Although we can get grains of truth from our ideologies' aphorisms, which say things like "Have you ever seen an ungrateful happy person?" the real insight comes from the details. That is what I present today. Ideologies are not intended to teach us scientific truths; instead, they appeal to our moral sentiments and values. The pithy expression is a criticism of liberalism in that all we do is complain. This is appealing to some because it validates their belief that liberals are whiney weaklings. They then share this "moment" with others. That is how ideologies work. They make us form bonds with those on our side, so we remain self-righteous, divisive, and insular.
Does it not start with a complaint, though? For those who are not satisfied with the status quo, it must start this way. In any event, I am not complaining on this post. I am saying one thing: exaggerated status inequality, regardless of whether we are indifferent towards it, has consequences. I do not mean to pick on Jordan Peterson. I suppose I use it to help a lot of people. He does so by assisting them to become "disagreeable." Disagreeableness is a personality trait characterized by acting aggressively and manipulatively to serve one's interests. Thus, Peterson will be contributing to more formidable competitors within the status hierarchy. I am unsure whether Peterson should be judged for this, as this is what successful people often do: they aggressively pursue their interests.
If it does not occur to anyone, this constitutes scientific evidence for any feelings of indignation that some may have over inequality. I say "some" because most studies show that we can accept a lot of status inequality. And, no, indignation is not envy, nor is it resentment. Conservatives have already told us what they think of our feelings—"*$*! your feelings". We cannot argue just on feelings. I could not address many of the commentator's points because either they made no sense or were unworthy of my time.
Introduction
Most do not care about inequality. We care about fairness. Studies show that we can tolerate the disparity between the poor and the rich without making a fuss, with the rich earning up to four or even fifty times as much as the poor [8]. Most people believe that a meritocracy is fair, which is what our economy aspires to be. A meritocracy is a system where people are awarded based on their abilities. We examine what they have done or can do, which is a function of their ability plus the effort they put forth. This may not feel fair to those with an intellectual or physical disability. But life is not fair. Even to the average person, meritocracy is not entirely fair because we are not all born with the same levels of privilege. We are not all born with the same abilities, such as intelligence and motivation, either. In principle, this does not seem to bother most. Meritocracy is promoted as providing an incentive to achieve status while being an efficient way to allocate talent. As Peterson has said, we want the best people performing brain surgery on us—a hierarchy of competencies.
Meritocracy is a legitimizing myth since it justifies the status hierarchy that forms as a result of our differences in ability. It morally justifies our successes, implying that those at the top are competent and intelligent while those at the bottom are lazy and stupid. Despite some quibbles, I have no problem with this. The exception is that meritocracy can make our society look like an experiment in social Darwinism [9]. However, we begin this post under the assumption that people generally get what they deserve; we need to exclude factors such as privilege, superior intelligence, gifted drive, cronyism, selfish and conscientious personalities, and luck, all of which are beyond our control. Hey, grit and effort count as much as two times that of ability. To a conservative who wants us to shut up and take our medicine (life) like men, my assumption that we more or less get what we deserve should be welcome.
Status-Striving: A Zero-Summed Game
Many of us are failing in our efforts to achieve more status—whether it be influence, respect, care, love, sex, material goods, or other forms of recognition. How do we know this? Take a look at Jordan Peterson's popularity. He is here to help, primarily males, achieve more status and prestige. Status is anything that brings positive attention. Positive attention is admiration, praise, and deference. This attention we get pays off because it brings influence and access to resources [4]. In other words, since people believe we have something special to offer, we can get them to do what we want. They are more likely to reciprocate and help us when in need. After all, people defer to us, and we hold their attention. We represent what they secretly want to be and have.
Status is all relative. Consider how high our confidence and comfort levels are around people who rank low in intelligence, physical attractiveness, and ability. All else equal, these people are more likely to defer to us. Status and prestige, however, are scarce resources since we all want high-salaried positions, attractive and affable friends, and so forth. This means that our self-interest competes with that of others, resulting in a conflict of interests. So, striving for status is often a zero-summed game. There will be losers and winners. It is not like participating in a market transaction, where free market advocates assure us that it is a non-zero-sum game since both participants stand to gain an increase in utility. So, we should not conflate the two. However, this is precisely what free market enthusiasts do; they argue that the market is a win-win, emphasizing cooperation rather than competition.
