Dr Jordan Peterson

[12boo]

I believe I am a feminist
But I seem to be a fan of Jordan Peterson. Are these states totally incompatible?

[Cam77]

@Snorkers
Interesting, but we’ve only had the New Labour years to represent the “left” in government in the UK for 40+ years now. Perhaps there was more waste in the NHS then, but there was certainly a lot more public satisfaction in the NHS too.

[Needmoresleep]

Odense

Thanks. But presumably without the typos!

(Dyslexia is my excuse...)

[Needmoresleep]

The left right divide increasingly seems to make little sense.

I would hazard a guess that many of us are:

1. Socially conservative, as in we are strongly interested in safeguarding and concerned about the some of the excesses of queer theory.

1. Concerned about the environment and climate change and would like to see effective policies to, say, reduce plastic, and to reduce emissions and pollution.

1. Want to rub along with others and take people as they find them, regardless of race, religion or background. And to be similarly accepted ourselves.

1. Want to see a reduction in the wealth gap, so more Sweden than the USA, with a proper safety net for the most vulnerable and protection for the NHS.

1. To expect those able to make a contribution to society, to make that contribution. I feel this way, but have been surprised to see my views reflected on MN.

1. To be able to discuss issues of relevance to society without being silenced, threatened, insulted or cancelled, and to be free to to form our own opinions. Not having media including the BBC and Guardian, or corporations like Amazon, or Twitter, or M&S, push us in directions we don't want to go.

My assumption is that the difference between us is the role of the state. I am naturally a "small state" person, so leaning towards the Tories. Others see a greater role for the state and tend towards the left.

The problem is that the left is being absolutist and is is requiring adherents to sign up to a slate of beliefs/policies including TWAW and Palestine.

I suspect Boris has no real beliefs, only ambition. However he follows Dominic Cummings who relies heavily on focus groups, who are telling him that the urban elite have moved too fast for ordinary people. Ordinary people are good people, but inclined towards social conservatism. They don't get inter-sectionalism or queer theory or Owen Jones, and are sick of being accused and blamed.

I long for a time when we can debate and agree to disagree. My student DD longs for a time when you can express polite and honest options on campus without risk of being accused.

So let Peterson contribute to the debate. If he is as awful as people suggest, it won't take long before he is ignored.

[FWRLurker]

The point he is making is that the "wage gap" is 'natural'. True or not, it is different to your claim. Actual wage differences between men and women in the same jobs are now very narrow. The differences comes from women being in different industries and missing out on promotions.

And that’s exactly what I object to. Women’s share of wage has been gradually rising. He believes that sometime between 1960 and now, wages have landed “where they should naturally be” and any further movement to narrow the gap ergo must be the “excesses” of feminism. As if Feminism wasn’t the reason it has been narrowing all along. There’s no evidence he’s right nor could there be. Also, he’s committing the naturalistic fallacy in any case (simply because something is natural - eg If male violence is, which again we don’t know) doesn’t make it right.

I’ll try to find a good source but the main issue is that one cannot tell the difference between genetic variation that acts via a differential environmental effect from genetic variation that acts directly on a phenotype, without doing experienents that are impossible in humans (eg raising a child completely gender neutrally). So the entire field of behavioral genetics in humans is based on assuming environment x gene interactions are “genetic/natural”.

A clear example are genes we’ve found where 1 version puts you at higher RISK for PTSD but only if you experience trauma in childhood does the risk change from the other version. Everything related to gender could be in this category. We do not know and cannot in fact.

Anyway I don’t think he’s a monster or anything I just think he’s ignorant on this issue but nevertheless keeps pretending his personal views are scientific, which bothers me a great deal as a scientist.

[Phrowzunn]

Yes! Love a bit of Dr JP! I find him great for parenting advice (don’t let your kids do anything which makes you not like them - so simple, so true) and love to debate his points with my DH. Even if you don’t agree with what he’s saying, he’s great to listen to/read.

[Langsdestiny]

I would find it really difficult to take any advice from him. He has failed to keep his own room in order or be the best man at your fathers funeral. Ideas which I always found problematic but now impossible to take seriously.

[CoffeeTeaChocolate]

need, I think that you are right in a lot of what you wrote. I do think it is an increasing gap between left and right wing politicians, which not really is reflected in the voters.

In my more pessimism moments I worry that this is a generational thing. That people are reading less and less in-depth news and analyses and are increasingly relying on headlines, both in terms of news and in views.

