This was instantly evident to me when I moved to America from a less rich country. The poor here live better or equally good as the middle class where I lived, yet they are ignorant of their blessings and still act poor and uncivilized. Poverty is mostly in the mind, not wallet.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
I'm so glad this conversation is happening. This is a topic that's been confusing me for decades. I was raised in absolute poverty. Having enough food to stave off hunger was a real concern. I never owned a new article of clothing. Everything that I wore was a hand-me-down or from the second hand store. We went dump picking on Saturdays to find furniture and to pick through the rotten produce thrown out by the grocery stores for something that could be trimmed up and made edible. This was a common way to live. But nobody did drugs or drank. People attended church often. Our houses were meager, but we kept everything very clean. We'd mend old, torn sheets to extend their life. We didn't suffer infestations of roaches or fleas and - if anyone allowed their home to fall into such disrepair, we'd chip in as a neighborhood hand help them clean up... once. If they let it go again, they'd be shunned. Children ran the streets in threadbare clothes, but we were safe and happy. Over the last few decades I've noticed a serious change in the impoverished. Lots of alcohol and drugs. They're immoral in their hearts and will lie, cheat, and steal anything that's not bolted down. We didn't lock our doors in our neighborhoods. (But everyone did have a gun.) Reputations for honesty and hard work ethic were everything and now that's just gone. Barter was a vital part of survival and, if you were a known liar or thief, nobody would work with you. It mystifies me that the left blames poverty for all evils of the world and I know that, just become someone is poor, doesn't mean they have to be immoral, dirty, or addicted. I remember doing a deep, spring clean of our stinky, moldy basement apartment. We bleached the walls. My mother dusted everything and meticulously cleaned the sofa we'd found on the side of the street and repaired. "Just because we're poor doesn't mean we have to live like pigs. We don't have much, but we should appreciate what we do have a take care of it." This was my mantra growing up. (Coming home and finding out that my mother had patched and pressed all of my torn jeans led to an epic fight. She couldn't comprehend how being shabby could be a style.) What the hell happened? Are people looking at social media and thinking that everyone has it better than them? Is that the problem?
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
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.
My father didn't have a lot of formal education but had a lot of wisdom acquired from years of observing his fellow man. One thing he made sure we knew growing up. If you are poor it might not be your fault or even in your control but being clean and being honest is always in your control.
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
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.
I may have reached the end of youtube, as there are no further recommendations. RUclips be like: That was the final video, congratulations. Go home now.
The RUclips 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.
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.
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.
Q: So the Gini coefficient, used to measure levels of relative poverty, can be used to measure any region of people, in terms of size; Prof Peterson gave the example of using it to measure anything from a street, to a city to an entire country. The Prof then went on to explain how areas with high levels of relative poverty (as measured using the GC) also have high levels of crime. Fine. So, let's say I'm a researcher and I use the GC to measure relative poverty in a particular city. I map my boundary and take my measurement. I find out that the city has high levels of relative poverty; I then look at the crime statistics for the city, relative to average crime levels for cities of the same nation, and conclude (unsurprisingly) that the crime level is also very high. So this city would seem to serve as an example of the link between high levels of relative poverty and crime. Now, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that within this city, most of the crime taking place (as a result of high levels of relative poverty, as per our GC analysis) in a small region within the city, in a relatively impoverished 2 mile radius (this seems a perfectly reasonable scenario to conceive, given the Prof's assertion that the crime occurring as a result of high relative poverty is usually carried out by aggressive men, who perceive no law-abiding way of lifting themselves up out of their relatively impoverished position in life). Unbeknownst to me, another researcher is working in the same region to also measure for any relation between relative poverty and crime. The other researcher sets up the boundary for their own analysis, but rather than using the city boundaries (as I did in my example), or using just one street, they decide to measure relative poverty in the same, aforementioned 2 mile radius. So the other researcher performs their analysis and finds that, using the Gini coefficient, that relative poverty in that 2 mile region is LOW (because everyone in that area is of a similarly low, social-economic standing) and yet... crime in that area is rife. Now, as the person who measured the CITY using the GC, it makes sense to me that there's crime because, in the context of the CITY, relative poverty is high (and so crime is high). BUT, as the researcher analysing the 2 mile radius area, there would seem to be no link between relative poverty and high crime, because the levels of crime are high in-spite of the low levels of relative poverty within that geographic area. Does this point to a fragility in measuring areas of people using the GC, or - in the real world - would the latter of the two researchers (i.e. the one who measured the 2 mile radius rife with crime), conclude that they simply need to broaden the boundaries of their geographic measurement area in order to establish relative poverty, and account for the high levels of crime within the originally measured area. And, if they were to do that, does that not become a bit of a fulfilling prophecy?
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.
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.
Its shocking how accurate he is in articulating his points. People who have experienced both type of poverty will tell you, relative poverty is worst. There is no humiliation that goes with absolute poverty. If you grew up in poverty, you wouldn’t even know you’re in poverty; its just the way things have always been for you. Relative poverty, lol, shits embarassing. All the kids in school know you’re poor because you wear payless shoes and not nikes. You wear the same pants for a week lolol hoping nobody notices.
I am from South america, in slums 99% people are honest workers, who dont have governmet help, people who live in almost extreme poverty. And just 1% are drug dealers who control the slums and threat the people with death and fear. So he is right, most people from poverty are not crminals.
I had the misfortune of living in a ghetto when I was severely ill and unable to work -- I don't know if I can buy that crime only happens when poor ppl see immediate income inequality. No one in that neighborhood had money, but damn near everyone stole. Honestly, the worst thing about poverty isn't not having shiny things, it's the people you are trapped with and systemic predation.
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”.
@@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.
@@11bornrich 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...
JP's a genius. His clarity of thinking is off the charts and his ability to communicate that clarity by using everyday examples and applications drives the resonating factor and engagement factor off the charts as well.
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.*
@@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!!!!
I was born in 1931 and lived in the east end of Toronto between Queen street and Bloor Street until about age 18. My mother once told me: all of us in this neighbourhood are lower middle class. When I was growing up we did not bother to lock our doors either when we were in or out. We came home once and heard a burglar run out the back door but paid no mind because maybe it was just someone looking for something to eat. Nothing was missing because we had nothing worth stealing. But after that we did try to remember to lock the back door.
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.
@@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.
What about China? I live here, and it's a very unequal society. You walk around any fairly big city, especially in the East, and you'll see people driving million dollar sports cars past people collecting cardboard to sell for a few rmb a day. There's plenty of crime here, but it's mostly economic (scams, corruption etc). Violent crime is pretty damn rare across almost pretty much the entire country unless you go looking for trouble. I've lived here for over 3 years and I don't know anybody who has been a victim of violent crime (excluding 1 or 2 cases where alcohol was involved). Hong Kong has an even higher GINI coefficient than mainland China (the 11th highest in the world according to wikipedia), but is incredibly safe. What is the explanation for the low violent crime rate here? Harsh punishments? Because there are plenty of violent countries in the world where punishments are harsh.
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
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.
@@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!
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.
@@jrusstrevenant1092 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.
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
Jordan Peterson often tackles the subject of male aggression. I haven't heard him mention the effects of testosterone (or how testosterone works) in hist lectures. So I would like to add, a paragraph about testosterone, from the book Behave written by Robert Sapolsky (If you are not familiar check him, you will love him). This is the recap for a section talking about testosterone. "Testosterone makes us more willing to do what it takes to attain and maintain status. And the key point is what it takes. Engineer social circumstances right, and boosting testosterone levels during a challenge would make people compete like crazy to do the most acts of random kindness. In our world riddled with male violence, the problem isn't that testosterone can increase levels of aggression. The problem is the frequency with which we reward aggression."
@1234 abcd 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.
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.
@@B10401 I agree with most of what you said but not all. I am not sure though that when we mention certain terms we think of the same thing and I think that you are not seeing the whole picture. I am not sure how you connect multiculturalism with my comment and the rest of your comment. Single mothers is another big issue, but that has to do with other things. If you want to understand bad behavior, first you have to have a strict term about what is good and what is bad. Usually, people consider bad something that makes their life harder (produces stress is the key I think), if you take it a couple steps further, people consider a behavior bad if it causes harm to what they consider their community, that might be related to nationality, religion, sports or whatever puts people in a "pack". Under this view, consider that something that is good for you, might be bad for someone else. With that in mind, think that if someone steals something from someone else, he is considered bad by the vast majority of the society, but in his mind he is doing something necessary for his survival (that's the only way to make some money to buy food/drugs, and other than that my whole life the society has been mean to me, and also there is injustice everywhere, why stealing a cash register is worse than stealing millions if you are a banker) and well being.
It's a shame people like Peterson isn't in government. Imagine the problems people like him could fix, working towards the good of everyone not just those born with a silver spoon.
@@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.
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
This video explains why social media makes me angry as a man. Seeing other men at my age, young 20s who have levels of wealth ranging from fairly well off to absolutely extravagant.
John Blackstone very true. I have opted to leave social media (except RUclips) altogether; because of the comparisons I made to others, leading me to either pride or jealousy.
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.
Some years ago Dr. Stanton Samenow wrote a book "Inside the Criminal Mind" and concluded that poverty does not cause crime. He found that some people just think criminally.
When I saw the title I thought to myself that absolute poverty where people live in a poor village doesn't cause crime, but relative poverty where people have no support structure to depend on does. Then he said exactly what I was thinking. Would you rather live in a poor family in a poor farming community, or be a poor guy all alone in the inner city?
I was a poor guy with 9 siblings and a working mother (of course she was away ) living in a poor neighborhood. Today at least half of my childhood friends are dead, in prison or with a very bad job due of lack of education . On my side I have a Degree in Chemistry ...
I read an interesting thing a few years back that showed that a gini coefficient above something like 0.4 mixed with a spike in the young population aged 18-24 has historically been an almost guaranteed recipe for a violent social upheaval. In other words severely uneven access to opportunity and idle young hands leads to serious trouble.
@@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.
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.
