So ends the Alt-West (re: Vox Day and Jordan Peterson)

tl;dr- Mixed feelz. It’s the exact same thing as the Cville debacle, which ended poorly for everyone involved because the Right is unwilling to form alliances with neighboring cities to fight the Persians. Vox’s point is ultimately correct, but his insistence that Peterson is lying by defaulting to the orthodox psychometric position on a controversial topic, rather than Vox’s own unorthodox, one-week-old line of reasoning, is completely autistic. With the intention of mitigating the damage, I’ll offer some constructive analysis.

Peterson may have a high IQ but it is verbally tilted and he’s admitted to feeling out of his depth in quantitative matters, so that his lack of mathematical intuition on this subject could be reasonably attributed to lethargy.

Given this and the intensive stress that is visibly aging him (via SSRIs, infamy, and a philosophy of unrelenting moral courage), I’d suppose he’s relying primarily on crystallized memory of conventional statistics rather than quantitative intuition proper.

a) The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews (see this article in the Economist for a credible layman’s analysis; for a scientific take (one of many) see Gregory Cochran’s work: abstract and full paper). Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence (my lab has published on this issue). Consider also that the effect of a mean or average difference in IQ is dramatically increased at the tails of the distribution, so that a 10-15 point difference produces increasingly large inequalities in group representation in proportion to the degree that a given job requires higher general cognitive ability. This means that proportional Jewish over-representation increases as the demand for IQ increases. Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.

Your cutoff for high IQ is far too low. Try 145 (the figure I cite for serious intellectual advantage) and see how that works. That’s three standard deviations above the general population of mean of 100, not the 115 (one standard deviation) you used. One standard deviation above the average is helpful — it puts you in college — but it’s nothing compared to three standard deviations (in part because of the operation of the Pareto principle).

Three standard deviations advantage for the general population puts an individual at 99.9%. That’s .001 of the population, so .001 X 200,000,000 (using your figures) = 200,000 “white gentiles” with an IQ of 145 or more.

Two standard deviations advantage for the Jewish population (with an estimated mean IQ of 115) means an IQ above 97.7% of the Jewish population. That’s .023 of the population, so .023 X 6.000,000 = 138,000

138,000/(200,000+138,000) = 138,000/338,000 = 40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish. And you said “40% of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish.”

Isn’t it something how those figures dovetail?

This is a perfectly valid argument from orthodox psychometric figures. It’s ultimately wrong, but that’s due to incorrect premises drawn from other sources. Given the premises, the statistical argument would be sound. It takes a great deal of digging to learn that the positive correlation between IQ and success does not hold in the high end of intelligence, and Ashkenazi intelligence is a subject mired in the fog of war. You can have mistaken assumptions of this sort without being worthy of this sort of opprobrium:

Peterson’s argument is not merely incorrect, literally every single aspect of it is false. It is so resolutely and demonstrably false that it is not possible for Jordan Peterson to have constructed it in innocence by mistake. In my opinion, it clearly represents a purposeful intent to deceive his audience and falsely accuse those he labels “the far right”.

I do not know Jordan Peterson, but his incorrect and deceitful arguments and his unfair, unjustified attacks on his critics show him to be an inept and integrity-challenged coward who lacks commitment to the truth.

Vox Day
The myth of Jordan Peterson’s integrity

Vox bases this interpretation on:

1) A disagreement over the morality of identity politics (a point on which intellectually honest people may disagree).
2) A disagreement over the psychological motives of white identitarians.
3) A fringe psychometric theory that is supported by anecdote (and me) but typically dismissed by professionals in that field.
4) A statistic he calculated personally, and only published very recently.
5) Another statistic calculated from the statistic he calculated personally, and only published very recently.
6) The plausibility of his alternative hypothesis.

On the one hand, accusing Peterson of being a weakling and liar is excellent strategy if you want to foment dialectic around the meme of Jewish accomplishment, controlled for intelligence. White gentile leftists would rather see Alt-Right figureheads at each other’s throats than shut down their speech, so the dialectic aspect would likely be allowed to play out in public, relatively unmolested. The influential American Jews themselves will oppose it in general (with notable exceptions), but will be unable to mobilize their white shock troops, who would turn on them if denied the opportunity to engage in their reproductive strategy. It’s as if Milo and Cernovich announced a team deathmatch between their Twitter followers at the site of the Robert E Lee statue in Cville (the left supports gun ownership when it means the right is shooting itself in the foot). I expect Vox is quite aware of this angle.

