Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

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

Thoughts on this man......

I can tell you right now that not helping with the chores is going to sew up my fanny faster than quick stitch

Haven'r RTFT yet but wanted to post this Shapiro piece on JP

'The New York Times' Runs A Comprehensive Hit Piece On Jordan Peterson. It's Dishonest, Malicious Crap.

www.dailywire.com/news/30825/new-york-times-runs-comprehensive-hit-piece-jordan-ben-shapiro

More perspectives the better imo. He seems to be a bit of a phenomenon. Interesting to consider why.

That LBC interview was a good example of why Maajid Nawaz is my favourite current pundit - asks open questions to allow his guest time to develop their ideas, just jumping in now and again when Peterson was in danger of wandering off topic or to move on to the next point rather than just cutting him off, talking over him etc - an hour sounds a long time but it's really not when there's so much going on right now.

(I would start an MN thread but it would risk confusion with the name of this site).

he's an icon for the incels
incel has become a byword for 'whiny loser'
but I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity!

Who actually takes the Daily Wire as truthful?

"According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified." Among the falsehoods published on the Daily Wire include “leftists” digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL’s widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.

FactCheck.Org found that the Daily Wire was the source of a false story which credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. According to FactCheck.Org found that the errors were discovered and published by HUD’s independent inspector general before Carson became secretary.

The Daily Wire has published a number of articles which cast doubt that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading."

I would argue that if somewhere like Daily Wire is defending JP then JP is problematic.

Also:

During an interview with journalist Nellie Bowles, Peterson suggested that 'enforced monogamy' could solve the problem [of violent / incel men]. Peterson is quoted as saying:

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him.

The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.

Half the men fail. And no one cares about the men who fail."

Nellie admits that she laughed at the absurdity of this statement which disappointed Peterson, who added in response.

"You’re laughing about them. That’s because you’re female."

One wonders what JP thinks about women.

I notice that a pp was deleted for calling him a....well I wont say lest my post is deleted too
so I'm wondering why we're not allowed to insult Mr Peterson?
is he litigious?

Which seems odd to me as his whole thing is about giving young men back their sense of purpose and putting the emphasis on them getting their sh*t together which, while not making them any taller or more physically attractive, should make them more attractive to women (and if it doesn't then at least they'll have tidy rooms).

I'm really puzzled by someone who 'chooses his words carefully' using the phrase 'enforced monogamy', and then apparently going on to qualify that he actually means something like monogamy endorsed and encouraged by the state.

well, if that's why you meant, why didn't you say that? It's very hard to interpret the phrase 'enforced monogamy' as any thing other than non consensual monogamy.

One of the criticisms levelled at Peterson in this rather delightful takedown is his tendency to use impenetrable language, I think that one, certainly is easily demonstrated.

just say what you mean man!

@ fmsfms

‘It shows.’

It also ‘shows’ when a psychologist/researcher has particular biases and is trying to push a certain theory (one that has historically been used to justify sexism) as a scientific fact, when it is not. Particularly, when those that support his world view say things like, anyone who does not support his analysis is some kind of science denier.

‘I have posted multiple studies on this thread, they can't all be biased.’

All psychologists/researchers have biases of one kind or another, it is one of the fundamental things one learns (or should learn) if not in A level psychology, then certainly when they are studying at degree level. That is why different theories can be used to explain the results from the same studies. A theory to explain the results of a study on a topic that is highly political, is always biased towards the researchers own world view, a researcher cannot control for their own biases. It is ludicrous to suggest that a psychology researcher carries out a study on a highly political topic and does not have any interest in the results either way. Moreover, I also know there are many ‘evolutionary’ and ‘biological’ psychologists’ who have theories about how different behaviours/preferences etc in the sexes come about, they are just that though; theories. They are theories which rely on speculation in former case and pseudo science (much of which has been disproven, e.g. brain sex) in the latter. Of course one is free to agree with them, but they are not fact, and should not be presented as if they are.

“If you're referring to the equality paradox in the Nordic countries then this isn't the results of a study, it's what's happened and is happening right now in those societies.”

Pointing out a correlation does not and cannot show causation was my point. However, in saying that of course many questions in psychology cannot be answered by strictly experimental means, they have to rely on quasi experimental methods like correlation as well as qualitative research, due ethics and pratictailes. Regardless, correlation still does not equal causation, which is why multiple explanations could account for the situation in the countries you mention.

