Jordan Peterson debate on the Gender pay gap, Campus protests and Postmodernism - General

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54[/media] I figure people don't get to see debates on topics like these often. The only unfortunate part is that the Channel 4 person strawmans frequently, but otherwise an excellent conversation.

Cathy Newman is a terrible interviewer and its great to see her get demolished. You can literally pinpoint the moment where she realizes that J. Peterson is actually talking sense.

[QUOTE=James xX;53059845]Cathy Newman is a terrible interviewer and its great to see her get demolished. You can literally pinpoint the moment where she realizes that J. Peterson is actually talking sense.[/QUOTE] Might have been exactly here. [media]https://twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/953523706373931009[/media]

I watched a TED talk with the director of the Red Pill movie and she was talking about how when she interviewed an men's rights activist, she kept hearing what he wasn't saying, rather than listening to what he was actually saying. It sounds like Cathy is acting a bit similar here. Interesting interview, if a bit annoying to listen to.

He has changed his thoughts on whether or not he would call someone by their chosen pronoun. I can't find the debate where he explicitly says he wouldn't (he keeps dodging the issue before finally saying that he wouldn't) but there is [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695"]this[/URL] [QUOTE]Dr Peterson says he does not object to trans people or to choosing which traditional pronoun they prefer. "If the standard transsexual person wants to be regarded as he or she, my sense is I'll address you according to the part that you appear to be playing," he said. [/QUOTE] I don't really care about the gender pay gap or transgender stuff though, what got me was the implication that transgender activists are the vanguards of Maoist repression based on nothing more than the spurious claim that identity politics is inherently leftist and collectivist, as if right-wingers and nationalists don't capitalize on identity politics just as much if not more. It's also a bit petty but I can't heed warnings of rising authoritarianism on the left from someone who approves of Donald Trump. Jordan Peterson is great when it comes to psychology and I enjoyed some of his self-help and self-reliance stuff that's on Youtube but the dudes a total idealogue when it comes to politics and hearing him talk about history makes me cringe. [QUOTE=Tudd;53059855]Might have been exactly here.[/QUOTE] nah it was the part where he said a bunch of easily debunkable nonsense that triggered her into just calling him an alt-right provocateur instead of arguing the point.

[QUOTE=Clovis;53060025]who in their rightful mind would even invite JP to their show? all respect to JP i just dont think anything good comes out of it. it feelsnlike nobody wins when someone argues with JP[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with stirring debate. So what if the vocal minority that hates him so much has a shit fit. Also, regarding pronouns. I thought what he said was that he would use it if a person asked politely or if he has existing respect for the person but wouldn't if a stranger demanded he use it. edit: and that woman was fucking awful, holy shit. You'd need a counter overlayed on the video to keep track of the number of times she took what he said out of context or straight up put words in his mouth.

Man I'm halfway through this and I cannot [I]believe[/I] how dumb this woman is. She's so heated from the very started, she constantly interrupts him and goes "so you're saying <something he absolutely is not saying but sounds really bad>".

[QUOTE=srobins;53061022]she constantly interrupts him and goes "so you're saying <something he absolutely is not saying but sounds really bad>".[/QUOTE] [img]https://s13.postimg.org/qzali8i5j/fc_Au_FRYe1r_DDvaeh4ve6a_X5x_Wl_Zd_RWP2_Ow_Qqq_Nv_M3_WE.jpg[/img]

I feel like a competent interviewer could sufficiently challenge most of what Peterson is saying but he comes away looking much more intelligent than he should because this lady is just so dumb in comparison.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53059821][media]I figure people don't get to see debates on topics like these often.[/QUOTE] Only all the goddamn time if you're paying attention.

I can't tell whether she is genuinely playing devil's advocate (and failing miserably) or she has some kind of vendetta against Jordan. The amount of words being put in his mouth is at an infuriating level.

