Andicis Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Lambchop said: BUT THE MULTIVARIED ANALYSES HAVE BEEN DONE! No, she really wasn’t. Getting overly emotional and using irrational points over and over in a loop doesn't make her in any sense in her depth. She makes assumptions without almost any facts, and as soon as he sought to bring in the facts to his argument she interrupted him. Really poor interviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, Andicis said: I've watched the interview you are talking about in full, she was hopelessly exposed. I think even she realised at one point she was way out of her depth. She came into it clearly assuming that Peterson was just a misogynist who was a bit of a loony. Yep. Wouldn’t it have been nice for Channel 4 viewers to have been able to listen to Peterson’s actual views and for them to be challenged in an honest way. Instead we got somebody trying to humiliate them, and the reverse happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, StringerBell said: Yep. Wouldn’t it have been nice for Channel 4 viewers to have been able to listen to Peterson’s actual views and for them to be challenged in an honest way. Instead we got somebody trying to humiliate them, and the reverse happened. I loved how Cathy Newman restates his views and he just sits there and realises how wrong and crazy he is. And then he said lobsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Lobsters tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Andicis said: They're selling their services and expertise. If they weren't worth what they were being paid, they wouldn't get paid it. Pretty simple economics there. But it's already been pointed out that Nurses, Firemen, Teachers etc are also selling their expertise, and that's expertise that can save/change hundreds and thousands of lives for the better. Yet we don;t value them but "simple economics" dictates that people whose main skill is being as ruthless a predatory capitalist as possible walk away with untold riches and makes hundreds and thousands of lives much much worse. If that's meritocracy and people think that is OK then there is no hope for us. It ends in totalitarianism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, StringerBell said: I’m starting my social work job in a couple of weeks. Do I need to start a raffle? Just out of interest, what area of social work will you be in? Do you forsee challenges based on your views? These are genuine questions by the way. I can't imagine you will enjoy having to bite your lip in some situations where you could quite easily lose your job if you said what you really think. Or is this forum just where you let off the steam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Ok, let’s do lobsters. One of his basic points is that what he calls masculine traits are desirable in the workplace and this is his explanation for why men push themselves to the top of the pay scale above women; women are too ‘agreeable’. This is based on evidence, the multivaried analyses have been done and it is therefore proof that male dominance is due to inherent differences between men and women and not discrimination. Newman pointed out that as a scientific experiment this is meaningless because there is no control for comparison, ie no example of a market run on female traits. Peterson assumed that for women to succeed they must imitate the characteristics of men and compete on men’s terms. He had no answer to the question, why not change the values of the marketplace so that women and men can compete or, indeed, cooperate, on equal terms. All he could do was state that it hasn’t yet happened, he could give no reason why it shouldn’t. This derails his claim that female traits don’t predict success, because that only applies in a male dominated, ie patriarchal, marketplace. He used lobsters as an example and a reason for why hierarchical competitiveness is hard wired into our systems. According to him, we cannot function any other way because we are responding to the serotonin stimulus in our brains. This is so unscientific as to be laughable. Has he failed to notice that humans dominate the planet and are at the top of the food chain because, unlike the lower animals, we communicate and cooperate. Our evolutionary success is based on the very female traits he claims are so undesirable. Meanwhile, lobsters are still lobsters. His views on evolution also contradict his views on choice. On the one hand we are programmed to compete in a hierarchy, but on the other hand we end up in our careers through choice and not as a result of rigged opportunity or discrimination. He is trying to advocate libertarianism based on a philosophy of determinism and doesn’t even see the contradiction. This leads nicely onto his politics. Feminists, trans activists and neo-Marxists all follow the same ideology as Mao, and giving in to equality for women will, inevitably, lead to the deaths of millions. This is because identifying with the group rather than the individual leads to authoritarianism because... that’s what Mao did! This only follows if you accept his views on evolutionary hierarchy and the dominance of male values, which are complete nonsense. His views are garbled and confused. He’s an example of a psychologist who has tried to project his views on individual psychology onto the macro scale, with no understanding, or probable interest in, other disciplines which easily demonstrate how this does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 12 minutes ago, StivePesley said: Just out of interest, what area of social work will you be in? Do you forsee challenges based on your views? These are genuine questions by the way. I can't imagine you will enjoy having to bite your lip in some situations where you could quite easily lose your job if you said what you really think. Or is this forum just where you let off the steam Child protection. Depends. If I got through three years of citing Marxists and feminists for the lunatics at university I’m sure I