Thread by @_TroLLHunt

A bit a bout NAMES, CREDIBILITY, and ACCOUNTING.

The transactional nature of human interactions.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1600653847281688577

I’ve always been fond of the idea of “the emotional bank account” in short, your relationships with other people carry a negative or positive balance.

Your relationship is actually the sum average balance of the account you share with that other being.

In many relationships one gives or takes more or less than the other party, but good relationships establish a mutual high positive VALUE between ACCOUNTS.

I have my accounting, you have yours.

This works interpersonally as long as your “chart of accounts” isn’t too big.

You might know 1000 people but you’re really not going to care about the accounting with 850 of them as long as you stay out of “debt”.

Asking for a difficult favour or too many small ones might be an example of “over drawing” on an ACCOUNT.

Forgot a birthday?
We’re too quick to anger?
Didn’t return that thing you borrowed?
Acted like a “demon troll”?

All of these are kinds of BROKEN PROMISES that are not a lot different than missing a loan payment or defaulting.

Those that @jordanbpeterson defines as “demon trolls” and are “polluting” the experience he has on his phone are… in fact… people he does not know. (Or bots)

Pay attention to this part.

Peterson wants 3rd party Certification of an ACCOUNT that is “causing harm”.

The emotional bank account with strangers is always low balance, Peterson’s story about eBay illustrates such.

The world is a big place and having a third party tell me who is and is not “real” allows me to trust a system I don’t really understand to make short hand judgements.

This is where the CREDIBILITY comes in, I’m more likely to establish positive accounting with someone that trusted by those I trust.

But how do I discern between all these other meat sacks walking around and the ones I can “trust”.

I’d use NAMES like books have TITLES.

The good guys don’t hide, unless they have to.

It simply isn’t reasonable to dictate to another when they should or should not protect themselves from a significant or irrecoverable loss.

Trusting what someone says about another means the trustor is outsourcing DISCERNMENT.

If I had a friend, let’s call him Juden Peterstein, then I probably know enough about Juden to make a claim against him if he stole my stuff or broke his promise.

Like defaulting on a loan; the CREDIBILITY of the identifiable entity is recorded for future reference…

Is trust too risky for this account?

When this NAME is given CREDIT, how responsible with it are they?

Should more credit be allocated here?

I hope this made sense, Peterson’s talks about responsibilities (credits) and rights (debits) never seems to make an express connection with accounting.

Peterson is not asking for a credit system, he’s asking for a caste system to make discernment easier.

What a Goy.

In general it’s helpful to treat most people like individuals, but that’s not what Peterson is doing anymore.

It’s been “us” and “them” for so long that people can’t traverse the emotional turbulence of the “backfire effect”.

Your “LOGOS” is not important to those it upsets.

Sometimes the person you upset isn’t who’s mind you’re going to change.

All conflict here stems from at least one participant failing to ATONE with reality (reconciling accounting) and failing to become who they could be.

I’m not a NAME, I have a NAME only I can “use”.

Character is the story you write about yourself as you live in the world.

Credibility means others recognize your character. Good CREDIT means you can be trusted to act responsibly within the rules of the game you’re playing.

Cops and lawyers always want a name for CHARGES.

@threadreaderapp unroll