Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

"Women (from the research he quotes) are more interested in people.
Men are more interested in things."

Can Peterson say why this is so? That's what might be actually useful to know.

Also, it's repeated so often, but to what degree are we defining "more" - how significant is it? How many men and women will have pretty much the same level of interest in people and things? What's the overlap? Is it worldwide and independent of culture?

I have seen hiring decisions multiple times now, as well as grading decisions. And I know from experience that 'aggressive/competitive' women are judged very differently than men (particularly by men).

That is what I am saying - women who do demonstrate this behaviour are entering the arena - the very competitive arena. I guarantee that the men will bring down anyone in that arena - male or female. They are competing against EVERYONE. These are usually highly disagreeable people at the top of organisations.

I guarantee that the men will bring down anyone in that arena - male or female.

By the way, how they do that may depend on sex. Which JP does address. Men: Men interactions are based around aggression, but it's not acceptable to do that to females, so they may employ different tactics, e.g. slandering

Your assertion is that men will not hire or grade highly aggressive/disagreeable men in the same numbers that they will not hire women who are like that?

Your assertion is that men will not hire or grade highly aggressive/disagreeable men in the same numbers that they will not hire women who are like that?

I'm not sure that is my assertion. It is more that highly disagreeable (not too high! Other things also matter, like IQ and conscientiousness) and competitive people will get to the top and it is a battle to get there. Whatever sex you are. And if there are fewer disagreeable women, we do start to highlight an issue.

We all know women who are highly disagreeable, they tend to do well and hate them But depending on your measures of success, it doesn't always serve us well to be nice. And I think that is DEFINITELY something that women constantly push, to be 'nice and kind'. Well if we want to get to those positions, I'm not sure that is good advice.

But human behaviours and peoples personalities aren't set in stone.
We respond to the context of the people around us.
Hence why we sometimes behave differently around different sets of friends.
Or can find ourselves playing different social roles in different groups.

If women learn that being interested in people is what's expected of them then that's what they do. If men are celebrated for being dominant and not reprimanded for aggressive behaviour (boys will be boys) then that's what we'll nurture in them.

I don't think think it's that women aren't interested in the status of working 70 hours a week in a board room that men get, it's that society attributes status to men and women differently.
A woman who worked 70 hours a week and had a high flying job is seen differently to a man who does the same thing.
A women's place is still seen as being with the children hence all the mummy guilt.

Here is a metanalysis on the People / Things

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

That meta study doesn't say why though.

Interest is such a broad stroke and just because someone is interested in something doesn't mean that that class of person is more suited to it.

I'm sure you could do a study that showed interests in subjects due to economic class but it wouldn't prove poor people are born naturally interested in Child Development and Travel and Tourism whereas rich people are born naturally interested in Latin and PPE

That is what I am saying - women who do demonstrate this behaviour are entering the arena - the very competitive arena. I guarantee that the men will bring down anyone in that arena - male or female.

Actually no. If a man does not have the data available, his mind is just too full of facts to remember that particularl one. A female is just too incompetent. Not every male reacts like that to the same degree (and females too, to a lesser extent) but that is what the consensus pretty much invariably boils down to.

And to reiterate: IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT A CV AND APPLICATION LETTER ARE JUDGED DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE SAME LETTER IS SIGNED WITH 'ANDREW MILLER' OR WITH 'ANDREA MILLER'.

Here is a metanalysis on the People / Things

In chemistry, the interest, and consequently, the students a have generally seen a 50:50 proportion of males: females. For decades. You wouldn't know, looking at the full professorship ratios of (depending on Uni) about 90:1 or 99:1. Leadership positions in the chemical industry see similar pattern.

What happened? Women were compelled by feminism to study a topic they were never really interested in?

Also, it's repeated so often, but to what degree are we defining "more" - how significant is it? How many men and women will have pretty much the same level of interest in people and things? What's the overlap? Is it worldwide and independent of culture?

He talks, if I remember correctly, of the differences being not particularly great but the outliers having disproportionate influence.

That meta study doesn't say why though.

We don't know. But Evol Biology / Psych has obviously had a stab.

Agreeableness is a trait that is VERY useful when protecting our children. 'Smoothing the waters' in the face of an aggressive man around our children obviously has evolutionary benefit

the meta study is about people v things, not agreeableness.

He talks, if I remember correctly, of the differences being not particularly great but the outliers having disproportionate influence.