When there is a limited supply of desirable resources, such as goods, mates, positions, and prestige, those who can outmaneuver, overpower, or entice resources from others will do better than those who cannot.
We attract, entice, and achieve these things (status) by possessing status (intelligence, talents, attractiveness, abilities, etc.).
Indeed, social hierarchies are reflections of the outcomes of conflicts: those at the top have usually escalated and won, whereas those at the bottom have usually been outmaneuvered, overwhelmed, and have had to deescalate. [3]
So, how do we approach this game of status striving? One solution is to surpass others by being formidable and heeding Peterson's advice. We can intimidate and impress people with our confidence and prowess while increasing our chances of success by being selfish. In the process, we will create a winner at the expense of others becoming losers. This is how social hierarchies form, which makes status inequality. Whenever we get people together, this is what happens, although Peterson is biasing it to work in someone's favor. What about those who cannot pursue their self-interest? There is a solution for them as well. They must accept their status and be grateful for it. However, even if we accept our positions in life and become content, our standing in relation to someone else has an impact on our survival. There are subtle forces at play beyond our awareness.
Relative Status: the Insidious (or Beneficial) Force
Commentator: As Science, Engineering, and Technology become more advanced, inequality increases, irrespective of politics. Inequality increases. So what? The living standards of the poor increase along with those of the rich. JB Peterson aims to equip the young with the skills and knowledge necessary to meet tomorrow's challenges.
Peterson believes that a successful person is "tough, smart, conscientious, and disagreeable." Disagreeableness is a personality trait that involves selfishness, manipulation, and aggression [1]. Although possessing these traits and striving to be formidable help some, the net effect is to contribute to an increase in inequality. But there is status mobility, right? Social inequality is not inherently flawed, as it motivates people to strive for higher social status. America is the land of opportunity, and people have more chances to become wealthy here than anywhere else. These points are not necessarily wrong, but they miss an additional effect. Our position in the hierarchy relative to that of another person affects our health and happiness. The better positioned we are, all else equal, then the happier and healthier we are relative to others with less status anywhere along the continuum.
Average happiness levels do not rise with the increasing average of society because, regardless of whether societies are richer or poorer, there will always be those who are better off and those who are worse off; there will always be relative inequalities. [This should answer the "Inequality increases. So what?" It makes no difference if we increase GDP or raise people out of poverty. None whatsoever! Because it is where we stand relative to others that matters. This is an additional effect that must be taken into account. It is also observed across most species in the animal kingdom. Having gratitude for where we are at, taking good health advice, and trying to be satisfied is not enough to buffer the effects of relative status differences. The research bears this out.]
Researchers followed 8,500 men and women over twenty years and reported the results above. If we made less than $15k (~$30k today), then we were nearly four times at risk of death compared to someone who made $70k (~ $140k today). This distribution has been replicated for many other periods and has gotten worse [5]. All factors that may influence the result were adjusted. We may say to ourselves, oh, well, that is easy to explain. Those with higher incomes tend to have better education. Better education and higher income mean making healthier decisions, taking fewer risks, and having access to better healthcare. It turns out that this effect is not significant enough to explain these disparities. That is, once we are out of poverty and do not have to worry about malaria, dysentery, and starvation, education and income have little effect on themselves. It is what status brings us, which is an increase in influence, control over our lives, social engagement, and benefits. Status matters a whole lot.
Humans have a pervasive need to be valued and to cultivate positive feelings about themselves in the mind of "the other" to be chosen for a role (such as an employee, a friend, or a lover). We have developed special processing systems that underpin our self-processing competencies, tracking our social standing and how we perceive others' perceptions of us.[3]
Studies show that we care a great deal about what others think of us. We also care about the amount of status our friends, rivals, and spouses have relative to us [7]. In fact, our happiness depends, amongst other factors, on how we compare ourselves to others. Popular culture says that it should not matter what other people think and that we should only compete with ourselves. This is good advice, as unfavorable comparisons can lead to a negative mood. If we constantly compare ourselves and fail to measure up, we can experience low self-esteem and feelings of inferiority. This is a recipe for an unhappy life. Still, we will inevitably size one another up, as the mind automatically assesses others as either a threat or a non-threat to our interests.
