Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

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

Thoughts on this man......

so what it tells us is that social interaction is a damn sight more complex than you might at first think

But what is really bad about this is the fact that you are trying to prove sterotypes rather than treat each human as an unique and valuable person. Even if there was a difference, some women will always be good at science and to discourage or ignore them because they are women, which has happened all through history, is evil.

@midgebabe "But what is really bad about this is the fact that you are trying to prove sterotypes"

Whoa! hold your horses there. All I've done is post supporting articles and studies. I'm (not) sorry if you can't suspend your beliefs to explore opposing evidence

"rather than treat each human as an unique and valuable person."

Hahaha, how are you coming to this conclusion? Like JBP I am firmly against identity politics which is judging people by their group identity, and firmly believe in judging everyone as individuals

"Even if there was a difference, some women will always be good at science and to discourage or ignore them because they are women, which has happened all through history, is evil."

I have already posted the evidence that says quite clearly, women do just as well at STEM as boys. The issue is they do better in other subjects than they do at STEM, and they are interested in other subjects more

NB, I'm talking about on average at a population level. Saying that on average men are taller than women is not me saying all women are shorter than men

But the studies can be interpreted either way. In a society where nursng is raised in esteem, then girls who have already been socially conditioned towards caring will be more attracted to it. It will take generations to untangle the meaning of any changes.

And in the meantime, some people try to use dodgy logic to explain that its natural that women are paid less etc etc

@midgebabe "But the studies can be interpreted either way."

They really can't.

"In a society where nursng is raised in esteem, then girls who have already been socially conditioned towards caring will be more attracted to it."

You really don't need to explain the "nurture" argument to me ROFL

Your argument is basically that society tells women to do nursing. But the societies that tried to encourage women to do STEM and undo as much as the social stigma as possible only had more women going into nursing

It's literally the opposite of what should have happened.

You are really missing the point, I can't be bothered to keep trying to explain it.

In a neutral world I would probably agree that nature is more of a driver than nurture but we don’t live at point zero, the game is already rigged when we’re born.

I struggle to see why a debate of nature vs. nurture invalidates anything Dr. Peterson says. He's a Clinical Psychologist who has designed programs for people dealing with purely psychological complaints. It's strange to hold him up being a disbeliever that nurture matters when he is actively involved in treating problems resulting directly from it.

He takes the position that there are definable tendencies between the sexes but that equal opportunity between them is an absolute. That's a reasonable (and more importantly evidence-backed) position.

What does equal opportunities mean in practice? So, in practical terms what needs to be done to ensure equal opportunities for boys and girls?

I don't think anyone here or Peterson is trying to 'prove stereotypes' or say it is natural for women to be paid less, the research is just an attempt to explain the supposed paradox that a more free and equal society that has actively tried to move away from stereotypes has in some cases more stereotypical behaviours (occupations, hours worked, and so on which affect pay) than ones with less freedoms and where gender roles are more rigidly held by society. This research isn't trying to enforce them or dissuade people from what they're good at, it's just an attempt at an explanation as some parts of social science are.

We can acknowledge some women love and excel at STEM while not ignoring the data we have. Some would say the data shows that when freer and under less pressure, people's preferences might have more association with their sex and might have biological reasons for that. Others would say that there are likely elements within those societies that pushes these roles which are more subtle that may need to be investigated. Some are suggesting that more people in freer societies are pulling out of career-focused lives for well-being and some groups of women are at the front of that and in less free societies, money and prestige are even more important to gain personal freedom and independence which would explain why more women do those types of jobs. I think it's likely multiple factors coming together. None of this is to ignore people because they are women. It's to explain what we were not expecting -- it was and still is assumed by some that if we keep removing barriers, we'll get a 50:50 sex split in most occupations but the evidence for that does not hold up and as the curious apes we are we want to know why. That's pretty much it. We can see people as valuable individuals and still be curious by how different groups act in society.

@oldmanoftheweb3

I said in my first post that nurture has some influence, as does nature. The problem is that you can't quantify how strong either is.