Like you I believe that open debate about issues only can be a good thing. I find it frightening with the silencing on certain issues. I worry a bit about all these “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” on university campuses. Surely we need to raise our children to be resilient and deal with open discussions? I remember studying the basics of criminal law. I was sometimes angry and horrified, but I never expected someone to warn me that certain crimes (for example murder and rape) would be pretty grim and that I might be “triggered”. I sort of figured that one out by myself.

Jordan Petersen is very keen on free speech and he doesn’t moderate his opinions based on what people want to hear which is refreshing. I think he often is misrepresented as well. One of his mantras is “be precise in your speech”. Often when he is criticised, it is because someone made an inference based on what he said and got it wrong. Having said that, obviously he is not perfect, a bit like us all.

[AskingQuestionsAllTheTime]

I know this is not particularly relevant to the debate, but hey, everyone else is allowed a derail once in a while and this one is mine:

"Women only got the chance to go to University since the 1930's" simply isn't right, though they had to be pretty determined before then.

A lot depended on the university. My grandmother read medicine at Edinburgh University in the 1890s, and she certainly wasn't a pioneer there: those were more than twenty years earlier. At Oxford women could gain a degree from the four women's colleges (Lady Margaret Hall was founded in 1878, Somerville in1879, St Hugh’s in 1886 and St Hilda's in 1893) but until 1920 were unable to go to a graduation ceremony to be awarded it. At Cambridge, Girton College was established in 1869 and Newnham College in 1871, and women's degrees could be sat but not awarded; they were sent certificates through the post instead, until 1948. (Or they could go over to Dublin and be awarded them by the university there.)

In August 1867 the University of London was given powers to hold special examinations for women. In 1868 the university drew up plans to grant them certificates, and from 1878 women could graduate from London University with full degrees.

Most men had no chance to go to university either.

[Shawbles]

Why do MRAs and incels love him if he tells men to shape up etc ?

My take on it is that this group feels that he speaks to them when no-one else does - that the major public initiatives are all aimed at getting women into STEM, or the comparative coverage given to women-specific issues rather than men-specific issues (rightly or wrongly that they feel this, I have no interest in debating whether these feelings are based in fact, but more recognising that they exist all-the-same).

I suspect they also appreciate, as indeed I do, that he doesn't shy away from calling out activists of all stripes for exaggerated claims, and forces them to "play the game" fairly. An example, to take a PP about the wage gap, was him talking to the leader of the WEP on the Wright Stuff - who was talking about the wage gap, at which point he enumerated the numerous reasons other than gender why the wage gap exists - dangerous work, more willing to travel for work, willing to work longer hours, jobs that are scalable. These are the reasons that lead to the headline figures that activists like to bandy around saying that women earn 20-odd percent less than women, when the true figure when adjusting for everything else (same qualifications / role / experience etc...) is much less (the figures I looked at most recently for France - where I live - suggested that it was 6.9%, which is nowhere near as headline-worthy), and also pointing out that the logical extension of demanding quotas for women in high-powered roles is to also demand quotas for women everywhere else - as the refuse collectors, sewer cleaners, day labourers etc... rather than picking and choosing where you want equality of outcome.

[Shawbles]

*women earn 20-odd percent less than men

[daisyjgrey]

Do you ever end up on a thread and think "...these are not my people..."?

[Goosefoot]

@FWRLurker

The point he is making is that the "wage gap" is 'natural'. True or not, it is different to your claim. Actual wage differences between men and women in the same jobs are now very narrow. The differences comes from women being in different industries and missing out on promotions.

And that’s exactly what I object to. Women’s share of wage has been gradually rising. He believes that sometime between 1960 and now, wages have landed “where they should naturally be” and any further movement to narrow the gap ergo must be the “excesses” of feminism. As if Feminism wasn’t the reason it has been narrowing all along. There’s no evidence he’s right nor could there be. Also, he’s committing the naturalistic fallacy in any case (simply because something is natural - eg If male violence is, which again we don’t know) doesn’t make it right.

I’ll try to find a good source but the main issue is that one cannot tell the difference between genetic variation that acts via a differential environmental effect from genetic variation that acts directly on a phenotype, without doing experienents that are impossible in humans (eg raising a child completely gender neutrally). So the entire field of behavioral genetics in humans is based on assuming environment x gene interactions are “genetic/natural”.

A clear example are genes we’ve found where 1 version puts you at higher RISK for PTSD but only if you experience trauma in childhood does the risk change from the other version. Everything related to gender could be in this category. We do not know and cannot in fact.

Anyway I don’t think he’s a monster or anything I just think he’s ignorant on this issue but nevertheless keeps pretending his personal views are scientific, which bothers me a great deal as a scientist.

