Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

I just watched that 5live interview where he talked about young men / boys. I think the answer might be simply that he can only speak so far as he is a male and there are differences between the sexes that mean he can only go so far in discussing the inner workings of eachothers brains, as he is a man.

It's just a reverse of how we are saying that a man can not become a woman. We know there is a difference, he knows there is a difference.

He's saying a lot about the trans issue, which is how I heard about him - by reading positive posts about him on MN.

What do you think would be his reaction if he read the other threads on here about the disgusting treatment of the labour party of it's female members?

Apparently he has also received violent abusive tweets from TRA's, and there is a youtube clip of what appears to be a violent incident at one of his talks.

This is how I first came to hear about him - from feminist posters on here.

Oh thats a relief yipee

I posted a long time ago but have lurked on here ever since

Its been interesting so far

Yes, but why, @Ruthlessrooster? Why are men more susceptible to dominance hierarchies that women?

Ah bollocks, are we going to have to start a new thread to discuss sensibly again?

I listened to a couple of lectures - the one on agreeableness linked to above and part 2 of the psychology of the lion king. If nothing else, he is an engaging teacher, far superior to many I have endured. And actually I realised he is a teacher - so I think he engaged with CN as a teacher and just discovered she really wasn't interested in learning anything, whether by agreement or disagreement.

Anyway, he made a by the way sort of comment about liberal / conservative views, in the context of agreeableness and that there are two components - politeness and compassion (maybe not the only 2), and although liberals and conservatives score similarly on agreeableness on average, liberals tend to score high on compassion and low on politeness and conservatives the other way about. So they average out to a similar overall measure on the composite agreeableness trait, but actually it manifests quite differently.

I think it's an insight into how the public discourse plays out - because liberals think that conservatives are evil because they lack compassion, while conservatives disagree but tend to default to greater politeness and therefore don't shout as loudly about their views. Am I way off base?

So liberals think it's fine to announce this person is immoral or even amoral for their views and no further discussion needs to be had. Whilst conservatives want to debate the content but complain about feeling shut down (politely of course!). Oh and deliberately small c lib/con.

What I was struck by was that JP didn't ascribe a value judgment personally to someone's traits - they just are, and you have to deal with what you have and then try to develop the ones that are weak. Whereas CN had already ascribed a value judgment to JP's views and having cast him as a fascist, thought there was no need to engage in the content, just show him as evidently evil.

Sorry, that's long and probably a bit waffly. But for those who are prepared to listen to the details and consider his lines of argument on their merits, I'd be really interested to discuss further.

Did he not attempt to say why men do that and women don't?

That men are hugely susceptible to dominance hierarchies in a way that women simply aren't.

butwho

Sorry just seen your other post

No offence intended...I certainly delurked after feeling very strongly about a subject

And ive been trying to avoid the EU boards recently but gave up when someone said something i though was daft

And the link that butwho posted about young men seemed interesting

yippee

Is that directed at me?

Its an honest question...its made me take a quick peek at some of the podcasts as some people seem to feel very strongly that he is worth listening to

I do think there can be merit in someone joining mumsnet when they feel very strongly about a particular subject

I've lurked MN for years. I'll admit that I usually read the AIBU section. I just felt like I wanted to chime in on this issue.

Sorry but why do people keep plopping in here to try and shut down the conversation? I would genuinely like to know why as it's happened a few times now.

So should be some

Have you name changed to say that butwho

Or joined especially

Its just you must feel very strongly to join just to post how fab you think he is

Which is fair enough obviously

So subjects in here do trigger strong reactions

Jordan Peterson is one of the most sincere people who has any kind of voice around today. His only agenda is wanting to help people better their lives, men and women. The overwhelming majority of his students are women.

People are absolutely desperate to hear a bit of truth and logic.

It's disappointing how easily some people are fooled by the media. A number of posters in this thread have seen the words 'alt-right' in a Guardian/Independent headline and made their minds up on the spot. Some of the garbage being written could not be further from the truth.

It's much easier to believe he is this insidious 'alt-right' figure than to deal with what he's saying.

Thankfully, the majority of people here have seen through the bullshit.

Did he not attempt to say why men do that and women don't?

It's the other side of the same issue and not a radically new thought. What was his answer to that?

The obvious. That men tend to prioritise the wrong things, and that women do themselves no favours trying to emulate such unhealthy behaviours

I came on to say the same thing.

Having heard a couple of his podcasts, his primary motivation is human relationships and not money.

He did say 'that's part of it' when she said 'is it because women are more sensible and they want a nice life'. He also said 'men and women aren't the same but that doesn't mean they can't be treated fairly'

How is that misogynistic? Why is ok for a woman to say that but not a man?

I wondered if in the lecture that @Radicalrooster described he might have offered a theory or explanation for the question that he posed his students.

Assasinated - Cathy Newman didn't ask him that question as far as I remember

why there aren't more women at the highest echelons of business, law, industry and Govt is the wrong question. The question should be: why is it that significant numbers of men are willing to work insane hours, at the expense of their personal relationships, their family life, (the most important thing of all, as far as Peterson is concerned) and often even their physical and mental health and wellbeing, simply to satisfy a hollow craving for status and wealth, neither of which bestow any real feeling of satisfaction or fulfilment. That's a far more troubling question for society.

He also addressed this in the full interview - about 12 minutes in. He answered the question why aren't there more women running ftse 100 companies with 'Why would they want to'.

In my line of work the men (mostly) that make it to the top do exactly that - work 70 / 80 hours a week etc and I never saw that as something to aspire to. So no surprise that other women might feel the same.

It's the other side of the same issue and not a radically new thought. What was his answer to that?

Whatever people think of Peterson's explanations of the gender pay gap or whether indeed it even exists in the way that it is portrayed, he did ask an extremely interesting question of his undergraduates in one of his online undergraduate classes

His position, essentially, was that asking why there aren't more women at the highest echelons of business, law, industry and Govt is the wrong question. The question should be: why is it that significant numbers of men are willing to work insane hours, at the expense of their personal relationships, their family life, (the most important thing of all, as far as Peterson is concerned) and often even their physical and mental health and wellbeing, simply to satisfy a hollow craving for status and wealth, neither of which bestow any real feeling of satisfaction or fulfilment. That's a far more troubling question for society.

Marquis

About as incorrect a reading of Peterson's core beliefs as is possible. Having been an avid consumer of his Youtube videos for about 18 months now, I can categorically state that the drive to make money is probably the very bottom of his list of priorities. Certainly the videos of his undergraduate classes at UoT make it quite clear that he emphasises to his (multiracial and often female heavy) classes the importance of spirituality over material goods. And that is something that comes through in pretty much all his work.