type of system has to be imposed by force. Inequality and hierarchy are the obvious tools used to do this.

  24. More technically, hierarchies don't produce inequality, they make inequality manifest and exacerbate it. Being tall, running fast and jumping high were all things before basketball was a game. Based on the rules, people with those abilities are better at basketball generally. The socialist argument is that capitalism is a game that was created to favor certain types of people. I think that view mostly incorrect but there is a grain of truth to the theory.

  25. You aim towards something because you THINK it'll be better than what you have. We use reason to CREATE meaning. It's ultimately illusory because there is no ultimate goal; only an abstract conception of one which never truly materialises. We are driven to more and more complexity and require ever more complex illusions to justify it's reasonable pursuit. This is exactly what Peterson is tapping into. He is providing the lost amongst us with a well thought out and complex narrative to which we can create boundaries and define ourselves in the face of chaos. Utimately however, he is like a comfort blanket. He is like the parent we never had. It's hard not to appreciate his efforts because he cares… deeply. Yet, once the demon has been unveiled its only the children who hide back under the covers.

  26. The existing hierarchy has made our very emotions subject to “purpose.” Our meaning must be hierarchy because it has always been hierarchy. The status quo must not be questioned. Equality and hierarchy must be mutually exclusive because they always have been. He’s a Jungian pseudointellectual and I will be “Tu quoque’d” for calling him such.

  27. Peterson reaches his philosophical and creative limitation here when he fails to define meaning in terms other than hierarchical and external. I agree with him about everything else though as he describes the technical nature of hierarchy and it's dominance in society.

  28. I don't understand White feminist keep comparing themselves with successful men. For whatever the outcome is, they will not be happy.

  29. Really dangerous train of thought to follow. Normalizing and even encouraging inequality is not something any modern society should strive towards.

  30. Has he ever had a conversation with the black community…I don't think he has the first clue about inequality.

  31. What if your resentful of the rest of humanity for not having any friends. Because they don't accept you? What if that makes you hate everyone because of their innate close mindedness and judgement. How do you deal with deep depression/loneliness causing you to be unproductive and weak and people judge you because of that weakness when really you have been through so much more than they could ever imagine. How do you deal with that fact that you have worked so hard to get out of so much suffering and everyone else barely had to work at all to have social standing and at the same time have plenty of friends and their social needs met. It's just so unfair and breeds deep resentment.

  32. I think it was Solomon who said that only a "fool compares himself with another". Hierarchies that compare my productivity and my life quality of today with the potential of the same tomorrow seem to be about right. That said, does such a scheme cease to be a hierarchy?

  33. Jordan Peterson is right when he says "to work toward something you must to assume axiomatically that what you are working toward is better than what you have". "You are always aiming up if your aiming". For instances, in the realm of values, morality is not (and should not be) grounded and derived, like it is in nature, from experience or by what is done. So presumably, there will always be a clash (a distance) between what is done (facts, experience, science) and what ought to be done (values, goals, aims, morality). Immanuel Kant said : "For whereas, so far as nature is concerned, experience supplies the rules and is the source of truth, in respect of the moral laws it is, alas, the mother of illusion. Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the laws prescribing what ought to be done from what is done, or to impose upon them the limits by which the latter is circumscribed".

    Source : Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.

    Peterson also said: "the problem with aiming up is that it produce a hierarchy" and "the problem with hierarchy is that it produce inequality".

    I agree with him. There will also be people who will be more moral than others (so there will be inequality). And what is true of morality is also true for other field : some will be better in sport and some will be more successful in the workplace or in life in general than others. But all these inequalities result from an initial unequal distribution of natural capacities (such as : innate sense of morality and justice, talent, intelligence and so on) or from a more favorable starting place in society (a rich family).

    So he's right that inequalites are a natural fact (nature is aristocratic) and also that they are inevitable. And we should not try to eliminate these natural distinctions and natural inequalities. But these natural inequalities creates, in society, inequalities of wealth and these inequalities of wealth creates inequality of power and status. So then the question arise : considering that there are natural inequalities among humans, how society should treat these facts of inequalities if it wishes to claim to be a just society which treats every citizen with an EQUAL RESPECT AND EQUAL DIGNITY, knowing that all these natural inequalities result from undeserved (because arbitrary) natural capacities or from a more favorable starting place in society. The Harvard philosopher, John Rawls, said :