I grew up in India where poverty is absolute. You could not relax in public for even a moment. If you did you would be robbed or molested in seconds. When I visited New Zealand I lived for some time in a society where I could leave an expensive accessory in public and pick it up hours later. JP is absolutely right that some people want the hierarchy to be unequal, and will even sacrifice financially if that keeps the hierarchy intact. Those men want to corner the females by advantaging themselves , and restricting women by eliminating other male competition.
8:40 Correlation doesn't necessarily mean a causal relationship between the variables. There could also be a third factor or factors which causes both of the correlated variables. I think JP would know this, but he doesn't point it out and makes it seem like, "because correlation, case closed". I would also like to know what "Gini coefficient aggression data" exactly is he talking about. Because I remembered this lecture and was going to make the argument (in another context) along the lines of: maybe we should take measures to reduce relative inequality because high inequality causes crime, but when I tried to find actual studies that point out the correlation between Gini coefficient and crime or causal relationship between them I could find very few and barely any reliable ones and virtually none that made a case for causality apart from some articles written by journalists, not people who actually studied it. I'm not necessarily saying it isn't a thing, but I would love to see the studies he is actually referring to.
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.
"You know, we're living in a society! We're supposed to act in a civilized way!" the great philosopher George Costanza "if you want the rainbow you've got to put up with the rain". You know which philosopher said that? Dolly Parton (.)(.)
This makes so much sense. I've been living in a "developing" country for over 7 years. The standard of living here is much much lower than the worst US city, yet I feel 100% safe walking around the city in this country than the US. The poorest people of the US have NO idea what true poverty is.
So let me organize my thoughts to make sense of this. On a basic level, people want to establish themselves in a favorable position within the dominance hierarchy. People, especially men, can be very aggressive when it comes to this pursuit of dominance, willing to push others off of their pedestals so that they can stand instead. Competition? When a person believes that they have no way to compete within the dominance hierarchy in the traditional way for any reason, they search for alternative methods of boosting their status. Crime. Let me know if I got that right, because that is an interesting idea.
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.
@@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.
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?
Here in Finland we have basically no crime, at least no crime that affects the average citizen.There are efforts taken in urban planning to diversify the average income of individuals living in a specific area to even out educational opportunities. In other words, equality of opportunity is becoming a reality here. Now we do still have alcoholism and drug abuse and such, but such problems are (not midigated) minimized by a welfare system, and very high basic standard of living. I would argue that wealth itself doesn't solve crime, but to a certain degree it does, if it's both A: abundant and B: spread out relatively evenly.
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
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.
Love listening to Mr. Peterson... he cuts right through the identity politics plaguing so many. And identifies the rational logic at the heart of human nature.
This makes so much sense with the current political climate nowdays. Ive listened to a BML leader defending the lootings stating that" a lot of kids saw the lootings as an oportunity to obtain the things they know most likely will never have" and proceeded to name a flat screen and a chain as an example. This is the culture young children are growing up in, the idea that stealing is acceptable because of "opression".
I often thought that the lifestyles and backgrounds that television portrayed led to a very unrealistic expectation of life for a generation of young people. The homes, cars, attractiveness of all the people portrayed were a goal that very very few could attain. And on television, particularly 60s and 70s no one was seen working for any extended period.
This study should go further. The perception of disparity sparks the same violence. Then you have another issued added which is the path to success. Is it quick and easy such as is perceived with entertainers and athletes? Is easily attained versus working, saving, exercising self discipline, and improving one's worth in the market place? What you find is people believe a lie (which it is easier to make people believe a lie than to get them to realize they have believed a lie) and think there is NO path to success. No longer does hard work and discipline pay off in their mind. Now culture has added that any path which requires patience and other virtues is not worth the effort. So it becomes reasonable in their minds to achieve success, or their version of it, by criminal means or any means. You can create an entire community and culture based on perceived disparity where none actually exists UNTIL (caps for emphasis) that segment of society has believed the same lie for so long they have created the disparity for themselves.
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
What he says about masculine violence pertaining to men who are in positions where they can see status difference but have little to no means of moving forward could explain the angry black man stereotype.
@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.
Jordan, Jordan...In Capitalism, "absolute poverty" leads to "relative poverty," and then we're looking at an eventual collapse of a current civilization either through violent revolution or the establishment of a police state. My wish is that someday you would debate Richard Wolff.
Very interesting. Some comments below that use this as an argument for the conservatives are missing the point IMO. He says (and I agree) the natural state of a society is where the gap between poor/rich widens. The people at the top have a very (bio)logical reason for maintaining their position. So the conservative idea of taking away any programs that help the poor te narrow the gap will eventually cause more violence. However, this is not a pro-progressive rant: Most left-wing 'help the poor' programs are terrible! Their intent is usually good ('the road to hell...'), but the actual outcome is an ever wider gap. But by then the programs are too populair with left-wing voters and they stay in place. The conservative 'let poor people rise up on their own merit, and gov help is only getting in the way' idea - however - is not sustainable either. See Peterson's remarks on 3:00. My idea for a healthy GINI? Invest, invest, invest in (near free) high-quality schooling, (near free) infrastructure (roads, but also internet) and facilitate entrepreneurship wherever you can as a government. And when technological advances are taking away most jobs, switch over to a negative income tax or basic income system.
You literally just strawmanned the Conservative argument. Conservatives want equality of opportunity and to let the winners succeed and not be taxed or punished for winning. Peterson explains it perfectly. Conservatives aren't the Psychopaths cutting off the rungs of the ladder to social mobility like Peterson said. You are combining the Psychopaths with the Conservatives. I agree with your solutions except the "facilitate entreneurship...as a government" and the negative income tax UBI. Government funded entrepeneurship is an oxymoron. It can't be true entrepeneurship if it's government funded. That's government choosing winners and losers of the free market.
Poverty and crime are definitely connected. Well, maybe not white collar crime, but definitely petty crime, and crime such as street drug dealing, prostitution, etc. If a person takes the time to speak to and get to know people in high crime neighborhoods they would understand this a little more.
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.
...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.
@starter flix First of all, race is totally arbitrary. We could divide people by short and tall or blue eyes and green eyes. I have almost never seen a study that demonstrates that any of the race are behaviorally different be it IQ or measurements that are innate to their race IF you control for class, generation, and area.
@starter flix I don't disagree that different races have different iq's on average if we look at the whole population thats a really fucking stupid idea if you want to look at genetic influence. Non whites have, historically been disadvantaged and are thus usually in lower classes. There is an exception for Asians because Migration from the Asian continent to America has historically been hard to do and thus people with more money can do it. IQ is largely influenced by income and so Black and Latinx people have lower iqs than whites and asians have higher iqs. Now, if a poor black person was put up for adoption and adopted by a rich white family they would end up being in the same intelligence bracket as a natal child from the same rich white family.
@@itisakubrow6361 agreed but if the culture you prescribe to glorifies violence, purposeful degredation of mind speech and body, and all around negative behavior it can sink entire groups.
This dynamic, if I may call it such, is a huge reason why I left San Diego where I grew up very relatively poor, and moved to the Northwest. I am actually now more genuinely poor, but I am not so degraded by quite such an abundance of wealthy people (who are neither smarter, nor harder working btw and never were). I sometimes think I missed my shot by not making the move sooner (early '90s), but when I see how things have gone in California in the last dozen years and I'm really thankful that I'm not there any longer.
People who get angry at others for being rich while you're still well off shouldn't get violent, control your selves, ignore the hierarchy of it and think of your self going forward.
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.
3:09 Odd that someone so smart would screw up the point that Conservatives are anti distribution . No they are not , they are anti SOCIALIST , NOT the same thing . If a person wants to get a job and earn a good wage that's wealth distribution to a conservative , not someone kicking you out of the house you bought after twenty years of saving for it to give it to someone else who has never worked a day in their life , that is liberal wealth distribution and that is Socialism . I havent figured out this guys political leanings after watching him for about a year because he is all over the place .
He's a Liberal in the classical sense, not far left or far right, somewhere in the middle and will probably prove to be helpful in having the left & right make some valuable & needed compromises imo.
@Nico So all conservatives are business owners ? There are no liberal business owners ? Libs have not been shy about moving their companies overseas either but I guess that is besides your point right ? You need to figure out that business decisions do not always have anything to do with politics .
What the flying fuck are you talking about? Who the hell told you to leave a house you owns and gave it to a person who has never worked a day in their life. How in the F is that even socialism?
Nico Odeku it’s actually reverse businesses compete to pay employees higher wages to get better people. Government jobs, pay, and employee performances are generally bad and stagnant.
I almost starved to death as a 14 year old when both my parents abandoned me in New York City. I worked hard and today I'm wealthy and a conservative. Insane to think that I want poor people to stay down. I encourage everybody to rise up and take control of your life
OMG been trying to explain this to a family member , and had no name for it. It makes so much sense. My community was very poor in the late 90's and crime was minimal, and in the early 2000's most families started entering the middle class and the middle class has been growing ever since and so is the crime. The explanation about the young men seeking dominance and power is also spot on. How do we work to fix this 😢?
His reasoning for why people (and not specifically conservatives, as he asserts) don't really want income distribution is not because they want to be on top, it's because they want to keep what they have worked for and earned. You can make the claim that this is subconscious, but good luck proving that.
Effectively people on top want to stay relatively richer, otherwise they wouldn't have a comparatively higher status and more dominance in the hunt for pussy. Also, who decides what is earned wealth and what isn't?
No, it's a red herring. You don't have to be rich to feel as though you shoudl keep what you earned. I am a person who could never, ever be considered rich, and I feel this way. As does my entire family. Being rich has nothing to do with it. And deciding what is earned and what isn't is irrelevant when you control for the working class who are not rich by any stretch of the definition. Your comment is meant to derail, whether you realize it or not.
@@gelbsucht947 It could be because black men tend to have higher levels of testosterone which contributes to more dominate behaviour which can also lead to aggression.
I think that poverty can cause a cultural social condition where moral norms can be compromised at times. On the other hand, I don't agree that all poor people are prone to criminality, rather driven to a desperate need to survive. Research has proven that long term intergenerational poverty in some families can cause welfare dependency, and can create a maladaptive social culture.