I've also found that the majority of people here that reply to the topic seem to dismiss nature entirely eg the person that kept going on about the Cordelia Fine book.

"But patriarchy/sexism" seems to be the default cause behind every problem

Using a biological basis for gender should be abhorrent to all GC feminists, but I realize that not all of you are GC.

Surely it's the other way around. To believe that biology determines sex is to be Gender Critical. To believe that sex is a choice and mere identity is to not be Gender Critical. Dr. Peterson is very much the former.

He has admitted publicly that he's a Christian.

I don't see what that should be an "admission" but he's not. And he's most certainly not a "fundamentalist Christian" as you describe. He described himself as a "pragmatic Christian" which I believe he explained as following Christian ethics, but he does not believe in a divine Jesus or the Bible except as interpreted as myth and ethical teaching.

The rest of your claims about him being a "Men's Rights Wacko" etc. are just bizarre.

I agree with everything he says.

Surely not when he says Frozen is a bad film, though?

Have I got this straight...Scandinavian country tries to get more women in STEM. Female participation in STEM go down. This is Presented as evidence that females are genetically not able/wanting to do STEM?

Definitely not lack of ability. In fact, research says that on average women and men have almost equal ability in science and mathematics. But there is a higher degree of variation in men than women. I.e. the average is the same but men have both more very smart and more very stupid amongst them. The reason for the greater disparity is not ability but choice. Women tend to go for more people-facing careers. Where sexism is greater, smart, ambitious women had fewer options. Couldn't be a boss, couldn't be a doctor, couldn't be a lawyer. So they tended to cluster in science and computers more. As greater equality was achieved (and the Scandinavian countries rank highest world wide on this), other careers have opened up and the number of women in STEM has continued to fall. It's not ability, but that smart women would rather be a doctor or a lawyer than a mathematician or a physicist. ON AVERAGE. The reason being doctors and lawyers get to work with other people. Mathematicians and physicists sit in a box all day long. (Stereoptyping, but you get my meaning).

I am not commenting on the chap because I haven't done any background, it was just the conclusion presented in this thread seems flawed to me. You try telling a teenager what to do and see what happens. Steering society is not easy, and takes generations.

I think it is not me who is missing the point.. just because you have a theory and conduct an intervention, if your model is wrong, you do not control for all confounders you may end up with an unexpected result. Your interpretation is that the confounding factor in this case is innate STEM capability is not actually anything like equal , but that is not actually known. It's an untested theory to account for an experimental failure. I can think of other potential confounders.

Equal opportunity is probably impossible if people believe the Stereotypes.

The evidence in bulk paints perhaps a different picture ... September 2017 scientific American

@midgebabe

You're hilarious

" Your interpretation is that the confounding factor in this case is innate STEM capability "

What part of this post was too hard for you to understand:

"women do just as well at STEM as boys. The issue is they do better in other subjects than they do at STEM, and they are interested in other subjects more"

flowersonthepiano I agree with much of what you say and most certainly agree that Michelle Goldberg did an admirable job. I've seen such lame attacks on Dr. Peterson in this thread, that I was reduced to finding a better one myself! ;) One thing I'd say in response to your comment though is that I've seen Dr. Peterson talk very constructively and non-confrontationally on other occasions. I think the format of debate influences him a lot. Put him on say, the Rubin Report which is a long-format chat and he just amicably rambles and considers other views. Put him in a debate with an opponent and a voting audience, he'll try to win. Hence you're going to see him be quite confrontational there. To see how patient and tolerant he can be at the other end, watch the infamous clip of him with the trans activists where he's almost saintly in his endurance of attacks.

But equal opportunity isn’t absolute, that’s the point. If it was we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We need to look at the social, cultural and structural reasons as well as the natural ones. If we just focus on nature and pretend that the hierarchy of the world is simply down to natural order and nothing else then we lose huge opportunities to free everyone and create genuine equality of opportunity.

