Jordan Peterson - Poverty causes crime? Wrong! - The Gini coefficient 

@@yeahsteeeve I have and loved it

Yes that's right!

Bingo immigrant here too

It's cause they poor relative to their country, not yours. If you're at the bottom of any society, doesn't matter how rich it is, you wouldn't be happy about it. And also while women can marry up in the hierarchy, men can not.

What country are you from? Just curious about using this example in a future debate.

Roland Carver almost as if a large majority of them are poor and are gonna stay that way at least for now.

Seth Africa still exists?

Please be safe!

@Roland Carver they account for for 80% of population of cause.

South africa is one of the most unequal societies. Most of the wealth is concentrated in 2 groups, whites and politicians (including blacks).....crime thrives in unequal places like ours.

I think the amount of things available now. I was born in Chicago suburbs in 87. We had a few malls spread out with a few stores. I didn't get a home computer until 1999. My mom worked for Kraft and I was the first of my friends to get a cell phone because Kraft gave them to employees for cheap and my mom worked a lot and used it to keep taps on me . But soon everyone had cell phones , soon everyone had internet. Soon there were malls everywhere and then eBay and Amazon and commercialism everywhere. New restaurants constantly opening. As I shop for my son (who is half Guatemalan and his family expects us to be super rich) I see all these toys that just wasn't available when I was a kid. So much just literal crrappy poorly made expensive toys. A giant part of economics is aimed at kids. Because my son is adorable and knows how to manipulate his grandma. Luckily he is tiny and he is almost 6 but has had the same clothes for years. Inflation on another note since 9/11 Before flights were cheap. Food has gone up. In 2008 I worked at a gas station to get thru college and gas was $5 a gallon. Prices for just about everything are insane. Cars use to be affordable. Health insurance use to be free thru work now deductibles are about $6000 for a good PPO plan if you have multiple illnesses. It's all insane. Divorces are insanely expensive. Some prices have gone down like computers touch screen TV tablets but do we need all this crap. I know so many people that have never left their parents house in their 30s but always have the latest fashion and tech. Plus the price of University!!! And the insane amount of interest. I was in school but it the graduation date got pushed back due to me being hit by a car. Somehow this didn't matter to the government and in 3 years j got charged $100,000 in interest.

Vociferon Herald of the Winter Mist somewhat. Many don’t go to church; believe in God; no love for their neighbors; believe no harm in lying; no moral compass

The last few decades as you put it, people attendance in Church has drop by 70 %% and the US crimes rates have dropped by 50% go figure www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

@@mrgetrealpeople Do you mean crime rates have INCREASED by 50%??

​@@Sionnach1601 no crime is at a 50 year low!

You arent normally flattered?

Ditto

Bc its easier than getting their lives together

Because labeling people makes it easier to hate them. You see it on both sides with name calling like "far-right morons" and "libtards". Peterson is actually more left leaning but there are people out there who would be unwilling to accept that there could be people on their side of political spectrum who disagree with them and their world views. Unfortunately the "with me or against me" mentality is very strong in society right now.

Only the delirious lefties call Jordan Peterson "extreme rightwing". For these zealots anyone to the right of Mao and Stalin is rightwing.

@@georgesomething What makes you think Peterson is left-leaning?

@@missbumblebee8633 Because he is a classical liberal, and he has said so himself too. A Classical liberal is someone who believes that individual rights, private property and free market should be the most important, that individual merit and willpower should be the deciding factors for achievements. They believe that state should have as little involvement in social and economical life as possible and should only provide individual rights and common laws that protect from wrongs committed by other citizens. Peterson probably got the biggest flak from Canadas gender pronoun law, which made people think that he is somehow against LGBT community. Well, he is not, and as far as I can tell, never has been against LGBT. What he protested was exactly something a classical liberal would - he protested the state interfering in social life trough forcing forms of pronouns trough law. Another reason why Peterson might seem right-wing today is because right now social liberalism is the dominant ideology of the left. Social liberalism is directly opposing to classical liberalism in that it wants the state to directly interfere in both social life, private property distribution and market trough law in pursuit of egalitarianism. I personally really struggle to call something that wants to directly control how you talk as liberal and it sounds to me more like something a totalitarian regime would do but hey, some people seem to want that.