That just isn't true. If you look at a lot of old factory towns you can see a strong correlation between the factories leaving and increase in crime. Now I'm not a Peterson fan but I do know a thing or two about evolutionary biological behavior and what Peterson is saying here is fairly accurate but the comments aren't interpreting him correctly. Perhaps from his vague word use or maybe hes using unfamiliar language. Could be a few things. Also it's more nuanced than Peterson is making it out to be.
As said by Teddy Roosevelt, "Comparison is the thief of joy". No incentive to steal what your neighbor has if it's the same thing you have. Only if he has something better than wh as t you have.
Its kind of hard stealing a house or a car. Food and drugs on the other hand, is the true source. Purpose another, respected the third. Forced labour; whoring on the market; a true joy for sure. But its finally about protection and the country. Why and for whom do you defend others properties for ? War can only be good the, restributing the ownership. Lucky for me i dont own land, and so dont really need to defend or wage war. My wealth is my mind.
I think Mr. Peterson is misinterpreting that Gini Coefficient he speaks of. Yes, the US (overall) has a Gini Coefficient that could well be called extreme. And yes the US (overall) has some pretty high crime rates. But should you look more closely you find that the areas of the US having the highest crime rates (and especially violent crime rates). Are all the same areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient. Your neighbor having a nicer car than you have does not inspire you to commit a crime nor incite you to violence. It might inspire you to talk trash about your neighbor (he only got that raise because of brown nosing the boss). Or it may inspire you to trade your good, reliable car off and take out a loan you maybe cannot afford to pay in order to get a nicer car for yourself. Keeping up with the Jones. But it's not likely to incite you to go buy (or steal) a gun and shoot up the neighborhood. Because while your neighbor may have that bit of status. That shiny new car. You know that you have viable options to counter or even exceed his status. Then you get areas with a relatively low Gini Coefficient. Like inner city Chicago. The Projects, the Slums, the Ghetto. By whatever name you might call it. There you have a relatively large area, with a population well into the thousands, even hundreds of thousands. And everyone there has not much more than nothing effectively. They can SEE the Suburbs with the pretty houses and the nice shiny cars. The hi-rise Apartments and Condos that cost almost as much per month as they make per year. They KNOW that better is out there to be had but they can't see a viable path to attaining that better for themselves. They don't see a viable path out of where they are. And if they can't see a way to get into that bigger pond. They are going to settle for being the biggest fish they can be in their little pond. People immigrate (legally) to the US in search of a BETTER life for Themselves and their Children. Because where they were at before they could not aspire to anything more than just being enough.
"But should you look more closely you find that the areas of the US having the highest crime rates (and especially violent crime rates). Are all the same areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient." Spot on!
@timwins31, I've not simplified, much less OVER simplified anything. So many people, especially those on the Left or otherwise advocating Socialism. Like to point to things like the Gini Coefficient as proof positive of the injustice of Western Civilization and the utter failure of Capitalism. When the TRUTH is the exact opposite. Where do you find the highest levels of Crime? Especially Violent Crime? In those areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient. In those places where everyone is pretty much equal Financially and Socially.
I grew up in rural eastern Tennessee.. in a family with 8 children. My father was the bread winner and my mother managed the home (they'd actually planned on 6 children, but the last one turned out to be triplets.) They taught us love by doing.. responsibility.. discipline.. and good humor. They fostered in us a love of education and not violence, because they knew that only one of those would redound to a long term successful outcome. Only education would deliver us. Some neighbor kids were not so inclined. Only five in that family . But were programmed by parents who chose victim status. Same age.. but all of them gone now.. drugs and jail time. The criminal mind, with little exception, is the product of bad programming.. not bad finances.
@@philipmolokwu9271 - nope... bad decision making. Plenty of low income people who Do Not feel compelled to go out and kill people and break things. Use wisely your power of choice.
I'd never heard of the gini coefficient before and I do like to learn new things.It certainly makes a lot of sense as to why London has become such a violent place these days; you've got your Made In Chelsea lot,your Mayfair mansions,Kensington posh nobs and of course Westminister, the seat of power, and not too far from all this wealth,power and privilege you've got your council tower blocks full of people who are constantly reminded of wht they can never have-UNLESS they start selling drugs and as we know, the drug game is full of psychopaths and thus is violent and it's workers don't have a very long "shelf-life"; sooner or later they end up in nick or 6 feet under by violent means. However, I also think there's another factor and that is that the west has lost or is loosing faith in Christ.My parents grew up in 1920s and 30s rural Ireland. They wer e literally half-starved and so were most of their peers. There was some wealth around them- the local squire had a huge house, loads of land and staff but most people were as poor as each other but yet, most of THEM also owned their own houses and owned some bit of land, even if it was small.My maternal grandfather was a stone mason and built his own small cottage for his family and they also owned the next field.My paternal grnadparents owned a small farm. So, they had something important because home-owners always have that bit more power than tennants. Most of the poor in the cities like Limerick, Dublin and Cork were tennants though, and those in the Dublin tnements suffered the worst poverty in western Europe. They were also not far away from relative wealth and YET there was very little violent crime and muders were in single figures anually for the fledgling Irish Republic up until the Dunnes started importing heroin into Ireland in the 1980s so there must have been another factor.I think it was because of the extreme devout Christian faith of the majority of the population of the 26 Counties that made this such a safe place in those decades from 1925 until the 1980s when heroin came to blight this island.People believed sincerely in God, took the Sacraments and were very aware of the Four Last Things i.e Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell, so they lived accordingly as no one wanted the very last one of those Four Last Things.I grew up in England because my parents were just two of 1000s of Irish people who emigrated to England in the 50s. From my point of view England was a safe place but not as safe as Ireland.I loved it when we came here for our summer holiday fortnights as I was given so much freedom to roam around with my cousins,much more than I was allowed in England and we has far more freedom as kids in 60s and 70s England than kids do there now as it's gone to the dogs altogether! Kids are stabbing kids to death not just in Londond, but in nearly every city and some of the small towns as well( this is the reason I don't think gun control will reduce Americas murder problem- the problem is in the hearts and minds and the murdereous will just find another way to kill like they ahve in England).I think this is because England was not nearly as devout a Christian country as Ireland was in those days; that was why Irish Catholics regarded the English as "heathens". That's just my theory anyway.
NOT AMUSED: Sorry but I disagree that London is "Now" a dangerous place, it always has been. At 18 (70's) I had 12 mates in prison for murder or manslaughter, never thought that I would get passed 21 without being inside or dead! Thankfully neither came to fruition! Other than that, well stated but not always the case!
@@Loki1815 No need to apologise; you know London far better than me as I grew up in a small market town in the Midlands. We had relatives in London and would visit them but once I left home I rarely went there, so I concede to your experience! I'm glad you were able to avoid the same fates as your mates and I'm glad you survived! I had boy mates who eneded up on heroin in the 80s and died far too young,such a waste! Drugs are a plague! Whatdo you think of the gini coefficient? Does it make sense to you? Was it /poverty/money and/or drugs that were the souces of your mates' downfalls?I do think that human life ahs also been cheapened in people's minds for decades now and I think the drug trade and the legalisation of abortion in 1967 has influenced this,so things will probably get worse here in Ireland now as well; what's your take on it?
There was a brilliant doctor in the Zeitgeist movie (I think it was the 2nd or 3rd movie) and I forget his name (Forgive me) but he made a very hard hitting point that I will never forget. He said "The number 1 cause for violent behavior is INEQUALITY." That is what this Gini effect and what Dr Peterson is getting at without actually saying the word itself. The doctor I quoted has spent his entire life studying violent criminals and trying to explain why such behavior arises, 50+ years he claims in the movie....I believe his point to be absolutely true as I have observed much the same in my own life. Even in monkeys you can see such a thing, there was an experiment where they had 2 monkeys perform the same task but rewarded one with more (food/reward) than the other. The result was the lesser rewarded monkey being furious when he saw the other monkey getting so much more for the same task. Equality should be treated much like perfection in my mind. It is something we should always strive for even though we know none of us will ever attain it. Similarly none of us can ever really be equal yet we should always strive to treat each other equally.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that. " Kingdom of Heaven.
Although this is excerpted from a longer presentation, but based on Jordan claiming that people with conservative mindsets want to maintain the dominance hierarchy therefore they don't want to help with the poor. Before going any further, I'm neither a conservative nor a leftist/lieberal, etc., I'm a political atheist. I don't believe in any of this Left/Right nonsense. I leave that nonsense to the plebs. Now on to my point, I've worked with and seen enough of the poor while living and working in Philadelphia, I can tell you that many of the poor are dumb as rocks. They have no sense. And when I say "dumb," I don't just mean they lack academic knowledge, they lack the knowledge of just washing one's body, how to get along with other people, how to improve oneself, etc. Not only do they lack these skills, they lack any desire to improve themselves. So I can't go along with Jordan's statement that conservatives are with holding resources to maintain the social dominance hierarchy. Throwing resources at the poor, in my experience, would be a bad idea. Most of those resources would be wasted. Until the desire to improve oneself manifests in the poor, there's little to nothing an outsider can do to get the poor on their feet.
They don't need to improve themselves as individuals in order for a reduction of their moderate-to-extreme suffering to be ethically justified. They just need to be dissuaded against procreation at a rate that is at or above their replacement level. An ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all that. This might entail a degree of *negative* eugenics on the policy level, so it gets procedurally tricky. In the current climate, a politician who so much as hints at proposing anything of the sort will be committing political suicide. Also, I'd say _Political Instrumentalism_ is a better label for what you're describing with 'political atheism'. Unless you're a political nihilist or an anarcho-something.
The issue is that the dominance heirarchy is predicated on a top down model. The people at the top are the one's who are dumb as rocks. They are emotionally unintelligent because they put profit before people. Dominance heirarchies use people and nature for profit. They steal the labor of people. If I hire you for $20 then it must be that the labor or goods or service you produce is worth more than that. If I don't share this with you then it goes in my pocket or in the pockets of shareholders. In capitalism you are the capital to be exploited. If I have a lease for oil I pump out a natural resource and sell it back to you. It was never mine to own except on paper. Government created the lease and enabled another corporation to profit. What a weird system of wealth division based in profiteering and scarcity using a class structure against each other.
