Jordan Peterson - An Answer to Unhinged 3rd Wave Feminism?

Anonymous Monkey's picture
Anonymous Monkey

I thought that since there are a few womens marches going on that today would be the perfect day to share this:

Not an incredibly political person but I think that today's feminism has gone off the rails and that Jordan Peterson is one of the few people that can call it what it is.

Comments (45)

Jan 20, 2018

Wildly entertaining.

Jan 20, 2018

Nobody will tell me what the desired outcome of the marches are. I asked on Insta and a couple dudes with cat profile pics called me a scumbag.

Jordan Peterson is super smart. I love his podcast and want to read his latest book.

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 5
Jan 20, 2018

who the fuck are you lol
are you inferring all this from that little youtube vid i did?
sad...

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 1
Jan 21, 2018

The reporter was just not smart enough to keep up with Peterson... good one for sure

    • 1
Jan 21, 2018

Totally, when you shut your eyes and ears to anything a woman says it totallllly sounds like only the man is making points. Have you ever considered that women watched this video and thought that the woman had better judgement?

    • 16
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 1, 2018
HBIC Bexely:

Totally, when you shut your eyes and ears to anything a woman says it totallllly sounds like only the man is making points. Have you ever considered that women watched this video and thought that the woman had better judgement?

Have you considered that you might be legally retarded?

Jan 21, 2018

Newman was thoroughly defeated on an intellectual level in this interview (and embarrassed herself as well). However, rather than accepting defeat, she has claimed victim status for allegedly receiving threats from online trolls. British media is pushing the narrative that she's a victim as well. People don't seem to be buying it though. Also, to be fair to Newman, she did thank Peterson for joining her show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jor...

    • 2
Jan 21, 2018

All women are victims. I am a woman and I am a victim. Was I raped? No. Bud do I have equal opportunity? No. It isn't black and white. Rape or murder is not the threshold for equality.

    • 15
Jan 21, 2018

esokaj;f

Jan 21, 2018

I love how she kept trying to trap him by shifting his message and putting words into his mouth. He remained cool as a cucumber and swatted her idiotic notions away one after another. I honestly don't know how any intelligent person could watch this and still side with the feminist argument.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2018

Wow I guess you have really bad grammar, you used 'clearly' twice in one sentence. You should try googling a thesaurus when you're not too busy being a retard.

Jan 21, 2018

So we just make stuff up now? Seems like you're pulling these statements out of your ass.

"I love how you clearly paid no attention to the woman and clearly fixated on the man's response to the 'evile woman'" - no, I paid equal attention to both people's statements throughout the conversation, and it was pretty obvious who made the better points.

The general consensus throughout this thread that the man crushed the interviewer on an intellectual level, as well my own empirical evidence would lead me to suggest that your views do not represent what really happened.

    • 1
Jan 21, 2018

Wow, what an amazing interview!

Jan 22, 2018

Hey is your name Sabrina? I feel like you're a real witch.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 22, 2018

Meh, I am not impressed. The reporter is obviously trying to get a rise out of him, while in return the guy is spewing pseudo-intellectual crap. Just the fact that he brings up "multi-variate analysis" and then goes on about the factor correlation is priceless (actually, if you look at those studies, the percent of variance explained is pretty modest) .

PS. In case someone asks: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.201...

    • 2
    • 4
Jan 21, 2018
Nivel-Egres:

Meh, I am not impressed. The reporter is obviously trying to get a rise out of him, while in return the guy is spewing pseudo-intellectual crap.

What, specifically, was "pseudo-intellectual crap"? Peterson is very clear that he believes discrimination is one factor in the pay gap (he said so two or three times in this interview), but not the ONLY factor. In fact, you're making the exact same mistake the interviewer made--putting words in Peterson's mouth on this very topic.

The review you presented here, despite being 78 pages in length, spends three paragraphs on the lack of women negotiating and then dismisses the notion that women negotiating will help the pay gap because one laboratory test in 2007 indicated that women negotiating made people disinclined to work with those women. I mean, come on. You have to ask yourself why something like negotiating your salary is dismissed out of hand by the reviwer. Here's a possible explanation:

Francine D. Blau of Cornell is one of the two authors. Now go to her professional profile and see that her entire career has been focused on gender relations in the workplace. Her entire career is staked on there being gender discrimination in the workplace. If gender discrimination went away or was largely explained away then her career is of no value, hence why she can so flippantly dismiss women being pro-active in getting a better deal for themselves.

Jan 22, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:

What, specifically, was "pseudo-intellectual crap"? Peterson is very clear that he believes discrimination is one factor in the pay gap (he said so two or three times in this interview), but not the ONLY factor. In fact, you're making the exact same mistake the interviewer made--putting words in Peterson's mouth on this very topic.