Brutus Tan And it's absolutely critical to running a society. Basically most of our civilization is built upon the works of men who were striving for achievements in order to impress women. Remove this incentive structure and everything falls apart. A place in which destructive "bad boy" behavior gets you laid is in deep trouble. Similarly, I think the dating model of the 1950ies was quite a good thing. One needed to ask a girl's father for permission to date her. So if one wanted to get laid, one had to have one's act together, with a car and a job. That was quite a useful mechanism to channel male ambitions into constructive pathways, quite beneficial to society.

That makes sense. One could say that even in rigid cultures like Saudi Arabia men have to provide or get left on the side. If you've got means- you get multiple wives which means all of their offspring are provided for. On another note- considering the tenents of evolutionary biology, it's not surprising to discover that girls on collehe campuses are feeling threatened- by real or imagined circumstances. No one is looking out for their best biological interests- & by no one I mean society, their peers or their parents. I mean every song they listen to & every bad peice of advice given to them in sex ed from the age of 10 onward. A loud & sluttish minority has spoken for women for the last 3 generations negating natural female modesty in youth. So now girls get liquored up just so they can act like males- just like the society at large encourages them to do.

True, the power dynamics especially on campuses have changed a lot, ironically to the detriment of the young women there. These young women used to hold some power as gatekeepers of the limited resource that used to be sex. They didn't give it away easily, and were also outnumbered by men. Those men thus tried quite hard to appease the few women. That was good for everyone, as they mostly tried to appease and impress them in constructive ways - as high performers in whatever they were doing. Since the 1980ies this has changed completely. In many colleges there are now 60 women for every 40 men. Combine this with things like tinder, and the bargaining power that one gets from being a gatekeeper to sex approaches zero. It used to be men competing for scarce women. Now it's the other way around, and that has profound consequences. Perhaps some modern developments even are counter-strategies to this. While sex is easily available for men on a campus, it has become quite dangerous to make use of these opportunities, with title IX kangaroo courts and ever strictening affirmative consent regulations etc. I think it's quite possible that these things were at least subconsciuosly created to discourage the now scarce men from making use of the ample opportunities for cheap sex.

Hate to break it to you, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that people are having more sex now than in 1910, per capita. It just wasn't talked about as much. Read any analysis of ancient societies and you find political leaders having affairs, men and women sneaking off in the night to elope, and the occasional orgy. The "gatekeeper of sex" theory is basically a way for people that don't like some good ol' free love to make it sound like a new thing. There is, however, an interesting article that was printed in a UK journal about a decade ago entitled "more sex is safe sex." It basically took some of your premise about sex and risk and looked at it through the lens of behavioral economics. Basically, scare tactics meant to prevent people from having sex like religious shaming, claims of dangerous disease bypassing prophylactics and antiquated ideas like yours, to be frank, were more likely to scare off the most responsible and intelligent people. It's the risk averse a/k/a the cautious individuals who think the risks posed by these tactics are too great. It's the fools who don't care and go anyways. The problem is the fools aren't scared to have sex, but they also don't want their experience limited by a condom. They don't care enough to inform sexual partners when they get diagnosed with HIV. Indeed, by scaring the responsible people away the pool of possible sexual partners gets objectively worse. Instead, encouraging more sex with proper precautions should be done in order to increase the number of responsible candidates in the sexual pool.

_"Hate to break it to you, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that people are having more sex now than in 1910, per capita. "_ -> I guess by "more sex" you mean things like "more extramarital sex", as it's completely irrelevant to the subject how much sex married couples have. Well..no doubt it happened back then too, but i would consider the increasing amount of children being born out of wedlock despite of contraceptives having become available to be pretty strong evidence that the amount of extramarital sex has increased quite a bit since 1910. _" The "gatekeeper of sex" theory is basically a way for people that don't like some good ol' free love to make it sound like a new thing."_ -> That gatekeeper of sex thing is about who uses what strategies one uses to get laid, and how often they are successful. It's about rewarding those strategies that are usful instead of destructive to society. _"Indeed, by scaring the responsible people away the pool of possible sexual partners gets objectively worse."_ -> Agreed, it's mostly the idiots who breed like rabbits. That's a huge problem, and on the long run i am afraid we will need to resort to eugenics.

I believe at the time it was $30k a year

TJ Edwards Lol I’m guessing your a first timer lol he doesn’t have students idiot he gets payed by certain colleges if so give me the link I would like to sign up

can you imagine having to study for an exam from his class though? lol. Can you even take notes on what he is saying in this video??

@@nn-nu8hf not that complex tbh. Pretty intuitive

Inner Wisdom “he doesn’t have students” he was a professor at Toronto. When he broke out and became famous he lost his job because of the disruption. There is a movie on it.

