Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

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

Thoughts on this man......

here's a link to the podcast
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p067gd7g
(obviously it can also be found via the various podcast apps)
and thanks 2rebecca
I'm another avid podcast listener :o

Agree I get bored of the radio and left the house at 4 this morning to drive to a cycle event. This was interesting and less irritating than jaunty music.

Thank you!

Hi macheeze yip the more you look at the published facts the more the crap shows through. ( and fmsfms bias can and does exist across multiple authors . It's a systematic bias)

The poor statistical inference. The failure to consider some pretty likely alternative hypothesis.

The facts seem to remain ( I only read one of fmsfms links , which did not suggest otherwise ) that any cognitive or personality traits vary much more across An individual sex that they do between the sexes. And that those differences could be explained by the consistent abuse of physical power of men towards women over history which has embedded itself into culture.

Because women are not actually as stupid and incapable as some men would like to believe, they feel threatened. The more obvious this fact becomes, the more threatened they feel, so the more they retreat into irrational behaviour.

This means that on an individual level within more nominally equal societies, women may experiance a lot of resentment and aggression.

A clearer divide in the sexes opens up based on men trying to enforce it through the more rigid sterotypes that we see today. Which is why male sterotyping in particular is becoming more problematic. Hum driven in part by the tech industry itself?

Thus when someone tells them what they want to hear ( that women are inferior and thatbif only they were more manly sex would fall into their laps ) and does so by telling them that it is rational logic ( manly) not imbecilic hysteria ( womanly), they feel good about themselves and lap it up.

@mancheeze "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"

This argument doesn't hold up.

All/most Countries have "social stigma" around certain professions, and "social conditioning" re the genders - nobody including myself and JP are denying that "nurture" is present or has an influence.

The point, is that the Nordic Countries are doing more than anywhere else to eliminate that social stigma and actively encourage the opposite.

Therefore you would expect their gender gap to get smaller not bigger.

Now you can argue that it takes time to undo all the social stigma and it won't happen overnight. This is correct. But then how do you explain the gaps and the personality differences getting bigger?

" For example, women who give birth are forced to leave the workplace longer than fathers."

This smells fishy and I am yet to verify it. I did find that Swedish parents are offered 480days of paid parental leave and that each parent has an exclusive right to 90 of those days sweden.se/quick-facts/parental-leave/

Also: "Outside the 480 paid days, parents in Sweden also have the legal right to reduce their normal working hours by up to 25 per cent until the child turns eight. Do keep in mind, however, that you get paid only for the time you work." sweden.se/society/10-things-that-make-sweden-family-friendly/

It also seems that those 90 days for fathers were originally 30 then 60, and were offered under a use it or lose it model. The 90days exclusive leave per parent is also a use it or lose it model for mothers. qz.com/587763/how-swedens-daddy-quota-parental-leave-helps-with-equal-parenting/

390 days of the 480 are paid for by the taxpayer at 80% of salary - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/19/take-five-months-parental-leave-swedish-fathers-told/

So unless you can come up with some supporting sources it seems that statement is false

@ fmsfms

When a subject is politically loaded like this one, it can never (no matter who does the research) be unbiased. Never. If the person’s view is that differences between the sexes are caused by nativism then that is what they will be looking for, and people tend to find what they are looking for in research. Articles that don’t align with what they hoped to find tend to get buried, this happens in many fields, but social science in particular is not as cut and dry as other sciences, it never has been. Galton and others tried to combine it with the ‘natural sciences’ and the result was eugenics. The question I believe women should ask themselves is; why is it men feel it is so important that they prove there are innate biological differences that account for stereotypical behaviours? It is that which is the really important question.

I never denied there were less women taking up STEM in those countries you mentioned, I said there are many reasons why that could be, that is a big difference.

