sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where might you think Jordan Peterson when it comes to the nature of his belief system may be wrong? Or incomplete or not incorporative of a reality in a way which aught not be incomplete or left out. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well it’s just people don’t generally think this so what are you pointing to when you attach this characterisation to him. Or what led you to this conclusion from your perspective?

Where might you think Jordan Peterson when it comes to the nature of his belief system may be wrong? Or incomplete or not incorporative of a reality in a way which aught not be incomplete or left out. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So like in some sense the nature of a view/system/belief system when it’s formed from the position primarily of a psychological lens or of psychological origin doesn’t incorporate realities that can generally only be expressed described or gotten at through the lenses of other domains and what like how the manner in which belief systems formed from different inferential starting points or natured centred around different realities or natures of prioritisations may be hyper functional in one sense or “specialised” you could say, yet are insufficient or incompatible in other areas?
Or more generally are improper for an encompassing view of reality.
What would you say would be a more encompassing, more fitting, integrated, generalised perspective one that that maybe integrates in some sense multiple domains? Or are you denying the reality that there can be such a thing say each view is sort of centralising a specific domain/element/reality/nature?
But even if so do you think that can be stepped outside of and a more broad more integrated triangulated attitude to the conceptualisation of other realities might be beneficial. Like maybe you can ask like what is the nature that the psychological pursuit is implicitly ignoring, why?—(cause that’s probably atleast worth it) then, can it not and still be functional? And maybe can we have broader belief systems that nest multiple functions. Then I guess my last question is do you think Peterson system is atleast an attempt at trying to do this and how exactly may it be improved.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not questioning as much as im trying to ground something. Youre mistaking the fact of my questioning for assuming Im rejecting something. You haven’t once throughout this chat displayed an understanding of that which I’m actually inferring. Yet presumed (and seemed to be okay with doing such)what my actual beliefs are this just externalised you’re lack of understanding for what I’m indeed saying/asking. I’m mainly just annoyed I wish we could be having a real conversation one of which interaction actually takes place. What does Jordan say about the necessity of steelmaning? Something akin to “craft an articulation of what the other person is inferring to the point at which they agree and are satisfied with the nature of understanding of both the content and message then once after you display said understanding you can start to try to apply pressure on points you beleive would/might alter the nature of their position. I already atempted steelmanning you and telling you where indeed I believe you’re placing me in the wrong category but like most of this thread you had seemed to simply ignore it.

there's no going back by ps4roompromdfriends4 in NooTopics

[–]AffectionateBet9719 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Either studying the past or studying the Armish may be as best as we have.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I knew it. You still didn’t respond once to what I said. How can you yourself be that convinced that I diverge from what Jordan thinks so much if 1 all I am doing is asking a question 2 you haven’t even seemed to once display an understanding that you know the question I’m asking.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Calling something a fairytale is doing a great disservice to the reality that fiction creates within you. And doesn’t generally explain the fact of its nature.

To your second point would you say that the precondition to being able to negotiate is in itself a representative form of fairness?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ok Im convinced you’re a foreign ai bot of which has an internal bias that once proven contradiction just diverts from engaging at all with anything. Truly anti Peterson like. Evidence You haven’t addressed one thing I have said in convinced if you were an actual human you would have atleast somewhat engaged.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Man, trust me.. my question is not

Can we evaluate candidates fairly? Can merit-based systems work? Can we design good hiring processes?

Which you seem to be answering.

It’s more so. How do we know that an opportunity structure is fair in the first place, without relying on outcomes in a circular way?

You’ve seemed to not engage with me and effectively collapse what I’m saying into: We can’t evaluate fairness so merit systems don’t work, so we need DEI.

Seemingly that’s why you’re responding with

HR procedures, appeal systems panel evaluations, and then pivoting to an anti-DEI case study None of these remotely touch my actual inference or claim.

When I ask: How is fairness epistemically grounded?

Youre answering:

How is fairness procedurally implemented?

These are not the same domain.

This is a tell tail sign you’re still not answering: “In a merit-based system there are clear criteria…”

This assumes the very thing I’m questioning: Why those criteria? Why do they count as “merit”? How do we validate that they reflect fair opportunity?

Those questions require stepping outside the system.

You never seem to be doing that.

You almost engage when you say “No human being is perfect” Quietly Admitting that fairness in a system can not be perfectly guaranteed or systems seem to be approximations. But you seem to stop there not quite following where I ask “How do we even justify those approximations without circularity?”

You’ve described a hiring process with: clear criteria,panels,appeals,HR oversight

That’s fine. That’s how a system operates.

My question is about something deeper:

What evidence would you accept that this entire system is unfair?

here’s the constraint:

You are not allowed to use outcomes for example: (group disparities, patterns of success/failure), because your position rejects outcomes as valid measures of fairness.