Relative Status: on Health and Happiness
Most mental illnesses, such as depression and social anxiety, have their origins in striving for status [3]. In the United States, the mental illness rate is over twenty percent. Depression is a perfect example of status striving. Depression is a "failed struggle" or a "failure to yield" [3]. This means that when we are experiencing interpersonal conflict (peer abuse, competing for positions, spousal criticism, etc.) or our goals become blocked (unrequited love, stagnant at work, can't live up to expectations, etc.). There's no hope of reaching these goals or "winning"; then, we will become depressed if we don't accept or accommodate ourselves to the situation. In other words, the more we escalate or try harder to get what we want, whatever that may be, and we can't get what we want, the more the body naturally deescalates itself, and we become depressed. Depression tells the body to seek more fruitful paths in life.
Commentator:…that relatively large disparities in status differences result in a reduction in health and happiness." Really? Where is the evidence? Just J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment) degrades health and happiness. [Negative emotions can reduce subjective wellbeing (aka happiness), but the point is missed. As much as we can wish or practice CBT to alleviate these feelings, they are inevitable. In fact, they are a direct result of us not being equal, which is why we have status inequality.]
The negative emotions listed above are the result of us living in a social world and are not so much dependent on our ideology. Conservatives, however, are found to score higher, not by much, on measures of subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is a common measure of happiness and is a function of life satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect. The quotes below outline some of the ways they accomplish this. I suppose that by focusing on what they do not have or how the world should be, liberals can develop general envy towards others and resent the system and those who participate in it. However, I have not found any research on this topic. There is reason to believe that liberals may feel more discontent and unsatisfied because they view the world more accurately. To change something, there must be some dissatisfaction with the current state of things.
Some say that conservatives have a greater sense of agency (they believe that they are in control of their life) and optimism (they believe that meritocracy is fair, that is, with a little effort, anyone can be successful), or they have certainsocial and cultural values that promote happiness (they derive meaning from religion and work). Others have been less flattering, saying that conservatism helps people feel less troubled about social inequalities by helping them to rationalize them away. [9]
High political conservatism is associated with a preference for stability, conformity, tradition, and order. High political liberalism, in contrast, is associated with preferences for creativity, curiosity, novelty-seeking, and new experiences. Highly politically conservative people eschew ambiguity and disorganization and prefer closure and limited shades of gray ("hard categorizers"). Highly politically liberal individuals tend to tolerate ambiguity and disorganization, favoring flexibility and embracing cognitive conflicts. []
The relative risk of death does not segment itself into different ideologies. We have no way of knowing how conservative beliefs and practices would help reduce the relative risk of death. Since happiness is highly correlated with health, then it is conceivable that it would. The key to understanding relative status is that its effect is often incremental and subtle. If we have something "to offer," which is what status is, we are more likely to be chosen for roles to participate in. People invest in us because they believe in us. They are more likely to help us when in need. We have increased access to resources, which come in many different forms (psychological, social, etc.), to help us solve problems. We can take control of the situation instead of letting it control us [5].
All of these things, however subtle, accumulate to decrease the likelihood of stress, which is highly correlated with mental and physical health. It is simply not true that high-status jobs are inherently more stressful, as seen in professions like being a physician. This is due to the respect accorded to them. The more that people defer to us, then the less stressful life is. People are less likely to directly express their disapproval, anger, or criticism towards us. The benefits of being valued pay off in psychological dividends. People who are lower in status relative to their peers are more likely to experience anxiety and depression [3]. They are often in a state of "embraced readiness" because they must defend themselves against harassment. Consider extreme cases of high-status individuals, such as CEOs from successful companies. They were not always calm, cool, and collected. The brain increases neurotransmitters that signal to others that they are of high status. They do not need to defend themselves because others will automatically submit to them.
Resentments: Much-Needed Distinctions
Commentator: Yes, I believe in many but not all cases; envy and indignation can be at the root of a liberal worldview. [Not accurate.] Leftism encourages fear, not respect.[Feeling threatened (fear) by Others, say minorities or those who threaten the establishment, are more typical of conservative authoritarians.] Leftism encourages J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment). [Sometimes, they can feel indignation at the wealthy, especially those who don't contribute to the welfare of others.]