This makes sense and im sure it's true but are there some places where this effect can be dampened. I live in Thailand where there is a huge disparity between rich and poor and yet it is very safe. Stealing is more common but violent crime is very rare. Could this effect be a result of Buddhism?
India as well, high inequality, lower homicide rate than america. It's more about, I'm afraid to say race. Peterson also completely ignores the case of countries where homicide rates are very high but not necessarily unequal, a good example would be jamaica. By peterson's logic black people in america are killing other black people because they envy white people, wouldn't they overwhelmingly kill white people if they were so much envious of white people? But they don't. 95% of blacks in america are killed by other blacks. It has more to do with poor impulse control which blacks have demonstrated to show since childhood.
When I go to college I want a professor like Jordan Peterson because what I’ve seen is that most people go to colleges and come out dumber but this guys student are actually listening they love what he is saying
I think people choose crime over legitimate jobs, because there are lower barriers to entry, higher rewards, and less effort. If the choice is working for minimum wage at McDonald's, standing on your feet for most of an 8-hour shift or working as a drug dealer, it's a no-brainer. Add to the mix that a person might only have the education of a 6th grader, promotion within the drug trade will be far easier than becoming a shift manager at a McDonald's. What makes the matter worse is when a youngster sees a criminal driving a luxury car, wearing nice clothes, and flashing a was of cash. That makes studying, taking on student loan debt, and an entry-level salary after college graduation far less appealing.
As a Criminology major all of this is old news, there are also other major factors that contribute to crime such as whether a region is static or dynamic with regards to the movement of people, biology, family structure, diversity, abuse, etc. People are more prone to unsocial behavior when in perceived diverse settings, not just economics but any other form of identity as well so long as they believe that difference to be meaningful. One of the many purposes of nationalism, religion, and a mono culture was intended to remove those perceived differences across varying groups, but that is also wisdom that has been long forgotten as well.
Sean Thomson Isn't that also the wisdom that creates a society of conformity, in which so many warn of totalitarian regimes? I'm not so sure it's forgotten wisdom, rather borderline communistic ideologies wrapped up in patriotic banter.
Crime is considered to be nonconforming behavior, but your notion that conforming behavior within society somehow translates to a dictatorship in government is bizarre to say the least, perhaps you want to try explaining your reasoning? Japan has one of thy lowest crime rates globally, has a mono culture and it isn't a communistic despotic country. Areas in the US which have less perceived diversity have lower crime rates as well, would they fall under your totalitarian regime / communistic category?
This is very interesting but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. I live in an urban area which has been recently gentrified. The uneven wealth distribution in my immediate neighborhood, even on my particular street has increased drastically over the past five years but incidence of violent and property crime had decreased to near zero. There are still a significant number of very poor people living here next to very wealthy but we have watched our quality of life increase as more wealthy people have moved into the neighborhood. Thank god for these rich folk! They bought up all the crack houses and kicked out the hookers and dope boys and now I can leave my house without fear of being robbed. I can't afford to move to another place in this same neighborhood but I'm happy for the improvement.
The crime has probably just shifted the location. The theory doesn't state that the perceived inequality will be taken out on the wealthy. It may in fact be fellow poor people who bear the brunt of the resulting rise in crime.
eiffe It was definitely directed at fellow poor people. There were only poor people around. Now that wealthy people have moved in, the crime is gone. I don't care where it went. All I care about is that I can walk out my front door without fear. That was a REAL aspect of daily life that I don't have to contend with anymore. Peterson made the claim that the crime/wealth model worked at every level. I'm just saying my experience contradicts that.
That's awesome! I've heard similar stories in different places before, too. But there's a reason the correlation is 0.8 instead 1.0. It isn't the sole, perfect indicator; just a really, really good one.
That’s because there are soooo many confounding factors. With an increase in the median income the area got more property tax revenue, leading to better police. Maybe the crime is committed elsewhere? Maybe the culture amongst the poor people changed? Maybe the poor people in that area have relatively higher IQ than the poor people in that area of the past? There are many factors that correlate with crime beyond just GINI, which may confound the results.
FWIW, that has not been the effect in my neighborhood. Property crimes have increased significantly in the last 5 years I've lived here, as new more expensive homes have been built and the "nextdoor neighborhood" of very low income has started passing through.Thankfully, no violent crimes that I'm aware of.
Income inequality is a factor, but isn't IQ a better predictor? You can find societies with high income inequality and low crime. They tend to have a high average IQ. But it's difficult to find even a single country with an average IQ of
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.
@@Me-by8qi And poor people do not think they can improve their own situation fast enough to catch up to richer people. They do not get that learning from their parents apparently due to the low education level of the parents. But also low IQ is a factor to figure out how to get richer other than by illegal means. Maybe moral shortcomings as well... There are some common reasons why poor people are poor. No?..
Income equality is what left wing people want the most. So why is Jordan Peterson disregarding them. His disagreement sounds forced and counterproductive.
Na, that's bullshit. That's like saying every person is special, you need the dark to know the difference between light. If you say that darkness isn't a thing then what the hell is light? It has no meaning.
@Maximilian Robespier in what world???? The richest people in the world are workaholics. From the MINUTE they wake up to the MINUTE they fall asleep they are working.. do you actually think you work harder then a multi billionaire when you still have dust and trash under your bed? (probably) . Also, the rich dont "tax the poor" if you aren't aware theres a thing called government and here in the USA we have a progressive income tax rate. Meaning you'll be taxed accordingly by how much money you make.... its funny how both those statements could be SO far from the truth.
This doesn't explain places like China or Singapore. Higher Gini numbers and lower violent crime rates. I feel like he's ignoring demographics which also likely play a significant role.
nova68nova There’s also punishments like caning in Singapore and the communist parties are not known for being forthright in the publication of statistics . Remember when Russia, China and many African countries denied that aids was present in their populations . You must be from a western democracy or republic to believe such things are reliable because those are the only places where they have any relationship to reality. Be thankful and appreciate .
As having lived in Singapore, I can tell you that laws are extraordinarily strict. Also, I’ve never heard people say anything negative about rich people. Instead of focusing on what others have, they focus on themselves. They are the best capitalists because of the Asian culture they grow up in, which is about focusing on yourself being the best.
It's possible for both income inequality and racial differences to be correlated with crime rate. They are. If you're looking for a single number to explain everything you're just gonna end up like all the morons before who tried that. Turns out society is a very complex high-dimensional system, who fucking new. You can't just boil it down to a single left vs right line.
in other words crime is driven by petty immature concerns like envy and status hunger. and wanting women who just want your money and status and you don't care about love. these motives need addressing.
Jordan is wrong: Venezuela have the 4 higest crime rate cityes in latina america, and they have one of the higest GINI. Chile (my country) have a terrible GINI and one of the lowest crime rates in whole America. When people get to the point of starving... yes, Jordan... they will see crime as a survival chance.
If you listen carefully he points out why income disparity and male violence correlate. It happens when the man believes violence is the only way to raise his status. If your politicians and teachers and celebrities are telling you that can't succeed because of outside oppression then you are more likely to use violent crime to get ahead, you've been implicitly taught there is no other way. However, if instead they focused on how to get ahead without committing crimes but within the rules of society, I think crime would drop dramatically in the affected society.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
This was instantly evident to me when I moved to America from a less rich country. The poor here live better or equally good as the middle class where I lived, yet they are ignorant of their blessings and still act poor and uncivilized. Poverty is mostly in the mind, not wallet.
@@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.
I live in South Africa and cannot agree more. All of the arguments are amplified in this country. Fascinating.
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.
Why do people still call this man a far-right extremist lmao
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.
imagine Jordan Peterson telling you that's a great question, I would actually be so flattered
You arent normally flattered?
Ditto
I'm so glad this conversation is happening. This is a topic that's been confusing me for decades. I was raised in absolute poverty. Having enough food to stave off hunger was a real concern. I never owned a new article of clothing. Everything that I wore was a hand-me-down or from the second hand store. We went dump picking on Saturdays to find furniture and to pick through the rotten produce thrown out by the grocery stores for something that could be trimmed up and made edible.
This was a common way to live. But nobody did drugs or drank. People attended church often. Our houses were meager, but we kept everything very clean. We'd mend old, torn sheets to extend their life. We didn't suffer infestations of roaches or fleas and - if anyone allowed their home to fall into such disrepair, we'd chip in as a neighborhood hand help them clean up... once. If they let it go again, they'd be shunned. Children ran the streets in threadbare clothes, but we were safe and happy.
Over the last few decades I've noticed a serious change in the impoverished. Lots of alcohol and drugs. They're immoral in their hearts and will lie, cheat, and steal anything that's not bolted down. We didn't lock our doors in our neighborhoods. (But everyone did have a gun.) Reputations for honesty and hard work ethic were everything and now that's just gone. Barter was a vital part of survival and, if you were a known liar or thief, nobody would work with you.
It mystifies me that the left blames poverty for all evils of the world and I know that, just become someone is poor, doesn't mean they have to be immoral, dirty, or addicted. I remember doing a deep, spring clean of our stinky, moldy basement apartment. We bleached the walls. My mother dusted everything and meticulously cleaned the sofa we'd found on the side of the street and repaired. "Just because we're poor doesn't mean we have to live like pigs. We don't have much, but we should appreciate what we do have a take care of it." This was my mantra growing up. (Coming home and finding out that my mother had patched and pressed all of my torn jeans led to an epic fight. She couldn't comprehend how being shabby could be a style.)
What the hell happened? Are people looking at social media and thinking that everyone has it better than them? Is that the problem?
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!
why am I just learning this now??! Everyone should know this.
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.
My father didn't have a lot of formal education but had a lot of wisdom acquired from years of observing his fellow man. One thing he made sure we knew growing up. If you are poor it might not be your fault or even in your control but being clean and being honest is always in your control.
I’d pay a lot to be student of Jordan Peterson
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.
That’s the weirdest coke ad I’ve ever seen.
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.
I may have reached the end of youtube, as there are no further recommendations. RUclips be like: That was the final video, congratulations. Go home now.
