Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Just on. He was saying that people are different due to ' agreeableness, women being more likely to be so; men less so, hence the gender gap

It's the first time I have ever seen Cathy Newman angry. And he was spluttering a bit, first time for him too, for me, I think.

Watch it on + 1

I agree with some of Petersen's views but he didn't come off at all well here

I meant in relation to her getting the piss ripped out of her on here, Lee. Peterson played it perfect.

Assasinated

How does each group get given its role

According to radical feminists, men are the oppressors, regardless of individual circumstance. That is precisely Peterson's point. Collective identity politics.

I found it hilarious that the interviewer took issue with the statement "the typical woman", because she sees all woman as individuals, yet tried (unsuccesfully) to lambast Peterson about the gender pay gap, which is a metric measured entirely around the disparity between the average man and the average woman's earnings and takes absolutely no account of individual differences or preferences. Thats probably the reason that Peterson was trying not to laugh at that point, because the irony is so obvious.

When you say you wish his points had been explored more, I think what you mean is you wanted a magic bullet question that would debunk everything he says. The problem is that nobody has yet found a way to argue against the thrust of his arguments.

AssassinatedBeauty : "how does each group get given its role? Is that innate, as per the lobster?"

Definitely not innate. The folks who believe in group identity don't believe in innate.

I think if you ask a critical theorist / postmodernist they'd tell you that you have to identify groups with power, and they get assigned the role of baddies. And then groups without power get assigned the role of goodies. So because we're ruled by a white straight patriarchy, if you're white, straight and male then it's 9th circle of Hell time. The difficulty is when you sit within an intersection - eg white straight woman or black gay man. Then you have to work out who's oppressing whom according to the still developing principles of intersectionality.

But to cut a long story short, you'll be told. Your job is to get out with a placard and protest the patriarchy. Don't bother your pretty little head with theory. Just memorise the slogans.

Stop putting words into my mouth, @PatriarchyPersonified. What I meant was, I would have liked a more thorough explanation of his views rather than the sparring kind of approach that was taken. So I can understand them better and understand his point of view to see if I agree or disagree. Not to hope for some mythical "magic bullet" question that debunks his research and theories.

If identity politics and class analysis are the wrong approaches, as per Petersen, what tools are there to look at inequalities between categories of people?

AssassinatedBeauty It appears you're trying to discredit Dr. Peterson's work by saying it's not "proper" science. His work as of November 2017 had a total of 8928 citations, he also has a H-Index of 50 which to put into perspective for you it is estimated that after 20 years a "successful scientist" will have an h-index of 20, an "outstanding scientist" an h-index of 40, and a "truly unique" individual an h-index of 60. His work is indeed proper science and has influenced the lives of many individuals.

He also says in the interview that people watching will fall victim to not listening and using it to just project their own opinions which you've precisely done. He says on multiple occasions that the pay gap is a multi-variable equation and that gender discrimination has a far lesser impact than being claimed by extreme feminists and mainstream media. He doesn't say there isn't any active or unconscious discrimination.

Finally, you're using anecdotal evidence as a means of saying he's wrong.

Assassinated

It's not a simple thing to do.

A contextual analysis of all the factors involved for each individual scenario would be a good start, probably a better start than "it's the patriarchy" I'd suggest.

AssassnatedBeauty : “I would have liked a more thorough explanation of his views rather than the sparring kind of approach that was taken. So I can understand them better and understand his point of view to see if I agree or disagree. “

Good idea. And where better to get a more thorough explanation of Dr Peterson’s views than from….Dr Peterson.

Here’s one of his university lectures on Personality. It’s about Agreeableness which is one of the things he mentioned in his interview with Cathy Newman. And it goes into some of his views on sex differences, which may interest you. Or enrage you. The only way to find out is to invest 50 minutes of your time. I reckon that’d be long enough to decide whether you think he has anything useful to say :

Obviously it’s just part of his course of lectures and you’re diving in half way through, but I imagine you’ll still be able to follow it.

@CoopGiraffe what is it with people telling me what I'm doing/saying. No, I'm not discrediting him. No I'm not saying he isn't a proper scientist. No I'm not saying he's wrong based on anecdotal evidence. Not I'm not "not listening".

I specifically said I'd liked to have heard a better interview so that I could understand what his points were. I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use his ideas to promote discriminating against women or to justify it. I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use any discussion about this as a means to berate women/feminists and tell them how awful and stupid they are.

I understand that I'm not a scientist or researcher. I understand that my personal opinion is not sufficient to use to prove/disprove many years of research and thought.