I don't think your idea of "where they should naturally be" is what is meant at all. You are gving a moral status to something that's not meant to be amoral statement.

For example, if it was 200 years ago, women who were sexually active were pretty inevitably going to spend significant amounts of time in pregnancy, post-partum recovery, breastfeeding, and experiencing the effects of these. That's just the way it is if there is little technological ability to control how many children you have.

That would, inevitably, naturally, affect their career and earning potential. Even in a perfect society. Naturally, you would have some sort of wage gap.

That's not a moral statement, and it's not anti-woman. It just is.

Peterson things the effects of having a female physiology result, even now with some real ability to control pregnancy etc, in different outcome in the workplace for women as a group. You can think that's not the cause, but it's not anti-woman to think that's what the data shows. And it's also quite different to say, therefore women should not be in high-powered careers, and some statistically significant contingent of women may not prefer to be in high-powered careers. Or even, valuing things other that high-powered careers may be a strength rather than a weakness.

[Goosefoot]

I find him interesting on some things and I disagree with him on some things - I think he's quite off on climate issues for example. I very much appreciate his efforts on Bill C-16.

He's not an evangelical Christian as someone upthread said - I don't think he's an active Christian at all actually.

I do agree that people regularly totally misrepresent what he's said.

The reason MRAs like him is worth thinking about. Some just like that he says things they can use - but then maybe that is fair game, if he's correct. But really I thin a lot of men, especially young ones, who are attracted to MRA stuff, or get drawn into incel stuff - they have been signiicantly let down by our culture. It's difficult for feminists sometimes to spend time on this but what we offer as a vision of success, and an expectation f success, for a lot of boys is pretty narrow. And on some things, like education, a lot of them are not being given the kind of care they need - as someone working in an elementary school boys are given as short shrift in their own way as girls. And a lot haven't any men involved in their lives much.

So these young guys are attracted to anything that seems to offer an explanation and maybe some help.When all they find is MRA crap, that is where they get sucked in. But many will respond to something more constructive if it's offered.

[GreenJumpers]

I'm a feminist and I love him. Thank you @ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings by @bygrab

[FWRLurker]

Peterson things the effects of having a female physiology result, even now with some real ability to control pregnancy etc, in different outcome in the workplace for women as a group. You can think that's not the cause, but it's not anti-woman to think that's what the data shows.

The point I’m trying to make that you keep ignoring is that it is not possible for data to show there is such a thing as a “naturally female Psychology”. The entire premise is flawed.

And also that even If women were naturally inclined to certain professions (which again, not possible for data to show this) it is still committing the naturalIstic fallacy to say this is how things should be.

Take Male Violence. It may indeed be the case that men Are biologically determined to be on average more Inclined towards violence than women (beyond the fact that they are more physically strong And thus more able to commit violence which is clearly true). Note too it’s not at all clear this is the case and it’s similarly impossible to determine as whether women really don’t like math as much or “men are more Naturally obsessive” which In turn could be explained by men being given more time and freedom to develop Obsessions).

Anyway; regardless of whether male violence towards women is more “natural” than the reverse, it still would not be valid to argue that it is not a problem, or that we should not seek to change it.

[GreenJumpers]

Agh! Not thank you @grabthars ! What I was trying to say was - thank you @shawbles for clearing up that annoying misinterpretation of JP's work that @grab did

[hamstersarse]

I’ve listened to and read most of his stuiff. His Cain and Abel lecture was one of the best things I’ve ever heard so far In my life.

My ds has got so much out of him on how to be a good man....take as much responsibility as you can bear...such a simple but powerful mantra for a young man.

MN has changed its tune on him,.. a year ago he was a flat out misogynist but now people have actually listened to him it’s hard not to consider his views. FWIW I don’t think he’s a misogynist, I think he deeply respects the difference between men and women and sees them as a union that brings benefit to all.

[FWRLurker]

Sorry just realized you said natural physiologically not psychologically. I do not think that Peterson confines himself only to physiological differences. He definitely makes a lot of points related to personality, psychology, and “Innate” interests - these are the overinterpretations I object to.

Also still the naturalistic fallacy. Just because women are forced into certain careers because they have to sustain pregnancy / etc and men don’t doesn’t mean that’s how an ideal society should leave it.

[Goosefoot]

@FWRLurker

Peterson things the effects of having a female physiology result, even now with some real ability to control pregnancy etc, in different outcome in the workplace for women as a group. You can think that's not the cause, but it's not anti-woman to think that's what the data shows.