Certainly, some liberals feel envy and indignation over the wealthy. This could be reflected in the fact that they are for the redistribution of wealth. But envy and indignation are different things. Envy is when we want someone else's status, and indignation is when we feel outraged over a grave injustice. When it comes to the wealthy, I suspect that liberals are more likely to feel indignation than envy. They feel that it is a scandal of capitalism that billionaires exist while 40 million people are at the poverty level. A typical conservative, on the other hand, would see this as fair. Because they believe fairness is proportional to the effort put forth in the market. Of course, it is not quite that simple. Regardless, most hate that we see from liberals is from their tribal instincts of Us vs. Them, not from envy. We feel hatred when others pose a threat to us, such as those with whom we are competing or who hold different views than us, and we feelcontempt for those we perceive as being inferior to us. Note that I have chosen more technical definitions than those provided by Webster's, but others are also possible. In short, envy is not "at the root of a liberal worldview," not by a long shot.
What guides most liberals' reasoning and stance on issues is compassion and empathy, sometimes to a fault. Their worldview, not as a political philosophy but as a mode of thought and reasoning that prioritizes their values, has been largely developed by Lakoff and Haidt. Their personalities tend to be more sensitive to feelings of compassion than conservatives, and they are more open to new experiences. Again, this is just a model, and variations exist. Think about how they want to protect people from themselves, the market, corporations, guns, and so forth. We can argue whether liberals' approach to configuring society is ideal or not, but just like conservatives, they are coming from a particular point of view. If we get their view, then we can understand them. The antidote to our tendencies to engage in tribal warfare is to focus on what we have in common with Others, rather than our differences. This may be difficult for authoritarians, as their personality traits don't easily lend themselves to empathy or openness to new ideas.
More distinctions must be made here, too. Those damn details. Resentment is a feeling of anger and disgust towards another person for perceived unfair treatment. Whether or not the resentment is rational is something entirely different. However, resentment can also mean that we resent when unfair things happen to us or when someone else receives something they do not deserve. In a sense, envy is similar to resentment since we can have envy towards someone getting a new position (status), which could lead us to resent them. And yet another nuance: indignation usually involves moral scenarios against members of society, whereas resentment is at the level of the individual. When resentments include thoughts such as "I deserve it" and "they don't deserve it," this may be fueled by a sense of entitlement. Now that we have defined our terms, we need to ask if the liberal worldview fosters a sense of entitlement and resentment. The answer is yes to the former. However, the word 'entitlement' means something different to a liberal than it does to a conservative (ii). It is how we frame these very concepts that cause disagreement among the parties.
Psychological entitlement refers to an inflated and pervasive sense of deservingness, self-importance, and exaggerated expectations to receive special goods and treatment without reciprocating. [4]
For the mentally rigid, this may be a difficult concept to grasp, namely relativism. Not relativism in the postmodernist sense, where we cannot give priority to any truth at all, but in the sense that everything is relative to something to give itmeaning. In the definition of entitlement above, what do exaggerated expectations mean? What is considered exaggerated is relative to the beliefs held within a worldview. Liberals, for example, believe that health care is a basic need that everyone should have. Conservatives say not a chance. Conservatives' belief in self-reliance drives all of the entitlement logic to be cases of unreasonable expectations. Since we are supposed to be self-reliant and self-disciplined, then entitlements are always an unreasonable form of coddling. However, liberals believe that providing healthcare is empowering and nurturing, enabling individuals to help them realize their full potential. Thus, what are exaggeratedexpectations in one worldview turn out to be reasonable in another. We cannot possibly say that liberals are excessively entitled within the liberal sense of the word. Putting liberal concepts within a conservative frame becomes incoherent.
Not that Simple: Shutup and Be Grateful
Commentator: Who is more likely to be a criminal: a resentful person? An unresentful person? Have you ever met a happy, ungrateful person? [Notice the use of categorical reasoning.]. Gratefulness is the essential ingredient to happiness. [Yes, we are on the right track, but it is not the only factor.]
Psychology does show that gratitude is related to happiness. Conservative pundits, except Peterson, are not psychologists. They make it sound like gratitude is a simple choice. It takes effort to be aware that we are feeling resentful and to put gratitude into practice. It takes even more effort to override feelings of resentment that we may harbor for society in general, which can exist in some. Take an extreme example of mass shooters, who mostly start with no mental illness and have been physically abused by parents and chronically rejected by their peers. [I say start with no mental illness because, after abuse, they develop depression, trauma, and other mood disorders.]. They develop resentment towards society in general, and then anger turns outward towards the Other. The advice of being grateful is something that will have little to no effect on "categorically" resentful people. There are, of course, a lot of people who have good genetics and upbringings that would prevent them from becoming mass shooters if abused and rejected. And, no, I am not saying that mass shooters should not be accountable for their actions.
