Dr Jordan Peterson

Agree that that happens. Simone de beauvoir said that was one of the reasons she fancied Sartre, that he was one of the few men she could regard as at least her equal.
The way he tried to make out his serious benzo addicton was different from everyone else's addiction and need him to be anaesthetised and that he wasn't psychologically addicted was odd though and the whole family seem to be prone to faddy diets. His lifestyle stuff does make me query how objective he really is as there's a strong crank element to his personality. His benzo addiction also runs contrary to his stand up for yourself and be resilient philosophy.
I'm sure he just tried doing too much but he didn't seem to be taking much responsibility for his addiction, but maybe he will with time.

I can't remember much of what he said anymore, but he has stated that women are naturally drawn to men more intelligent, accomplished, and dominant than themselves.

That is quite a well known piece of research that shows women do cross culturally partner with someone at least equal but mostly ‘up’ from themselves. They rarely partner ‘down’. It’s actually one of the biggest causes of inequality / social mobility that no one ever talks about because it seems so awful. But mate selection is pretty primal it seems.
Him repeating it doesn’t mean he thinks it’s great, he’s just pointing out facts and granted he likes a controversial fact.

I am not sure Peterson supports Christianity, exactly, or if he does it doesn't seem to be with enormous conviction: the quickest reference is his Wikipedia page, where I find "In a 2017 interview, Peterson was asked if he was a Christian; he responded, "I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes." When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist." Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung's philosophy of religion and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said that Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos and posits life would be meaningless without this duality." Sounds more like a Gnostic, really.

I dismissed him years ago due to his clearly sexist world view

It's his observation, not his world view. Big difference.

I'm amazed so many women on a feminist board have such high regard for him. I dismissed him years ago due to his clearly sexist world view.

I can't remember much of what he said anymore, but he has stated that women are naturally drawn to men more intelligent, accomplished, and dominant than themselves.

He also said marriage makes men less violent.

Well, yes, of course marriage makes a violent man less likely to attack people in public when he has a wife and kids to take his abuse out on.🤦

He also supports Christianity, a misogynistic religion.

I agree, Bollox. Same with JKR, it's all "oh don't even read it it's so transphobic!"

That's how I first came across him. I was asked to explain how he could be so horrible and still be Canadian so I looked him up. Having only heard of him, it was a complete eye-opener to hear him.

I say, do not be scared to listen to him, you will not melt!

I like him. He talks a lot of sense and there is depth and lots of food for thought. I know the woke have tried to paint him as some far right lunatic, but i think it’s because they don’t want people to listen to or read his stuff. They are scared that people will see what he says and see through the woke and break their woke spell and Woke hold on so many in the West.

What Shawbles says.

I don't think he's claiming things 'should be, and should remain' a particular way. He's observing why it currently works the way it does. He's not against any individual pursuing individual success in whatever field, but he can see a natural/structural limitation on changing some things. Quotas won't have a sufficient impact until all of the groundwork is in place, which will take a heck of a long time and may not be desirable.

The way boys and girls are unintentionally raised differently, despite every attempt not to do so, is going to take a long time to change.

I do not think that Peterson confines himself only to physiological differences. He definitely makes a lot of points related to personality, psychology, and “Innate” interests - these are the overinterpretations I object to

The man is one of the world's pre-eminent clinical psychologists. You're objecting to him talking about subjects in which he is a world leader ?

Again, I have never got from him that he believes these things he explains to be innately true and unchangeable or that we shouldn't change them because they are Right. He appears to me to stick quite carefully to saying this is how things are, here are some socio-psychological explanations for why they are so (supported by data), and that this has been the bedrock of a basically stable society for 100s of years so we make swingeing changes at our peril, especially if making them based on myopic interpretations of statistics to support identitarian policies where the group becomes more important than the individual.

When I say ‘same’ I mean efficacy - obv one is written and one oral. Ignored regardless.

.

As for whether women are different in terms of their minds or behaviour, I think it is an extreme position to say that we can't come to any conclusions about that. Is it the most clear and objective kind of statement, no, but there are good reasons to think there may be differences and coming down on the side that there are some is no less justified than coming down on the side that there aren't. If your position is we can't know, than Peterson is as likely to be right as the person who says there are no such differences. At best you could say - we don't know if these outcomes are a product of the differences in male and female bodies or not, and you'd have to be open to it as a real possibility.

I'm not sure where you get that this is anything to do with the naturalistic fallacy, as I don't see anyone saying that women must act that way, women must have children (or else!) But the fact is, lots of women will have kids, or enjoy the kind of work they enjoy, and you really have no business telling them they shouldn't do those things. Plenty of women find this demand that they change their behaviour to be the same as men's for some kind of theoretical vision of equality pretty misogynistic, and prefer the idea that society should try to avoid disadvantaging them for their differences.

Sorry just realized you said natural physiologically not psychologically. I do not think that Peterson confines himself only to physiological differences. He definitely makes a lot of points related to personality, psychology, and “Innate” interests - these are the overinterpretations I object to.

Also still the naturalistic fallacy. Just because women are forced into certain careers because they have to sustain pregnancy / etc and men don’t doesn’t mean that’s how an ideal society should leave it.

I’ve listened to and read most of his stuiff. His Cain and Abel lecture was one of the best things I’ve ever heard so far In my life.

My ds has got so much out of him on how to be a good man....take as much responsibility as you can bear...such a simple but powerful mantra for a young man.

MN has changed its tune on him,.. a year ago he was a flat out misogynist but now people have actually listened to him it’s hard not to consider his views. FWIW I don’t think he’s a misogynist, I think he deeply respects the difference between men and women and sees them as a union that brings benefit to all.