Bringing up "multi-variance analysis studies" without mentioning a single number (like the fraction of variance explained, at least) is what I call "pseudo-intellectual crap". In fact, he expressly does not say any numbers (because numbers can be checked), just that it's complicated (which is obvious and thus safe to say). So no, I am not putting words in his mouth at all, it's what he did not say that matters.

As for this review - it's hard for me to make a sensible comment since I have not read the paper in detail (in fact, I am amazed that you have done it in 15 min, it's reasonably dense). But glancing at the abstract, they seem to believe that the effects Dr Peterson is referring to have a moderate explanatory contribution. Should we believe them (since they're are specialists) or him?

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 21, 2018
Nivel-Egres:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:

What, specifically, was "pseudo-intellectual crap"? Peterson is very clear that he believes discrimination is one factor in the pay gap (he said so two or three times in this interview), but not the ONLY factor. In fact, you're making the exact same mistake the interviewer made--putting words in Peterson's mouth on this very topic.

Bringing up "multi-variance analysis studies" without mentioning a single number (like the fraction of variance explained, at least) is what I call "pseudo-intellectual crap". In fact, he expressly does not say any numbers (because numbers can be checked), just that it's complicated (which is obvious and thus safe to say). So no, I am not putting words in his mouth at all, it's what he did not say that matters.

Huh? So Jordan Peterson says there's gender discrimination in the workplace but that the pay gap isn't entirely explained by gender discrimination and you're calling that "pseudo-intellectual crap"? There's literally nothing Peterson said or even infers that you have actually said you disagree with. Except for the words you've put in his mouth.

And as far as the review you presented, the more I read the more holes that I see in the analysis. In addition to the review's aforementioned dismissal of women negotiating, the paper barely, if at all, touches on the topic of female career choices, where women dominate career fields that have lower aggregate pay. If you want to talk about "psuedo-intellectual", analyze the pay gap by dismissing negotiating and omitting female career choices in lower paid fields.

Also, on that topic, the authors thought it of importance to note that schoolteachers, a female dominated profession, have lower elasticities of demand (i.e. their pay doesn't go up as fast despite demand). Well, duh, because most school teachers are employed by the taxpayers, but the authors kind of just throw that out there, expecting the reader to get the point (teachers are discriminated against in pay because the balance of supply and demand is not as sensitive). The point in bringing up this is to point out the agenda that the authors have.

Jan 22, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:

Huh? So Jordan Peterson says there's gender discrimination in the workplace but that the pay gap isn't entirely explained by gender discrimination and you're calling that "pseudo-intellectual crap"? There's literally nothing Peterson said or even infers that you have actually said you disagree with. Except for the words you've put in his mouth.

I have no opinion on the discussion. My main gripe is with the fact that he (a university professor, sic) is doing exactly the same anti-scientific shit that we see elsewhere. He "semi-quotes", just like anti-vaccine people quote studies on complications (without the actual numbers) or anti-GMO people quote studies on pesticides being linked to cancer (again, without numbers - gave you examples from the right and the left of the spectrum so I don't appear biased). I know next to nothing about economics of gender but if there is one thing I always want is to see it's the numbers.

Troll - Aged 18 Years:

And as far as the review you presented, the more I read the more holes that I see in the analysis. In addition to the review's aforementioned dismissal of women negotiating, the paper barely, if at all, touches on the topic of female career choices, where women dominate career fields that have lower aggregate pay. If you want to talk about "psuedo-intellectual", analyze the pay gap by dismissing negotiating and omitting female career choices in lower paid fields.

Well, I have not read it thoroughly (and I doubt you have, respectfully), so I can only formulate a base level idea from the abstract. It is remarkable, however, that without any knowledge of the field you already seeing significant deficiencies in the conclusions.

    • 2
    • 1
Best Response
Jan 21, 2018
Nivel-Egres:

I have no opinion on the discussion. My main gripe is with the fact that he (a university professor, sic) is doing exactly the same anti-scientific shit that we see elsewhere. He "semi-quotes", just like anti-vaccine people quote studies on complications (without the actual numbers) or anti-GMO people quote studies on pesticides being linked to cancer (again, without numbers - gave you examples from the right and the left of the spectrum so I don't appear biased). I know next to nothing about economics of gender but if there is one thing I always want is to see it's the numbers.

Peterson wrote a book on it, which they were discussing. Although I haven't read the book, I'm sure the exact numbers are in the book. That he didn't give the exact number is in no way "pseudo-intellectual."