To say that a resentful person is more likely to be a "criminal" is an empirical question. How do we know which came first, the resentment or the criminal act? To even start, we would have to ask how frequent, to what magnitude, and how people experience resentments to qualify as a categorically "resentful person." Suppose we exclude the pathological cases of those who experience resentment towards life, others, and the world in general. In that case, there is no reason to believe that liberals experience it more than others. Most resentments that we experience are not general, but rather occur in our daily interactions with other individuals. Think about when someone snubs us, criticizes us, or does not take us seriously. We often feel hurt or anger, and later, we can develop resentment towards that person. If they are rivals at work, we may even develop a dislike towards them. The solution from a conservative is to toughen up or have gratitude that you are alive. This advice is silly when we are feeling these emotions. If we are not taken seriously pervasively, then maybe there is some truth to it. We can instead focus on self-improvement or adjust our level of self-importance. When we decrease our expectations of how we are supposed to be treated, then we are less likely to develop resentment.
On the other hand, perhaps the individuals who said this weren't high in status, and we could care less about their opinion and choose to dismiss it. Life is complex, and using pithy expressions as a strategy for navigating our social worlds is a start but not enough. Conservatives' advice always has a grain of truth to it, which is why it is contagious.
Have we ever met a happy, ungrateful person? There is truth in this oversimplification, but the "how" is missing, which makes it easy for self-righteous conservatives to stand in judgment instead of trying to understand why someone is resentful. Some people's personalities and environments make it challenging to accomplish this. We would need to be in a milieu where we can find contentment by finding satisfaction in the small things and lowering our expectations for status attainment. There are many people, however, who want to achieve more status in life, whether it is more respect, influence, love, sex, care, support, friends, or high-status positions, but they are failing to bring this about. Feeling trapped and powerless is a real phenomenon. Lowering our expectations for status and accepting our position in life is one strategy, but advising someone who wants more out of life to "be grateful" invalidates their struggle. One strategy is to heed Peterson's advice. However, there are no guarantees of advancement or contentment. Those who are truly low in status, that is, do not have much to offer in the domains of intelligence, attractiveness, ability, or personality. They will struggle if they do not accept their status. They will have a pervasive "chip on their shoulders" if they do not lower their expectations and self-importance. In fact, experts claim that low-status individuals get rejected often and are at risk of just giving up on life. The advice is for them to become more affable and giving. In other words, if we can't beat them, then join them by subordinating ourselves. This leaves the undesirable worrying about sacrificing too much and becoming exploited. Since they are not good enough to be accepted or compete in this world, yet they do not want to be taken advantage of, then they must either subordinate themselves or live as the proverbial resentful person. These people, the "undesirables," have it rough, to say the least. Those who are lower in social status are often on the periphery and become invisible.
The Science of Status Hierarchy
Commentator:…the problem we have with status hierarchy…" A pointless statement. Regardless of how you rearrange society, economy, and government, new hierarchies will emerge with associated strata and status levels. Only in Dream-Land do strata-less, status-less societies exist. [Again, the difficulty with nuance. It is a matter of degree.]
Anthropologists: And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status, and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority, or resources than others. [6]
Whenever people gather, status hierarchies emerge. The criteria that determine rank depend on the goals of the group, which is usually some combination of competence, intelligence, assertiveness, resources, and physical attractiveness. Status hierarchies have the benefit of being an efficient means to economic progress because they put the more capable in charge. They weren't always this exaggerated, though. It was not until we started growing our food and settling down that we began to acquire vast amounts of material wealth. However, our psychology has not changed significantly since 10,000 years ago. Instead, our social norms have shifted; we now advocate for competition, self-reliance, and materialism within our tribe (the U.S.). It is not that we did not compete with one another, but solidarity must have been more pervasive for survival. And the competition was primarily with other tribes. There had to have been a counterbalance to our tendency for self-interest. The definition of morality involves suppressing self-interest to facilitate cooperation. From an evolutionary psychologist's perspective, experiencing envy motivates us to strive for higher status ourselves.
