Jordan Peterson

We can look at the data and hypothesis, as we should, but no one can say that their version is absolute or that it’s just ‘obvious’ that this is the way the world is. It’s not.

People aren’t saying that nature is irrelevant, people are saying that it’s not absolute fact that it is the biggest factor in Male violence or anything really as it is impossible to do studies on these things as we can’t take social conditioning away.

He doesn’t need to be presented with papers that say nature is irrelevant as no one is arguing that.

The issue is that he has decided that his way of looking at the world is the right way and it’s completely logical and above emotion and bias.
Which is not true.

" you said men are more aggressive therefore women would be more submissive."

That's your assumption/insertion into my original statement.

"So why can’t you accept Jordan Peterson does that too?"

Because there's no evidence for that. He actually said on the Wright Stuff words to effect of "I looked at the data and decided it was convincing"

But by all means if you can find examples of JP being presented with evidence that says nature is irrelevant (as many here are claiming) and him rejecting it then I'm all eyes and ears.

As someone that is pretty familiar with most of his content then you could probably find some statements of him rejecting the social sciences/gender studies research/data on the lines of "most of these papers are never cited or referenced by anyone else"

But you only have to look at the @RealPeerReview account on Twitter to see how nonsensical a lot of these papers are

I think it's quite hard to say for sure whether male predisposition to violence is inbuilt or a result of socialisation or a combination of both. If you look at it from an anthropological point of view, male violence and a tendency to wage war seems to be universal.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a predisposition to certain skills, then that case is far from proven. Most (probably all) societies have jobs that are designated as male or female, but they're not the same jobs.

I've pointed out several times on this thread already that people are quick to dismiss science/studies that oppose their worldview and quick to accept those that confirm their worldview.

So why can’t you accept Jordan Peterson does that too?

Never said anything about women, or submissiveness, that is the straw man

You don’t need to say women are more submissive, you said men are more aggressive therefore women would be more submissive.

If I said there were more green a’s than there were b’s. I wouldn’t then have to say there were less green b’s, as that’s implied by the assertion that that there are more green a’s.

@teacuphiccup "If men are more aggressive then women are more submissive"

""Also it does not correlate that if men are innately more violent (your words) that women are innately submissive. You seem to imply that it does, "

Never said anything about women, or submissiveness, that is the straw man

@Cardsforkittens

You have the order wrong.

"Steadfastly refuse to examine these sources critically
Ignore research that draws alternative conclusions"

I've pointed out several times on this thread already that people are quick to dismiss science/studies that oppose their worldview and quick to accept those that confirm their worldview.

I wish people would apply the same standards to ALL studies regardless of the conclusion

I find this kind of approach hard to follow. But I think I finally worked out how this style of engagement works:

Make a bunch of observations about the world
Assume they're 'obvious'
Go looking for any research that confirms what you already think
Steadfastly refuse to examine these sources critically
Ignore research that draws alternative conclusions
Insist that people answer your questions but avoid answering theirs
When stuck, speculate wildly - thus avoiding evidence altogether
Indulge in wagers
When others point out implications you hadn't thought of, accuse them of 'straw manning'
Attempt to ridicule others
Make no concessions, and claim that others have missed the point
Move the goalposts as often as possible
If in doubt, SHOUT.

It might make one's readers dizzy but it's not actually an argument. It has some points in common with JP's approach though.

So fmsfms do you believe it is impossible to measure the impact of social conditioning on behaviours as you suggest when someone gave you anecdotes about boys and girls being encouraged away from gender mismatched activities ( and I back those anecdotes as do probably most women in any traditional male industry so that's a LOT of anecdotal evidence)

Or you you believe it is possible based on your assertions about Scandinavian countries seeing greater sex difference which you attribute to a lowering of social conditioning leading to an expression of the innate difference becoming more marked?

I would say if you took a bunch of men away to a desert island somewhere, then the larger men would dominate the smaller and get them to do many of the things that women do now (as often happens in prisons). It does not follow from that the smaller men were innately created to be dominated or were somehow lesser men than the larger men. It means that the larger men took advantage of their size to dominate the smaller men and subjected them. This is how I believe we have gotten to where we are now in society and why men dominate women, not because women are innately submissive or want to do the jobs, activities etc that many do, but because of this male dominance.

Yes. Exactly.

STOP.STRAW.MANNING.ME ✋✋✋

How is that a straw man? You are literally saying men are innately prone to violence. That it’s nature for men to be more aggressive than women. If men are more aggressive then women are more submissive 🤷‍♀️

How come it’s us that apparently hates men and thinks they are bad when we’re the ones saying that Male violence isn’t the natural order of things.

A) it's funny how you're working with salaries thus an expert on the pay gap, and now you're ex military

Not really. Lots of people join the military when they are younger then get andesk job.

and that definitely isn't due to nurture encouraging this violence, because the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear,

Well now I’m loling.

Yes I absolutely believe that men are violent against women.

No there is not absolute proof that this is down to nature and not nurture. There are theories on both sides.
Just because you think it’s blindingly obvious doesn’t mean it’s been proven without doubt, that’s conformation bias.