And also the best Coke ad I’ve ever seen.

and the best

best comment I've ever seen

That's uncalled for, he's trying to keep his addiction private.

Man. I wish I'd seen this before I wrote my comment. Two logans both read this as a coke commercial.

Much more educated young men and women, I in my 20's find it very disheartening that things have gotten so bad so quickly. I did see things like what we're seeing today eventually happening growing up as I watched how the world slowly evolved, but geez this is just wrong on every lv.

I probably still would have skipped out.

Okay virgin

@UFHoee a PhD is a doctorate level degree

Would suck, the guy takes way too long to get to his point. He looks like he is either about to fall asleep, or cry half the time, and I don't trust anyone who drinks a coke zero as if that was actually a healthy fucking thing when it's not.

Or the "cités" on France

Are you by any chance Brazilian?

Great

@@Ellie60091 Well, I think he is.

@Rafael Silva hahahahaha you never know

Gg man u beat the game, now go listen to dreamscape as the credits roll

...and clean your room!

Go rescue the snakes from the belly of the lobster

The RU-vid algorithm has been stuck recommending me the same video clips of the Jordan Peterson Joe Rogan interview for several weeks now. I think my watch history, and my comment history, is so spicy that I maxed out the algorithm, and the most controversial thing that the algorithm can suggest to me is Jordan Peterson combined with Joe Rogan, and it recommends it after every video.

@@scottcantdance804 I still get that video called something like "They tried to stop me but they weren't successful" or that cathy newman interview. Sometimes I get the exact same video several times in the recommendations.

This is what those well-shielded theorists like Peterson don't get.

Peterson, and all scientists, really, are dealing with numbers on a huge scale and in a very general way. Yes, he said that you can break down the Gini coefficient to a neighborhood, but then on what sort of time scale? You look at a neighborhood during a heat wave and there is less crime because science has shown that above a certain temperature, when people can't afford AC and other cooling means, they grow listless and things stop. Try that same neighborhood at 70 degrees and there might be tons of crime. It's almost impossible to take EVERY variable into EVERY circumstance.

@@Comicsluvr Peterson and scientist shouldn't be in the same sentence. Scientists get their facts right. He's a right-wing ideologist who has been caught bending facts to suit their agenda many, many times.

Yes, there is a way in which your argument is true. If civil society suddenly collapses and no one can buy food anymore, whatever food is left is going to be fought over, to the death if necessary. Cannibalism will also happen in these cases. That certainly is a kind of crime. And as to your situation,I think that has more to do with the lack of a civil culture in your neighborhood growing up. There was a celebrated philosopher who lived in China. He was raised by a widow and they had next to nothing. His mother realized that their neighbors are not exactly the right companyfor her son if he was going to have a better life, so she did EVERYTHING in her power to move him out of the neighborhood and to live next to scholars and other learned men, at great expense to herself. So I’m not saying your conclusions based on your childhood are wrong. There are definitely ways to fall in with the wrong people if you’re desperately poor. I have been to DESPERATELY poor third world villages but everyone in the villages were bound by collectivist, Confucianist principles. There is hardly any crime. But that isn’t the situation in the West and certainly not the kind of situation people talk about when they say “poverty causes crime”.

@@aceyage He literally, by definition, is a scientist. Let's not get in a game of semantics.

No, because he's actually wrong, and also being incredibly subjective. His thinking is shite. Proven again and again. He couldn't reason his way out of a chocolate chew

Like you could recognise genius, John? The biggest criminals are the rich. For constantly manipulating everybody. They created religion, dreamt up 'free will' garbage, why? To manipulate the poor. They exploit the poor, just as they exploit the planet, just as they exploit the system (that they, themselves, created in the first place!). He SHOULD know this by now. Here, read my book that I just finished writing: Zen And The Art Of Saving Life On Earth ( t.co/ntbTadwAcM?amp=1*). It's FREE. *Enjoy.*

JP is overrated.

@@frootkreem2579, you've got to love when people say someone's wrong, but provide zero evidence to support their claim.

@@TheTruthHurts732 yeah, he does it so often I cant believe people listen to a word he says. I'm glad someone else is in here who can see thru JP. Just yelling something is wrong over and over again doesn't make it so!!!!

no

More then this

Of course the French revolution was just a bunch of whiny snowflakes

Congratulations, you've missed the point of the lecture!

