Uh, okay. You're defending a loon who questions "verifiable truth" as a concept. So, assuming what it says about me is that I'm against that and in favour of the scientific method as a primary means of determining what's real, then fantastic, yes, I agree.
He didn't say anything in that interview that was particularly incendiary.
Disagreeable people make more than agreeable ones.
As an agreeable person, I agree with this. My girlfriend is more disagreeable than me. She makes literally tens of thousands more a year.
I can see where the wage gap stuff is a sensitive topic. These are the sort of disagreements we as a society absolutely have to be able to have politely. This dude isn't Hitler.
__________________ ”I wish none of this had happened.”
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy - February 15, 2024
Johnny Gaudreau - August 13 1993 - August 29, 2024
Matthew Gaudreau - December 5, 1994 - August 29, 2024
Uh, okay. You're defending a loon who questions "verifiable truth" as a concept. So, assuming what it says about me is that I'm against that and in favour of the scientific method as a primary means of determining what's real, then fantastic, yes, I agree.
One can 'question' verifiable truth without throwing away the scientific method. In fact, I would argue they are the same thing (if done rationally and logically).
I have not seen a lack of a scientific method from him, but if you have evidence of such, I would be interested to see it.
Yeah, I don't think "incendiary" is a word that even remotely applies to this interview. If anything it's a good example of how two people with totally divergent positions can have a constructive exchange where important ideas are actually discussed and explored (despite the occasions where the interviewer appeared to just be prodding rather than genuinely questioning).
I've always thought the pay gap stuff is hugely oversimplified in the public discourse and would welcome more information about the variables that lead to it. The interviewer's point that there are hardly any women at the top of major companies - for example - is an argument that always struck me as a red herring. The people at the top of major companies are old, mostly got there over the course of careers that unfolded over decades, and the disparity is in part going to be explained as the product of social barriers and mores that existed 40 years ago rather than today. The only way to fix that seems to be to artificially mandate that women replace some of the men at the top - a bit unfair to those men and to those companies I'd say.
When today's young professionals become the leaders of industry, women will be much better represented. In fields like law and medicine, they can expect to be dominant. Change doesn't happen overnight.
Anyway, it's an interesting debate in which the most persuasive voice - rather than the loudest - should be listened to.
The Following User Says Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
I have not seen a lack of a scientific method from him, but if you have evidence of such, I would be interested to see it.
According to Peterson, if thinking "the moon is made of Emmental cheese" is a more evolutionarily useful concept than not thinking that, then it is true that the moon is made of Emmental.
I stand by my assertion that that is utterly bonkers.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
According to Peterson, if thinking "the moon is made of Emmental cheese" is a more evolutionarily useful concept than not thinking that, then it is true that the moon is made of Emmental.
I've never watched this guy or read anything of his, first exposure being this interview. I don't understand him to be saying what you've posted here.
He is suggesting there are certain truths in that women and men have inherent differences, but he is not arguing that thinking so makes it so. His arguments appear to be based empirically which is inherently epistemological. If you have an example tied to something he's said, post it. I know nothing of this guy.
I found the interview fascinating. I think the host would like to have a second go at him, she doesn't seem to have been prepared for his responses which she probably should have expected. His views are more nuanced than what she was putting forward, and her fundamental arguments about the pay gap and the fact there are fewer women at the top of major corporations does not mean it is desirable to just start making things equal as a manner of legislation.
It was also interesting where he responded by saying that if a company wanted to organize around more "female" traits, as he called them, they should do so, there is nothing preventing them doing so and trying to make it a success.
He disagreed with equality of outcome, which he deemed "undesirable". I think that's obvious in all facets of life. She seemed to be suggesting that was desirable. He stated that you had to look at the reasons the outcomes were different and then address that.
Last edited by Kjesse; 01-21-2018 at 02:30 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
According to Peterson, if thinking "the moon is made of Emmental cheese" is a more evolutionarily useful concept than not thinking that, then it is true that the moon is made of Emmental.
I stand by my assertion that that is utterly bonkers.
You are putting (ridiculous) words in his mouth, and then calling him bonkers for it.
Here is him making precisely the case that I just said he makes for two ####ing hours. If you feel like sitting through it, go nuts.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I was going to put his book on my list as next to buy. I read this review and I'm going to reconsider. This review is quite critical but appears well thought out: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...eterson-review
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Sorry, am I understanding you to be trying to use the term "Christian" as an insult?
At the risk of offending a ton of people, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyip. I sure am. With every fibre of my being. I cannot respect ideas that do not rely on evidence. Ideas lead to actions, and people taking actions that are not evidence-based scare the crap out of me on so very many levels.
The Following User Says Thank You to ASP#26525 For This Useful Post:
I was going to put his book on my list as next to buy. I read this review and I'm going to reconsider. This review is quite critical but appears well thought out: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...eterson-review
Summary of his book:
As far as I can tell he doesn't really present anything new, but rather presents it in a more interesting fashion than most.
The Following User Says Thank You to sworkhard For This Useful Post:
Just a few things that come to mind after watching the interview.
I am somewhat concerned that the head of NAFTA negotiations is a woman. It obviously has to do with our Prime Minister being a feminist. Hopefully this does not work against us.
I recall watching a tv segment years ago, where they were training Japanese businessmen to be as assertive as the Americans. Obviously the very stratified culture in Japan tended to work against their ability to negotiate successfully.