[QUOTE=cbb;53061256]I feel like a competent interviewer could sufficiently challenge most of what Peterson is saying but he comes away looking much more intelligent than he should because this lady is just so dumb in comparison.[/QUOTE] He has a PhD and is a clinical psychologist while also being an expert in his field. He came away looking intelligent because he is and she was trying to debate him in a field she knows nothing about

[QUOTE=cbb;53061256]I feel like a competent interviewer could sufficiently challenge most of what Peterson is saying but he comes away looking much more intelligent than he should because this lady is just so dumb in comparison.[/QUOTE] I don't like the premise of just whole sale dismissing someone's intelligence just because they don't believe what I do

The interviewer was intolerable. Peterson has the patience of a saint.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53062183]I don't like the premise of just whole sale dismissing someone's intelligence just because they don't believe what I do[/QUOTE] I'm not sure whose intelligence you're referring to. Peterson extrapolates too much from the Big 5, has a incredibly obtuse stance on how we can achieve equality of opportunity, and is a literal conspiracy theorist. The lady interviewing him wasn't listening to anything he was saying and was only interested in trying to trap him into saying something sexist.

[QUOTE=cbb;53062237]I'm not sure whose intelligence you're referring to. Peterson extrapolates too much from the Big 5, has a incredibly obtuse stance on how we can achieve equality of opportunity, and is a literal conspiracy theorist. The lady interviewing him wasn't listening to anything he was saying and was only interested in trying to trap him into saying something sexist.[/QUOTE] You're discounting Peterson as being little more than some idealogue you hate.

[QUOTE=cbb;53062237]I'm not sure whose intelligence you're referring to. Peterson extrapolates too much from the Big 5, has a incredibly obtuse stance on how we can achieve equality of opportunity, and is a literal conspiracy theorist. The lady interviewing him wasn't listening to anything he was saying and was only interested in trying to trap him into saying something sexist.[/QUOTE] What is your rebuttal to what he said, as someone in a position to competently respond?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53062696]You're discounting Peterson as being little more than some idealogue you hate.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you arrived at that assessment. I never said Peterson was unintelligent. I said he came away looking more intelligent than he should have. I'd be interested in hearing your rebuttal to my criticisms of him rather than dismissing them. [QUOTE=srobins;53062993]What is your rebuttal to what he said, as someone in a position to competently respond?[/QUOTE] It depends on which statement I would be responding to. If we're talking about his general thoughts on the Big 5 and how they correlate to the pay gap then I would focus on the unreliability of them and his defeatist attitude that results from an over-reliance on them as an explanation for people's actions.