Yes, but it's much much deeper than that

I think the “relativity” extends even beyond the city. Through social media, TV, and other entertainment, people can see how “the standard American” is living their life. Obviously this isn’t as large an effect as a direct geographic comparison, but it should still factor in. Geographically, I think the area in which they live their life is the correct radius. Where do they get groceries? Where do they drive to work? What sports stadiums do they attend/see? What buildings do they notice? Why bars/clubs do you find in nightlife? The approx. 10 min driving radius (varies) in which you life your life would most likely be the appropriate radius to measure since it had a direct visual/social representation. Not sure if this makes it self fulfilling or not, just my thoughts.

I think Shane is right that the radius of the perception of people is never that small. JP talks about the guy he talked to who is upset that his room mate back in college is now way more successful, and the room mate is Elon Musk. The number of people I see upset that Jeff Bezos is rich and getting richer is astonishing. Also, I believe you'll find more heterogeneity in that 2 mile radius than in a suburb. The risk-reward for crime like stealing is so much higher. Those who do it kind of successfully are able to make themselves look richer than those who don't.

I'm sure that without careful consideration of one's methodology one could easily gerrymander an unusual boundary. However I understand that the GC is based on population not physical space. You draw your lines, check pop density, pop demographics such as crime rate, salaries and disparity and punch out a result. Including, say, suburbs into the city will change the pop financial demographics, but it will also change the crime demographics significantly. So it will, on average and assuming no gerrymandering, come out to be fairly reasonable.

That said, the GC is only a model and all models have their limits and uses and potential misuses.

I think you made a mistake. You assumed that the crimes would take place in a 2 mile radius area - you cannot assume that. For example, this area would be the poorest one, therefore it makes sense that most of the crimes would take place outside of this area. Again, this is about an empirical work, you cannot assume anything.

That word is the whole core of communism.

They are the real rats, ratchits, and gettos, ...passive aggrisive behavioural disorder people!

Nah, it's a symptom.

@@mohal-sal3998 As a macro indicator, yes. At personal level the story is more complex. It is a mindset.

Glad somebody said it

Agreed

Mic drop

dr. Hare professor of psychopathology keeps telling everyone, that numbers of ASPD at the top professions CEOs, Politicians etc is pretty high. They’ve tested CEOs of large corporations and many scored pretty high on the spectrum.

The only agenda of JP is defending power and money at all costs... yet another argumentative defense of the psychopaths in power... "if they really were psychopaths society would collapse" bs

That totally depends on how the relative poverty got established.

Or lack of justice in the distribution of wealth....

"Comparison is the thief of joy"

@@singesinge23 What do you mean "lack of justice in the distribution of wealth". That sounds like a dangerous statement that is implying that equality of outcome should exist which is just all the way wrong.

@@hakshustletv I meant Justice, was the wealth earned by work and skills, or inherited from someone else, earned by cheating, lying, robbing, stealing. Has the common rules been followed and are those law just and fair, or were those also cheated and stolen in their legislation. Justice, not envy nor equality of outcome...

China being a tightly controlled police state with heavy propaganda would explain it to certain extent. But underlying aggression and pent up anger is there in China, it's just that Communist party is trying their absolute best to either re-direct it to the common enemy outside or keeping people under illusion of "work hard and you can make it" mentality through propaganda.

rockster10101 lmao, no. its because of corrupt policing and totalitarian state. They dont report the actual crimes, because many go under the radar. Nice try at the racism tho

are you from China? I'm curious to know if youve had first had experience of the influence of propaganda etc within the country

Dan H I would say that hard punishment enforced by a STRONG State would explain the absence of violent crimes in China that you just described, or at least partially... Most of the countries in which high violent crime rates and harsh punishment are found together, are also countries with weak State structures, which means that those States can't guarantee their Monopoly over legit coercion... but that's just my impression. Regards! :-)

Perhaps China is different because A. They aren't as superficial as the West and consumer goods don't affect people's perception of social order as much B. The Chinese social structure presents an opportunity for advance. China is growing quickly, so even an opportunity to become less poor is important because it makes people feel like they have advanced and that the social structure still works. In the West (USA), Violent behavior begins when social advancement stagnates and the youth don't see a plausible route to acquiring some sort of "dominance" or growth within the social structure. The resulting behavior from a broken structure is hyper aggression. The two important factors here are wealth disparity and the social structure growth opportunity.

1931? This dudes nearly 90 years old.

