Joe Rogan and Peterson

I think this podcast has some very important information that should be taken under cosideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

An older thread on Peterson, from back when OT was fun

In response to that video in particular: Even if there is no causal relationship between group membership and merit, it is very unlikely that groups would have equal merit unless there was some trade of members between those groups to keep them balanced. For example, if one randomly assigned high school students to either red team or blue team, it's unlikely those two teams would be equally matched if they played football against each other. If the randomly-selected red team was clearly superior to the blue team, it wouldn't be valid to say that this was a result of pro-red, anti-blue bias, and it would take a controlling authority switching red players to blue and blue players to red in order to make those random teams balanced.

Yet, somehow, belief that equality of outcome is justifiable is mainstream popular when dealing with groups of fixed membership. People who would reject the desirability of equality of outcome between individuals have a tendency to support equality of outcome between racial groups or between genders, when it's all but unanimously considered problematic at best and impossible at worst to direct people to change their race and/or gender for balance purposes. This type of belief in the righteousness of equality of outcome is so entrenched that differences in average outcome along racial or gender lines is seen as incontrovertible evidence of bias, even though it isn't, and laws promoting racial and/or gender discrimination have been on in the law books and considered morally sound for decades now.

Of course I understand why so many people, mostly of sound mind and good character, support such an illogical position. They reason that it is precisely the things we do not have control over, such as race and gender, that should not have an impact upon our merit, but instead the choices we make. And on that point I agree completely. However, it is not true that all women make the same choices all men make, because it's not even true all women make the same choices as other women. Each group is a collection of individuals making individual choices, and a just system would reward those varying choices with varying outcomes. That's what people forget when they see differences in outcomes in averages of these different groups. It's not that such variation in such results are evidence of bias, but that equality would be proof of it.

This isn't to say that wrongful discrimination doesn't exist. While I believe it's rare, rare isn't non-existent. But it does mean that an entirely different methodology is required to demonstrate its existence.

I think all that can be summarised by Peterson in words "Current system is not good but it is best amobng the worst". The thing is many try to destroy it and bring something far worst than it is.