On the other hand, being aware that our status can make others feel uncomfortable keeps us humble. In other words, envy may have evolved as a means to equalize status and help us bond together. Consider the emotions we experience when someone close to us advances in their status. It is not always envy that we feel but that we don't want to be left behind.
Commentator: According to the dictionary, FORMIDABLE = inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable. Fear (also known as intimidation) versus Respect. Fear is not Respect. Fear is a reaction; respect is a decision. Returning to the subject of play, no one is invited to play through intimidation. Peterson advocates people to strive to be capable, competent, and (IMPORTANTLY) playful. Formidable and playful inspires much more respect than fear. Fear and Respect are functions of the beholder more than of said formidable person. [Not quite the whole story. See below.]
According to the dictionary, RESPECT = a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Respect opens one up to self-improvement and education. Fear closes one to improvement and education. Leftism encourages fear, not respect. Leftism encourages J.E.A.R. (Jealousy, Envy, Anger, Resentment). The Left fears the competent. The Left resents the competent. [Not quite accurate.]
For the above, some of the concepts are correct, and others are conflated. Respect is a straightforward concept to understand when explained by an evolutionary psychologist. Its result is deference. The ones who are "looked up to" are the ones we defer to, but they are also the ones who can do the threatening. They threaten not with violence or aggression, as that is no longer acceptable, but with disapproval, anger, or rejection. On average, we care more about the opinion of those above us than those on the same level or below us. Because those are the people who can affect our position (status) in the world, respect can manifest as feelings of admiration for someone's attributes and accomplishments. But respect need not be only admiration. If we define respect as being dependent on its outcome, which is deference, then invoking fear in others also results in a form of respect. We no longer accept this form of respect, as we have evolved from a dominance-based to an affiliative-based system.
Respect is more likely to be an unconscious response than a choice; it is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past. We unconsciously appraise situations quite quickly, often without making any choices at all. If we size someone up as stronger, more attractive, or more intelligent, we may automatically defer to them. It is a fact of life that many individuals are automatically deferred to without putting much effort into it—for example, those who are tall and physically attractive are often treated better, all else being equal. We do not have fear anymore of someone retaliating with violence but rather have a fear of being judged as inadequate or undesirable. But feeling fear is still possible when we interact with others that we appraise as more capable, attractive, and accomplished. I would call it insecurity, which, upon studying the mind, we can see is rooted in the same parts of the brain as fear induced by the threat of violence. In fact, there is a ton of research on how many will get social anxiety around those who pose a threat to their status. Who we defer to and admire versus who we challenge or even hate is likely based on whether they are our ally or our competitor.
The point of contention was whether or not Peterson is accelerating the rate of people becoming dominant, not through force, but by what Peterson believes creates success. For Peterson, the traits that create success are "disagreeableness, intelligence, and toughness." As a side note, the commentator is taking my hypothesis more seriously than necessary. I have no way of testing this empirically. In any event, let me begin by describing the status system we currently work in. We now largely compete to bestow positive value upon one another, being valued or chosen as relational partners or employees. We advertise our worth through our abilities, smarts, character, and appearances. Possessing these things equates to status and prestige. We attract attention through our status, often with an unconscious goal to stimulate positive feelings in the minds of others. Although, in the process, we can create insecurity in some, the objective is to inspire others to improve their status in a way that benefits others.
This system's outcome is cooperative, as we are competing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, such as being valued as a friend or providing services to others as a valued worker. In this type of system, we do not want to be seen as undesirable, which means unattractive to others in some kind of way. We care what others think, and we want to be accepted and valued. This system is known as the hedonic system by evolutionary psychologists, which is "affiliative based on mutual benefit through positive displays" [1]. By contrast, the older system, which is the agonic or dominance-based system, still exists and, in some ways, has been coopted for the newer system. The agonic system employs the threat of force and intimidation, aiming to achieve its goals by inhibiting others. This system causes us to rank one another based on who is better at whatever the relevant domain may be. We can thank this system for instilling a desire to feel formidable, a force to be reckoned with, Machiavellian, and to be submitted to. For those who liked "Better Call Saul" and "Breaking Bad," Saul Goodman sought to be accepted and well-liked (hedonically), while Walter White sought to be respected and admired (agonistically). Both systems, of course, coexist since evolution is a conservatory force.