I grew up in Toronto too, and remember hearing people tell me about keeping their car windows rolled down so they wouldn't come back to having it broken. Not that anything could be stolen, since nothing was worth taking. I remember thinking what kinda fever dream world that was, cause now you have crackheads stealing a wheel off your bike (who the hell has money for a car?) or unscrewing the bell. Anything for their ten bucks / next crack hit, or to give a FU to the person who locked up their only means of transportation outside their shared bachelor unit in a bedbug infested apartment on Sherbourne.

BRUH

bro r u still alive?

@@j29o23 Not quite dead yet. And since I wrote that, I have acquired a stent in the main heart artery and a cardiac pacemaker. I had a job offer to advise on flood control in an Asian city. But, since everything is locked down, if I sill have a job, I may be 90 before the work is finished.

That's why "Thou shalt not covet.." is a commandment...along with "Thou shalt not drive slowly in the left lane!"

@@thomasmulhall4873 Revelation 22:18.

He is getting around to saying there should be nothing to covet or be envious of.

And yet the American culture that the Christian Right advocates for is premised on coveting.

@@wunnell Wrong. It's the left that wants to implement communism because they're jealous of all the wealthy ppl

John Blackstone very true. I have opted to leave social media (except RU-vid) altogether; because of the comparisons I made to others, leading me to either pride or jealousy.

My life has become considerably less stressful since I stopped using social media. I would recommend giving it a shot.

You shouldn't care what they have and don't have.

@@runreilly Exactly as the guy on your profile picture would put it.

Leaving social media as a method to curb your feelings of anger due to things outside your control is akin to running away from the problem versus addressing the underlining issue that resides in you.

If I win the lottery and you’re not my mom ,sister or wife it’s a bullet youre catching

So why is the rate of crime unequal around the world?

@@laurencedavey3121 Because the distribution of those people is unequal. There are far more criminal types in the USA than Canada. Not Canada's fault.

@@edwardheaney3641 you're a genius, well done

If you use the word "types" arent there the same types everwhere?

@@NEMoretime There are many types of brass doorknob. Doesn''t mean wooden doorknobs are made of brass.

@@alexanderpalermo-wylde55 i am saying it in this way, as i understand that *differences* in hierarchy and wealth, as jordan is explaining, is the cause of crime jealousy is that emotional factor which is the driving force that would explain why one these differences push these people to commit the crime. in other words its not poverty itself that fuels crime, rather "perceived" or relative poverty, which is the rot of jealousy. im not sure what i am missing here in this summary to be honest. could you maybe expand on what your take is, i would be interested, thanks!

@@alexanderpalermo-wylde55 thanks, its nice (and rare) nowadays to see people changing their mind, props to you. I guess a higher percentage of those people will be peterson followers :) good luck to you!

@Michael Edwards thanks i wasnt aware of that subtle difference.

This is why communism is created. To make people less envious and has less crime. But some politcal figures use communism wrong in a sense like Joseph Stalin.

@@revenant1092 The idea seems good, but the problem is you aree jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, as a controlled society is much more vulnerable to despots and dictatorships, which just leaves everyone all round miserable. just look at the new "country" Chaz in inner city seattle, or venezuela for a bigger example.

@@tokenwhiteguy8491 Indeed, they already try it without a political career.

The problem is exactly that people look to the government to fix their problems.

@@tomayto70 I don't want the government to fix any of my problems. I want them to fix the mess they created that gives me and other Americans problems. To many regulations and way too many departments ran by non-elected officials who make rules that are enforced as law. But we need good people in there too fix the crap that's already been messed up. Just like our 2nd amendment that ends in shall not be infringed yet that is exactly what is happening. The same as freedom of speech and expression being ignored and people get charged with disorderly conduct because an officer doesn't like whatever they are doing. If people like Peterson was in government I'm sure everyone would know about 18 USC 242 and would just press felony charges on all those who violate our rights but instead we get fed the same stories every four years and nothing changes except more rules, regulations, and taxes.

They are not going to fix what they like cmon man it keeps them having power over us.

Governments are kind of part of the problem though. I'd rather have him on the outside of it to keep it in check. I think if he was actually in the government he'd have been killed by now lol

You are right, the title misleads

Like they did with hip-hop?

Nobody rewards aggression. They're afraid of it and give in.

@@teamcoalhapcharcoal that's still a reward for the aggressive person since he got what he wanted and he/she is encouraged to continue behaving this way in the future.

@@teamcoalhapcharcoal There's a generation growing up with video games where aggression is rewarded the most. I am old and play video games so I know.