‘Nursing is 98% female, nurses work with male doctors, patients and administrators. Terrible point to make, completely wrong.’

Those that are studying to qualify as nurses will likely be surrounded by other females while studying, as by your own admission nursing is 98% female, and when they are qualifed they will be working in a mixed sexed environment, rather than a strictly male dominated one where there are few other females. However, women who study branches of medicine that are heavily dominated by males, such as surgery have indeed complained about harassment by males. For example that male students plaster pornographic pictures around with their name written on etc. Similarly female workers in construction (a male dominated occupation) have also complained about the sexism they have experienced when they arrive on the job. In other male dominated professions the senior males often expect females to do far more work than they their male colleagues and still often promote their male colleagues over them. There are of course many more examples of how women face discrimination in male dominated occupations, it is not that difficult to understand why most women would prefer other jobs that are less male dominated. It is this area that needs to be explored more in my opinion.

‘...more egalitarian countries women have more freedom and ability to pursue their own interests, and the personality differences between men and women become bigger, as evidenced by multiple studies’

I would suggest that since we do not have ‘equal societies’ it is a misnomer from the start. It assumes that ‘more equal’, means equal, it smacks of ‘look we have given the women all these benefits and they just don’t want/like these jobs. So that must mean we were right and it is not systematic inequality that is the problem, instead it is something unique to females themselves’. I would say until we have a society where males are not committing the majority of sexual violence and a society (including all the media) is not teaching males one way to behave is more acceptable for them and another is more acceptable for females, then any studies based on ‘more equal’ societies are pointless from the start. If there were any truly equal societies that existed then that would be different, since there are not, it is a pointless endeavour in my opinion.

‘Are you dismissing the influence of testosterone entirely’

Hormones of various types can cause a whole host of physical phenomena. However, I would suggest the book Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society for a counter argument that humans are ruled solely by their hormones.

The fact is in the Victorian era we had males arguing that female’s brains were different than male’s and that this contributed to different behaviour, preferences, abilities, etc, of the sexes, then we had the hormone argument in the early/mid 20th century, which did much the same. Both of these arguments were created by men to justify their actions towards women, e.g. their violence towards women, to keep women out of certain occupations etc. Similar arguments were made concerning brains, genetics and the poor and racial minorities also. To be honest I think more attention should be paid to the motives of those who wish to conduct such studies. The reasons really have not changed since Galton’s day in my honest opinion; one group wants to justify its behaviour and discriminatory actions, so that it can retain its position on top of the hierarchy without criticism. The group that has something to lose in this is females, thankfully there are more females in the sciences now who can counter these theories, or we would be in a situation very similar to when eugenics just had free reign. I do believe we are heading that way though, with males on both the right and left singing off the same choir sheet in so many ways.

One wonders what JP thinks about women.
That's not difficult. Just read what he writes and listen to what he says. And not jump to whatever conclusion fits your preconceptions, which a lot of people do.

@Artemis7

"It also ‘shows’ when a psychologist/researcher has particular biases "

Yawn, you're still looking about an individual researcher.

My point: you can't just allege/accuse studies of bias to discredit them/the results, especially when there are so many

Reminder:

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it's been tested, and it's wrong).

Katz-Gerrog (2000): bit.ly/2uoY9c4

Costa (2001): bit.ly/2utaTT3

Schmitt (2008): bit.ly/2p6nHYY

Schmitt (2016): bit.ly/2wMN45j

Differences in men and women's interest/priorities: Lippa (1998): bit.ly/2vr0PHF

Rong Su (2009): bit.ly/2wtlbzU

Lippa (2010): bit.ly/2wyfW23

See also Geary (2017) blog: bit.ly/2vXqCcF

Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males: Lubinski (2014): bit.ly/2vSjSxb

"anyone who does not support his analysis is some kind of science denier."

But that's literally what you're doing - you can throw "bias" at any study which opposes your worldview without any evidence to support your accusation

"Pointing out a correlation does not and cannot show causation was my point."

You were still talking about an individual psychologist being biased, not a false cause fallacy. And I pointed out to you that the gender equality paradox in Nordic Countries isn't a theory, it's a fact:

an international dataset of almost half a million participants that confirms what they call the “STEM gender-equality paradox”: more gender-equal societies have fewer women taking STEM degrees. And the research goes much further = digest.bps.org.uk/2018/03/14/investigating-the-stem-gender-equality-paradox-in-fairer-societies-fewer-women-enter-science/

"However, women who study branches of medicine that are heavily dominated by males, such as surgery have indeed complained about harassment by males."

