3 ms·

Humanity could be trending towards less work than more work as technology advances. So every example in that Twitter threat could be true. On a related note,

Humanity could be trending towards less work than more work as technology advances. So every example in that Twitter threat could be true. On a related note, this kind of content is guaranteed be very popular on Twitter since Twitter is leans pretty far left. It justifies that it's ok to be lazy and that you don't have success because of the system rather than your intellectual ability or hard work. It justifies entitlement.

paulpauper 4y ago
I think Jordan Peterson helped popularize an argument that a lot of people are excluded from the labor force by virtue of not being smart enough. 15% of the general population has an IQ below 85 and either are unemployed or don't earn enough to make more than they could otherwise earn with welfare. This argument has been well-received among some on the right, as opposed to just attributing unemployment to laziness.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  That's just because the right is flirting with concepts like Eugenics under the umbrella of "Race Realism" which fits the narrative of the suppression of free speech and "I'm not racist, I'm just asking questions". It's not really any better or more well-intentioned than attributing unemployment to laziness.
  - paulpauper 4y ago
    or you could address the actual argument
    - deanCommie 4y ago
      There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain. You or I are equally credible in making up theories to explain these phenomena. He just has a very attractive manner of speaking that sounds very intellectually rigorous to people who have no intellectual rigour of their own. He seems intelligent because he's willing to consider every possibility from it's first principles, whether that possibility is IQ rates in the labour force, or whether women are being sexually promiscuous by wearing makeup to the office. The specific argument in question is ludicrous. We've always had people excluded from the labour force due to intelligence. While surely IQ 85 individuals aren't able to take advantage of a booming tech market, the specific instances of complaints and criticisms today of "nobody wanting to work anymore" are for menial labour jobs that can easily be done by someone with an IQ of 85.
      - randomtwiddler 4y ago
        They are excluded by the fact that we have minimum wages. That provides a lower bar to the required value an employee creates. As we raise this lower bar, we exclude more and more people, generally in this lower intelligence bracket. I have several family members that would love to be able to maintain employment but can't because they get pushed out by managers who think they can do better for the wage. And they probably can. If my brother could keep a job for $4/hr it would give him the honor of work (which he wants/needs), and it would do society good to have more of these people around for us to interact with. > There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain. Credentials don't make an argument correct. Lack of credentials doesn't make an argument wrong. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to declare something unworthy because you don't like it. If you don't want to participate, then don't, pooping in the thread isn't helpful.
        deanCommie 4y ago
        Credibility is earned through a variety of means in our world. There is no true free meritocracy of ideas. A theory about the multi-dimensionality of our universe proposed by a Physics Nobel Prize winner is going to have automatically more credibility and be more worthy of deep consideration and debate, than a Physics Professor, than a new Physics PhD, than a Physics undergrad, than a non-Physics Science students, than a non-Science university student, than a high school drop out, than a homeless person on the street. Jordan Peterson is treated by his fans as someone with explicit credibility on the domain of human society and its problems and solutions. In my analogy they treat his ideas on string theory as somewhere between a Physics Professor and a Nobel Prize winner. When in point of fact, his ideas and credentials lie closer to a 1st year English major talking about how the "Universe vibrates" right before they tell you about the healing crystals they bought on eBay. If you squint enough that may sound like String Theory, but it's not the same. Jordan Peterson builds his entire philosophy on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Note, I didn't say he basis his personal ethics on these values - which would be perfectly valid, but rather he believes that this is the only possible way for society to function. That means he is fundamentally, militantly, faithfully against gay marraige, against women in the workplace (he doesn't say he's AGAINST it, but he asks questions that inherently suggest he does not believe in gender equality), and is pro societal hierarchies - within the family, and across it. All of his other "arguments" - about wages, employment, IQ, etc, are all built on top of this foundation, that I believe is fundamentally broken. So yes, I will absolutely challenge any idea from Jordan Peterson by default based on his lack of credibility, just as I will challenge any idea about the origins of the universe from a hippie suggesting I rub some quartz crystals on my temples to get in touch with Gaia.
- eruleman 4y ago
  Astute observation, Jordan Peterson did bring this argument back into the limelight. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
eruleman 4y ago
Twitter changed the algorithm recently such that these type of threads are pushed to more eyeballs.