The level of organization of a culture sets the society up to punish violence and reward hard work. Japan, South Korea, Germany, many more. Maybe "level of organization" is simplistic, but I think that heterogeneity of culture is a recipe for less punishment for violence and less reward for hard work. Multiculturalism in the US was very low in the 50s and has been growing since the 60s. No doubt good has come of it, but I think it is confusing our punishment+reward structure. Why did single motherhood go up so intensely since the civil rights movement? Both in whites (3% to like 16% now) and blacks (13% I think to about 70%). Maybe "don't judge" is a terrible plan, and respectable cultures have long known that broken window theory is right. Which came first, the crime rates or the absence of sophisticated businesses that want to set up shop where there are high crime rates? I'm just looking at what is rewarding bad behavior from one angle.

Jmachine4 or Sam Harris

He has been a teacher for a long time haha

95% of people in the world are shit public speakers Most good public speakers have years of practice behind them. That's what I've noticed

@@juswolf22 Harris is a good speaker with little to say. Once a person suggests that science can answer the moral questions of right and wrong they lose my interest. Harris would say that pastors have nothing to say about science. If that is true, once he steps into the field of morality, he has no valid input.

He could sell you anything because he speaks with a lot of conviction, but as a citizen of a third world country in one of the most dangerous and crime ridden areas of the world I can tell you he's full of shit. He himself has an agenda and I don't think he even knows what he's talking about, because if he is in fact saying that inequality not poverty is the root of crime, he is in fact agreeing with socialists on that the equal distribution of wealth would be beneficial for society (fun fact: it's not)

exception not the rule

Degrees are like toilet paper. (I'm not getting at you, I spent a decade getting degrees myself 😂).

I guess that was because of your mother's values and intelligence.

@@veronicavillagomez8848 Or his hardwork.🙄

Or all 3

More like... stealing from the Joneses and anyone else I can get it from!

Depends on the country. This is probably the case in Nordic countries where inequality is less. But more like serf and kings in countries with high inequality like America.

@@MBOgonnaPWNu Actually, no. Relative poverty does not necessarily force country-wide income distribution. Analysis on relative poverty can be done using average median income of a state, or a city as well. Thus, relative poverty is, technically, how well-off you are compared to your "neighbors". Just depends on how wide you define your "neighbors" to be.

Link in the description.

Link??

What's wrong with violent social upheavals? Seems to me that's exactly what we need.

@@squatch545 Violence causing suffering, injury, and loss of life, the destabilizing effect on society, hindering economic and social development, the potential for long-term negative consequences, such as the emergence of authoritarian regimes, and the erosion of the rule of law as violence undermines social order.

@@At0micMeltd0wn That's exactly what fascists say. They want violence all to themselves; they want to be the ones destabilizing society; they want to be the only legitimate authoritarian regime; and they want to be the ones who define what social order is.

Watch the full lecture...

The full lecture is listed in the description dude ..

LOL

You can look up Jordan Petersons youtube channel->full lectures

@@unicorntelecoms4387 bruh just listen at the end, it's a joke

The Lobster King vs. The Dominant Turkey

>:|(

Same difference 😆

Sounds like a good summary to me. I would add that I grew up in the early 70s when there was no mass media as we have now so we had no real time information on how rich other people were. We were all working class, reasonably comfortable and we weren't fed "aspirational" lifestyles by mass media. There was very little crime and hardly any murder.

So then one might argue: what is it that causes that person to think that they have no way of competing with the dominance hierarchy?

@@lewisner If your talking about the US the crime rate was higher in the 70s

@@mcr2356 No. I am British. To be fair , there probably was crime in my local area but we never heard about it. And of course we don't have guns.

@@lewisner I'm British as well. Crime has fallen in the UK, especially violent crime. A lot of peeple think it was safer back in the day, but if you look at the figures it's the other way round. I think your right about more likely to hear about it as well.

ACE PA- TRI-CIA Hine's-sight Well no you are not the only one who sees poverty in the world. You do however make a mistake when you you think that everything should be free. If everything was free then we would not appreciate it. Take Oxygen as an example. Oxygen is our most valuable resource, yet most people do not think of it like that because it is a free resource. The same applies to every thing else. If you did not have to work to get something you would not appreciate it. Also there are homeless shelters and charities you can donate to or even volunteer for if you want to.

ACE PA- TRI-CIA Hine's-sight Well the shelter I worked at gave you stay if you volonteered for 1 hour during the day. Why your shelter asks for money I do not know, however most shelters I have worked at don't ask you anything.