Nivel-Egres:

Well, I have not read it thoroughly (and I doubt you have, respectfully), so I can only formulate a base level idea from the abstract. It is remarkable, however, that without any knowledge of the field you already seeing significant deficiencies in the conclusions.

"I don't need a 7-year degree in sociology to know bullshit when I hear it." Ben Shaprio

A "multi-variate" analysis that doesn't cover all of the variables cannot possibly reach a sound conclusion about how the population of variables impacts outcomes. For example, in 2016, 5,190 people died on the job in the United States, of which 93% of the deaths were men. One could reasonably put forth that men work in more dangerous jobs, on average, than women do and, therefore, some of the pay gap could be explained by the average danger of work. As far as I can tell, the Cornell authors don't even acknowledge dangerous work as a potential variable in the pay gap.

So they dismiss (lack of) negotiation as a potential pay gap explanation, they don't meaningfully address career choice, and they ignore dangerous work environments. Yeah, I've got to think that the authors failed to cover the population of potential explanations of the pay gap, likely because they have an agenda.

Jan 27, 2018

Is it not exactly to be scientific, when one is not caught up in the specific numbers? This is especially true when one is dealing with economic data, and is that not exactly what Jordan Peterson is doing?

Economic data is by definition incomplete. Therefore making firm observations with numbers, or assigning some sort of causal link between how one variable affects another, without a series of reservations, is seriously bad science.

For that reason, your insistence on mentioning how much of the variance of the wage is explained by whatever variable Peterson discusses seems really strange. This is at least with respect to how economic data is treated in making positive judgements within academia.

In general as well, making reference to how much of the variance is soaked up by the regressors in total, or each regressor individually, is not standard practice within social sciences.

    • 1
    • 3
Jan 23, 2018

"If you're afraid - don't do it, if you're doing it - don't be afraid!"
-- Genghis Khan

Jan 24, 2018

This video seems to be perfect for this article haha

Jan 23, 2018

Unrelated to this exact topic, but it looks like a few of the political threads have been locked, In the immigration thread I started, brotherbear went on an unhinged diatribe against me, and I wrote a lengthy response (no ad hominem attacks, stuck strictly to policy) but was unable to post it.

Jan 21, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:

Unrelated to this exact topic, but it looks like a few of the political threads have been locked, In the immigration thread I started, brotherbear went on an unhinged diatribe against me, and I wrote a lengthy response (no ad hominem attacks, stuck strictly to policy) but was unable to post it.

Correct. It appears as though the censorship brigade has finally caught up with WSO.

Jan 23, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
Dances With Newfoundland:

Unrelated to this exact topic, but it looks like a few of the political threads have been locked, In the immigration thread I started, brotherbear went on an unhinged diatribe against me, and I wrote a lengthy response (no ad hominem attacks, stuck strictly to policy) but was unable to post it.

Correct. It appears as though the censorship brigade has finally caught up with WSO.

Sad to see brotherbear, an otherwise great poster, go so low.

Jan 20, 2018

this thread is so gay yo

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 27, 2018

I really enjoyed and appreciated that interview.

But you guys need to note Peterson's style.

The guy smashes cognitive dissonance, but one thing he does not do is engage in histrionics.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc are doing it wrong. You can't have an honest conversation if you're engaging in political correctness, but you also can't have an honest conversation if you're screaming at each other.

If you want to win the culture war, you have to convince the other side to change its mind. In order to do that, you have to have an honest and open conversation.

If we smile more, stick to the facts, and don't get angry, that leads to an honest and fair conversation and/or debate-- one that we can win, and it will drive the far left NUTS.

Don't get mad, get even.

    • 2
Jan 27, 2018

The pay gap isn't due to inequality, it's by women's choice that they make less. The wage gap is because women usually work lower wage jobs than men, such as secretary, PR, hair stylist, waitress, teacher, psychologist, etc while men make up most of those who work higher wage jobs: wall st, silicon valley, law, doctors, etc. Women also have every opportunity(even more so with affirmative action and gender quotas) to be as successful as men. Women also tend to retire sooner, take maternity leave, quit work to become mothers, etc.
Feminism is a cancer to society as it's now simply about female superiority as women have all the rights men do yet it still exists. And men are taking note in rising numbers and traveling to countries like Thailand, Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Russia, etc to meet better women. The women in those countries don't have penis envy like American women do, in which American women try to be strong, independent and unfeminine. In our current society, women and men are competing against each other and are at a social war rather than cooperating like they do in non-western countries. Feminism and it's androgyny agenda has ruined gender affairs in the west.
ftr: I didn't watch the entire video clip

Jan 28, 2018

Great vid thanks for sharing