    "No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society". "Greater intelligence, wealth and opportunity, for example, allow a person to achieve ends he could not rationally contemplate otherwise". "But it doesn’t follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate". "THE NATURAL DISTRIBUTION IS NEITHER JUST NOR UNJUST; NOR IS IT UNJUST THAT PERSONS ARE BORN INTO SOCIETY AT SOME PARTICULAR POSITION. THESE ARE SIMPLY NATURAL FACTS. WHAT IS JUST AND UNJUST IS THE WAY THAT INSTITUTIONS DEAL WITH THESE FACTS"."Thus it is incorrect that individuals with greater natural endowments and the superior character that has made their development possible have a right to a cooperative scheme that enables them to obtain even further benefits in ways that do not contribute to the advantages of others. We do not deserve our place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than we deserve our initial starting place in society. That we deserve the superior character that enables us to make the effort to cultivate our abilities is also problematic; for such character depends in good part upon of fortunate family and social circumstances in early life for which we can claim no credit".

    In other words, a just society should treat his citizens with equal respect so as to reduce inequalities of wealth and be arranged so that inequalities benefit the least advantaged.

    So Peterson is right about the fact that hierarchy and inequality is grounded in nature and, inevitably so, in human nature. But by saying this he still have not said anything. Because the fact that nature is aristocratic (as Arthur Schopenhauer said) or that her cruel laws are hierarchical or unequal is just a fact about nature. Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, explain very well what nature is all about :

    "Man must never fall into the madness of believing that he has risen to be lord and master over Nature – which is so easily induced by the conceit of half-education – but must understand the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule, and realize how much of his existence is subject to these laws of combat and upward struggle. Then he will sense that in a universe where planets revolve around suns, and moons turn around planets, where force alone forever masters weakness, compelling it to be its obedient servant or else crushing it, there can be no special laws for Man".

    But as human we are more than nature because we are not like other animals who must obey the cruel laws of nature. As human we have freedom and can decide to rise above nature to take our own course of action and build a world that is different from the cruel and aristocratic laws of nature. We can create a world without hierarchy and build on democracy, freedom, equality (as much as possible), fraternity and justice.

    But as long as there wiil be hierarchy and imbalance of power in the world, there will be cruelty. Indeed, the absence of cruelty is no imbalance of power. So the absence of cruelty is equality. Philip Hallie, educated at Harvard and Oxford and who have been a Rhodes Scholar, said :

    « The power of the majority and the weakness of a minority were at the center of the institutional cruelty of slavery and of Nazi anti-Semitism. The whites not only outnumbered the blacks in America, but had economic and political ascendency over them (…) Cruelty then (…) is a kind of power relationship, an imbalance of power wherein the stronger party becomes the victimizer and the weaker becomes the victim. And (…) the opposite of cruelty lay in a situation where there is no imbalance of power ».

    Source : Philip Hallie, « From cruelty to goodness » (1981) 11:3 The Hastings Center Report 23.

    The greatest imbalance of power in our society come from the inequality of wealth. So a large part of cruelty in our society come from the inequality of wealth.

    The idea is not to make everyone the same (there will always be for instance inequality in talent, intelligence and so on) but to treat people with equal respect and with justice so that the people who are born with more intelligence and more talent (a minority) and get rich because of this, they must recognized that these privilege are undeserved because arbitrary and thus accept that people who don't have these born-privilege (the majority) must be compensated by redistribution of wealth.

    As long as there will be imbalance of power and wealth, there will be exploitation and slavery (as in modern slavery ; human trafficking…). But some philosopher don't think that exploitation is the result of a corrupt society, imperfect or primitive but believe that it is inherent in the very nature of life. Nietzsche said :

    « As if slavery was contrary to civilization and not rather the condition of any superior civilization, of any progress in civilization (…) Perish the weak and failed ! First principle of our philanthropy. And we should even help them (..) Religions that have reigned supremely so far contributed for a large part to maintain the type of man to a lower level ; they retained too many beings who ought to perish (…) Living is essentially rob, injure, violate the weak and abroad, oppress, harshly impose its own forms, assimilate or at least (this is the mildest solution) exploit ( …) The "exploitation" is not the result of a corrupt society, imperfect or primitive; it is inherent in the very nature of life ».

    Peterson also said : "the problem with inequality is that it produce resentment". Peterson talks about ressentment from the left and the poor. That is not ressentment. Its called "JUSTICE". As John Rawls said : indignation and resentment (…) are "moral emotions".

    Source : John Rawls, A theory of justice, p.427 (chap.74).