ACE PA- TRI-CIA Hine's-sight Also it costs money to run a shelter. Ever considered that the shelters did not have sponsorship.

TwoNiStop he's fucking stupid dude don't listen to Jordan Peterson

TwoNiStop yeap lol

Schadowization Productions, exactly. He makes a lot of assumptions and is quick to assign causality

Exactly. I get the difference but the difference he highlights simply accentuates the left wing arguments. Instead of pushing for the abolition of poverty the left are now pushing for a flattening of income thanks to this classification.

@@feixjones I understand that fear. But he is not arguing that we abolish free market systems and capitalism. He is not offering any potential solutions within this clip. Although, I imagine that some left leaning people may attempt to use this as an argument as you say. As long as an individual does this with logic and traditional debate then this is fine, as Peterson suggests you can make an argument against traditional conservative views here aswell as against more socialist left views. If you take socialism to the extreme, for example, then we already know of the terrors (100 million plus deaths and counting) it brings about. Clearly, extreme socialism is not the answer. Even if you only apply some level of socialist incentives we know of the potential dangers. Giving every citizen $1000 every month has a negative impacts on the economy. Firstly, it has a high cost. Additionally, it destroys the market through a large proportion of people becoming unwillingly to work, unemployment rises and businesses, local communities and the economy are impacted. We also know of the potential problems of even providing benefits to some individuals. It appears that the benefits provided to single parents for child care and tax exemptions seemingly incentivise being a single parent. Single parenthood within the black community is at a higher rate currently than it was during the time of American black slavery when it was illegal for black people to be together as a family. The rise in single parenthood is probably one of the most important issues facing humanity. Though, this is an extremely complex issue and I do not believe we know of the most successful strategy for providing some socialist benefits in conjunction with providing people with the most freedoms possible. Are you going to provide no benefits for some disabled individuals? Seems like a bad idea. Whilst providing everyone with benefits seems to be problematic and even in between the two strategies. Now if you identify the benefits of capitalism, whilst it does create income equality it has caused the most good in the world (raised the most people out of absolute poverty, medical advancements, technological advancements, quality of life and prolonged life improvements. A thought experiment, if you could double the salaries and wealth of every individual and if the individuals are extremely poor you just provide them with $20,000 then what you have done is vastly increased income inequality however the income inequality in itself is not a problem. Unless of course this increase in inequality causes this problem of the Gini coefficient. This is money would have been gained through no advancement in taking personal responsibility and hard work. This is partially why I believe in the positive outcomes of children raised by two parent families. If you are not aware of the literature surrounding this topic then I would suggest that you read about it if it interests you. (This also applies in education). If teachers and parents could choose to double the learning gains every year in every student then we would certainly take it. But what we would achieve is an incredible increase in the student achievement gap. The student achievement gap in itself is not the problem, it is low levels of learning as no one could deny that if we double the learning of every individual every single year then we have made an incredibly positive impact within education. In the same way, poverty and children raised in single parent families are the largest problems not income equality. It is worth noting that the previous sentence appears to contradict the argument put forward in the video. However, I am not denying that increases in crime come from increases in relative poverty and not just poverty. This is what the data shows and I believe this to be true. Furthermore, the clip did not take Into account the factors of single parent families and two parent families which I believe that the benefits of every child in a country being raised by two parents would counteract and reduce crime rates even with high relative poverty rates. Maybe the positives of capitalism outway the negative impacts of relative poverty and they most certainly do in my opinion. However, this does not really provide any solutions. Peterson puts forward the assumption that increases in poverty is a direct consequence for an increase in criminal activity is actually incorrect and that relative poverty is a significant predictor of increases in crime, especially violent crime. I would say that is preferable to have knowledge of what appears to be our best truths of the present in this world rather than believing a myth or widespread falsity. Because of the benefits of capitalism I would not say that these findings are an argument against free markets. I would assume that if the rates of two parent families were extremely high within even higher than average Gini Coefficients for that country then the crime rate would not be as high as a society where the majority of children come from single parent families. I believe that you can vastly improve almost any problem or outcome within this world if you could increase the rate of two parent families. However, this seems to be a very complicated problem and difficult to achieve.

@Jay Smith Not just two-parent families, families with a mother and father. The absence of one leads to psychological issues later in life. For instance, men raised by lesbians have the same problems as men raised by single mothers. Girls raised by two men have the same problems as girls raised by single dads.