Also, I reasoned very early in my career that I had to be a different person at work, than I am at home, in order to be successful.
At the risk of offending a ton of people, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyip. I sure am. With every fibre of my being. I cannot respect ideas that do not rely on evidence. Ideas lead to actions, and people taking actions that are not evidence-based scare the crap out of me on so very many levels.
Christianity is evidence based though; sure much of the evidence doesn't meet scientific standards of evidence, but there's plenty of it that does. The whole point of theology is to make sure doctrine is based on the evidence (whether it's good or not)
Evidence based is like saying something is based on a true story; false conclusions can be reached based on facts. Evidence based doesn't require the conclusion to be reached via scientific methods, but that's only a concern if your trying to hold something is true; it's possible and common to build a false, harmful narrative around indisputably true evidence.
Anyhow, Peterson isn't a Christian in the sense you referred to it. He basically views the Bible as a collection of useful stories that tell us something about human nature. This is consistent with how Corsi indicate's he talks about truth in the Sam Harris interview
It's like they wish he would just go away. Which seems a pretty sorry stance for Canada's public broadcaster to take with such a prominent figure.
You don't have to think he's a guru or agree with his criticism of identity politics to recognize that he's an important figure on the cultural and political landscape today. What does it say about the public dialogue in this country that he's being recognized as such in the UK while the Canadian cultural establishment has rendered him persona non grata?
I guess the better question is: why should they?
He espouses views that are mostly poorly thought out and presumptuous, betrays his own world of logic constantly, and is generally not nearly as important as you make him out to be.
It’s more surprising that Channel 4 interviewed him than it is that CBC ignores him.
Most of it isn’t much more than MRA appeasing rhetoric. I know that sort of stuff usually lights your fire, but I can’t imagine it would for many Canadians.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I've always thought the pay gap stuff is hugely oversimplified in the public discourse and would welcome more information about the variables that lead to it. The interviewer's point that there are hardly any women at the top of major companies - for example - is an argument that always struck me as a red herring. The people at the top of major companies are old, mostly got there over the course of careers that unfolded over decades, and the disparity is in part going to be explained as the product of social barriers and mores that existed 40 years ago rather than today. The only way to fix that seems to be to artificially mandate that women replace some of the men at the top - a bit unfair to those men and to those companies I'd say.
Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The pay gap is almost entirely about choices families make when they have kids.
Women have been graduating from medical school at higher rates than men for about 20 years now. And yet female doctors are four times more likely to practice part-time than male doctors, and far more likely to quit medicine altogether once they have children. Since social justice dogma only measures outcomes in terms of income and power, its advocates regard this as a problem that must be fixed, rather than personal choice that makes those doctors happier than working 60 hours a week.
At this point, any efforts to close the gender income gap will have to focus mainly on childcare and parental leave, and fostering a workplace where parents - women and men - don't have to sacrifice their home life in order to pursue jobs with high pay and responsibility.
But the people who dominate public discourse about gender don't get this, because they're far from representative of society as a whole. The activists and media pundits who make a career out of championing gender equality tend to be younger, childless, and career-focused compared to women in general. They genuinely don't understand how a smart, competent, liberated woman may dramatically change her outlook and goals once she has children, and decide that earning 90K a year and engaging herself with family life is preferable to earning 200k a year and working 60 hours a week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard
As far as I can tell he doesn't really present anything new, but rather presents it in a more interesting fashion than most.
Yes, very little of what Peterson says is original. The way some of his fans have embraced him as a kind of guru only demonstrates how ill-educated many people remain after 16 years of public education. And the fact he's controversial only shows how narrow and dogmatic our dialog over anything to do with gender, race, and inequality has become in the last decade.
The ironic thing is the reason his detractors are so ill-equipped to challenge him is because the dogma they follow has been presented to them as revealed truth. They haven't contested their beliefs in a critical environment, and so learned the strengths and weaknesses of their argument. Which is why free speech and open dialogue are so important in the first place - how do you know your beliefs have a strong foundation if you've never had to defend them from rigorous criticism?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-21-2018 at 03:48 PM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The key question the interviewer was trying to make but couldn't properly is are men making more than women in the exact position. She was trying to say that at the BBC women aren't being pay fairly. But then even that can't be 100% equal due to experience and tenure at the organization.
As for choices in life that is true. I've had to make such choices with my family and enjoying working 35 hours per week for less money.
His being aggressive argument is easier said than done. Aggressive women in the workplace are viewed a bitchy while aggressive men are viewed as confident. And this is mostly coming from OTHER WOMEN!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
He said "disgreeable" which I thought was an interesting choice of words compared to aggressive, and it had a purpose.
You can disagree politely and stand your ground without coming across aggressive. Some of the most successful people I know (men and women) employ what some of us in my circle of workers call the "velvet hammer".
They are entirely polite, usually but not always diplomatic, but tenacious and quite willing to take a different point of view. Sometimes they are your superior, sometimes your peer, but even sometimes your junior and they're climbing and they know it, because they are conscientious and they know what they're doing.
They almost never raise their voice, almost never press in a seemingly hard way, but you need to be a good listener to succeed around them and respond appropriately. If they don't get their way, they don't over react, but if it turns out they were right, you remember it.
That being said, yes there are some females in my travels downtown Calgary who have been labeled a bitch. But far more men that have been labeled complete #######s.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
