JP accepts racism and sexism

Based on a logical conclusion from his positions Jordan Peterson is accepting racism and sexism.

Warning - Jordan's positions accept racism and sexism

In this talk on the 12 rules Jordan talks of natural inequality, competence hierarchy and the Pareto distribution or Matthew Effect. Accepting these positions without accepting that there is a societal impact makes these positions both racist and sexist.

Let us begin with competence hierarchy. He accepts that we live in a competence hierarchy and that this competence hierarchy is based on natural inequality. When we observe society we can see that it is an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, in other words the hierarchy of success, advantage or privilege is white men down to black women. As he considers this society a society of competence then by his premises these people deserve to be in these positions because of competence - that is a logical conclusion based on observation and acceptance of competence hierarchy. Please note that this competence does not apply to all white men, all black men, all white women etc., because even in Jordan's terms of competence there are some in all categories who do not fit into the general hierarchy.

Now add to this Jordan's acceptance of natural inequality and Matthew Effect, then what we have is that there is a natural inequality and by the Matthew Effect opportunity accrues to those who are naturally higher up the hierarchy. So we have natural inequality with skewed opportunities (Pareto distribution) leading to a competence hierarchy. As it is observable that this hierarchy is skewed in favour of white men, based on his accepted premises he is accepting racism and sexism for cultural or societal reasons.

Because he does not accept social factors then he ascribes the opportunities that come with the Matthew Effect as based in natural competence. However by ignoring prevailing racism and sexism he is not accepting that such opportunities are skewed because racism and sexism perceives that black people and women are not as competent as they actually are.

We can observe in society that there is social difference based on race and gender, but based on scientific evidence there is no justification for saying that white men have greater or better natural abilities than people who are not white men. In fact there is some evidence to the contrary such as achievement of white male students in schools.

This skewednes of race and gender is an obvious result when you don't accept social impact on the way we are. If we don't accept the fact that an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy limits the opportunities for women and non-whites because we say opportunities accrue to those who are naturally different, and if we then say that our society has a hierarchy based on competence, we are effectively condoning racism and sexism. I contend Jordan's accepted premises led to his condoning racism and sexism.

Such logic can actually be used by feminists, anti-racists and others to prove the counter case - to prove that our society of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy disadvantages non-whites and women. Our society provides opportunity for those who are higher up the hierarchy and disadvantages those lower down - the Matthew Effect. As there is no evidence that there is a natural inequality based on race and gender, then the observable inequalities have to be as a consequence of our society, have to be because our society is an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, have to be based on the skewed opportunities offered in such a society. In other words our society is sexist and racist - an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

Although this is not popular amongst leftists I would like a return to natural hierarchy. There is no natural hierarchy that favours white men, it is only the power of privilege within an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy that has skewed (Pareto distribution) in favour of the position of white men in our society. Returning to a natural hierarchy would favour the competent, but it is important to consider competence in terms of wider human values - not values of success based on wealth and status.

Because Jordan fails to draw this obvious conclusion based on the positions he accepts - the conclusion that our society creates racism and sexism, I have to question his judgement. I would like to investigate gender difference and to a lesser extent race difference, but I cannot use Jordan's interpretations because he hasn't drawn the logical conclusions of the positions he accepts. Are his interpretations based in the data or do they come from that part of his mind that has failed to draw the logical conclusions?

When logical conclusions are not drawn, then we have to examine what is preventing that. If Jordan accepts the current hierarchy as competent and does not see this as coming from the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, then Jordan sees a natural inequality in which white men are at the top of the hierarchy. He is therefore racist and sexist, and his judgements about race and gender are tainted; this is the only logical conclusion. So when he discusses issues such as gender difference ultimately (deep-down) he must be doing so to back up this judgement. As his work on race and gender is based on a false premise, his discussions on such have to be questioned. It would be human nature for him to choose interpretations that support his judgements.

This is disappointing because in my view there is a social need to discuss gender difference on a personal level.

It has been interesting to listen to some of his work - the 12 Rules, as socialists we do tend to blame rather than internally investigate ourselves. But his failure to draw logical conclusions concerning social impact severely casts doubt on the quality of his other conclusions.