I'd like to discuss this further, but I'm beginning to feel like I shouldn't bother. Perhaps that's the aim.

Identity politics is the home of the lazy. I grew up in Belfast with soldiers on the streets. Lots of black soldiers, big men with guns. Yet im an oppressor of black people. It's an absurdity.

It's the kind of thinking that gave us Brexit and Trump. Constant sneering attacks on the white working poor of Britain and America. They have been and continue to be dehuminised. Rich black people at top universities telling them they have 'privelage' while they don't know how they're going to heat their house. If they're lucky enough to have a house of course.

Identity politics has crippled the left.

How kind, to think I might be able to follow a lecture.

Why would it enrage me?

@AssassinatedBeauty I'm referring to your original post:

"That'll get lost in the wind as all the usual anti-feminist types leap on the lobster hierarchy stuff and the "proper" science that he references.

This is what the sacked google guy was on about, that women are innately more "agreeable" and so any disparity in pay is because of that and not any active or unconscious discrimination.

As an utterly disagreeable woman, who has been sanctioned at work in the past for behaving as men typically do, this gets right up my nose."

If you're not saying his work isn't proper then why use quotations? Your last sentence is anecdotal and you specifically say what he's saying gets right up your nose which suggests you don't agree with what he's saying based on that anecdotal evidence.

What am i missing?

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

Assassinated

I've got to agree with CoopGiraffe's assessment of your original post, its the one i took issue with as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your clarification/explanation.

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

Assassinated

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

You just offered to explain it.

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

We would all benefit from understanding what you meant and what your issues with Dr Peterson's "proper" science (your quotations, not mine) are.

Assassinated

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

You just offered to explain it.

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

We would all benefit from understanding what you meant and what your issues with Dr Peterson's "proper" science (your quotations, not mine) are.

Yeah, I don't think you're really interested in anything other than a "gotcha" moment so you can demonstrate how unreasonable and irrational you think I'm being. My offer was sarcastic, probably hard to tell from text.

I was interested in Peterson but I'm less interested in hearing from his brow-beating fanboys.

Assassinated

Yeah, I don't think you're really interested in anything other than a "gotcha" moment so you can demonstrate how unreasonable and irrational you think I'm being. My offer was sarcastic, probably hard to tell from text.

Erm, ok. Why enter into these kind of discussions at all then? It certainly comes across as though you were quite happy to give your opinion at length until you were challenged and didn't have an answer, at which point you played the victim?

Speaking for myself, I enjoy a good discussion on lots of different subjects, mostly because it helps me to understand them better. I'm not really that interested in people who agree with me, I much prefer to talk about things with people who disagree with my position. (there is a reason I'm a man discussing feminism on Mumsnet). I'm not trolling anyone, I'm genuinely interested in hearing logical opposing arguments.

(To be clear, I'm not opposed to feminism at all, just certain brands of radical feminist activism.)

Oh naff off with "playing the victim".

I am fed up of people putting words in my mouth, patronising me, and leap

...and leaping to assumptions about my beliefs and motivations.

AssassinatedBeauty : “How kind, to think I might be able to follow a lecture.”

You’re right, you are indeed disagreeable ☺

My point was that you should be able to follow the lecture notwithstanding that you would have missed all the previous lectures in which some of the foundations for this particular lecture were laid. Whereas if I were recommending a lecture on quantum mechanics, I’d suggest that you look at one on optics first.

“Why would it enrage me?”

Because you seem to be sensitive to too much emphasis on differences between men and women :

“I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use his ideas to promote discriminating against women or to justify it.

PS

“As an utterly disagreeable woman, who has been sanctioned at work in the past for behaving as men typically do, this gets right up my nose”

Even for men, a disagreeable personality can be risky at work. Before marching in to your boss’s office and demanding a raise or you’ll quit you better be sure (s)he really doesn’t want you to quit, or that you’ve got another job offer lined up. I think the argument that disagreeableness helps on the pay rise front depends on the assumption that your employer really needs you. If so, being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise will cost you. But if your employer doesn’t need you then agreeably keeping quiet may be the better option.

Incidentally, the disadvantages of too much agreeableness are not limited to pay rises. Actually doing a senior managerial job competently requires being willing to make decisions that are going to make you unpopular. This is hard for agreeable people.

Assassinated

All I can see people doing on here is directly quoting your own words back to you, and then when you say that you are being misinterpreted, offering you the chance to clarify/explain, at which point you refuse, saying that we aren't really interested and are looking for a 'gotcha' moment.

I don't know how else to describe that other than not engaging and playing the victim.