Islamic countries tend to segregate the sexes for many things, there are also strict rules about how females and males can behave in front of each other in public. Personally I think a same sex teaching environment could be good for girls and young women, as they then escape of lot of the problems that come with being taught with boys, particularly now that many are showing girls porn on their mobiles, sexting etc. Of course that still would not change the societal influences that children are exposed to from an early age. Are you trying to say if we adopt the same treatment of women, as they do in islamic countries then women will do better in STEM? Lol perhaps it would be better if we looked at other more plausible reasons why girls would be less likely to enter STEM, such as the ones that have been previously mentioned.

Hormones do many things. However, there are plenty of castrated males that display just as much aggression as men with their testicles, and that also like stereotypical masculine things.

It seems to me you want to convince women that there is no sexism behind research trying to find biological reasons for stereotypical behaviours associated with the sexes. That it is done with no bias or sexism at all behind it. I disagree, and so there is really nothing more more to say. Except that I think you have got a hard sell trying to convince women that the motives behind this are not nefarious. Those of us that know the history of the eugenics movement can see this is really not much different in many ways, even down to both the left and right taking it up in different ways, bears striking parallels.

‘nobody including myself and JP are denying that "nurture" is present or has an influence.‘

Then what are you saying? Because quite frankly this thread has been going on so long that I’ve lost the point you’re trying to make.
We’re saying that Jordan Peterson is not infallible and comes with his own shockingly obvious biases that he is completely unwilling to acknowledge or address which makes us wary of his work.

Personally he loses me when he talks about archetypes, he believes these archetypes are innate in the human physche and that stories are a reflection of the mind, whereas there actually isn’t any hard evidence for this and it’s just an interesting theory.

It is just as likely that humans create stories that reflect the archetypes within their societies and use them as a way to control and ingrain ethics of a culture. The cultures grow to reflect the stories not that the stories are a door to innate struggles of the physche.

I find it very strange that this school of psychology is suddenly being held up as some incredible rock of logic when it’s rooted in feeling and theories.
This particular liniage of psychology isn’t exactly free from misogyny either, it’s hardly like Freud was good for women.

@artemis7 " Are you trying to say if we adopt the same treatment of women, as they do in islamic countries then women will do better in STEM?"

Cathy Newman alert

"It seems to me you want to convince women that there is no sexism behind research trying to find biological reasons for stereotypical behaviours associated with the sexes"

As I've explained already (you really should read the thread), I find it amusing and sad that whatever the subject eg weight loss, nature vs nurture, climate change etc, then people on one side are so quick to dismiss studies which contradict their worldview

Bias, small sample size, poor methods etc, I've heard it all before.

It says more about your own idelogical entrenchment than it does about the studies

"Hormones do many things. However, there are plenty of castrated males that display just as much aggression as men with their testicles, and that also like stereotypical masculine things. "

0/10 for this answer. Men that are castrated, whether surgically or chemically don't all of a sudden lose interest in the football team they've supported their whole life, ROFL

@Teacuphiccup "Then what are you saying?

@Teacuphiccup "Then what are you saying?

I'm not completely sure fms has a point tbh. I think he's mainly here to exercise his cut and paste finger raise the tone of the debate.

@Teacuphiccup "Then what are you saying?

Nurture has an influence. Nature has an influence.

Most people replying want to dismiss nature altogether.

If you could wave a magic wand and erase all social conditioning/stigma around the genders eg mens jobs, boys jobs, men are strong, women are caring, etc etc

Then there would still be inherent differences between the sexes and different outcomes.

Maybe nursing wouldn't be 98% female, but it would still be 50%+

Maybe more dads would take career breaks to be the primary caregiver, but the majority of parents doing that would still be women.

Men would still pay more for car insurance.

More men would still have problems with gambling.

The pornography and sex work industries would still exist to serve a predominantly male client base.

Etc

ohfortuna

Thanks for posting that podcast. It was interesting.

I'll say this for JP, he's working hard at promoting that book!

The more I listen/watch/read, the more I find him slippery and defensive. Particularly about his attitude towards women.

I still think that he should be taken seriously. If nothing else, because of the traction he has with disaffected men.