    Peterson often talks about the Bible and if I am not mistaken he believe in God. I am not a believer but lets talk about the Bible.

    In Proverbs 29:7 it is said : "THE RIGHTEOUS CARE ABOUT JUSTICE FOR THE POOR, BUT THE WICKED HAVE NO SUCH CONCERN".

    So you can see that non believer (or atheist) like Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer, who really cares about justice for the poor, are the real just.

    Eric Folot, lawyer

  34. There are those who say that conservatism requires there be an in-group which the law protects but does not restrict and an out group which the law restricts but does not protect. I’m one of them. I side with the out group. As if we all stand at life’s starting line with the same chances.

  35. Hierarchy is necessary… Well hes hardly gonna say its not because thats the truth..and the truth gets you killed

  36. the left created the "everyone wins a prize" generation, and now women are the most unhappy they've ever been, male suicide has increased, everyone claims to be even more oppressed than before…
    but will the left admit that they've contributed to societal problems?
    no, they're children.
    if society is to fix itself, the left must be ignored because they've got nothing of value to offer – it's become so clear.

  37. I keep trying to figure out Peterson on my own and not listen to the biased opinions of others, but there is a point where I am starting to recognize the opinions might have some merit. This conversation itself, is a great example. Peterson clearly does NOT live in the real world. He lives in this limited, binary world where there are only good people striving to better themselves. Seriously? People who strive and accomplish things can and do go on to use that power to exploit others and to pull up the ladder so no one else can follow them and they can greedily keep all the benefits for themselves. This is happening all the time. So feeling “jealous” and saying resentment for those who do this is unjustified negates the incredibly detrimental effects on individuals and societies themselves when this is continually perpetuated.

    Rankism is a spiritual disease. What Peterson is failing to recognize in his limited world-view is he is espousing rankism. And by not specifically calling it out, he allows the world to continue to believe that what you accomplish, what you materially possess, determines not only your ranking in society as better than others (vertical hierarchy), but also allows for those with higher rankings to use, exploit and abuse those below them. Someone really needs to wake this guy up.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. The only correct thing he said, is to compare yourself to your (past) self. The connection to hierarchy and inequality he tries to draw is utter ideological nonsense.

    (ok, well, I also give the reason why: if I compare myself to myself, why do I need "someone else to look up to"? According to the argument, it's totally enough to find purpose in personal development without external validation… Therefore, no hierarchy needed. Therefore no inequality needed.)

  41. 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.

  42. For me this is the core Peterson gold right here. Undiluted by analyses of fictional stories (whether biblical or not). Real observation, real advice, real value in actual, observable truth. Universal in application. Practical. And it really is encapsulated beautifully in "clean your room"!

  43. "Life is brutal"… Well, if we all agree on that- Let's all work on changing something…
    As individual change has proven inefficient …
    Just saying…

  44. A slave may rule over a reprobate son. However the world cannot stand under the slave which has become king. If you have but one slave treat him as your brother.
    As for hierarchy the frist rule of heaven is order, justice is when all things hold their oun place.
    Equality destorys order, even officers of same rank go by time in rank as hierarchy of authority.

  45. Resentment is a $ 20. Word for anger. Anger is. a fire that will burn your house down with you in it.
    The other side of that coin is fear.
    When your condition is threatened you get angry out of fear.
    The trick is to not live in a day dream world, of Hell o kitty
    A world of sunshine and light where your the center of the universe.
    The good life According to Aristotle , is when your needs are met and you can better your condition.
    I dont think he ment more drugs more sex more Rock and roll.

  46. With tuition free education, universal healthcare, a livable Universal Basic Income

    and high speed internet for all, we’ll increase equality and reduce societal

    fears on a massive scale, freeing ourselves to welcome the automation

    revolution with open arms (rather than fear and the extreme inequalities it

    could otherwise cause) making capitalism less and less relevant to daily life

    (getting all money out of controlling our politics and taxing billionaire-ism

    into rapid extinction to reduce inequalities will help too).

    Call me overly positive, but I think we’re leaving the era of ‘greed is good’ and

    celebrating wealth and entering an era of altruism and equality.

    #EqualityMovement #EraOfAltruism

  47. The profit incentive leads to immoral consequenses. People should be driven by their inherent drive to master a skill.

  48. This was the reasoning behind india's caste system. People could freely move from one caste to the other, and that gave them something to aspire to (instead of just financial success). Sadly caste system mutated over time to be rigid and hereditary.

Related Post