Social stigma on violence against women is not as clear as you may think, it wasn’t illegal to rape your wife until the late 90’s.

@reluctant

Go read the post at "16/05/2018 14:53"

Regardless I'm not sure what you think that proves, you'll find other posts talking about how great Sweden is and other posts highlighting the domestic violence rates

@Artemis "I agree with you that men are more prone to violence, this does not have any bearing on non-violent jobs or non-violent stereotypes though. "

I never said it did, the example I was talking about was the army. You know that military organisation which is all about killing, lol

"Also it does not correlate that if men are innately more violent (your words) that women are innately submissive. You seem to imply that it does, "

STOP.STRAW.MANNING.ME ✋✋✋

You clearly think men are bad so I'll ask you as simply as I can

Is mens badness all down to nurture? Yes or no?

Ooh, someone's getting tetchy fms. didn't you get your 8 hours last night? first reference to Nordic countries / Scandinavia was from posie I think.

the point is that on this issue you seem to be countering a point that no-one here made. I'm not sure which of your handy THIS IS THE TRUTH links covers that.

you sure do lol a lot too. what with all this irritation and loling one could almost construe you as a little highly strung.

@Picasso "Have you been in the military fmsfms? I have."

A) it's funny how you're working with salaries thus an expert on the pay gap, and now you're ex military

B) I'm not sure how your alleged military background is relevant

And @Artemis lol at not taking me up on my beer and ignoring those posts completely.

Just an fyi Artemis, I have less time/respect for your posts than I do someone like Reluctant Camper (who has spent all week trolling) at least he/she doesn't try and maintain the pseudo intellectual act

@reluctantcamper "the first reference I can find to Scandinavia is someone pointing out the gap in women taking up STEM careers there. So no-one saying how amazing it is."

Someone? It was me, you don't need to remind me about my own posts ffs, another quality contribution from you

So no-one saying how amazing it is

No the research is being obfuscated as saying that and we're wrong for objecting - what's being asserted by JP et al is an inference about an assumption based on the result of an experiment which was not designed to test that assumption. That's just wrong.

I'm literally laughing out loud here. This is another example of:

"Scandinavia is great, they rank highly on equality, high parental leave, welfare provisions etc!"

"Ah yes but did you know the gender gap in nursing/stem got bigger in the Nordic Countries despite their best efforts to reduce it?"

"Scandinavia isn't THAT great, they still have high levels of domestic violence and aren't THAT equal"

Well you're very easily entertained, which must be nice.

Scanning through the thread, the first reference I can find to Scandinavia is someone pointing out the gap in women taking up STEM careers there. So no-one saying how amazing it is.

the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear

Really?

two women a week in the UK are killed by men. So apparently it's not that clear.

“So we've established that most of the posters here think that men are more inclined towards violence than women - and that definitely isn't due to nurture encouraging this violence, because the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear, as are the deterrents and risk of injury/death if you pick a fight with someone stronger/more capable.

So men must inherently/innately be more prone to violence than women.”

I agree with you that men are more prone to violence, this does not have any bearing on non-violent jobs or non-violent stereotypes though. Also it does not correlate that if men are innately more violent (your words) that women are innately submissive. You seem to imply that it does, where as I would say if you took a bunch of men away to a desert island somewhere, then the larger men would dominate the smaller and get them to do many of the things that women do now (as often happens in prisons). It does not follow from that the smaller men were innately created to be dominated or were somehow lesser men than the larger men. It means that the larger men took advantage of their size to dominate the smaller men and subjected them. This is how I believe we have gotten to where we are now in society and why men dominate women, not because women are innately submissive or want to do the jobs, activities etc that many do, but because of this male dominance. I think that is where the disagreement is from my view. I have to bow out now, due the time.

Have you been in the military fmsfms? I have.

"Why do you think it’s so crazy?"

I'm literally laughing out loud here. This is another example of:

"Scandinavia is great, they rank highly on equality, high parental leave, welfare provisions etc!"

"Ah yes but did you know the gender gap in nursing/stem got bigger in the Nordic Countries despite their best efforts to reduce it?"

"Scandinavia isn't THAT great, they still have high levels of domestic violence and aren't THAT equal"

I refer to earlier on in the thread, all the discussion about Petersons respect for men who won't use violence to solve disputes etc, there's posts on this page about the "consistent abuse of physical power of men towards women" and posts about "violence towards women"

So we've established that most of the posters here think that men are more inclined towards violence than women - and that definitely isn't due to nurture encouraging this violence, because the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear, as are the deterrents and risk of injury/death if you pick a fight with someone stronger/more capable.

So men must inherently/innately be more prone to violence than women. Therefore men are more likely candidates to join the army and be trained how to kill.

Social stigma or fear of harassment from men is not the reason why women aren't joining the army in equal numbers as men.

The need for violence, the need to kill and the potential for being face to face in a kill or be killed scenario with a larger stronger man is probably a pretty big deterrent