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.
The CBC interviews all sorts of experts and pundits who the same could be said about. Do you think the University Gender Equity Specialists they routinely have on the air are great titans of intellect? Most of them resort to mouthing platitudes and pieties when their opinions are contested. Is Naomi Klein a great intellectual? No. She's a professional controversialist. And yet CBC has her on all the time.
Peterson is a Canadian academic with 500k Youtube subscribers. He's well-regarded enough in his field to hold professorships at Harvard and the University of Toronto. Whether you agree with his politics or not, that makes him a legitimate, high-profile thinker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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 University Gender Equity Specialists they had on the Current the other night going on about toxic masculinity represent even fewer Canadians. And yet their views are aired unchallenged.
The CBC has effectively abrogated its role as a forum for open public discourse when it comes to anything to do with race and gender, and yielded the bully pulpit to ideologues who champion a credo followed by a small fraction of Canadians. They've stopped being custodians of our public forum and become banner-waving, passionate combatants in the culture wars. This agenda will only marginalize them further, and shrink the CBC's audience to a sadly narrow segment of the population. Which is a shame, because much of what the CBC produces when they stick to hard news and subjects like science and technology is valuable.
__________________
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 06:30 PM.
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher 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.
Then you completely misunderstood what he said. There is absolutely no reason at all to be concerned that it is a woman. The only thing to be concerned about is: are they competent , and are they good negotiators. He never said anything that suggested a woman wouldn't be as good at the position.
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!
It appears that this bitchy vs confident thing isn't really true though. After trump won the election, people said that if Clinton talked like trump, people would like her even less and consider her bitchy. They tried to test this by getting a woman to talk like trump and a man to talk to Clinton, right down to the cadence, tone, etc as they could. There's an article on that here: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publi...-reversal.html
It seems then, that how you speak and act when being assertive matters more than what gender you are. Even the comments in the YouTube video almost never refer to the author sounding bitchy, using words like aggressive instead.
There's a lot of other literature about this too; men and women in general have some slightly different speech patterns that make men seem much more confident and capable that women can learn to emulate and over the past couple generations have begun to naturally adopt.
I have listened to a lot of Jordan Peterson’s lectures on YouTube. I find him extremely interesting, his views on child development and child rearing are of particular interest. Some fascinating stuff.
I think the issue of the censorship of him for not wanting to use gender neutral pronouns is ridiculous. He’s had some great discussions on Joe Rogin’s podcast.
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!
Being aggressive / assertive does not mean being bitchy. Though we view them similarly, just as men are judged as being dicks for similar behavior.
It is human nature to judge.
As for our own behavior, it comes down to choice. For example, sometimes we have to choose between being more popular / accepted, or being more successful. What he is saying isn't that men are better at these things, or that it is a 'male' thing to do, he is just saying that men seem to choose success over acceptance more often than women do.
He similarly argued that men more often choose to sacrifice other things in a more determined and singular desire to get to the top. That doesn't mean that men are better at it, or that it is a male-only attribute, only that more men seem to make that choice than women. And if more men are walking the path, then it seems pretty reasonable that more men would reach the summit. Simple math.
Then you completely misunderstood what he said. There is absolutely no reason at all to be concerned that it is a woman. The only thing to be concerned about is: are they competent , and are they good negotiators. He never said anything that suggested a woman wouldn't be as good at the position.
An unfortunate side effect of a guy like Peterson is that some people completely misunderstand what he says then mistakenly use it as cover to finally be able to say stupid bigoted things in public.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Major Major For This Useful Post:
Peterson consults with young female professionals to help them earn more and was involved with many high profile law firms in Toronto to help them determine how to hold on to their high achieving female lawyers that consistently quit practicing in their early 30's.
But yeah, what a misogynist. Just goes to show that once the internet justice mob brands you as something it's impossible to shake those labels.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Peterson consults with young female professionals to help them earn more and was involved with many high profile law firms in Toronto to help them determine how to hold on to their high achieving female lawyers that consistently quit practicing in their early 30's.
