Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

Give two different people ten pounds and you will get two different outcomes. One person might waste the cash. Another might grow the cash by using it to start a business

We don’t all start with £10 though do we.

Teacup

The 10 pounds isn’t my point - my point is personal choice and agency. Some (like you) will try no matter the circumstances. Others won’t- even if offered opportunity.

That is why equality can never be total

No equality can never be total I agree but we should work hard to create a society where people have the opportunities to get ahead if they want to. Part of that is realising not everyone starts in the same place and some people need help or a lift up.

I did work hard, but I was also incredibly lucky that I lived at a time where I was supported financially by the state to get an education when my parents failed.

We can’t just step back and say ‘the cream will rise to the top’ when that’s just not true.

When you’re a child you only have the opportunities that you’re born with, if your parents can’t give that to you then I think it’s only fair that the state does so that we at least have a chance to get ahead.

It’s not just gumption and hard work that get people ahead it’s also accident of birth.

Teacup

I do agree with what you say - I think the devil is in the detail - what is just the right amount whereby the state doesn’t either intervene too much or too little and - as importantly- how do you know when you have achieved that correct balance

I agree, I think that’s a conversation we’ll be having as a society forever.

My issue is with the advice that the best thing we can do for the poor is to lead by example. I absolutely disagree, I think the best thing we can do for the poor is to practically help them. Sometimes that will definitely by showing them examples of people in their situation who managed to get out but it can’t only be that.
Take the example of someone sleeping rough, this is a complex issue that often involves mental illness and drugs, giving them money is usually not the right thing but there are plenty of practical things that society can do to help the homeless problem like creating good mental health provisions, rehabs, PTSD help for veterans.

There’s also practical things individuals can do like donating to food banks and helping out at soup kitchens. These are great for character building also.

I mean I couldn’t turn to someone who was in my position now and say ‘look I got out and you can too’ because the level of support I got off the government simply doesn’t exist anymore.

OK, personal example of structural inequality. To succeed as an academic researcher, you are expected to travel internationally and spend time in other institutions. When I began my academic career i was a single mum, from a working class background. Firstly, I was unaware that was expected, as I didn't come from a background where people understood how academia worked - obviously, I worked it out eventually, but would probably have made different choices if i'd known from the beginning. Second, the (unwritten) requirement for international travel represents a structural inequality for those with primary caring responsibilities. JP would say that it was my choice to have children and that I put the obstacle in my own way. But it isn't that simple. You don't always become single through choice (I did to be fair) but many don't. So I would argue that academic hierarchies should take into account caring responsibilities in more nuanced ways than simply trying to support women after maternity leave.

It's a matter of luck what family we're born into and what happens to us to form our foundations. One size fits all doesn't work but many govts still use that model to pay lip service to levelling the playing field.

It's unreasonable to expect someone with high anxiety to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - most would if they could - they need a different approach. None of this is rocket science - there's neither the will, the funding nor the skills to deliver cost effective tailored solutions that make a difference

Flowers

I think your example is where personal choice meets practical reality

Or - how far should a system go to meet your expectations. What is unrealistic - your expectations or the system as currently constructed?

Woman formally

I think you make a great point - to tailor society to every individual would be very hard - even in a totally socialist society.

I also agree luck plays a great part - jp makes a point in his book that success breeds success and offers exponentially greater opportunity. The opposite is also true

I suppose as you become more successful your reliance on luck lessens. Conversely as you become less successful you need more luck, not less!

@notdavidtennant "I've never read any Peterson, but I have noticed that whenever he is brought up on here there always seems to be a rush of people to defend him, a lot of whom seem unwilling to brook any criticism of him or his ideas. It does all seem a bit cult-like."

When people that admit they've not read him are criticising his fanbase then what do you expect?

"I've never been to Nando's, it amuses me that it's so popular"

"Why don't you try it and see for yourself"

"......"

I’m a jp fan but accept some of his Twitter fans can be a bit loony

I think those who are baffled by the fuss should read his book though

@flowersonthepiano "for me is his lack of recognition of structural inequalities. "

8m34s of this Daily Politics panel, the other guest says removing structural inequalities and he says "that's fine"

Although, considering he bangs on about equality of opportunity in almost every interview I'm not sure how that isn't recognizing structural inequality?

Making sure everyone has the same level of opportunity surely implies removing structural barriers?

I guess it comes down to how you define structural barriers. And how tangible certain barriers are e.g.

Women not having the vote is a clear lack of opportunity based on their sex

White men having more opportunity and it being easier to succeed because of their race and sex is more controversial and harder to quantify - I'm sure many reading this will laugh and ask if I'm joking but I'm not.

Britain is 87% white for starters. Also, white working class boys are the group least likely to go to university fullfact.org/education/are-white-working-class-boys-least-likely-go-university/

Why are white working class men least likely to go to university?
Could it possibly be that there are cultural barriers there for them because they are working class?

"Also, white working class boys are the group least likely to go to university"

And that could be partly structural. In that there are not enough male role models in primary/secondary education.

I think your example is where personal choice meets practical reality

It's also about what hierarchies choose to value though, surely? And about lack of transparency to 'outsiders'. It's not possible to compete effectively if the rules of the competition are unknown to you.

@flowersonpiano "And that could be partly structural. In that there are not enough male role models in primary/secondary education."