can manage dealing with the people who actually do the job. Which views in particular do you mean? There’s a number of things that happen I don’t agree with but my attitude is I just turn up and do my job, speak truth as best I can determine it to be and don’t get emotionally invested. There might be some conflict with management but their decisions final. In terms of the PC stuff I already learned on final year placement that certain jokes are seen as a off limits (and that’s in a profession that supposedly has gallows humour). Also that people of certain skin colours shouldn’t be challenged when they spout off. I think laughing at people might be the best option. Most social workers are frustrated anyway aren’t they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 55 minutes ago, Lambchop said: Ok, let’s do lobsters. One of his basic points is that what he calls masculine traits are desirable in the workplace and this is his explanation for why men push themselves to the top of the pay scale above women; women are too ‘agreeable’. This is based on evidence, the multivaried analyses have been done and it is therefore proof that male dominance is due to inherent differences between men and women and not discrimination. Newman pointed out that as a scientific experiment this is meaningless because there is no control for comparison, ie no example of a market run on female traits. Peterson assumed that for women to succeed they must imitate the characteristics of men and compete on men’s terms. He had no answer to the question, why not change the values of the marketplace so that women and men can compete or, indeed, cooperate, on equal terms. All he could do was state that it hasn’t yet happened, he could give no reason why it shouldn’t. This derails his claim that female traits don’t predict success, because that only applies in a male dominated, ie patriarchal, marketplace. He used lobsters as an example and a reason for why hierarchical competitiveness is hard wired into our systems. According to him, we cannot function any other way because we are responding to the serotonin stimulus in our brains. This is so unscientific as to be laughable. Has he failed to notice that humans dominate the planet and are at the top of the food chain because, unlike the lower animals, we communicate and cooperate. Our evolutionary success is based on the very female traits he claims are so undesirable. Meanwhile, lobsters are still lobsters. His views on evolution also contradict his views on choice. On the one hand we are programmed to compete in a hierarchy, but on the other hand we end up in our careers through choice and not as a result of rigged opportunity or discrimination. He is trying to advocate libertarianism based on a philosophy of determinism and doesn’t even see the contradiction. This leads nicely onto his politics. Feminists, trans activists and neo-Marxists all follow the same ideology as Mao, and giving in to equality for women will, inevitably, lead to the deaths of millions. This is because identifying with the group rather than the individual leads to authoritarianism because... that’s what Mao did! This only follows if you accept his views on evolutionary hierarchy and the dominance of male values, which are complete nonsense. His views are garbled and confused. He’s an example of a psychologist who has tried to project his views on individual psychology onto the macro scale, with no understanding, or probable interest in, other disciplines which easily demonstrate how this does not apply. He doesn't say there is no discrimination, just that it's a far smaller percentage than a lot of people believe when talking about the overall gender pay gap. Women are more agreeable. Masculine traits are desirable in the markets we have. He gives you factual evidence on why there is a gender pay gap, but again you ignore it all. The lobster example is exactly that. A stripped down, basic comparison. Serotonin levels in lobsters and its regulation is in respect to its dominance hierarchy. He has chosen lobsters because they are as old as us. But that is where the comparison ends. We are far, far more complicated from a Biology viewpoint. There are other factors in our brains that now function as neurotransmitters. We may have different social structures than a lobster, but the whole point is to show, at a basic level, with a basic example, that we use neurological or neurotransmitters that perceive the position we are in within that social structure. Just because we may have more factors that help our neurotransmitters function and a more complicated social structure, does not mean that we do not use them in the same way as a lobster. Your answer to everything is "oppression by men". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Lambchop said: Ok, let’s do lobsters. One of his basic points is that what he calls masculine traits are desirable in the workplace and this is his explanation for why men push themselves to the top of the pay scale above women; women are too ‘agreeable’. This is based on evidence, the multivaried analyses have been done and it is therefore proof that male dominance is due to inherent differences between men and women and not discrimination. Newman pointed out that as a scientific experiment this is meaningless because there is no control for comparison, ie no example of a market run on female traits. Peterson assumed that for women to succeed they must imitate the characteristics of men and compete on men’s terms. He had no answer to the question, why not change the values of the marketplace so that women and men can compete or, indeed, cooperate, on equal terms. All he could do was state that it hasn’t yet happened, he could give no reason why it shouldn’t. This derails his claim that female traits don’t predict success, because that only applies in a male dominated, ie patriarchal, marketplace. He used lobsters as an example and a reason for why hierarchical competitiveness is hard wired into our systems. According to him, we cannot