Having impositions on individuals to conform to certain behaviours simply because of something as inane as what’s between their legs is ridiculous. When we say ‘men are like this’ or ‘women are like that’ we solidify those behaviours. To say that a man must fight (sorry to bring it up again but it’s a good example) to be able to be respected as a man hurts men, as it codifies aggression deeper into the ‘Male behaviour’ box. What about the men who aren’t aggressive? What about the men who don’t want to fight, or maybe display more ‘womanly behaviours’ they are still men because actually the only thing that makes you a man is being an adult Male. Should we shun then from maleness and say they aren’t to be respected, well if that’s the case then I can totally see why someone would become trans.

Yes there are natural differences between the sexes but there are just as many differences within the sexes too.

What does equal opportunities mean in practice? So, in practical terms what needs to be done to ensure equal opportunities for boys and girls?

Removal of any legal obstacles to discriminatory hiring is a fundamental. Then you can introduce laws against discrimination on non-relevant characteristics such as sex or race. We have both of these already. You can look at whether it's possible to correct any large-scale biases that exist. For example, there was a government campaign to encourage women into science some years back (unfortunately it was so bad they actually deleted the videos!) which might overcome legacy biases. But beyond that you rapidly get into very risky areas such as quotas.

Because it's that"interested in" factor that is the social thing

also unclear, do you mean that boys do worse in some things than girls ? Or do they als do better at those things than at stem but. Choose stem because of interest?

OldmanOfTheWeb3 , it's ok if you drop the Dr just once when you mention Jordan Peterson. It's beginning to get a bit .... odd and grovelling. This is an informal chat group. You could save time by just saying Peterson or JP as others do. Or do you think that by giving him his title all the time we might be tricked into thinking his views hold more weight than ours?

What I find really strange about all these JP discussions is that new people l've never seen on Mumsnet before crowd in to defend him - and they defend him at great length, even making sure they never ever denigrate him by dropping his very important academic title. In that way it's very similar to Brexit threads or Trump threads a la Claig. It makes one suspicious about the nature of his following.

Nobody has said they're only interested in natural reasons

what does equal opportunities mean in practice? So, in practical terms what needs to be done to ensure equal opportunities for boys and girls?

Well look at the things that actually stop men and women doing certain things and starting there. Women often fall behind because of caring duties, creating more flexible working, crèches , breastfeeding breaks, carers leave, these are the kind of things that encourage women into working spaces.
Women are sometimes locked out of public meetings etc because of the time they are held clashes with bedtime and there’s no childcare, having crèches in government buildings would be a start.
Better paternity would be good too, making it far easier for men to take paternity leave, I know lots of men who would have liked that option but the culture at their work didn’t allow it.
I’m not so clued up on what men need but I’m sure there are similar steps for them too.

I don’t think anyone on this thread (even those arguing in a more combative male manner ) is arguing “all men are like this” or “all women are like that”.

I am open to the idea that women and men choose different paths given equality of opportunity and if that’s what the evidence is pointing to, then fine, it could well be the case. BUT nowhere has complete equality of opportunity and social norms take a long time to change. So, even with encouragement to pursue a STEM career, if it is not seen as something to aspire to among girls, based on input from their social environment, rather than any external structural initiatives, they may still be less likely to pursue it. That said, I haven’t read all the literature posted upthread (too busy watching that debate), and I imagine the authors will have thought about and discussed these possibilities and maybe controlled for them?

OldMan What I am about to tell you may shock you....

I have never seen frozen

I didn’t really like frozen, that much the music isn’t ducky enough for me.

I LOVED Moana though and The Princess and the Frog.
The music is just better in them.

@flowersonpiano "So, even with encouragement to pursue a STEM career, if it is not seen as something to aspire to among girls, based on input from their social environment, rather than any external structural initiatives, they may still be less likely to pursue it."

I would suggest that external structural initiatives is input from their social environment

*funky not ducky

fmsfms Ok, poorly phrased, should have been 'other than', instead of 'rather than'