Depends on your definition of structural - there's nothing inherent to the education system that dissuades men from becoming teachers. Any social stigmas about it being a woman's job isn't inherent to the system, that's a society thing (is that stigma exists at all, I certainly don't see it as a job for women)

Now we arrive back at the done to death topic re different interests in careers

I suspect that the teaching profession has become devalued and more poorly paid, partly because of its popularity with women and the perception that it is a "parent friendly" career because a parent who is a teacher is likely to have holidays that coincidence with those of their children.
People have frequently asked me if I have considered teaching (answer, no, as i'm not that keen on kids, other than my own [grin) - I think because I am an educated female parent. I don't think the same suggestions are often made to men, partly because they are less often primary carers. So that is about social structures. ....not sure if I am making much sense. ....can we talk about genetics? I know about genetics

When people that admit they've not read him are criticising his fanbase then what do you expect?

Why do I need to have read him to have an opinion on his fanbase? Is your argument that if only I'd read him I'd agree with the cult-like behaviour I've observed?

@flowersonthepiano " has become devalued and more poorly paid, partly because of its popularity with women"

Or that it's a publically funded profession and in order to fund an increase in pay for teachers then the govt would either have to increase taxes or cut spending elsewhere.

Why is the first reason always "but sexism"

@NotDavidTennant "Why do I need to have read him to have an opinion on his fanbase? Is your argument that if only I'd read him I'd agree with the cult-like behaviour I've observed?"

"there always seems to be a rush of people to defend him, a lot of whom seem unwilling to brook any criticism of him or his ideas. It does all seem a bit cult-like."

You have not read or listened to him. Therefore when you see people criticising him, or his ideas, and people defending him against that criticism, you have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong

For instance, common accusations include:

Peterson is alt right or far right, Peterson only appeals to angry white men, Peterson is transphobic etc

Without having read the source material then how can you possibly know?

At least some of the critics here seem to have watched some of his stuff, even if it is a two minute clip of him talking with Camille Paglia that they've discussed endlessly.

You're participating in the discussion and lobbing volleys at his fanbase without any knowledge of the details.

It's nonsense and I have no problem in pointing out your nonsense to you.

I guess I just which the debate/discussion was more informed, more fool me I guess

Conversely as you become less successful you need more luck, not less!

Not quite - it's not luck but appropriate tailored support that's needed - so people can engage in work and earn a living - by that I don't mean necessarily individually but recognising that groups of people have common barriers to work - so take away the barriers, e.g. subsidise childcare, travel expenses - introduce quality part time work - many of the other European countries have sorted this problems out successfully so what is so special about the UK - other than too many psychopathic politicians? I recall talking to a single female parent in Germany - she had affordable secure tenured housing, affordable childcare plus could work part time for 3 days a week at good paying work - same in Scandinavia

Some of this used to be in place and the neocons of all political persuasions have failed in their duty of care - this dominant males have no clothes on - we need a new system of governance - this is not rocket science…there's not special about the UK other than incompetent, entitled politicians who are stripping the public purse

Yes, positive examples of how structures helped me to get a career at all: social housing, which was much more common back then, and not free, or via housing benefit, just genuinely affordable rent; availability of evening classes, so that I could finish my A’levels (after having my first son at 17); (almost) free university education. All of those have been cut back and their absence prevents, or at least heavily disadvantages, people from non-typical backgrounds improving their lives and those of their families.

"I recall talking to a single female parent in Germany - she had affordable secure tenured housing, affordable childcare plus could work part time for 3 days a week at good paying work - same in Scandinavia "

It's funny how Scandinavia is touted as an example of removing barriers to work, until you point out that the gender gap in certain professions and personalty differences got bigger as Scandinavia became more egalitarian

It's funny how Scandinavia is touted as an example of removing barriers to work, until you point out that the gender gap in certain professions and personalty differences got bigger as Scandinavia became more egalitarian

What? Funny how moving the goalposts is used to shift the focus - normally a tactic of someone on shaky ground

@womanformerlyknownaswoman "What? Funny how moving the goalposts is used to shift the focus - normally a tactic of someone on shaky ground"

How is it moving the goalposts? My very first post on this thread said this RE Peterson:

"Believes the paygap isn’t due to discrimination but because of different choices made by men and women. Believes these choices are due to inherent differences in interests and personality between men and women. Knows all the relevant studies that support the “nature” element of these differences inside and out"

I then posted a link to a Norwegian documentary on how their gender gap got bigger despite their efforts to reduce it: "Then check out this excellent Norwegian documentary on their Equality Paradox - the gap in STEM/Nursing got bigger despite their best efforts."

And I also posted this article "Then check out this excellent Norwegian documentary on their Equality Paradox - the gap in STEM/Nursing got bigger despite their best efforts."

In fact, looking back at the previous pages you even replied to one of these posts RE Scandinavia! "Caveat- until they leave abuse and find that the system re-abuses where the abuser left off and it's too late to try and regain a career"

We had the same discussion in the pay gap thread and the Scandinavian results were dismissed because of "entrenched sexism" and other reasons www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3248721-Gender-pay-gap

So my point was that holding up Scandinavia as a model of equality and reduced structural barriers is fine. But when I point out that as they came more egalitarian the gender gap in Nursing and STEM got bigger not smaller then suddenly the Scandinavian model isn't good enough and there's still entrenched sexism. It doesn't work like that.

So it's not moving the goalposts at all