This is THE WORST THING I've heard from Jordan. The thing people want, is not dominance, but a feeling of importance. You can get a feeling of importance from dominance, but it's not the only way. It's not about income inequality, it's about income mobility. It's not about where you're at in relation to others. It's about what you can do to improve your own situation. It's high self efficacy, not self esteem.

Covetousness.

...and both of them are forms of greed. The really strange thing is that a truly free-market system is the best system (note: I did not say perfect system) for keeping a balance that does not allow for a vertical differential. The system gives people the opportunity to move up as they are willing, and it does not allow for hoarding of resources at higher levels either. Socialistic governmental policies are some of the biggest culprits in creating an income inequality distribution that helps foment this violent effect, at both ends of the income spectrum.

Is the world a perfect meritocracy? Of course fucking not. Don't the poor in corrupt nations have reasons to hate and be jealous of the corrupt and well connected elite? It might be less true in our societies, but it still occurs here.

That is great personal advice, but horrible social thinking. The world is not a meritocracy, corruption exist, as so does injustice and crime. Many on the top break the rules and commit crime to get there or remain there. It is only fair to cry for justice. Most of the world is ruled by corrupt oligarchies and strongmen. The west is only marginally better at that.

Interesting point, but it seems impossible to objectively study what you describe e.g. those cultural influences / lies illustrating disparity where little or none exists

Yes way back then he was pretty obsessed with soda.

So what. It's America, that's how we do it here, is he supposed to lecture and give of his time for free, what would you have him do, does earning a dollar negate his words?

Ryan O'Leary 😁

Joe Tonner, please clarify.

@Saul Korzenecki but have you heard about New Coke? Gr8 stuff

people who get depressed should just try not feeling sad

KingHalbatorix that would help

Dr Peterson tells us in the damn lecture that fundamentally the issue is about access to women. If you can feed yourself and have an iphone but you see men above you in the hierarchy with more women available to them, your male primate brain is NOT content. It will find THE MOST efficient way to attract women at all costs.

That's LITERALLY what it was after world war 2. . . . Holy CRAP the shit that white people did to black people during that war? And after? Holy SHIT.

@Folk Aart I know I did not say that they were not. Peterson says that males that are more aggressive by nature are amplified by this so it still does play a factor into this role.

Matthew J Canty-Barnes what on earth are you talking about? There were NO blacks in Europe in 1945 and a handful of blacks in the US army. Stop believing everything you read, stupid.

@@gelbsucht947 a handful of blacks were a part of the US army. . . did you ever stop to ask : "Why" ?

@Folk Aart One of the most racist lies I've ever heard in my life. . .

The majority of Scandinavian Countries run a Social Democratic system this includes healthcare.In Britain in 2018 the difference between rich and poor has grown to big.Crime in the big cities is big and food banks for poor people are everywhere.We've had a Conservative government in charge for ten years and they are in denial.Hence the Brexit vote people have lost trust in their political leaders in the U.K.

@@foppo100 Hello, I am a bongaloid and I can tell you that we also have free healthcare and a very generous benefits system for people on the down and out, but the main difference between us and finland is that we have a lot more immigration from non-european countries

I just commented something similar in somebody else's comment but you put it much more eloquently. How do you think it could be possible to increase mobility though?

That's not an easy question but I guess high quality schooling would be a good start. Now it's not as simple as pouring more and more tax money into bad schools. I guess opening up competition on the school market by implementing a voucher system would produce better results.

There's no easy answer although you have a good understanding of the problem. The entire system of favouring rich over poor is a cornerstone of capitalism. Voucher schools increase economic distinction because they borrow from the collective (public education) and target a specific group thus creating a class. While there will always be class distinction, however the most stable and economically vibrant societies are those where the middle class is the largest. In this world these are many od the European countries, Japan and Canada with America falling behind. All democratic countries are socialist to some degree. The ones with the strongest middle class appear to have struck the best balance between overt socialist policies (like universal health-care) and wealthy elites.

Income mobility is not just a button with an upwards pointing arrow on it that you can push. A person’s ability to mobilize upwards economically is contingent upon his ability to readjust quickly. Not everybody has the same ability to do that, so you’re going to get people who are mobile and some that are not so mobile. Unless of course you institute some sort of redistribution system disguised as economic mobility.

That's why a public universal health-care system and public universal superior education is so important. That's why we have it in Europe. So you can have equality of opportunity instead of equality of resources, more meritocracy, and be a more peaceful society.

Hilarious considering how much he defends the status quo