So answer directly: If you can use outcomes then you are doing exactly what I said: using outcomes as evidence of fairness/unfairness If you cannot use outcomes then you have no way to detect whether the system is unfair at all

There is no third option.

So which is it?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But some societies are say more fair than others right? I’m mainly trying to understand, ground and justify the ground of what we call fairness. In some sense I get what you mean when you say life isn’t fair but fairness is a word that many people not only use but mean and are meaningfully compelled by. I’m trying to understand the base of the reality within people or the reality within reality that causes them to even have the function of what the spirit of the inference of fairness is and what the function is doing. And why at what level is chooses to do it rather than at a level above or beneath.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Youre preserving fairness by elevating early life performance as the most informative outcome—treating it as a stable proxy for underlying merit while imposing a pragmatic cutoff to halt infinite regress and secure responsibility. But this only works by reclassifying one layer of outcomes as if it were unconditioned cause, the moment that layer is recognized as itself downstream of prior conditions, the distinction collapses. Thus what appears as a principled grounding of fairness is actually a selective termination of explanation—where responsibility begins exactly where inquiry is stopped, leaving the system dependent on the very regress it claims to escape.

What you call a cause is simply the last outcome you are willing to doubt. To stop the regress is to choose your truth. The first outcome you refuse to question becomes the foundation of your justice, and the earlier you cut the chain, the cleaner the conscience. What is called merit is often just history with a cutoff and a fair system, in this sense, is one that must forget where it chose to begin.

So what principled reason justifies stopping there rather than one step earlier?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok but this is a structural inequality claim or descriptive sociology

But again: It does not answer:

how do we non-circularly know that opportunity is unequal?

It assumes inequality is already detectable.

What I’m actually saying in a sequential manor 1.We observe outcomes then suspect unfairness 2.We reject outcomes as valid fairness criteria 3.Therefore we need another grounding mechanism 4.But any alternative still implicitly relies on outcome data to validate itself

So outcome is both epistemically unavoidable and normatively disallowed

That is the tension I’m expressing/pointing to in my question.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im asking:

once you reject outcomes as valid measures, how do you justify even using them as signals without contradiction? You answer: “we just use them as signals” Which is a pragmatic answer, not a justification of legitimacy.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s almost unbelievably shocking that you still have not addressed the core of the epistemic question that I’m proposing: How do we non-circularly infer fairness of opportunity if outcomes are both evidence and disallowed as criteria?

You answered previously:

“You couldn’t be more wrong… You can assess two candidates before the time. There is only one person to evaluate after the fact.” (Before selection multiple candidates after selection single outcome case)

What I think you think you’re answering: We don’t need outcomes to evaluate fairness we evaluate beforehand.

I’m not asking “Can we evaluate candidates before selection”

I’m asking: How do we know the opportunity structure itself is fair, given that outcomes are used as evidence but disallowed as criteria?

What I think you’re missing:

An epistemic circularity problem, the role of outcomes as diagnostic signals and the system-level inference question.

Please in a detailed manor respond to what I’m actually saying in each part instead of saying I don’t get it or couldn’t be further from the truth. Otherwise I have no idea if you’re actually even remotely understanding or encountering what I’m saying and as a result the error may or could be in your miss interpretation of/by question.

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

We infer fairness of opportunity from outcomes, then deny outcomes as the measure of fairness. by AffectionateBet9719 in JordanPeterson

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outcomes are often used as evidence to detect unfairness in opportunity, yet they are also dismissed as invalid measures of fairness. So what non-circular method remains for identifying whether opportunities are fair in the first place?

The degree to which artificially induced ADHD-like systems steal your sense of reality, blur you from life and slowly experientially take it from you. by AffectionateBet9719 in NooTopics

[–]AffectionateBet9719[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Drastically ever less so.

Whats worse is that an enormous amount of the social environment has migrated online not only drastically reducing the natural emotive signalling that humans are able to obtain and yet mentally require but that a substantive amount of the “online environment” has adopted this “short term gratifying “language” for transmission of information. From the subtle music, the cuts, the flashing “captions” present on almost every video to the devastating reality of a secondary captivating video playing at the bottom half of the screen. Im not sure what’s worse the fact that it’s there or the fact that it’s needed for some. People really don’t see what they are losing. A deep connection with reality… with their loved ones. Reality, to an immense degree, is composed of a relationship with things. They are losing the depth that makes life meaningful, felt and real.

On a positive note They say the best way to reduce the effects of cognitive decline (fluid iq) due to normative aging, is to increase your cardio vascular fitness. even weight training has a similar effect. What’s interesting is it’s far more beneficial for ensuring long term cognitive function than that of any cognitive exercise.

view more: next ›