paulpauper 4y ago

I think Jordan Peterson helped popularize an argument that a lot of people are excluded from the labor force by virtue of not being smart enough. 15% of the general population has an IQ below 85 and either are unemployed or don't earn enough to make more than they could otherwise earn with welfare. This argument has been well-received among some on the right, as opposed to just attributing unemployment to laziness.

deanCommie 4y ago
That's just because the right is flirting with concepts like Eugenics under the umbrella of "Race Realism" which fits the narrative of the suppression of free speech and "I'm not racist, I'm just asking questions". It's not really any better or more well-intentioned than attributing unemployment to laziness.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  or you could address the actual argument
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain. You or I are equally credible in making up theories to explain these phenomena. He just has a very attractive manner of speaking that sounds very intellectually rigorous to people who have no intellectual rigour of their own. He seems intelligent because he's willing to consider every possibility from it's first principles, whether that possibility is IQ rates in the labour force, or whether women are being sexually promiscuous by wearing makeup to the office. The specific argument in question is ludicrous. We've always had people excluded from the labour force due to intelligence. While surely IQ 85 individuals aren't able to take advantage of a booming tech market, the specific instances of complaints and criticisms today of "nobody wanting to work anymore" are for menial labour jobs that can easily be done by someone with an IQ of 85.
    - randomtwiddler 4y ago
      They are excluded by the fact that we have minimum wages. That provides a lower bar to the required value an employee creates. As we raise this lower bar, we exclude more and more people, generally in this lower intelligence bracket. I have several family members that would love to be able to maintain employment but can't because they get pushed out by managers who think they can do better for the wage. And they probably can. If my brother could keep a job for $4/hr it would give him the honor of work (which he wants/needs), and it would do society good to have more of these people around for us to interact with. > There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain. Credentials don't make an argument correct. Lack of credentials doesn't make an argument wrong. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to declare something unworthy because you don't like it. If you don't want to participate, then don't, pooping in the thread isn't helpful.
      - deanCommie 4y ago
        Credibility is earned through a variety of means in our world. There is no true free meritocracy of ideas. A theory about the multi-dimensionality of our universe proposed by a Physics Nobel Prize winner is going to have automatically more credibility and be more worthy of deep consideration and debate, than a Physics Professor, than a new Physics PhD, than a Physics undergrad, than a non-Physics Science students, than a non-Science university student, than a high school drop out, than a homeless person on the street. Jordan Peterson is treated by his fans as someone with explicit credibility on the domain of human society and its problems and solutions. In my analogy they treat his ideas on string theory as somewhere between a Physics Professor and a Nobel Prize winner. When in point of fact, his ideas and credentials lie closer to a 1st year English major talking about how the "Universe vibrates" right before they tell you about the healing crystals they bought on eBay. If you squint enough that may sound like String Theory, but it's not the same. Jordan Peterson builds his entire philosophy on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Note, I didn't say he basis his personal ethics on these values - which would be perfectly valid, but rather he believes that this is the only possible way for society to function. That means he is fundamentally, militantly, faithfully against gay marraige, against women in the workplace (he doesn't say he's AGAINST it, but he asks questions that inherently suggest he does not believe in gender equality), and is pro societal hierarchies - within the family, and across it. All of his other "arguments" - about wages, employment, IQ, etc, are all built on top of this foundation, that I believe is fundamentally broken. So yes, I will absolutely challenge any idea from Jordan Peterson by default based on his lack of credibility, just as I will challenge any idea about the origins of the universe from a hippie suggesting I rub some quartz crystals on my temples to get in touch with Gaia.
eruleman 4y ago
Astute observation, Jordan Peterson did bring this argument back into the limelight. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

eruleman 4y ago

Twitter changed the algorithm recently such that these type of threads are pushed to more eyeballs.