Peterson's Experiment: Escalating Conflict of Interests
Peterson cites the evidence for success, which includes possessing the traits of "disagreeableness, conscientiousness, intelligence, and toughness," as more than enough to indicate that he has extensively researched this. Disagreeableness is a trait that is correlated with many other traits, including those from the dark triad, which involves manipulative and uncooperative behavior. We possess this trait when we score low on agreeableness, which is part of the Big Five personality model. Agreeableness is characterized by being compassionate, cooperative, and prioritizing the interests of others. Regarding disagreeableness and success, the research yields mixed results. Some studies suggest that the advantages of selfish and brazen behavior in advancing one's career are offset by the inability to form strong interpersonal relationships. In my own experience with the corporate world, I must agree with Peterson. Regardless, Peterson is encouraging us to become formidable and self-interested, which means exuding the traits of toughness and disagreeableness. This is why I have said that if we want to be successful, then we should be willing to take Peterson's advice.
Commentator: The Left fears the competent. The Left resents the competent. [Having insecurity over someone being more competent and formidable than you is a function of the human condition, not of an ideology. We can all feel insecure about those who are higher in status than us, namely those who are more attractive, capable, stronger, and talented than we are. They pose a threat to our status because they attract more attention. Status is defined as the increased influence we have over others by the amount of deference and positive attention we receive.]
Peterson is activating the agonic system, as he believes that being disagreeable and formidable are necessary for success. To be disagreeable is to act selfish, manipulative, and aggressively [1]. Since these systems are flexible, Peterson, however, is also activating the hedonic or affiliative-based system when it is time to play. But the play does nothing to negate the dominant-to-subordinate configuration that we create by becoming formidable. It simply means that when the dominant wants to play, it's time to play. Peterson is encouraging the worst kind of competition by evoking the agonic system, which is characterized by "inhibiting others" through intimidation. We do not become formidable to inspire others; we do so to become a "force to be reckoned with." We want people not only to defer to us but to submit to us when they are inferior to us. In Peterson's world, there is either the formidable or the opposite of the formidable, which is the weak. Although he does not advocate for the threat of aggression or force, he advocates for creating insecurity in others by displaying superior competencies.
Conclusions
The purpose of this exhaustive post was not to defend the idea that Peterson contributes to status inequality. Its purpose was to demonstrate how status inequality affects health and happiness. Perhaps Peterson should not be reprimanded for helping others do what is partly instinctive, which is to strive for status. The bigger point remains that anyone who selfishly strives for status will be contributing to status inequality. Whether they become winners or losers depends on a host of factors—the primary of which is where they fall on the status continuum relative to others. We all know that life, in terms of status striving and being valued by others, is based on how well we are positioned relative to others. So the advice is to go where we can shine relative to others. This increases our chances of being valued and advancing our interests. But what about the losers just below us? Well, become more formidable and advance, or be grateful and accept. In the former case, this creates more losers, and in the latter case, we convince ourselves that we are happy; yet, the statistics still matter. Maybe we should change our approach instead.
However, the following narrative is so ingrained in us that it will not be easy to overcome. Status inequality creates incentives for us to strive for success and achieve a higher position. However, no one is suggesting getting rid of status inequality, since it is an inevitable consequence of what it means to be human. Solutions are for another post, though.
Without competition, there is no incentive for self-discipline and no motivation to become the right kind of person. It is through competition that we discover who is moral, that is, who has been properly self-disciplined and therefore deserves success, and who is fit enough to survive and even thrive in a difficult world. [4.5]
References:
[0.5] Christie Aschwanden. Perhaps Conservatives Simply Believe They Are Happier. FiveThirtyEight
[1] Cameron, Anderson. People with disagreeable personalities … PNAS.
[2] Deaton, Angus. The Great Escape. Princeton University Press.
[3] Gilbert, Paul. Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach To Mood Disorders and Their Therapy.
[4] Jens Lange. A Status-Seeking Account of Psychological Entitlement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
[4.5] Lakoff, George. Moral Politics.
[5] Marmot, Michael. The Status Syndrome. Henry Holt and Co
[5.5] Ross Pomeroy. Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals? RealClearScience.
[6] Rogers, Deborah. Inequality: Why Egalitarian Societies Dies Out.
[7] Sandel. Michael. The Tyranny of Merit.
[8] Starmans, Christina. Why People Prefer Unequal Societies. Nature Human Behavior.