I like Jordan Peterson AIBU?

[NeatFreakMama]

With his rise to fame recently it seems like Jordan Peterson is everywhere. Personally I really enjoyed his book and I find his lectures fascinating largely, I think for me, because he's a great orator.

I know he has his detractors and I'd be really interested to hear their opinions on him. I don't really see much not to like about his rhetoric; it feels like he tends to speak mostly on universal truths but just in a really engaging way?

DrowsyDragon
Peterson’s Facts are his interpretation of data and they are not incontrovertible. If he’s a good academic and any kind of scientist, he would acknowledge that himself if asked.

He explicitly acknowledges that in his foreword and again in almost every chapter.

kalapattar
His interview with Cathy Newman on the gender pay gap showed little empathy

Do you think this topic requires more empathy or more analysis?

i dont like him

he dismisses the ideas that i have based on my feelings and instincts and argues against them with evidence and facts. while i complain about misogyny, he uses examples and studies to show the complex and various reasons behind something and tries to show that i am either ignorant or stupid about the issue

DrowsyDragon
He’s not stating facts though
In his now famous chapter on lobsters he provides a very detailed description (duly authorised and referenced to neuroscience, evolutionary biology and biochemistry). The very simple lobster brain uses exactly the same neurotransmitters as we do (serotonin). The actions of lobsters competing for limited resources and territory provide easily studied behaviour in dominance hierarchies. There is easily observed changes in lobster brain neurochemistry in victors and losers in conflict.

These are facts. You might not agree with his inferences or conclusions. But it is untrue to say he is not stating facts.

Do you think this topic requires more empathy or more analysis

His only objective in that interview was to dismiss the headline statement that women are paid less by explaining to Cathy that women tend to be in lower paid roles in a company, do more part time work and work in areas that tend to be be lower paid.

There was little discussion by him (or Cathy TBF) about the reasons behind that and how that issue could be tackled to reduce the l gender pay gap. His sole objective was to explain to Cathy that the general gender pay gap was a myth.

I think it is a subject that requires analysis and in depth discussion, with empathy for the position women are in and the barriers that exist. Something I don't think he is capable of based on what I have heard him say.

kalapattar
I think it is a subject that requires analysis and in depth discussion, with empathy for the position women are in and the barriers that exist
I work with a client right now where the pay gap is in favour of women in two departments (marketing and HR). Should we be empathetic to the "barriers men face in those functions" or be more factual and rational in our analysis of the data without jumping on single variable analyses to explain difference in an average figure?

Should we be empathetic to the "barriers men face in those functions" or be more factual and rational in our analysis of the data without jumping on single variable analyses to explain difference in an average figure

I think we should be more empathetic to the barriers that exist and discuss them - something that was sorely lacking in that discussion. He only discussed his valid issue with the headline figure - which is something I agree with - but completley failed to discuss any of the underlying issues.

I meant greed as a shorthand for subprime lending. Yes, that is greed, or capitalism as usual depending on your terminology.

Well insomuch as he has empathy towards men who cannot get the resources they want (women) he should have empathy towards women who cannot get the resources they want (money, decent pensions, a fair chance, ambition).

TheWizardofWas
I meant greed as a shorthand for subprime lending. Yes, that is greed, or capitalism as usual depending on your terminology

How long do you think a bank or building society would survive if it promised not to be "greedy" (by your definition) and never foreclose on a loan or mortgage?

If bank/ building society decided not to be "greedy" (your definition) - ie not repossess collateral property in situations where some people don't repay the money they have borrowed, wouldn't everyone immediately stop paying? Why bother should I work hard to pay my mortgage when I neighbour doesn't have to?

I am interested in your logic.

Also to deny the gender pay gap exists is bonkers.

One might argue that there is equal pay for equal work (except in the cases of actors, footballers, etc) but the gender pay gap is about men as a class earning more than women as a class.

You may justify it with reasons of women’s choice and childcare but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The underlying questions that I haven’t seen him answer are:

• do women really have the same opportunities (not legal but cultural: role models, social and parental expectations, encouraging stereotypes etc) to go into the higher paid male dominated professions? Do they really?