The point I’m trying to make that you keep ignoring is that it is not possible for data to show there is such a thing as a “naturally female Psychology”. The entire premise is flawed.

And also that even If women were naturally inclined to certain professions (which again, not possible for data to show this) it is still committing the naturalIstic fallacy to say this is how things should be.

Take Male Violence. It may indeed be the case that men Are biologically determined to be on average more Inclined towards violence than women (beyond the fact that they are more physically strong And thus more able to commit violence which is clearly true). Note too it’s not at all clear this is the case and it’s similarly impossible to determine as whether women really don’t like math as much or “men are more Naturally obsessive” which In turn could be explained by men being given more time and freedom to develop Obsessions).

Anyway; regardless of whether male violence towards women is more “natural” than the reverse, it still would not be valid to argue that it is not a problem, or that we should not seek to change it.

Actually I said female physiology, which women most certainly have, and which affects their careers.

As for whether women are different in terms of their minds or behaviour, I think it is an extreme position to say that we can't come to any conclusions about that. Is it the most clear and objective kind of statement, no, but there are good reasons to think there may be differences and coming down on the side that there are some is no less justified than coming down on the side that there aren't. If your position is we can't know, than Peterson is as likely to be right as the person who says there are no such differences. At best you could say - we don't know if these outcomes are a product of the differences in male and female bodies or not, and you'd have to be open to it as a real possibility.

I'm not sure where you get that this is anything to do with the naturalistic fallacy, as I don't see anyone saying that women must act that way, women must have children (or else!) But the fact is, lots of women will have kids, or enjoy the kind of work they enjoy, and you really have no business telling them they shouldn't do those things. Plenty of women find this demand that they change their behaviour to be the same as men's for some kind of theoretical vision of equality pretty misogynistic, and prefer the idea that society should try to avoid disadvantaging them for their differences.

[Goosefoot]

@FWRLurker

Sorry just realized you said natural physiologically not psychologically. I do not think that Peterson confines himself only to physiological differences. He definitely makes a lot of points related to personality, psychology, and “Innate” interests - these are the overinterpretations I object to.

Also still the naturalistic fallacy. Just because women are forced into certain careers because they have to sustain pregnancy / etc and men don’t doesn’t mean that’s how an ideal society should leave it.

Ah, just got this far - I don't think you can really separate physiology and psychology.

[ArriettyJones]

.

[madwoman1ntheattic]

@SarahTancredi

You are joking? Bill C-16 some hidden artifact? Everyone knows about C-16. It’s mentioned roughly at the same rate as section 28 in the UK

What they dont know, someone started a thread about it the other day about Bill's, is that before each one is passed they have to do some kind of gender based assessment ( I'm.assuming its basically what we would call an equality impact assessment) showing the potential impact/conflicts the bill may have. This is meant to be available for public view and for every other bill its available. Fir c-16 a woman has been given the run around for years unable to view or obtain or indeed have anyone shed a light on if this assessment has even really been done.

Is that different to those who testified in front of the Senate Committee during the bill hearing? Meghan Murphy testified, and someone from VRR - there were a few women. They were ignored (obviously, being women speaking for women) but they were invited to testify. It’s basically the same as the ‘consultations’ in the uk where bizarrely women’s voices are completely ignored.
I don’t know about reports/ transcripts though - are they a matter of public record?

[madwoman1ntheattic]

When I say ‘same’ I mean efficacy - obv one is written and one oral. Ignored regardless.

[Shawbles]

I do not think that Peterson confines himself only to physiological differences. He definitely makes a lot of points related to personality, psychology, and “Innate” interests - these are the overinterpretations I object to

The man is one of the world's pre-eminent clinical psychologists. You're objecting to him talking about subjects in which he is a world leader ?

Again, I have never got from him that he believes these things he explains to be innately true and unchangeable or that we shouldn't change them because they are Right. He appears to me to stick quite carefully to saying this is how things are, here are some socio-psychological explanations for why they are so (supported by data), and that this has been the bedrock of a basically stable society for 100s of years so we make swingeing changes at our peril, especially if making them based on myopic interpretations of statistics to support identitarian policies where the group becomes more important than the individual.

[picklemewalnuts]

What Shawbles says.

I don't think he's claiming things 'should be, and should remain' a particular way. He's observing why it currently works the way it does. He's not against any individual pursuing individual success in whatever field, but he can see a natural/structural limitation on changing some things. Quotas won't have a sufficient impact until all of the groundwork is in place, which will take a heck of a long time and may not be desirable.

The way boys and girls are unintentionally raised differently, despite every attempt not to do so, is going to take a long time to change.