But yeah, what a misogynist. Just goes to show that once the internet justice mob brands you as something it's impossible to shake those labels.
Yup one of the main reasons female lawyers were quitting was the insane hours. Who is crazy enough to work in firms.
__________________
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.
Agreeableness is one of the big five personality traits used in psychology: extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism.
Genders at the population level show different levels of these traits. This is well-founded empirically, and uncontroversial in the field of psychology. What's contested is the degree to which the differences in those traits are innate or socio-cultural.
__________________
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I've only heard Peterson speak about the insane gender pro nouns, so for my own education and benefit, can the people calling this man a monster post some of his positions you find so terrible?
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.
I’ve listened to both of the podcasts these guys did together and yeah...the second went considerably smoother than the first.
As it happens, they’re doing a Pangburn Philosophy event together at the Orpheum Theater in Vancouver this June that I’ve bought tickets for. Looking forward to it!
Here's two of the episodes of him on the Joe Rogan experience (also available as a podcast, of course) if you got about 6 hours to kill...
You can agree or disagree, but he does point out how ridiculous the laws about gender pronouns (New York state and Canada to start) are:
Apart from YouTube subscriptions, I don't see anything that really distinguishes his academic CV from dozens and dozens and dozens of other academics in Canada. Not sure why CBC has some obligation to give him in particular a platform?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Apart from YouTube subscriptions, I don't see anything that really distinguishes his academic CV from dozens and dozens and dozens of other academics in Canada. Not sure why CBC has some obligation to give him in particular a platform?
That's pretty fair. However, he speaks often and communicates well on a lot of subjects that have dominated the media over the last 12 months. He seems to be the intelligent voice from the other side of the discussion. As a Canadian, you'd think he'd be a regular on CBC.
His rise on YouTube, a platform generally dominated by daily vloggers and 10 minute click bait videos, is particularly interesting to me.
Apart from YouTube subscriptions, I don't see anything that really distinguishes his academic CV from dozens and dozens and dozens of other academics in Canada. Not sure why CBC has some obligation to give him in particular a platform?
He has the #1 book on amazon canada, #2 in the US and #3 in the UK.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
He talks of sex and gender as “bimodal rather than binary”. And sex as the hardware and gender as a sort of software. He also talks about the need for (while not signing up for “fiction” on questions of gender), exercising compassion as the default socially.
That segment goes from 39:00-55:00 or so, but the whole episode is really worth listening to anyway. Weinstein is a far more sensible intellectual than Peterson in any event.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Apart from YouTube subscriptions, I don't see anything that really distinguishes his academic CV from dozens and dozens and dozens of other academics in Canada. Not sure why CBC has some obligation to give him in particular a platform?
Why have a half-dozen British newspapers and news programs done profiles on him in the last week? Probably because he's a public figure with a large audience who articulates a strident position on some controversial issues. He's also just written a book that will probably sell a lot of copies. And there's nothing the CBC likes better than promoting books by Canadian writers - it's one of their explicit mandates.
Why does the CBC interview Naomi Klein and promote her books? What's her academic CV? What do you think should be the basis for selecting the dozens of people the CBC interviews each week?
And since when is interviewing someone 'giving them a platform?'
__________________
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 10:13 PM.
Weinstein is a far more sensible intellectual than Peterson in any event.
I agree. As are Jonathan Haidt (who CBC has interviewed) and Steven Pinker (who, despite being another famous and highly-regarded Canadian thinker and writer, the CBC ignores). To be clear, I'm critical of the refusal of the CBC and other Canadian media to interview or debate Peterson not because I'm a fan, but because at this point that refusal is effectively an ideological boycott. It's like CBC pretending Nickleback didn't exist because they don't fit their idea of Canadian music. Except this isn't about pop music, it's about vitally important social issues.
__________________
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 10:25 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