Lol, I'm glad you replied because it's made me go back to your first post and I'm discovering new ways in which your arguments totally fall down:

"If a woman can earn a reasonable living doing something that does not involve subjecting herself to such harassment then she is likely to do so, which would explain why women in countries where they can support themselves in other jobs ‘choose’ to do so......In the case of women from countries where the pay for traditional ‘women’s jobs’ is extremely low, then women will of course ‘choose’ to enter STEM and similar higher paying occupations"

Ok just to recap:

1. Women in Western/Equal Countries go into female dominated professions because they have less risk of being harassed and because the pay is better for these jobs than in less equal Countries - sounds pretty good of these more equal Countries so far

2. Women in less equal Countries do STEM despite the presumably higher risk of harassment that comes with less equal Countries eg Turkey, Tunisia, Albania (35-40% of STEM graduates are women)

Nobody in their right mind would argue that men in predominantly Islamic Countries have better attitudes towards Women than men in Western Countries, so something in your argument doesn't add up

"It assumes that ‘more equal’, means equal, it smacks of ‘look we have given the women all these benefits and they just don’t want/like these jobs."

Nobody is saying "more equal" means "equal"

Hint: if you have to rephrase your opponents argument and put that rephrasing in quote marks then you've just Cathy Newmanned/Straw Manned their argument.

"However, I would suggest the book Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society"

Already been brought up in this thread and responded to = However, I would suggest the book Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society

"for a counter argument that humans are ruled solely by their hormones."

Literally nobody on the nature side is saying that, certainly not me. Chalk up another straw man.

The nurture side seems to want to erase the influence of testosterone entirely, this is absurd.

Is anyone else imagining fms kissing his guns right about now?

I think he kisses his copy and paste finger.

Is anyone else imagining fms kissing his guns right about now
I imagine he'll be getting coaching from other members of the mgtow community

lucydogz

I do. Which is why I wonder. I mean the make-up stuff was odd to say the least. As for Frozen - its propaganda but the snogging of a corpse is a meaningful tale (Snow White).

Hi Midgebabe

Peterson is totally wrong about the Scandanavian countries because women's inequality is written into the law. For example, women who give birth are forced to leave the workplace longer than fathers.

Also, the idea that sex differences occur when things become more 'equal' is nonsense because in those countries they still teach gender roles to children. They are just STARTING to educate children differently but think of all the mass media these kids consume.

Like I said in my prior comment, GC feminists shouldn't tolerate Peterson because he quite clearly thinks gender has a biological basis when there's no evidence of any such thing. In fact, most neuroscientists disagree with him that gender is hardwired.

Girls aren't born with pink brains, pre-programmed to not like STEM and wear high heels. They're taught that math and science aren't for them. This is apparent in SIX year old girls.
www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/26/girls-believe-brilliance-is-a-male-trait-research-into-gender-stereotypes-shows

I'll dig up the recode article on the study if anyone wants it.

yes, I must admit to not being as familiar as some with the work of JP, but the little I have come across seems to indicate a very odd attitude towards women. I know that fms says I'm not allowed to read and interpret JP's writing without checking with him first, but here I go:

JP has said that women should take responsibility for women that he has labelled as 'crazy'
he says that women who don't want to be sexualised and who wear make up at work are hypocritical
He mused on the subject of 'forced monogamy'

I would say he feels little or no kinship with women - feels them to be very different from himself.

I've got no problem with that, however he does seem to be keen on trying to (let's say) 'suggest' ways that women could behave.

Some one earlier said that he displays rather a stunning lack of personal insight, and I think this is correct.

Have you found a link to where he says he's a fundamentalist Christian yet mancheeze

yes, if we're going to hold up Nordic countries as paragons of equality, it's worth mentioning that they have very high rates of domestic violence. All is not rosy in that garden.

In the car today I listened to a radio 3 I player download. Free thinking. Phillip Dodds interviewed JP. It was the best interview of JP I've heard as Dodds was countering his "patriarchy doesn't exist" and "universities are full of feminist activist" plus the female chaos thing. Interesting.

Dodd not Dodds

hmm 2rebecca, I do love a podcast, will look that up, thanks for signposting it.