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 RUclips 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.
Imagine going to school and listening to Daddy Peterson speak all day
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.
He's describing the favelas in Brazil almost perfectly.
Or the "cités" on France
Are you by any chance Brazilian?
Great
@@Ellie60091 Well, I think he is.
@Rafael Silva hahahahaha you never know
You know it's a good teacher, when the students ask good questions, and feel comfortable asking those questions.
Q: So the Gini coefficient, used to measure levels of relative poverty, can be used to measure any region of people, in terms of size; Prof Peterson gave the example of using it to measure anything from a street, to a city to an entire country. The Prof then went on to explain how areas with high levels of relative poverty (as measured using the GC) also have high levels of crime. Fine.
So, let's say I'm a researcher and I use the GC to measure relative poverty in a particular city. I map my boundary and take my measurement. I find out that the city has high levels of relative poverty; I then look at the crime statistics for the city, relative to average crime levels for cities of the same nation, and conclude (unsurprisingly) that the crime level is also very high. So this city would seem to serve as an example of the link between high levels of relative poverty and crime.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that within this city, most of the crime taking place (as a result of high levels of relative poverty, as per our GC analysis) in a small region within the city, in a relatively impoverished 2 mile radius (this seems a perfectly reasonable scenario to conceive, given the Prof's assertion that the crime occurring as a result of high relative poverty is usually carried out by aggressive men, who perceive no law-abiding way of lifting themselves up out of their relatively impoverished position in life).
Unbeknownst to me, another researcher is working in the same region to also measure for any relation between relative poverty and crime. The other researcher sets up the boundary for their own analysis, but rather than using the city boundaries (as I did in my example), or using just one street, they decide to measure relative poverty in the same, aforementioned 2 mile radius.
So the other researcher performs their analysis and finds that, using the Gini coefficient, that relative poverty in that 2 mile region is LOW (because everyone in that area is of a similarly low, social-economic standing) and yet... crime in that area is rife.
Now, as the person who measured the CITY using the GC, it makes sense to me that there's crime because, in the context of the CITY, relative poverty is high (and so crime is high). BUT, as the researcher analysing the 2 mile radius area, there would seem to be no link between relative poverty and high crime, because the levels of crime are high in-spite of the low levels of relative poverty within that geographic area.
Does this point to a fragility in measuring areas of people using the GC, or - in the real world - would the latter of the two researchers (i.e. the one who measured the 2 mile radius rife with crime), conclude that they simply need to broaden the boundaries of their geographic measurement area in order to establish relative poverty, and account for the high levels of crime within the originally measured area.
And, if they were to do that, does that not become a bit of a fulfilling prophecy?
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.
Its shocking how accurate he is in articulating his points. People who have experienced both type of poverty will tell you, relative poverty is worst. There is no humiliation that goes with absolute poverty. If you grew up in poverty, you wouldn’t even know you’re in poverty; its just the way things have always been for you. Relative poverty, lol, shits embarassing. All the kids in school know you’re poor because you wear payless shoes and not nikes. You wear the same pants for a week lolol hoping nobody notices.
I am from South america, in slums 99% people are honest workers, who dont have governmet help, people who live in almost extreme poverty. And just 1% are drug dealers who control the slums and threat the people with death and fear. So he is right, most people from poverty are not crminals.
I had the misfortune of living in a ghetto when I was severely ill and unable to work -- I don't know if I can buy that crime only happens when poor ppl see immediate income inequality. No one in that neighborhood had money, but damn near everyone stole. Honestly, the worst thing about poverty isn't not having shiny things, it's the people you are trapped with and systemic predation.
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.
Relative poverty sounds suspiciously like envy.
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.
@@11bornrich 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...
JP's a genius. His clarity of thinking is off the charts and his ability to communicate that clarity by using everyday examples and applications drives the resonating factor and engagement factor off the charts as well.
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!!!!
I was born in 1931 and lived in the east end of Toronto between Queen street and Bloor Street until about age 18. My mother once told me: all of us in this neighbourhood are lower middle class. When I was growing up we did not bother to lock our doors either when we were in or out. We came home once and heard a burglar run out the back door but paid no mind because maybe it was just someone looking for something to eat. Nothing was missing because we had nothing worth stealing.
But after that we did try to remember to lock the back door.
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.
What about China? I live here, and it's a very unequal society. You walk around any fairly big city, especially in the East, and you'll see people driving million dollar sports cars past people collecting cardboard to sell for a few rmb a day. There's plenty of crime here, but it's mostly economic (scams, corruption etc). Violent crime is pretty damn rare across almost pretty much the entire country unless you go looking for trouble. I've lived here for over 3 years and I don't know anybody who has been a victim of violent crime (excluding 1 or 2 cases where alcohol was involved).
Hong Kong has an even higher GINI coefficient than mainland China (the 11th highest in the world according to wikipedia), but is incredibly safe.
What is the explanation for the low violent crime rate here? Harsh punishments? Because there are plenty of violent countries in the world where punishments are harsh.
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.
So basically jealousy causes crime - makes sense!
@@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.
@@jrusstrevenant1092 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.
"If a whole bunch of people acted like [psychopaths] the whole [system] would come to a stop in no time at all" and it has.
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
This explains why people go insane when someone wins a lottery.
If I win the lottery and you’re not my mom ,sister or wife it’s a bullet
youre catching
Jordan Peterson often tackles the subject of male aggression. I haven't heard him mention the effects of testosterone (or how testosterone works) in hist lectures. So I would like to add, a paragraph about testosterone, from the book Behave written by Robert Sapolsky (If you are not familiar check him, you will love him). This is the recap for a section talking about testosterone.
"Testosterone makes us more willing to do what it takes to attain and maintain status. And the key point is what it takes. Engineer social circumstances right, and boosting testosterone levels during a challenge would make people compete like crazy to do the most acts of random kindness. In our world riddled with male violence, the problem isn't that testosterone can increase levels of aggression. The problem is the frequency with which we reward aggression."
Like they did with hip-hop?
@1234 abcd 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.
@1234 abcd 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.
@@B10401 I agree with most of what you said but not all. I am not sure though that when we mention certain terms we think of the same thing and I think that you are not seeing the whole picture. I am not sure how you connect multiculturalism with my comment and the rest of your comment. Single mothers is another big issue, but that has to do with other things.
If you want to understand bad behavior, first you have to have a strict term about what is good and what is bad. Usually, people consider bad something that makes their life harder (produces stress is the key I think), if you take it a couple steps further, people consider a behavior bad if it causes harm to what they consider their community, that might be related to nationality, religion, sports or whatever puts people in a "pack".
Under this view, consider that something that is good for you, might be bad for someone else. With that in mind, think that if someone steals something from someone else, he is considered bad by the vast majority of the society, but in his mind he is doing something necessary for his survival (that's the only way to make some money to buy food/drugs, and other than that my whole life the society has been mean to me, and also there is injustice everywhere, why stealing a cash register is worse than stealing millions if you are a banker) and well being.
Accurate video title: "ABSOLUTE Poverty causes crime? Wrong"
You are right, the title misleads
It's almost as if he's saying that coveting leads to criminality.
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
It's a shame people like Peterson isn't in government. Imagine the problems people like him could fix, working towards the good of everyone not just those born with a silver spoon.
@@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
A person in relatively poverty, leading to crime, is called "envious".
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
This video explains why social media makes me angry as a man. Seeing other men at my age, young 20s who have levels of wealth ranging from fairly well off to absolutely extravagant.
John Blackstone very true. I have opted to leave social media (except RUclips) 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.
Some years ago Dr. Stanton Samenow wrote a book "Inside the Criminal Mind" and concluded that poverty does not cause crime. He found that some people just think criminally.
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.
When I saw the title I thought to myself that absolute poverty where people live in a poor village doesn't cause crime, but relative poverty where people have no support structure to depend on does. Then he said exactly what I was thinking. Would you rather live in a poor family in a poor farming community, or be a poor guy all alone in the inner city?
"Relative poverty" is another term for "envy".
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
Clip ended way too soon. I wanted to hear about the origin of weebs.
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
I was a poor guy with 9 siblings and a working mother (of course she was away ) living in a poor neighborhood. Today at least half of my childhood friends are dead, in prison or with a very bad job due of lack of education . On my side I have a Degree in Chemistry ...
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
I read an interesting thing a few years back that showed that a gini coefficient above something like 0.4 mixed with a spike in the young population aged 18-24 has historically been an almost guaranteed recipe for a violent social upheaval. In other words severely uneven access to opportunity and idle young hands leads to serious trouble.
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.
Put on subtitles. Everytime he say dominance hierarchy youtube thinks it's dominant turkey lol
The Lobster King vs. The Dominant Turkey
>:|(
Same difference 😆
So, relative poverty sounds alot like "keeping up with the Jones"
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.
I grew up in India where poverty is absolute. You could not relax in public for even a moment. If you did you would be robbed or molested in seconds. When I visited New Zealand I lived for some time in a society where I could leave an expensive accessory in public and pick it up hours later. JP is absolutely right that some people want the hierarchy to be unequal, and will even sacrifice financially if that keeps the hierarchy intact. Those men want to corner the females by advantaging themselves , and restricting women by eliminating other male competition.
8:40 Correlation doesn't necessarily mean a causal relationship between the variables. There could also be a third factor or factors which causes both of the correlated variables. I think JP would know this, but he doesn't point it out and makes it seem like, "because correlation, case closed".
I would also like to know what "Gini coefficient aggression data" exactly is he talking about. Because I remembered this lecture and was going to make the argument (in another context) along the lines of: maybe we should take measures to reduce relative inequality because high inequality causes crime, but when I tried to find actual studies that point out the correlation between Gini coefficient and crime or causal relationship between them I could find very few and barely any reliable ones and virtually none that made a case for causality apart from some articles written by journalists, not people who actually studied it.
I'm not necessarily saying it isn't a thing, but I would love to see the studies he is actually referring to.
man I wish there were teachers like JP in my university. I really appreciate these.
So basically, poverty doesn't cause crime as long as you keep poor people from seeing just how poor they really are.