I'll be keeping an eye on him

@fmsfms

‘Bias, small sample size, poor methods etc, I've heard it all before.’

Obviously you have never done any research, if you had you would know that we all have to look at these elements before we just accept a paper as being valid, even if it is published in a peer reviewed journal we still need to access it. You seem to have no idea about this at all and that tells me all I need to know about your level of knowledge of research in general, let alone psychological research. It also explains why you don’t understand that all psychologist’s have biases (political leanings) and should state them.

"I'll say this for JP, he's working hard at promoting that book!

"I'll say this for JP, he's working hard at promoting that book!

"I'll say this for JP, he's working hard at promoting that book!"

yep, on his second promotional tour as we speak. Hence him being in the UK for a show and his saturation in the media last week.

The Cathy Newman interview did wonders for his profile and the media has realised he's a massive massive draw, hence him being all over the radio and TV

I don’t think people are saying that there aren’t any inherent differences between the sexes at all.
What they are saying is that we haven’t reached equality of opportunity yet and as a result we can’t say that the world isn’t rigged to favour certain outcomes for certain people.

Also we actually have no idea what the world would look like if we waved that magic wand because it’s never happened and pretending you do and saying that you’re ideas are purely logical and not in any way biased is flawed.

It doesn’t really matter what the world would look like if we waved that magic wand, what matters is what the world looks like now and how can we create a world that offers equality in opportunity for more people.

I agree that we’ll never be able to achieve equality in outcome as women are the breeders and the feeders and actually that’s fine, equality isn’t always everybody being the same. But what we have at the moment is nowhere near equality (for men or women, I think the status quo is pretty shit for men too) and we need to look at how to make changes to fix that.
It’s not purely about the individual, the individual is important but we do need to work as a society too to create a more even playing field.

Omg nursing would be 50% or more female if everything were properly equal. Gee. Given that women are more than 50% of the population where sex based abortion and child murder is uncommon , that's astounding.

*your

My autocorrect is so annoying

@teacuphiccup

"I don’t think people are saying that there aren’t any inherent differences between the sexes at all."

"Also we actually have no idea what the world would look like if we waved that magic wand because it’s never happened and pretending you do and saying that you’re ideas are purely logical and not in any way biased is flawed."

These two sentences don't add up.

If you admit there are inherent differences between the sexes, and the combination of these inherent differences plus the social stigma/conditioning create unequal outcomes.

Then surely eliminating the social stigma and leaving behind the inherent differences would still create unequal outcomes? maybe not to the same extent but unequal/different outcomes

“If you could wave a magic wand and erase all social conditioning/stigma around the genders eg mens jobs, boys jobs, men are strong, women are caring, etc etc

Then there would still be inherent differences between the sexes and different outcomes.“

That is opinion not a fact and that is the problem, you are trying to claim this is fact, when actually it is simply a theory. The reason it is a theory is because those things have not happened and therefore cannot be proven.

There are also theories that men are the way they are because they are physically bigger than females and so find it easier to dominate them on a physical level. That they also tend to make alliances with other men in order to ensure their dominance remains and they police the sex roles that both males and females can do in order to ensure that hierarchy remains. I happen to believe in that theory, so there is an element of nature there, but not to extent that you would like it to be.

The fact remains you have to accept that both are theories and there are many others, trying to claim scientific legitimacy for yours is disingenuous.

Erm yes, like I’ve said it’s not about equality of outcome it’s about equality of opportunity. Did you read my next paragraph where I literally say that.

‘I agree that we’ll never be able to achieve equality in outcome as women are the breeders and the feeders and actually that’s fine, equality isn’t always everybody being the same. But what we have at the moment is nowhere near equality (for men or women, I think the status quo is pretty shit for men too) and we need to look at how to make changes to fix that.’

@artemis7 "That is opinion not a fact and that is the problem"

I bet £10 I can get you to admit that you're wrong re "Then there would still be inherent differences between the sexes and different outcomes."

/handshake?

oh please enlighten us