I love how his reactions are always him smiling and laughing when she says the most ridiculous shit. I would have been completely dumbfounded.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53062696]You're discounting Peterson as being little more than some idealogue you hate.[/QUOTE] What, the guy who went mental and screamed on twitter about treason when Trump's Twitter got deleted for a few minutes? An idealogue?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53059905]He has changed his thoughts on whether or not he would call someone by their chosen pronoun. I can't find the debate where he explicitly says he wouldn't (he keeps dodging the issue before finally saying that he wouldn't) but there is [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695"]this[/URL][/QUOTE] His position was always "it depends on what i think of your intentions". Which is what he said during that first protest against him at UFT. So an earnest request would be entertained but one intended to force him to do things as an exertion of political power, would not be. IE c-16. Which is identical to the claim made here. Also the claim wasn't "transgender activists are the vanguards of Maoist repression", that was a connection made by the host. The actual claim is that SJW's or the activists in question are acting under the same set of axioms/beliefs that the maoists or soviets were, which is marxism, which is correct. Intersectionality is simply marxist power dynamics applied to arbitrarily defined socal/racial/etc groups, as opposed to economic classes. Which first found 'mainstream' popularity/formulation by Bell Hooks, who i believe coined the term "intersectionality". Although marxism was applied in a similar way before her, she's really the one who manifested it in it's current form. SJW's do believe that group membership is the canonical element of the individual (if they concider the idea of the individual at all), the do [I]nothing but[/I] think of inter-"class" power dynamics in marxist terms, they believe in equality of outcome as the paramount value/goal, they believe that the intrinsic nature of society is unjust and must be destroyed, they do not believe that individuals left to their own devices will produce a "fair" society so it must therefore be regulated in service of their highest values (equality of outcome and the eradication of hierarchy), and arguably most importantly, they reject the fundamental validity of the concept of hierarchies of any kind. The claim is correct. And no, white nationalists could be easily described as collectivists, certainly. They readily admit that with a smile. But basic nationalists or conservatives, no. Someone who has a strong belief in their country isn't by nature collectivizing anyone, because they're not making value judgments about or taking their group membership (of that or another country) as a canonical element of anyone. Though at the far extremes of nationalism that will crop up, it isn't an intractable quality of the idea. Nor is being a "right winger" canonically collectivist. And as of late, being described as that seems to be a flag signifying as someone as utterly opposed to it. But don't take that as any objective claim.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53059905]He has changed his thoughts on whether or not he would call someone by their chosen pronoun. I can't find the debate where he explicitly says he wouldn't (he keeps dodging the issue before finally saying that he wouldn't) but there is [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695"]this[/URL] I don't really care about the gender pay gap or transgender stuff though, what got me was the implication that transgender activists are the vanguards of Maoist repression based on nothing more than the spurious claim that identity politics is inherently leftist and collectivist, as if right-wingers and nationalists don't capitalize on identity politics just as much if not more. It's also a bit petty but I can't heed warnings of rising authoritarianism on the left from someone who approves of Donald Trump. Jordan Peterson is great when it comes to psychology and I enjoyed some of his self-help and self-reliance stuff that's on Youtube but the dudes a total idealogue when it comes to politics and hearing him talk about history makes me cringe. nah it was the part where he said a bunch of easily debunkable nonsense that triggered her into just calling him an alt-right provocateur instead of arguing the point.[/QUOTE] did we watch the same video? or are you reading inbetween the lines with a microscope to somehow link anyone who disagrees with your stance on things to the alt right? If you watched the video, you would have heard him clearly state that he was talking about a small minority of trans activists that fall under the marxist wing. funnily enough, I almost made the mistake of going lesbo with someone like that a few months ago

-snip im' fucking dumb innit- Also i can't get over how pretentious the host is. The rest of that shitshow aside, i genuinely can't understand the thought process behind saying "doesn't it bother you that your audience is prodominatly male, isn't that a bit divisive?". As if literally anything other than a 50/50 distribution of an audience is somehow an egregious morale failing of the content producer. If that was an honest question and not contrarian gaslighting, i can only describe that statement as fucking derangement.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;53064099]What, the guy who went mental and screamed on twitter about treason when Trump's Twitter got deleted for a few minutes? An idealogue?[/QUOTE] You're welcome to your opinions of his personality but his arguments aren't driven by that. There's a lot behind them. I don't think so of the Trump issue but no ones right about everything