function any other way because we are responding to the serotonin stimulus in our brains. This is so unscientific as to be laughable. Has he failed to notice that humans dominate the planet and are at the top of the food chain because, unlike the lower animals, we communicate and cooperate. Our evolutionary success is based on the very female traits he claims are so undesirable. Meanwhile, lobsters are still lobsters. His views on evolution also contradict his views on choice. On the one hand we are programmed to compete in a hierarchy, but on the other hand we end up in our careers through choice and not as a result of rigged opportunity or discrimination. He is trying to advocate libertarianism based on a philosophy of determinism and doesn’t even see the contradiction. This leads nicely onto his politics. Feminists, trans activists and neo-Marxists all follow the same ideology as Mao, and giving in to equality for women will, inevitably, lead to the deaths of millions. This is because identifying with the group rather than the individual leads to authoritarianism because... that’s what Mao did! This only follows if you accept his views on evolutionary hierarchy and the dominance of male values, which are complete nonsense. His views are garbled and confused. He’s an example of a psychologist who has tried to project his views on individual psychology onto the macro scale, with no understanding, or probable interest in, other disciplines which easily demonstrate how this does not apply. Yeah like I said - the guy's a tit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, Norman said: Your answer to everything is "oppression by men". Show me where I have said that even once. Peterson categorically does not give evidence of why there is a gender pay gap. All he says is that in a marketplace set up to favour male traits people with male traits will dominate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, StivePesley said: Yeah like I said - the guy's a tit Apart from before getting dragged in to bull **** gender politics, he has been giving seminars, and releasing them for free on subjects like meaning and purpose. If you disagree with him on other points, do not be ignorant for the work he does in helping young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, Lambchop said: Show me where I have said that even once. Peterson categorically does not give evidence of why there is a gender pay gap. All he says is that in a marketplace set up to favour male traits people with male traits will dominate. He does, when he's not being cut-off. You already know the answers. And he is right. We can only guess why there isn't a successful market that favours female traits, as one doesn't really exist. What this will eventually boil down to is that you don't like capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 24 minutes ago, Lambchop said: Ok, let’s do lobsters. One of his basic points is that what he calls masculine traits are desirable in the workplace and this is his explanation for why men push themselves to the top of the pay scale above women; women are too ‘agreeable’. This is based on evidence, the multivaried analyses have been done and it is therefore proof that male dominance is due to inherent differences between men and women and not discrimination. Newman pointed out that as a scientific experiment this is meaningless because there is no control for comparison, ie no example of a market run on female traits. Peterson assumed that for women to succeed they must imitate the characteristics of men and compete on men’s terms. He had no answer to the question, why not change the values of the marketplace so that women and men can compete or, indeed, cooperate, on equal terms. All he could do was state that it hasn’t yet happened, he could give no reason why it shouldn’t. This derails his claim that female traits don’t predict success, because that only applies in a male dominated, ie patriarchal, marketplace. He used lobsters as an example and a reason for why hierarchical competitiveness is hard wired into our systems. According to him, we cannot function any other way because we are responding to the serotonin stimulus in our brains. This is so unscientific as to be laughable. Has he failed to notice that humans dominate the planet and are at the top of the food chain because, unlike the lower animals, we communicate and cooperate. Our evolutionary success is based on the very female traits he claims are so undesirable. Meanwhile, lobsters are still lobsters. His views on evolution also contradict his views on choice. On the one hand we are programmed to compete in a hierarchy, but on the other hand we end up in our careers through choice and not as a result of rigged opportunity or discrimination. He is trying to advocate libertarianism based on a philosophy of determinism and doesn’t even see the contradiction. This leads nicely onto his politics. Feminists, trans activists and neo-Marxists all follow the same ideology as Mao, and giving in to equality for women will, inevitably, lead to the deaths of millions. This is because identifying with the group rather than the individual leads to authoritarianism because... that’s what Mao did! This only follows if you accept his views on evolutionary hierarchy and the dominance of male values, which are complete nonsense. His views are garbled and confused. He’s an example of a psychologist who has tried to project his views on individual psychology onto the macro scale, with no understanding, or probable interest in, other disciplines which easily demonstrate how this does not apply. No that’s not why she said that. She said that because she cannot fathom that the numbers can be as they are and that that can be perfectly fine. To her it’s a problem and it needs fixing, regardless of the reasons as to why those numbers exist. The idea that a company could be set up that emphasises female traits is fine. Over to you. Or are we telling other people how to run their businesses? Shall we impose an idea of