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
"You know, we're living in a society! We're supposed to act in a civilized way!" the great philosopher George Costanza
"if you want the rainbow you've got to put up with the rain".
You know which philosopher said that?
Dolly Parton (.)(.)
This makes so much sense. I've been living in a "developing" country for over 7 years. The standard of living here is much much lower than the worst US city, yet I feel 100% safe walking around the city in this country than the US. The poorest people of the US have NO idea what true poverty is.
So let me organize my thoughts to make sense of this.
On a basic level, people want to establish themselves in a favorable position within the dominance hierarchy.
People, especially men, can be very aggressive when it comes to this pursuit of dominance, willing to push others off of their pedestals so that they can stand instead. Competition?
When a person believes that they have no way to compete within the dominance hierarchy in the traditional way for any reason, they search for alternative methods of boosting their status. Crime.
Let me know if I got that right, because that is an interesting idea.
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.
Jordan Peterson.
Sponsored by Coke Zero.
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
Here in Finland we have basically no crime, at least no crime that affects the average citizen.There are efforts taken in urban planning to diversify the average income of individuals living in a specific area to even out educational opportunities. In other words, equality of opportunity is becoming a reality here. Now we do still have alcoholism and drug abuse and such, but such problems are (not midigated) minimized by a welfare system, and very high basic standard of living. I would argue that wealth itself doesn't solve crime, but to a certain degree it does, if it's both A: abundant and B: spread out relatively evenly.
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
Lecture continues at 55:26 ruclips.net/video/mJI0hVV-5Vs/видео.html
Aren't qualitative descriptions of things more or less defined by being relative to something else that you can compare it to?
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.
what causes crime especially aggressive crime is relative poverty and Relative poverty is not the same thing as poverty
Love listening to Mr. Peterson... he cuts right through the identity politics plaguing so many. And identifies the rational logic at the heart of human nature.
This makes so much sense with the current political climate nowdays. Ive listened to a BML leader defending the lootings stating that" a lot of kids saw the lootings as an oportunity to obtain the things they know most likely will never have" and proceeded to name a flat screen and a chain as an example. This is the culture young children are growing up in, the idea that stealing is acceptable because of "opression".
I often thought that the lifestyles and backgrounds that television portrayed led to a very unrealistic expectation of life for a generation of young people. The homes, cars, attractiveness of all the people portrayed were a goal that very very few could attain. And on television, particularly 60s and 70s no one was seen working for any extended period.
This study should go further. The perception of disparity sparks the same violence. Then you have another issued added which is the path to success. Is it quick and easy such as is perceived with entertainers and athletes? Is easily attained versus working, saving, exercising self discipline, and improving one's worth in the market place?
What you find is people believe a lie (which it is easier to make people believe a lie than to get them to realize they have believed a lie) and think there is NO path to success. No longer does hard work and discipline pay off in their mind.
Now culture has added that any path which requires patience and other virtues is not worth the effort. So it becomes reasonable in their minds to achieve success, or their version of it, by criminal means or any means.
You can create an entire community and culture based on perceived disparity where none actually exists UNTIL (caps for emphasis) that segment of society has believed the same lie for so long they have created the disparity for themselves.
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
What he says about masculine violence pertaining to men who are in positions where they can see status difference but have little to no means of moving forward could explain the angry black man stereotype.
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. . .
Jordan, Jordan...In Capitalism, "absolute poverty" leads to "relative poverty," and then we're looking at an eventual collapse of a current civilization either through violent revolution or the establishment of a police state. My wish is that someday you would debate Richard Wolff.
4:35 "oh he is giving marx some credit...oh never mind" hahaha
Marx was a great theorist. As much as a useless twat he was you can learn a lot from him
So it's not poverty, but inequality, that causes crime.
Very interesting. Some comments below that use this as an argument for the conservatives are missing the point IMO. He says (and I agree) the natural state of a society is where the gap between poor/rich widens. The people at the top have a very (bio)logical reason for maintaining their position. So the conservative idea of taking away any programs that help the poor te narrow the gap will eventually cause more violence.
However, this is not a pro-progressive rant:
Most left-wing 'help the poor' programs are terrible! Their intent is usually good ('the road to hell...'), but the actual outcome is an ever wider gap. But by then the programs are too populair with left-wing voters and they stay in place.
The conservative 'let poor people rise up on their own merit, and gov help is only getting in the way' idea - however - is not sustainable either. See Peterson's remarks on 3:00.
My idea for a healthy GINI? Invest, invest, invest in (near free) high-quality schooling, (near free) infrastructure (roads, but also internet) and facilitate entrepreneurship wherever you can as a government. And when technological advances are taking away most jobs, switch over to a negative income tax or basic income system.
You literally just strawmanned the Conservative argument. Conservatives want equality of opportunity and to let the winners succeed and not be taxed or punished for winning. Peterson explains it perfectly. Conservatives aren't the Psychopaths cutting off the rungs of the ladder to social mobility like Peterson said. You are combining the Psychopaths with the Conservatives. I agree with your solutions except the "facilitate entreneurship...as a government" and the negative income tax UBI. Government funded entrepeneurship is an oxymoron. It can't be true entrepeneurship if it's government funded. That's government choosing winners and losers of the free market.
Poverty and crime are definitely connected. Well, maybe not white collar crime, but definitely petty crime, and crime such as street drug dealing, prostitution, etc. If a person takes the time to speak to and get to know people in high crime neighborhoods they would understand this a little more.
Correlation not causation
Sounds like jealousy and contempt cause societal violence, then.
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.
As Ben Shapiro said, it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture.
class my friend, not culture, class
@starter flix First of all, race is totally arbitrary. We could divide people by short and tall or blue eyes and green eyes. I have almost never seen a study that demonstrates that any of the race are behaviorally different be it IQ or measurements that are innate to their race IF you control for class, generation, and area.
@starter flix I don't disagree that different races have different iq's on average if we look at the whole population thats a really fucking stupid idea if you want to look at genetic influence. Non whites have, historically been disadvantaged and are thus usually in lower classes. There is an exception for Asians because Migration from the Asian continent to America has historically been hard to do and thus people with more money can do it. IQ is largely influenced by income and so Black and Latinx people have lower iqs than whites and asians have higher iqs. Now, if a poor black person was put up for adoption and adopted by a rich white family they would end up being in the same intelligence bracket as a natal child from the same rich white family.
@starter flix trans rights
@@itisakubrow6361 agreed but if the culture you prescribe to glorifies violence, purposeful degredation of mind speech and body, and all around negative behavior it can sink entire groups.
In Canada the 1% make about $250k/yr. In the USA it's close to $2.5 million.
This dynamic, if I may call it such, is a huge reason why I left San Diego where I grew up very relatively poor, and moved to the Northwest. I am actually now more genuinely poor, but I am not so degraded by quite such an abundance of wealthy people (who are neither smarter, nor harder working btw and never were).
I sometimes think I missed my shot by not making the move sooner (early '90s), but when I see how things have gone in California in the last dozen years and I'm really thankful that I'm not there any longer.
People who get angry at others for being rich while you're still well off shouldn't get violent, control your selves, ignore the hierarchy of it and think of your self going forward.
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.
3:09 Odd that someone so smart would screw up the point that Conservatives are anti distribution . No they are not , they are anti SOCIALIST , NOT the same thing . If a person wants to get a job and earn a good wage that's wealth distribution to a conservative , not someone kicking you out of the house you bought after twenty years of saving for it to give it to someone else who has never worked a day in their life , that is liberal wealth distribution and that is Socialism . I havent figured out this guys political leanings after watching him for about a year because he is all over the place .
He's a Liberal in the classical sense, not far left or far right, somewhere in the middle and will probably prove to be helpful in having the left & right make some valuable & needed compromises imo.
wrong. Conservatives want wages as low as possible to increase profits. That's why they use slave labor in Asia.
@Nico So all conservatives are business owners ? There are no liberal business owners ? Libs have not been shy about moving their companies overseas either but I guess that is besides your point right ? You need to figure out that business decisions do not always have anything to do with politics .
What the flying fuck are you talking about? Who the hell told you to leave a house you owns and gave it to a person who has never worked a day in their life. How in the F is that even socialism?
Nico Odeku it’s actually reverse businesses compete to pay employees higher wages to get better people. Government jobs, pay, and employee performances are generally bad and stagnant.
I almost starved to death as a 14 year old when both my parents abandoned me in New York City. I worked hard and today I'm wealthy and a conservative. Insane to think that I want poor people to stay down. I encourage everybody to rise up and take control of your life
OMG been trying to explain this to a family member , and had no name for it. It makes so much sense. My community was very poor in the late 90's and crime was minimal, and in the early 2000's most families started entering the middle class and the middle class has been growing ever since and so is the crime. The explanation about the young men seeking dominance and power is also spot on. How do we work to fix this 😢?
His reasoning for why people (and not specifically conservatives, as he asserts) don't really want income distribution is not because they want to be on top, it's because they want to keep what they have worked for and earned. You can make the claim that this is subconscious, but good luck proving that.
That actually was my first thought, too. I am not sure which version is right though.
Effectively people on top want to stay relatively richer, otherwise they wouldn't have a comparatively higher status and more dominance in the hunt for pussy. Also, who decides what is earned wealth and what isn't?
This is a red herring.
No, it's a theory. Simply put, you can't be rich without being on top and vice versa. So it's splitting hairs.
No, it's a red herring. You don't have to be rich to feel as though you shoudl keep what you earned. I am a person who could never, ever be considered rich, and I feel this way. As does my entire family. Being rich has nothing to do with it. And deciding what is earned and what isn't is irrelevant when you control for the working class who are not rich by any stretch of the definition. Your comment is meant to derail, whether you realize it or not.
Back in the day, people would work their way out of poverty, not riot and loot.
Back in the day, people could!
Paul Smith you clearly still can.
So, whenever "The day" was, no one committed crimes for personal gain? I find that hard to believe, unless "The day" predates mankind's existence.
@@ducko1988 Indeed you can, but it is considerably harder than it used to be. Considerably!!
@@paulsmith6090 There is never an excuse to riot and loot. And the goods looted were of a luxury nature, not basics like food.