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53064159]His position was always "it depends on what i think of your intentions". Which is what he said during that first protest against him at UFT. So an earnest request would be entertained but one intended to force him to do things as an exertion of political power, would not be. IE c-16. Which is identical to the claim made here.[/QUOTE] Can you link that statement from the first protest at UFT? Because I've seen outright denial to "well if you look like a girl I'll call you a girl", which is why I posted that article because it doesn't mention anything being forced. [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53064159]Also the claim wasn't "transgender activists are the vanguards of Maoist repression", that was a connection made by the host. The actual claim is that SJW's or the activists in question are acting under the same set of axioms/beliefs that the maoists or soviets were, which is marxism, which is correct. Intersectionality is simply marxist power dynamics applied to arbitrarily defined socal/racial/etc groups, as opposed to economic classes. Which first found 'mainstream' popularity/formulation by Bell Hooks, who i believe coined the term "intersectionality". Although marxism was applied in a similar way before her, she's really the one who manifested it in it's current form. SJW's do believe that group membership is the canonical element of the individual (if they concider the idea of the individual at all), the do [I]nothing but[/I] think of inter-"class" power dynamics in marxist terms, they believe in equality of outcome as the paramount value/goal, they believe that the intrinsic nature of society is unjust and must be destroyed, they do not believe that individuals left to their own devices will produce a "fair" society so it must therefore be regulated in service of their highest values (equality of outcome and the eradication of hierarchy), and arguably most importantly, they reject the fundamental validity of the concept of hierarchies of any kind. The claim is correct.[/QUOTE] Your using vague descriptors (SJW) and broad topics (the idea of individual identity vs class identity) to connect two groups of people who don't really share any similar goals whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that a specific group of transgender activists are pursuing a Marxist or Maoist agenda, with all the historical baggage that comes with that (repression, censorship, violence, imprisonment, authoritarianism in general). The argument is just "Well they saw themselves as part of a collective, and these guys see each other as a part of a collective, so obviously they are the same". It's like suggesting that modern day conservatives are acting under the same set of axioms and beliefs as the Nazi Party because both groups are patriotic with a strong sense of national identity. Except worse, because where as conservative actually means something in the modern American lexicon, SJW means [I]nothing[/I]. The claim isn't correct whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that neither Peterson nor you have any actual evidence that transgender activists align with Maoism or Marxism other than the vague allegation of a desire to break down society and reform it as a collective without hierarchy. It's base fear mongering, and simply a variant of the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theories that have existed for years prior to Petersons rise to fame. [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53064159]And no, white nationalists could be easily described as collectivists, certainly. They readily admit that with a smile. But basic nationalists or conservatives, no. Someone who has a strong belief in their country isn't by nature collectivizing anyone, because they're not making value judgments about or taking their group membership (of that or another country) as a canonical element of anyone. Though at the far extremes of nationalism that will crop up, it isn't an intractable quality of the idea. Nor is being a "right winger" canonically collectivist. And as of late, being described as that seems to be a flag signifying as someone as utterly opposed to it. But don't take that as any objective claim.[/QUOTE] I never argued that white nationalists, conservatives, or right wingers et al couldn't be collectivist, I was arguing that identity politics isn't intrinsically leftist, marxist, or maoist as Peterson claims in this debate. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;53064202]did we watch the same video? or are you reading inbetween the lines with a microscope to somehow link anyone who disagrees with your stance on things to the alt right? If you watched the video, you would have heard him clearly state that he was talking about a small minority of trans activists that fall under the marxist wing. funnily enough, I almost made the mistake of going lesbo with someone like that a few months ago[/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about the alt-right, I was quoting the host. And no, he doesn't talk about the "small minority of trans activists that fall under the Marxist wing". He just says "activists", and says that they "don't have the right to speak for their whole community". There is no qualifier to whether these activists are far-left Marxists or simply people who want more rights. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53064280]You're welcome to your opinions of his personality but his arguments aren't driven by that. There's a lot behind them. I don't think so of the Trump issue but no ones right about everything[/QUOTE] When it comes to politics he is a brazen ideologue. Webster defines ideologue as [QUOTE]2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology[/QUOTE] I'd say Petersons penchant for bundling disparate leftist groups together under the banner of "SJW" and saying that their thoughts and words are lifted from Marxism and Maoism, and implying (but not outright stating) that they are trying to work towards a successful implementation of those ideas qualifies as "blindly partisan".