He talks about two overlapping Gaussians, where you may find that if you randomly pick a man and a woman, the probability that the man will be more gifted in a typically 'male' area is 60%. The differences come from the probability at the fringes of the Gaussian. So, you may have 1% supergifted males above the 99 percentile and at the exact same spot that translates to (I am making this number up so you qualitatively understand the argument,I don't have the actual Gaussians in front of me), say 0.1% equally gifted women. That means at the superfringes you may get a proportion of (in this made up case) 1:10.

This sounds well and good in theory. In reality I have seen enough to know that men who are dumber than their female counterparts get promoted regularly. Because other factors are at play.

A man has children, a young family? Family father boss will feel the need to help this guy, promote him. It is such a high responsibility to maintain a family, cut the guy some slack...
A woman has children, a young family? Family father boss will feel she cannot give 100% any more. Promotion? Totally out of the question. Children need a mum who is there for them...

This is the reality. I have seen it more than once.

In chemistry, the interest, and consequently, the students a have generally seen a 50:50 proportion of males: females. For decades. You wouldn't know, looking at the full professorship ratios of (depending on Uni) about 90:1 or 99:1. Leadership positions in the chemical industry see similar pattern.

What happened? Women were compelled by feminism to study a topic they were never really interested in?

It is hard to say, but it will not just be one thing. The competitiveness required to be a leader, the interest in family increases and is more relevant as women age, having the choice to do other things that are more interesting to them?

It is hard to say, but it will not just be one thing. The competitiveness required to be a leader, the interest in family increases and is more relevant as women age, having the choice to do other things that are more interesting to them?

So we an agree that the 'interest' argument is irrelevant here. Good.
It is notable none of the reasons you mention have anything to do with active discrimination against women. Even though it is well documented (e.g. in the distinct rating of identical applications depending on the applicants perceived gender).
You are without a doubt JP's soulmate. Willfully blind. To facts.

A man has children, a young family? Family father boss will feel the need to help this guy, promote him. It is such a high responsibility to maintain a family, cut the guy some slack...
A woman has children, a young family? Family father boss will feel she cannot give 100% any more. Promotion? Totally out of the question. Children need a mum who is there for them

This is all well and good and no doubt influences things but it doesn't take into account the choice element also at play. Women tend to chose family over work. You can say that is social conditioning if you like, but I don't think that does explain it all. If we are truly honest with ourselves, when you become a mother, there is a powerful instinct to be with your children. You can do things to erode that maternal wiring but the drive exists more powerfully in women than in men, especially while the children are young.

So we an agree that the 'interest' argument is irrelevant here. Good.

Well the last one was about 'interest'. They are choosing to do something else because it is more interesting so maybe we don't agree after all !

It is notable none of the reasons you mention have anything to do with active discrimination against women. Even though it is well documented (e.g. in the distinct rating of identical applications depending on the applicants perceived gender).
You are without a doubt JP's soulmate. Willfully blind. To facts.

I am not blind to this existing but seriously don't need to point this out on this thread as it is so blindly offered as the only explanation when in fact it is just one of many, possibly very small, factor involved

Women tend to chose family over work.

And it is reasonable to do that, when the partner has a much easier time to get promoted and have a well paying career, while the woman is stuck with a boss who does not consider her for promotion...

Well the last one was about 'interest'. They are choosing to do something else because it is more interesting so maybe we don't agree after all !

Your argument right here devalues the meta study argument JP makes. If it is all about 'ah, people - or at least women - won't stick to their interests, anyway', what point is there is in citing the meta-study? It would only make sense under the assumption that the interest is stable, which JP assumes.

And it is reasonable to do that, when the partner has a much easier time to get promoted and have a well paying career, while the woman is stuck with a boss who does not consider her for promotion...

Oh come on! You do realise how 'victim-y' that makes women sound?

Your argument right here devalues the meta study argument JP makes. If it is all about 'ah, people - or at least women - won't stick to their interests, anyway', what point is there is in citing the meta-study? It would only make sense under the assumption that the interest is stable, which JP assumes.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

That is utterly irrelevant to whether it is true or not. There is plenty of evidence, as already stated of differing attitudes to women and men in the workplace.

Do women choose family over work? Or are women expected to be the care by default?

Oh come on! You do realise how 'victim-y' that makes women sound?

Considering that the discrimination of women in hiring and promotion processes is well documented (like the undeniable distinct evaluation of application letters, CVs..., mostly male bosses preferrably mentoring people who resemble them...), it is fair to say that women are vicimized when it comes to hiring processes and building careers.

If this reality cannot be spoken on a feminist board, without being called 'victim-y', then I would say, Jordan Peterson has accomplished his mission.