Jordan Peterson - Equity and Equality of Opportunity

Peterson talks about the dangers related to equity and how it's been invalidated by historical data as a practical doctrine.

[yz]

Equality of outcome is impossible. Equality of opportunity is nessicery

[WPR]

This was good but we need more of this subject as the left is putting this equity idea in our schools' curriculum. Thanks

[cabbage]

I'd argue that even the idea of Equality of Opportunity is one that needs to be approached with some caution. It's only really possible to provide everyone with a very limited amount of Equality of Opportunity (things like equality before the law, equal access to certain services). But it's just not possible for different people to have the same _amounts_ and types of Opportunities in life. Why? Because Opportunities flow from Outcomes, rather than just vice versa. So as long as people freely achieve different outcomes, they (and their children) will have different amounts and types of Opportunities in life as a result.

[thevox]

A business hires a manager that is best qualified for the job. The business is successful and all the employees have job security. Another business hires based on the fact that they need to hire someone of a specific group, but has no real qualifications, business shuts down and everyone is out of a job. Which makes sense to do?

[mikekensington]

“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.” Thomas Jefferson

[mikekensington]

“Human beings are born with different capacities, if they are free, they are not equal, and if they are equal they are not free.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[hillbillycal]

Dear Dr. Peterson, I am taking a Psych in Ed course right now and they give an example of equity: "If a child has hearing loss include subtitles on video presentations."
Can you please explain why this isn't equitable?

[alians]

Sorry but i think the Cat logo just doesn't have any place on the video

[biscuitsalive]

its just a bit of common sense and logic shown here. But the pinko's just don't like logic much though do they. :(

[markanthony]

What about the extreme poor health outcomes for those in the lower class? They have no opportunity, especially in America, to advance or change their status, sometimes trapped by their own relief aids that disappear if they take a higher paying job.

[bukangor]

I could be wrong, but I think he's using the word "equity" incorrectly. unless I'm completely misinterpreting it, the definition of equity seems closer to equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. I agree with what he meant, but the word confusion bugged me a bit.

[joshuapowell]

But what does equality of outcomes mean?

[ChannelOne-]

Too bad we only got every fourth word of wisdom from Jordan. Darn it

[constantinethesecond]

The lucky people gifted with high IQ will always solve the problems quicker and easier than regular people. This gives them a ridiculous advantage and they will always get to the top first and have a higher income. Some say.. well if you have a low IQ just work hard. Okay. What if they guy with high IQ works hard too? Doesnt matter what you do, you will lose. This has negative effects on your socio economic status which will directly effect your mental health and brain chemistry.

[aterack]

What about community capitalism? Or a baseline equity? Not everyone is or deserves to be a rocket surgeon, and not everyone should be stuck pumping your lawn to make it by, saving to maybe get a higher education, simply put, scholarships aren't enough considering the amount of those and the amount of jobs requiring such education, and even if there was an exact amount, then what about those who then prove they weren't worthy of the job or even fail the school system for it, people can't be expected to gain scholarship from a special education school (little to none for academic prowess) and they also shouldn't be expected to be beat up and chased, being called gay all the time (I wasn't gay BTW) just to get an education that could lead to a scholarship, with stress of situation causing much degradation in informational absorption rates, so those willing to go through what those today do just to survive, should be able to save up money and get a higher education (current prices seem too steep to allow it to be socialized, simply put, everyone would want to go even when they didn't need to, or maybe even deserve to) we have many sources of energy that don't require massive input or resources to maintain or run, ones that aren't seen as pollutive (solar, wind..., nuclear, rather than any form of post modern solar like coal or fossil fuels), we have many forms of automation, why make people live in a system that makes them work when many of them don't have to? So many people want jobs to be created, its easy to create a job you don't need to, I could go around punching people who litter, and also not pick up the litter, this gives a job to those who clean the litter and also to the paramedics, I don't see a problem other than my fist getting g sore, do you? (I hope you do see a problem, I see many, I'm just trying to be funny) we live in a world where we can give people all the tools needed to prove themselves, a world where we can allow those who don't raise up to the bar, and who raise children who don't or can't either to show themselves, some of these people didn't ask to be born, we can give them options if they feel that there is a cycle that they can break, they can live a satisfying life and not need to pass their problems down to the rest of us, these people, once known, can even be given the help they need to love fulfilling lives and bring forth offspring that live up to societies standards, or even surpasses them, we can allow them to make a choice even, to help remove patterns and code from the populous that is deemed detrimental, though we don't have to go that far, as it is or boarders on eugenics, but we can at least allow them to choose a better life for their offspring, and the system for that needs to be improved too, foster care and related systems often have people just as abusive if not worse in them, and sometimes children end up in homes and situations worse then they left from

[mattbod]

Good points except when he starts talking about iq tests. As a psychologist he should know that it is a dubious form of test as there are many different forms of intelligence. To hint that you need 145 in an iq to be a success as a lawyer for example is absurd. The ability to recognize patterns and sequences does not necessarily mean you have the emotional intelligence and written and oral fluency to be a success there for example.

[SocraticPrivilege]

I doubt that I agree with the so-called "truism" articulated near the beginning of the video: "The interests of individuals and society are best served by opening the door to the participation of all who are qualified, regardless of attributes in domains that have nothing to do with the qualifications for the position."

For example, people don't usually get to keep their day jobs when they are caught committing serious crimes. However, if the crime has nothing to do with the person's occupation, then the attribute that has manifested itself in criminal activity has nothing to do with doing the job that the person normally does.


For a more specific example, suppose that a man is a skilled accounting clerk who isn't aware of or participating in any illegal activity at work, but he recently murdered his children, specifically because his girlfriend decided that she wanted to break up with him, and she anticipated that he would react in a hostile way if she disclosed the real reason, so she instead invented the pretext that there was some strong but unexplained incompatibility between her and his children, even though she actually liked his children very much. In that scenario, the door of a court of law should open, and later the door of a prison should open. For such a man to simply continue to participate as an accounting clerk might not serve the interests of individuals and society.


Does anybody disagree, with a reason for disagreeing?