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but Conservative and SJW are pretty close to each other in terms of how clear their meaning is. Neither of them mean nothing but neither of them are very clear either. In both cases the word describes an extremely wide range of outlooks and ideologies that, while all connected by some thread of similarity, is still far too vague to serve as a very effective identifier by themselves. And in both cases the word is useful primarily as the initial step in a narrowing down process followed by a more thorough description of the specifics to an ideology, but without further qualification neither word really means much.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53064280]You're welcome to your opinions of his personality but his arguments aren't driven by that. There's a lot behind them. I don't think so of the Trump issue but no ones right about everything[/QUOTE] I've yet to find that there is 'a lot behind them' despite trying for a long time now. What exactly backs up Peterson's arguments about Postmodernism? About social sciences (isn't he a clinical [I]psychologist[/I] with a penchant for fuckin jungian archetypes? Biological Determinism? Marxism? Social Darwinism? His big leftist boogeyman? I'll never get over how he thinks he's a bastion of science and reason and then tries to back up these hard science positions with Carl fucking Jung. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53064159]His position was always "it depends on what i think of your intentions". Which is what he said during that first protest against him at UFT. So an earnest request would be entertained but one intended to force him to do things as an exertion of political power, would not be. IE c-16. Which is identical to the claim made here. .[/QUOTE] Nonsense. Also an interesting flip flop from supporters that I keep seeing, maybe because it's clear that bill c16 was nothing to do with compelled speech? Who are these swaths of Marxist SJWs I keep hearing about? 95% of them look to be liberal feminists, and further, I've yet to see them in any significant capacity. They seem to be no more widespread than angry student movements have always been.

So what are you saying about what he actually said in the interview here? Are you saying it's all garbage as you're implying? I'm talking about this particular instance of him talking. What did he say here that was patently untrue?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53062696]You're discounting Peterson as being little more than some idealogue you hate.[/QUOTE] He's uh...kinda the definition of an ideologue. Peterson doesn't argue in good faith, repeatedly calling for the cessation of things he doesn't like just to instantly flip around and claim he's a "free speech" advocate. His main claim to fame is his ardent opposition of the C-16 bill, which he interpreted entirely incorrectly to frame the bill as some assault on freedoms when all it was doing was ensuring that trans people have legal protections akin to those of other minority sexual groups. Peterson is not the person you want to be rallying behind for anything. Sure he's got degrees and knowledge flowing from every orifice, but this doesn't make him right. Like, the fucker attacks the soft-sciences for "cultural marxism" constantly, people who perpetuate that fucking conspiracy theory aren't generally good people.

[QUOTE=cbb;53064029]It depends on which statement I would be responding to. If we're talking about his general thoughts on the Big 5 and how they correlate to the pay gap then I would focus on the unreliability of them and his defeatist attitude that results from an over-reliance on them as an explanation for people's actions.[/QUOTE] What is unreliable about them? Aside from the fact that his mentioning the Big 5 doesn't mean that's exclusively where he's pulling data from (the same extrapolations he makes from the Big 5 apply to virtually all corporate environments, they're just convenient household names to reference), you don't really explain [I]why[/I] it's wrong of him to reference them in relation to the pay gap. Do you disagree with his stance that the pay gap is largely due to employee choices rather than an unexplained phenomena that we just have to assume is sexism? And what is defeatist about his attitude? It seems to me, at least in this clip, he's just advocating that women speak up for themselves and fight for raises and high paying careers the same way men do. He doesn't say anything defeatist or fatalist implying that equality is either undeserved or unobtainable. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;53065549]He's uh...kinda the definition of an ideologue. Peterson doesn't argue in good faith, repeatedly calling for the cessation of things he doesn't like just to instantly flip around and claim he's a "free speech" advocate. His main claim to fame is his ardent opposition of the C-16 bill, which he interpreted entirely incorrectly to frame the bill as some assault on freedoms when all it was doing was ensuring that trans people have legal protections akin to those of other minority sexual groups. Peterson is not the person you want to be rallying behind for anything. Sure he's got degrees and knowledge flowing from every orifice, but this doesn't make him right. Like, the fucker attacks the soft-sciences for "cultural marxism" constantly, people who perpetuate that fucking conspiracy theory aren't generally good people.[/QUOTE] What does he call for cessation of and what is wrong with his interpretation of C-16?