This pretty much explains knife crime in London
Maybe guns are hard to get a hold of for most. Knives are everywhere, obtainable and stealthy.
russell field but it’s only certain people obtaining and using them.
@@gelbsucht947 It could be because black men tend to have higher levels of testosterone which contributes to more dominate behaviour which can also lead to aggression.
@@gelbsucht947 It's NOT a black phenomenon..
Chico Banderas wishful thinking on your part. The stats don’t bear out your claim.
I think that poverty can cause a cultural social condition where moral norms can be compromised at times. On the other hand, I don't agree that all poor people are prone to criminality, rather driven to a desperate need to survive. Research has proven that long term intergenerational poverty in some families can cause welfare dependency, and can create a maladaptive social culture.
“Crime correlates to relative poverty.” Oh. So one of jealousy, laziness, hopelessness, a combination thereof, or revolt against actual corruption.
poverty doesn't cause crime. crime causes people with money to leave, so all you have left is poverty.
That just isn't true. If you look at a lot of old factory towns you can see a strong correlation between the factories leaving and increase in crime. Now I'm not a Peterson fan but I do know a thing or two about evolutionary biological behavior and what Peterson is saying here is fairly accurate but the comments aren't interpreting him correctly. Perhaps from his vague word use or maybe hes using unfamiliar language. Could be a few things. Also it's more nuanced than Peterson is making it out to be.
As said by Teddy Roosevelt, "Comparison is the thief of joy".
No incentive to steal what your neighbor has if it's the same thing you have. Only if he has something better than wh as t you have.
Its kind of hard stealing a house or a car. Food and drugs on the other hand, is the true source. Purpose another, respected the third.
Forced labour; whoring on the market; a true joy for sure. But its finally about protection and the country. Why and for whom do you defend others properties for ? War can only be good the, restributing the ownership. Lucky for me i dont own land, and so dont really need to defend or wage war. My wealth is my mind.
This video needs to go everywhere 👏👏👏
I think Mr. Peterson is misinterpreting that Gini Coefficient he speaks of.
Yes, the US (overall) has a Gini Coefficient that could well be called extreme. And yes the US (overall) has some pretty high crime rates.
But should you look more closely you find that the areas of the US having the highest crime rates (and especially violent crime rates). Are all the same areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient.
Your neighbor having a nicer car than you have does not inspire you to commit a crime nor incite you to violence. It might inspire you to talk trash about your neighbor (he only got that raise because of brown nosing the boss). Or it may inspire you to trade your good, reliable car off and take out a loan you maybe cannot afford to pay in order to get a nicer car for yourself. Keeping up with the Jones.
But it's not likely to incite you to go buy (or steal) a gun and shoot up the neighborhood.
Because while your neighbor may have that bit of status. That shiny new car. You know that you have viable options to counter or even exceed his status.
Then you get areas with a relatively low Gini Coefficient. Like inner city Chicago. The Projects, the Slums, the Ghetto. By whatever name you might call it. There you have a relatively large area, with a population well into the thousands, even hundreds of thousands. And everyone there has not much more than nothing effectively.
They can SEE the Suburbs with the pretty houses and the nice shiny cars. The hi-rise Apartments and Condos that cost almost as much per month as they make per year.
They KNOW that better is out there to be had but they can't see a viable path to attaining that better for themselves. They don't see a viable path out of where they are.
And if they can't see a way to get into that bigger pond. They are going to settle for being the biggest fish they can be in their little pond.
People immigrate (legally) to the US in search of a BETTER life for Themselves and their Children. Because where they were at before they could not aspire to anything more than just being enough.
"But should you look more closely you find that the areas of the US having the highest crime rates (and especially violent crime rates). Are all the same areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient."
Spot on!
@timwins31, I've not simplified, much less OVER simplified anything. So many people, especially those on the Left or otherwise advocating Socialism. Like to point to things like the Gini Coefficient as proof positive of the injustice of Western Civilization and the utter failure of Capitalism.
When the TRUTH is the exact opposite.
Where do you find the highest levels of Crime? Especially Violent Crime? In those areas having the lowest Gini Coefficient.
In those places where everyone is pretty much equal Financially and Socially.
I grew up in rural eastern Tennessee.. in a family with 8 children. My father was the bread winner and my mother managed the home (they'd actually planned on 6 children, but the last one turned out to be triplets.)
They taught us love by doing.. responsibility.. discipline.. and good humor. They fostered in us a love of education and not violence, because they knew that only one of those would redound to a long term successful outcome. Only education would deliver us.
Some neighbor kids were not so inclined. Only five in that family . But were programmed by parents who chose victim status. Same age.. but all of them gone now.. drugs and jail time.
The criminal mind, with little exception, is the product of bad programming.. not bad finances.
bad finances do play a part in bad programming
@@philipmolokwu9271 - nope... bad decision making. Plenty of low income people who Do Not feel compelled to go out and kill people and break things. Use wisely your power of choice.
Exactly the Irish mob and the Italian grew out of not poverty but an genetic disposition to criminality
@@lionblood1268 - GENETIC???
I'd never heard of the gini coefficient before and I do like to learn new things.It certainly makes a lot of sense as to why London has become such a violent place these days; you've got your Made In Chelsea lot,your Mayfair mansions,Kensington posh nobs and of course Westminister, the seat of power, and not too far from all this wealth,power and privilege you've got your council tower blocks full of people who are constantly reminded of wht they can never have-UNLESS they start selling drugs and as we know, the drug game is full of psychopaths and thus is violent and it's workers don't have a very long "shelf-life"; sooner or later they end up in nick or 6 feet under by violent means.
However, I also think there's another factor and that is that the west has lost or is loosing faith in Christ.My parents grew up in 1920s and 30s rural Ireland. They wer e literally half-starved and so were most of their peers. There was some wealth around them- the local squire had a huge house, loads of land and staff but most people were as poor as each other but yet, most of THEM also owned their own houses and owned some bit of land, even if it was small.My maternal grandfather was a stone mason and built his own small cottage for his family and they also owned the next field.My paternal grnadparents owned a small farm. So, they had something important because home-owners always have that bit more power than tennants. Most of the poor in the cities like Limerick, Dublin and Cork were tennants though, and those in the Dublin tnements suffered the worst poverty in western Europe. They were also not far away from relative wealth and YET there was very little violent crime and muders were in single figures anually for the fledgling Irish Republic up until the Dunnes started importing heroin into Ireland in the 1980s so there must have been another factor.I think it was because of the extreme devout Christian faith of the majority of the population of the 26 Counties that made this such a safe place in those decades from 1925 until the 1980s when heroin came to blight this island.People believed sincerely in God, took the Sacraments and were very aware of the Four Last Things i.e Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell, so they lived accordingly as no one wanted the very last one of those Four Last Things.I grew up in England because my parents were just two of 1000s of Irish people who emigrated to England in the 50s. From my point of view England was a safe place but not as safe as Ireland.I loved it when we came here for our summer holiday fortnights as I was given so much freedom to roam around with my cousins,much more than I was allowed in England and we has far more freedom as kids in 60s and 70s England than kids do there now as it's gone to the dogs altogether! Kids are stabbing kids to death not just in Londond, but in nearly every city and some of the small towns as well( this is the reason I don't think gun control will reduce Americas murder problem- the problem is in the hearts and minds and the murdereous will just find another way to kill like they ahve in England).I think this is because England was not nearly as devout a Christian country as Ireland was in those days; that was why Irish Catholics regarded the English as "heathens". That's just my theory anyway.
NOT AMUSED: Sorry but I disagree that London is "Now" a dangerous place, it always has been.
At 18 (70's) I had 12 mates in prison for murder or manslaughter, never thought that I would get passed 21 without being inside or dead! Thankfully neither came to fruition!
Other than that, well stated but not always the case!
@@Loki1815 No need to apologise; you know London far better than me as I grew up in a small market town in the Midlands. We had relatives in London and would visit them but once I left home I rarely went there, so I concede to your experience!
I'm glad you were able to avoid the same fates as your mates and I'm glad you survived! I had boy mates who eneded up on heroin in the 80s and died far too young,such a waste! Drugs are a plague!
Whatdo you think of the gini coefficient? Does it make sense to you? Was it /poverty/money and/or drugs that were the souces of your mates' downfalls?I do think that human life ahs also been cheapened in people's minds for decades now and I think the drug trade and the legalisation of abortion in 1967 has influenced this,so things will probably get worse here in Ireland now as well; what's your take on it?
There was a brilliant doctor in the Zeitgeist movie (I think it was the 2nd or 3rd movie) and I forget his name (Forgive me) but he made a very hard hitting point that I will never forget. He said "The number 1 cause for violent behavior is INEQUALITY." That is what this Gini effect and what Dr Peterson is getting at without actually saying the word itself. The doctor I quoted has spent his entire life studying violent criminals and trying to explain why such behavior arises, 50+ years he claims in the movie....I believe his point to be absolutely true as I have observed much the same in my own life. Even in monkeys you can see such a thing, there was an experiment where they had 2 monkeys perform the same task but rewarded one with more (food/reward) than the other. The result was the lesser rewarded monkey being furious when he saw the other monkey getting so much more for the same task.
Equality should be treated much like perfection in my mind. It is something we should always strive for even though we know none of us will ever attain it. Similarly none of us can ever really be equal yet we should always strive to treat each other equally.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that. "
Kingdom of Heaven.
Thank you Jordan Peterson for another speech that helps me understand the world and individuals in a deeper way.
Although this is excerpted from a longer presentation, but based on Jordan claiming that people with conservative mindsets want to maintain the dominance hierarchy therefore they don't want to help with the poor. Before going any further, I'm neither a conservative nor a leftist/lieberal, etc., I'm a political atheist. I don't believe in any of this Left/Right nonsense. I leave that nonsense to the plebs.
Now on to my point, I've worked with and seen enough of the poor while living and working in Philadelphia, I can tell you that many of the poor are dumb as rocks. They have no sense. And when I say "dumb," I don't just mean they lack academic knowledge, they lack the knowledge of just washing one's body, how to get along with other people, how to improve oneself, etc. Not only do they lack these skills, they lack any desire to improve themselves. So I can't go along with Jordan's statement that conservatives are with holding resources to maintain the social dominance hierarchy. Throwing resources at the poor, in my experience, would be a bad idea. Most of those resources would be wasted. Until the desire to improve oneself manifests in the poor, there's little to nothing an outsider can do to get the poor on their feet.