utopia onto the world on a hunch? I’m sure plenty of business have adopted female traits, but they are competing against other businesses that don’t. The rest of that is one giant ‘so you’re saying that’. I’m sure you’ve just had a quick google to discredit him, because apparently this is the ‘Is Jordan Peterson the second coming’ thread now. I’ve known about him for a year and a half and have still not competed the homework needed to form an opinion on a lot of the things he says. I’m glad you’ve had half an hour to fill me in. Did he really say that about lobsters? I thought he said it was an illustrative example of something that postmodernist deny, not to be taken too seriously but maybe I misheard. I mean, the guys job is to analyse and improve people but you think he’s a determinist? He has argued against Sam Harris at length about free will. It’s Harris that doesn’t believe in free will. As he says, the idea that saying if only someone else has they keys other than Mao or Stalin then those deaths wouldn’t have happened is sinister as ****. Regardless of what they were like as people, it is the ideology itself that is disgusting and that ideology is rife in his place of work. Fascism would have been so much better if I was the fuhrer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, StivePesley said: But it's already been pointed out that Nurses, Firemen, Teachers etc are also selling their expertise, and that's expertise that can save/change hundreds and thousands of lives for the better. Yet we don;t value them but "simple economics" dictates that people whose main skill is being as ruthless a predatory capitalist as possible walk away with untold riches and makes hundreds and thousands of lives much much worse. If that's meritocracy and people think that is OK then there is no hope for us. It ends in totalitarianism Well, what is the suggestion here? We going into a communist method of lifestyle where we all get paid the same no matter what? It's just simple supply and demand, there are less people at the top of business that can fill the jobs so they will always get paid more. You can argue maybe it shouldn't be the way, but until a credible alternative has been suggested we'll have to put up with it as the best of a bad bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 47 minutes ago, Lambchop said: Show me where I have said that even once. Peterson categorically does not give evidence of why there is a gender pay gap. All he says is that in a marketplace set up to favour male traits people with male traits will dominate. There isn't one. This myth has been debunked about 5,000 times. If you keep on persisting with it, it indicates you've not done appropriate amounts of research on the issue. If that was the case, why do private businesses hire men? If women were the cheaper option, all private businesses would purely hire women to save money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 hours ago, StivePesley said: Well if it amuses you - it's certainly easier than admitting you have no valid argument That admission is pretty much made as soon as someone resorts to quoting Peterson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, Highgate said: That admission is pretty much made as soon as someone resorts to quoting Peterson. Counter it then. With evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Andicis said: Well, what is the suggestion here? We going into a communist method of lifestyle where we all get paid the same no matter what? It's just simple supply and demand, there are less people at the top of business that can fill the jobs so they will always get paid more. You can argue maybe it shouldn't be the way, but until a credible alternative has been suggested we'll have to put up with it as the best of a bad bunch. Why should we put up with it though? What did apathy ever achieve? I'm not suggesting a communist solution, I'm suggesting a solution based on a healthy society. Markets are part of a healthy society. Other parts include civic organizations, public institutions, communities and families. Markets are all about maximising profit, whereas those other things aren't. They are about maximising things that are worth so much more but cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms. Community bonds, meaning, purpose, dignity, belonging, even our lifespans. As the cliche goes not everything that counts can be counted. If we allow the market to extend and take over those other areas, then society will inevitably crumble. If we allow ourselves to think that we can't change things then we are culpable. It feels odd to be attacked for suggesting that we could strive for a healthier society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, StivePesley said: Why should we put up with it though? What did apathy ever achieve? I'm not suggesting a communist solution, I'm suggesting a solution based on a healthy society. Markets are part of a healthy society. Other parts include civic organizations, public institutions, communities and families. Markets are all about maximising profit, whereas those other things aren't. They are about maximising things that are worth so much more but cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms. Community bonds, meaning, purpose, dignity, belonging, even our lifespans. As the cliche goes not everything that counts can be counted. If we allow the market to extend and take over those other areas, then society will inevitably crumble. If we allow ourselves to think that we can't change things then we are culpable. It feels odd to be attacked for suggesting that we could strive for a healthier society Yes, but my point is, you can strive for it, but what is the use moaning when there isn't a credible alternative? We can moan about it all we like, yet there is no fair system. All the systems have their detraction, I don't actually disagree with you in principle. But what did moaning without any credible solution help with either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.