On the other hand, I expect Vox is also truthfully reporting his motive as a prophet of perfect intellectual integrity, and believes Peterson is a bought-and-paid-for shill. To borrow one of Vox’s own heuristics,

There is definitely something deeply, insidiously wrong with any self-styled male feminist. Never forget that when they repeat their mantras of “don’t be evil” and “don’t inappropriately touch women”, they are talking to themselves.

The false front of the male feminist

Applying this to Vox’s mantra about dedication to truth, truth, truth, I must assume he’s under higher than average temptation to misrepresent himself. So I expect that he’s driven to this by opportunism (uncontroversially a consistent motive of his), enabled by the belief that he’s a holy lightbringer smoking out Satanist pedophiles and their intellectual apologists, and self-assured by the strategic soundness of his plan. However, he’s probably wrong about Peterson’s motives here, and calling the man a disingenuous intellectual coward is at least premature, and at worst vicious defamation.

(Also, it needs to be said that calling someone a liar if they won’t debate you is really bad behavior.)

If you’re a regular reader you know I’m not a Peterson acolyte, and I consider him an unwitting advocate of a Jungian Pagan cult with which Satan intends to replace Christianity. But, he is doing this quite honestly as a study of psychology, because lower-p paganism may be reasonably described as “the worship of libido”. (I oppose the invention of religion in general because man absolutely cannot be trusted to be honest in this realm, but fascination with religious subjects is entirely natural and not an indicator that someone is a conscious agent of the Synagogue of Satan.) One might even state the thesis of the Zodiacism theory as “In the absence of God, man regresses to the worship of his own mind as he sees it projected into the primordial chaos of the material universe.”

So, the man’s obviously not perfect or a devotee of Truth, but the vehement rhetoric suggests Vox has decided he’s a disgusting agent of Evil to be destroyed with fire from Heaven. I suspect this is due to his recent heuristic, which I’m informed is quite reliable and does not produce this sort of unwarranted over-reaction.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to So ends the Alt-West (re: Vox Day and Jordan Peterson)

  1. SirHamster says:

    I suspect this is due to his recent heuristic, which I’m informed is quite reliable and does not produce this sort of unwarranted over-reaction.

    You can do better than indirect sniping.

    Would you like to logically link the heuristic to this “unwarranted over-reaction”?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I can only do that by association, because the heuristic can only be understood logically as a tautology, unless we accept it is possible to advocate for pedophilia in a non-evil way.

      So here are the associations:
      1. Jordan Peterson engages in unconventional reinterpretations of Old Testament narratives.
      2. He supports the Cabal of Satanist pedophiles by explaining away their nepotism.

      • SirHamster says:

        the heuristic can only be understood logically as a tautology, unless we accept it is possible to advocate for pedophilia in a non-evil way.

        That is the point of the heuristic. The leftist articles talking about misunderstood pedophiles are not coming from a place of ignorant goodwill, a notion that charitable high-trust Westerners may be willing to entertain. All that pedophile advocacy is evil covering for evil. We already know this is true; it has utility because there are blinded men who can fooled by the rationalization of evil.

        So here are the associations:
        1. Jordan Peterson engages in unconventional reinterpretations of Old Testament narratives.

        Vox Day has not even touched Jordan’s interpretation of OT narrative. His entire salvo is centered on:

        1. Peterson is a public intellectual.
        2. Peterson has made factual claims that VD can easily disprove, and did.
        3. Peterson has sufficient knowledge to do better than what he did; he has moral duty to speak truth that he has not spoken.

        4. The claim of fraud are based on the fraud in JP’s words. JP needs to address the criticism and retract falsehood to retain integrity and stay respectable.

        None of this has anything to do with “all forms of pedophilia advocacy are evil”. You call Vox’s words an overreaction, and it is more than you or I would do at first – but it is sound and it is a test for JP to overcome or fail. (Leadership power – jumping straight to the fucking point instead of exhausting sidepoints)

        The heuristic is irrelevant to this exchange, and note that Vox subjects himself to the standard he is holding JP to.