They don't need to improve themselves as individuals in order for a reduction of their moderate-to-extreme suffering to be ethically justified. They just need to be dissuaded against procreation at a rate that is at or above their replacement level. An ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all that.
This might entail a degree of *negative* eugenics on the policy level, so it gets procedurally tricky. In the current climate, a politician who so much as hints at proposing anything of the sort will be committing political suicide.
Also, I'd say _Political Instrumentalism_ is a better label for what you're describing with 'political atheism'.
Unless you're a political nihilist or an anarcho-something.
Political athiest sooo basically libertarian
Political affiliation or inclination is a question of temperament. It's actually not a dumb thing.
Holy shit, the Eugenicists.
The issue is that the dominance heirarchy is predicated on a top down model. The people at the top are the one's who are dumb as rocks. They are emotionally unintelligent because they put profit before people. Dominance heirarchies use people and nature for profit. They steal the labor of people. If I hire you for $20 then it must be that the labor or goods or service you produce is worth more than that. If I don't share this with you then it goes in my pocket or in the pockets of shareholders. In capitalism you are the capital to be exploited. If I have a lease for oil I pump out a natural resource and sell it back to you. It was never mine to own except on paper. Government created the lease and enabled another corporation to profit. What a weird system of wealth division based in profiteering and scarcity using a class structure against each other.
Thank you , RUclips recommendations for bringing me here!
This makes sense and im sure it's true but are there some places where this effect can be dampened. I live in Thailand where there is a huge disparity between rich and poor and yet it is very safe. Stealing is more common but violent crime is very rare. Could this effect be a result of Buddhism?
Whiteboard Gurus It might be because the rich are physically separated from the poor.
India as well, high inequality, lower homicide rate than america. It's more about, I'm afraid to say race. Peterson also completely ignores the case of countries where homicide rates are very high but not necessarily unequal, a good example would be jamaica. By peterson's logic black people in america are killing other black people because they envy white people, wouldn't they overwhelmingly kill white people if they were so much envious of white people? But they don't. 95% of blacks in america are killed by other blacks. It has more to do with poor impulse control which blacks have demonstrated to show since childhood.
Stated differently, Peterson is saying The Spirit Level and Pickety's Capital are both correct.
Hilarious considering how much he defends the status quo
When I go to college I want a professor like Jordan Peterson because what I’ve seen is that most people go to colleges and come out dumber but this guys student are actually listening they love what he is saying
And people driven by patos / driving agendas based on patos hate him for it.
Whops. replied to the wrong thread! Sorry!
I think people choose crime over legitimate jobs, because there are lower barriers to entry, higher rewards, and less effort.
If the choice is working for minimum wage at McDonald's, standing on your feet for most of an 8-hour shift or working as a drug dealer, it's a no-brainer.
Add to the mix that a person might only have the education of a 6th grader, promotion within the drug trade will be far easier than becoming a shift manager at a McDonald's.
What makes the matter worse is when a youngster sees a criminal driving a luxury car, wearing nice clothes, and flashing a was of cash.
That makes studying, taking on student loan debt, and an entry-level salary after college graduation far less appealing.
As a Criminology major all of this is old news, there are also other major factors that contribute to crime such as whether a region is static or dynamic with regards to the movement of people, biology, family structure, diversity, abuse, etc.
People are more prone to unsocial behavior when in perceived diverse settings, not just economics but any other form of identity as well so long as they believe that difference to be meaningful. One of the many purposes of nationalism, religion, and a mono culture was intended to remove those perceived differences across varying groups, but that is also wisdom that has been long forgotten as well.
Sean Thomson Isn't that also the wisdom that creates a society of conformity, in which so many warn of totalitarian regimes? I'm not so sure it's forgotten wisdom, rather borderline communistic ideologies wrapped up in patriotic banter.
Crime is considered to be nonconforming behavior, but your notion that conforming behavior within society somehow translates to a dictatorship in government is bizarre to say the least, perhaps you want to try explaining your reasoning?
Japan has one of thy lowest crime rates globally, has a mono culture and it isn't a communistic despotic country. Areas in the US which have less perceived diversity have lower crime rates as well, would they fall under your totalitarian regime / communistic category?
This is very interesting but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. I live in an urban area which has been recently gentrified. The uneven wealth distribution in my immediate neighborhood, even on my particular street has increased drastically over the past five years but incidence of violent and property crime had decreased to near zero. There are still a significant number of very poor people living here next to very wealthy but we have watched our quality of life increase as more wealthy people have moved into the neighborhood. Thank god for these rich folk! They bought up all the crack houses and kicked out the hookers and dope boys and now I can leave my house without fear of being robbed. I can't afford to move to another place in this same neighborhood but I'm happy for the improvement.
The crime has probably just shifted the location. The theory doesn't state that the perceived inequality will be taken out on the wealthy. It may in fact be fellow poor people who bear the brunt of the resulting rise in crime.
eiffe It was definitely directed at fellow poor people. There were only poor people around. Now that wealthy people have moved in, the crime is gone. I don't care where it went. All I care about is that I can walk out my front door without fear. That was a REAL aspect of daily life that I don't have to contend with anymore. Peterson made the claim that the crime/wealth model worked at every level. I'm just saying my experience contradicts that.
That's awesome! I've heard similar stories in different places before, too. But there's a reason the correlation is 0.8 instead 1.0. It isn't the sole, perfect indicator; just a really, really good one.
That’s because there are soooo many confounding factors. With an increase in the median income the area got more property tax revenue, leading to better police. Maybe the crime is committed elsewhere? Maybe the culture amongst the poor people changed? Maybe the poor people in that area have relatively higher IQ than the poor people in that area of the past?
There are many factors that correlate with crime beyond just GINI, which may confound the results.
FWIW, that has not been the effect in my neighborhood. Property crimes have increased significantly in the last 5 years I've lived here, as new more expensive homes have been built and the "nextdoor neighborhood" of very low income has started passing through.Thankfully, no violent crimes that I'm aware of.
Hey, does anyone have a link to this study showing a correlation between polygamy and violence ? So interesting!
This guy keeps blowing my mind so much I can only handle 1 minute of him a day
Income inequality is a factor, but isn't IQ a better predictor? You can find societies with high income inequality and low crime. They tend to have a high average IQ. But it's difficult to find even a single country with an average IQ of
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.
@@Me-by8qi And poor people do not think they can improve their own situation fast enough to catch up to richer people. They do not get that learning from their parents apparently due to the low education level of the parents. But also low IQ is a factor to figure out how to get richer other than by illegal means. Maybe moral shortcomings as well... There are some common reasons why poor people are poor. No?..
Equality dont exist
Income equality is what left wing people want the most. So why is Jordan Peterson disregarding them. His disagreement sounds forced and counterproductive.
@Maximilian Robespier what do you mean?
@Maximilian Robespier which part of my comment makes you think that I said income equality is bad? I think income equality is good
Na, that's bullshit. That's like saying every person is special, you need the dark to know the difference between light. If you say that darkness isn't a thing then what the hell is light? It has no meaning.
@Maximilian Robespier Could you elaborate more on how the rich take money from the poor a bit?
@Maximilian Robespier in what world???? The richest people in the world are workaholics. From the MINUTE they wake up to the MINUTE they fall asleep they are working.. do you actually think you work harder then a multi billionaire when you still have dust and trash under your bed? (probably) . Also, the rich dont "tax the poor" if you aren't aware theres a thing called government and here in the USA we have a progressive income tax rate. Meaning you'll be taxed accordingly by how much money you make.... its funny how both those statements could be SO far from the truth.
This doesn't explain places like China or Singapore. Higher Gini numbers and lower violent crime rates. I feel like he's ignoring demographics which also likely play a significant role.
Peterson treats facts the way chicken farmers treat foxes.
Well he said .8 or .9 correlation. Not 1
nova68nova There’s also punishments like caning in Singapore and the communist parties are not known for being forthright in the publication of statistics . Remember when Russia, China and many African countries denied that aids was present in their populations . You must be from a western democracy or republic to believe such things are reliable because those are the only places where they have any relationship to reality. Be thankful and appreciate .
As having lived in Singapore, I can tell you that laws are extraordinarily strict. Also, I’ve never heard people say anything negative about rich people. Instead of focusing on what others have, they focus on themselves. They are the best capitalists because of the Asian culture they grow up in, which is about focusing on yourself being the best.
It's possible for both income inequality and racial differences to be correlated with crime rate. They are. If you're looking for a single number to explain everything you're just gonna end up like all the morons before who tried that. Turns out society is a very complex high-dimensional system, who fucking new. You can't just boil it down to a single left vs right line.
in other words crime is driven by petty immature concerns like envy and status hunger. and wanting women who just want your money and status and you don't care about love. these motives need addressing.
This is seen in juvenile dolphins when there is a lack of access to females.
@Nelson Robert Willis r/woosh
@Nelson Robert Willis I KNEW IT! IT WAS A TRAP!
Jordan is wrong: Venezuela have the 4 higest crime rate cityes in latina america, and they have one of the higest GINI. Chile (my country) have a terrible GINI and one of the lowest crime rates in whole America.
When people get to the point of starving... yes, Jordan... they will see crime as a survival chance.
Ikr right from the start u can see his agenda. Saying its a left wing thing. Nah mate its an economic induction.
Are we talking only about violent crime or all kinds of crime?
He does specify violent crime and homicide a few times.
@@fireeaglefitnessmartialart935 Thanks!
If you listen carefully he points out why income disparity and male violence correlate. It happens when the man believes violence is the only way to raise his status.
If your politicians and teachers and celebrities are telling you that can't succeed because of outside oppression then you are more likely to use violent crime to get ahead, you've been implicitly taught there is no other way. However, if instead they focused on how to get ahead without committing crimes but within the rules of society, I think crime would drop dramatically in the affected society.