Agh! Not thank you @grabthars ! What I was trying to say was - thank you @shawbles for clearing up that annoying misinterpretation of JP's work that @grab did

Peterson things the effects of having a female physiology result, even now with some real ability to control pregnancy etc, in different outcome in the workplace for women as a group. You can think that's not the cause, but it's not anti-woman to think that's what the data shows.

The point I’m trying to make that you keep ignoring is that it is not possible for data to show there is such a thing as a “naturally female Psychology”. The entire premise is flawed.

And also that even If women were naturally inclined to certain professions (which again, not possible for data to show this) it is still committing the naturalIstic fallacy to say this is how things should be.

Take Male Violence. It may indeed be the case that men Are biologically determined to be on average more Inclined towards violence than women (beyond the fact that they are more physically strong And thus more able to commit violence which is clearly true). Note too it’s not at all clear this is the case and it’s similarly impossible to determine as whether women really don’t like math as much or “men are more Naturally obsessive” which In turn could be explained by men being given more time and freedom to develop Obsessions).

Anyway; regardless of whether male violence towards women is more “natural” than the reverse, it still would not be valid to argue that it is not a problem, or that we should not seek to change it.

I'm a feminist and I love him. Thank you @ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings by @bygrab

I find him interesting on some things and I disagree with him on some things - I think he's quite off on climate issues for example. I very much appreciate his efforts on Bill C-16.

He's not an evangelical Christian as someone upthread said - I don't think he's an active Christian at all actually.

I do agree that people regularly totally misrepresent what he's said.

The reason MRAs like him is worth thinking about. Some just like that he says things they can use - but then maybe that is fair game, if he's correct. But really I thin a lot of men, especially young ones, who are attracted to MRA stuff, or get drawn into incel stuff - they have been signiicantly let down by our culture. It's difficult for feminists sometimes to spend time on this but what we offer as a vision of success, and an expectation f success, for a lot of boys is pretty narrow. And on some things, like education, a lot of them are not being given the kind of care they need - as someone working in an elementary school boys are given as short shrift in their own way as girls. And a lot haven't any men involved in their lives much.

So these young guys are attracted to anything that seems to offer an explanation and maybe some help.When all they find is MRA crap, that is where they get sucked in. But many will respond to something more constructive if it's offered.

For example, if it was 200 years ago, women who were sexually active were pretty inevitably going to spend significant amounts of time in pregnancy, post-partum recovery, breastfeeding, and experiencing the effects of these. That's just the way it is if there is little technological ability to control how many children you have.

That would, inevitably, naturally, affect their career and earning potential. Even in a perfect society. Naturally, you would have some sort of wage gap.

That's not a moral statement, and it's not anti-woman. It just is.

Peterson things the effects of having a female physiology result, even now with some real ability to control pregnancy etc, in different outcome in the workplace for women as a group. You can think that's not the cause, but it's not anti-woman to think that's what the data shows. And it's also quite different to say, therefore women should not be in high-powered careers, and some statistically significant contingent of women may not prefer to be in high-powered careers. Or even, valuing things other that high-powered careers may be a strength rather than a weakness.

Do you ever end up on a thread and think "...these are not my people..."?

*women earn 20-odd percent less than men

Why do MRAs and incels love him if he tells men to shape up etc ?

My take on it is that this group feels that he speaks to them when no-one else does - that the major public initiatives are all aimed at getting women into STEM, or the comparative coverage given to women-specific issues rather than men-specific issues (rightly or wrongly that they feel this, I have no interest in debating whether these feelings are based in fact, but more recognising that they exist all-the-same).

I suspect they also appreciate, as indeed I do, that he doesn't shy away from calling out activists of all stripes for exaggerated claims, and forces them to "play the game" fairly. An example, to take a PP about the wage gap, was him talking to the leader of the WEP on the Wright Stuff - who was talking about the wage gap, at which point he enumerated the numerous reasons other than gender why the wage gap exists - dangerous work, more willing to travel for work, willing to work longer hours, jobs that are scalable. These are the reasons that lead to the headline figures that activists like to bandy around saying that women earn 20-odd percent less than women, when the true figure when adjusting for everything else (same qualifications / role / experience etc...) is much less (the figures I looked at most recently for France - where I live - suggested that it was 6.9%, which is nowhere near as headline-worthy), and also pointing out that the logical extension of demanding quotas for women in high-powered roles is to also demand quotas for women everywhere else - as the refuse collectors, sewer cleaners, day labourers etc... rather than picking and choosing where you want equality of outcome.

I know this is not particularly relevant to the debate, but hey, everyone else is allowed a derail once in a while and this one is mine:

"Women only got the chance to go to University since the 1930's" simply isn't right, though they had to be pretty determined before then.

A lot depended on the university. My grandmother read medicine at Edinburgh University in the 1890s, and she certainly wasn't a pioneer there: those were more than twenty years earlier. At Oxford women could gain a degree from the four women's colleges (Lady Margaret Hall was founded in 1878, Somerville in1879, St Hugh’s in 1886 and St Hilda's in 1893) but until 1920 were unable to go to a graduation ceremony to be awarded it. At Cambridge, Girton College was established in 1869 and Newnham College in 1871, and women's degrees could be sat but not awarded; they were sent certificates through the post instead, until 1948. (Or they could go over to Dublin and be awarded them by the university there.)

In August 1867 the University of London was given powers to hold special examinations for women. In 1868 the university drew up plans to grant them certificates, and from 1878 women could graduate from London University with full degrees.

Most men had no chance to go to university either.