• why are women-centred jobs so undervalued in monetary terms? Why are the things we’re physically superior at (giving birth) so badly paid compared to the ones that men are superior at (physical strength).

It’s no good hiding behind the fact that for a small time in their lives after uni a small subset of women outearn men or stating that girls are entering uni at higher rates without examining the truth that there are far more jobs out there for men that don’t require much in the way of education or the injustice behind the hit women’s wages take after giving birth to and caring for the next generation.

Have a specific role model isnt really an opportunity issue.

Women centred jobs are undervalued for three reasons - 1. Women are less assertive negotiating pay. 2. Historically a male wage had to pay for a wife and kids while a female wage was pin money and this still filters into current pay expectations. 3. A lot of pink collar work is open to a large part of the labour force meaning that competition for jobs drives down wages rather than competition for labour driving them up.

@kalapattar in that interview he accepts that the gender pay gap exists he is just trying to point out that sex is not the only reason, it's multi-variant. From memory he doesn't point one reason, it's stuff like the different choices women make about going back to work, going back part-time, personality types and so on. I think he has a real interest if anything as he says in that interview he does assertiveness training with women to support them in getting pay rises and pushing to the top. I think people just zone out when he says it's not solely to do with gender alone or get angry.

He says he believes in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome

Equality of Opportunity
Both my sons and daughter should have an equal opportunity to go into any line of work they want to

Equality of Outcome
In my city, 100% of the independent drain cleaners are male (based on their ads).
100% of the independent tarot card readers /mystics and psychics (based on their ads) are female.

Equality of outcome would mean somehow enforcing a 50:50 male/female ratio in every profession.

But both my sons and daughter should be free to become either an drain cleaner or tarot card reader if they want to. They shouldn't be forced into anything to achieve equality of outcome.

@kalapattar

That interview could have been a more empathetic discussion towards the barriers facing women but Newman instead opted to perfectly demonstrate the straw man fallacy by repeated use of the phrase “so what you’re saying is..” when he was "saying" nothing of the sort. She was poorly briefed on her subject and went for the jugular and failed miserably. Newman was probably let down by one of her researchers as her interview notes seemed to contain the views of Peterson’s most rabid critics, rather than those of the man himself which led to him rather easily batting her questions away in a calm manner. It was a wasted oppotunity given the unsually long length of time (for TV) the interview was afforded.

I love him.
His argument against self identification and forced use of pronouns was particularly illuminating. I'd put his work on the national curriculum if I could!

I have become a huge fan and enjoy listening to his biblical series on podcast.

My logic is an entire critique of the financialised system of capitalism, which profits from endebtting people - but I don't expect the Peterson groupies of the world to understand that.

I thought it was quite funny when questioned recently about the homosexual couple and cake issue (a religious owner of a bakery refused to sell cake to a gay couple on moral/religious grounds), he initially said it was their right to sell who they wanted to and practice religious freedom. The interviewer asked if he would feel the same way if they refused to sell to a black couple and suddenly he had no answer..

@Sparklesocks I saw that but I actually came away thinking he did well because rather than stick blindly to his point he actually takes on Jim's point and admits he had probably been wrong. Is that not a strength of character? You can't be right all the time, we're all human and the more dangerous people are the ones who stick rigidly to their ideas.

I suppose, I just think it shows he hasnt thought out basic counterarguments before aligning himself on such convictions. He's just not really my cup of tea.

TheWizardofWas

My logic is an entire critique of the financialised system of capitalism, which profits from endebtting people - but I don't expect the Peterson groupies of the world to understand that.

I'm very interested TheWizardofWas

What would you replace it with? How would you fund eg house purchase without debt?

To start: he’s anti-intellectual, a misogynist and beloved of the alt-right.

Actually, he’s none of those things, but don’t let the truth get in the way of a nice throw away line.

@Sparklesocks that's fair enough

Anti-intellectual professor of harvard?

Makes sense