        Advocating for truth does not require diplomatic and political maneuvering. It requires simple dedication to the truth.

        How rational error is, is irrelevant. Will I/you/him/we correct error?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Regardless of my psychologizing about why or concerns about how hard-headed intellectuals ought to be, it remains that Vox is calling him a liar with insufficient justification.

          • SirHamster says:

            If JP won’t correct the error clearly identified, then he is a liar. It only takes one. Then we’re just haggling over how big of a liar he is.

            And that’s without disputing the definition of liar. (liar -> one who says lies; one definition of lie is false statement, regardless of intent; Vox only needs one set of correct definitions to have justified use of the term)

            • SirHamster says:

              > Peterson is merely being elastic with his honesty. Slectively honest.

              But don’t anyone dare call him a liar. That’s lying.

            • SirHamster says:

              > Maybe hes exercising Tact.

              “If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics … Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).”

              Tactful words from Jordan Peterson towards the Alt-Right.

              You implied I was lying. Is that you being tactful? Did you overlook the possibility of selective honesty on my part? Can you even back up the charge of lying?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Gabe is banned, please don’t engage him.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              > It only takes one. Then we’re just haggling over how big of a liar he is.

              Every adult, non-vegetative human has misrepresented the truth at least once. Defining “liar” in this way generalizes the term into practical uselessness. I’m not a fan of Nate at all but he’s got the right idea here, correct usage is to describe a pattern of behavior.

            • SirHamster says:

              > Gabe is banned, please don’t engage him.

              Sorry about that. Noted.

            • SirHamster says:

              > Every adult, non-vegetative human has misrepresented the truth at least once. Defining “liar” in this way generalizes the term into practical uselessness. I’m not a fan of Nate at all but he’s got the right idea here, correct usage is to describe a pattern of behavior.

              Yes and no.

              You *were* a liar is different than you *are* a liar. Former implies correction/repentance, latter says the lies have not been retracted.

              In this case, JP has been corrected and until he retracts the lie of Jewish IQ superiority, he is lying. If he prioritizes anything else over the truth, the label fits, because it’s only a matter of time before priorities assert themselves.

              The importance of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Also ties to JP’s point about not saying things that make us weak. Lies weaken us.

  2. Ø says:

    To me this looks like Vox is unconsciously attempting to apply indirect pressure on Peterson (via emotionally agitating his commentariat/readers/etc and counting on the subsequent cultural-emotional osmosis that will inevitably occur between his and Peterson’s fanbases) to make him start telling the truth about le happy Combine Advisors–or at least make him and his fanbase uncomfortable and aware of the issue.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    Aeoli, is Gabe the same person as Lazer as Lorca?

  4. The Owl of Minerva says:

    The last post “The Last Blog On Vault-Co” stayed up for weeks. Tex linked to HTTrack months before he dropped the blog, you have no excuse. Your pathetic lack of foresight marks you as incompetent, unworthy of what you ask. You think Aeoli is the only one? Even with a slow baseline internet connection you had all the time you needed. It does not take that long to download 6 gigs. But you couldn’t be bothered. And now you beg on hands and knees.

    • The Owl of Minerva says:

      I have no obligation to give you anything. Moreover, Tex took it down for a reason. The topics discussed and attention he received likely meant that his life was in danger. Publicly posting such a body of knowledge would be a flagrant disregard for his wishes and that attention could lead to material harm.

      If there is some specific bit of information that you need I might be convinced to forward it, provided it’s not on the Wayback Machine. But I have wasted enough time I will not check back till Monday.

  5. tenneby says:

    Jordan Peterson is controlled opposition. He’s one of this years Milo Yiannopoulos / Mike Cernovich in that he mouths vaguely right-ish platitudes that keep people on the reservation while allowing them to feel somewhat edgy. The sooner this rat is gone the better off everyone on the right will be.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      You guys don’t make it easy to defend you.

      • cloom says:

        I conclude cohesion will take a lot of time, because the doctrines of many are not solidly Holy Spirit led. I am going to wait. God will do the pruning over time and let’s see what bears fruit.

        I learn things by reading here. Thank-you.

  6. “I must assume he’s under higher than average temptation to misrepresent himself.”

    What if i could prove to you I’ve seen it? ;)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s