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 22, 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 24, 2018

linkz plz

Absolute truths don't exist... celebrated opinions do.

    • 1
Jan 25, 2018

link?

Learn More

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

Jan 25, 2018

go find it homie i dont know you why you tryna creep. that video was for the homies

heister:

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

Jan 25, 2018

i felt bad about being brash. it's in the smoothie thread

heister:

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

Jan 27, 2018

I'm not gonna look for it that why I asked.

Just wanna see the face of this badboi who's always chatting smoke on the interwebs.

Absolute truths don't exist... celebrated opinions do.

    • 1
Jun 1, 2018

im a dude tho

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?

    • 15
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.

    • 14
Jan 21, 2018

esokaj;f

Jan 21, 2018
Clemsonrichyrich:

This has to be a troll account. 9/10 women who interview for the same position in finance or in STEM will get hired over a man for the same position. You're not a victim stop thinking that you're special

It's a troll account operating under this law:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
I've gotten a good laugh out of his posts.

Learn More

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

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 24, 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.

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 22, 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 22, 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 22, 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 23, 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 23, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:
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.

I don't understand how they can intellectually justify shutting down political discussion on an off topic board that has everything from dating advice threads to 401k threads. But apparently, some people have complained.

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

I don't understand how they can intellectually justify shutting down political discussion on an off topic board that has everything from dating advice threads to 401k threads. But apparently, some people have complained.

Trump Derangement Syndrome+alochol is a powerful combo that makes people say weird shit. Sadly, brotherbear is not immune from its side effects.

Jan 24, 2018

It's a finance site first and foremost. Allowing side convos is a lot different than hosting stupid political bullshittery & whining. It's distracting and the last thing WSO needs is to be known as some radical political site. Bad PR this early in the game means lights out.

As for your weak comparison, people seeking advice on dating or their 401k are trying to improve their lot in life, whereas 99% of political shit I've seen here is basically people yelling at each other while not helping anyone. If you want to start a thread about how to debate politics, I'm sure it would be much more well received. Everything I've seen about this site's intended purpose is betterment of careers, not a site to vent (unless you do it in a way many find humorous.)

Don't talk politics at work, don't do it here.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 24, 2018
urmaaam:

It's a finance site first and foremost. Allowing side convos is a lot different than hosting stupid political bullshittery & whining. It's distracting and the last thing WSO needs is to be known as some radical political site. Bad PR this early in the game means lights out.

As for your weak comparison, people seeking advice on dating or their 401k are trying to improve their lot in life, whereas 99% of political shit I've seen here is basically people yelling at each other while not helping anyone. If you want to start a thread about how to debate politics, I'm sure it would be much more well received. Everything I've seen about this site's intended purpose is betterment of careers, not a site to vent (unless you do it in a way many find humorous.)

Don't talk politics at work, don't do it here.

What are you talking about? Politics have been discussed on here for YEARS. And let me reiterate this point--this is an OFF TOPIC FORUM. How hard is that to process mentally? 99% of threads I never read. If you're not interested in reading a topic then DON'T READ THE THREAD. Why is that so difficult? Genuinely curious.

Jan 24, 2018

You asked why "they" would shut down political discussion. I assumed you were talking about site mods/admins. I get you're heated and cannot seem to grasp that a website with a forum isn't here to adhere to your intellectual justifications, but it's easy to see why WSO would not want political rants on their forums.

When a viral story goes out showing some ugly shit, it does damage. It hurt reddit when the jailbait shit got big, and it hurt google when the guy posted his missive, even though it was only posted internally. Those are large companies that can take quite a beating.

Not only that, but curating the culture here is a huge part of their success. There are plenty of sites set up to attract this kind of attention, go there. It'd be very wise of them to stick to their niche as long as possible, and try to keep the ratio of bullshit to helpfulness as low as possible. It's great you skip over discussions you don't like, but when someone comes here for the first time, clicks offtopic, and sees it's a bunch of political garbage they probably wouldn't stick around.

    • 2
Jan 24, 2018
urmaaam:

You asked why "they" would shut down political discussion. I assumed you were talking about site mods/admins. I get you're heated and cannot seem to grasp that a website with a forum isn't here to adhere to your intellectual justifications, but it's easy to see why WSO would not want political rants on their forums.

When a viral story goes out showing some ugly shit, it does damage. It hurt reddit when the jailbait shit got big, and it hurt google when the guy posted his missive, even though it was only posted internally. Those are large companies that can take quite a beating.

Not only that, but curating the culture here is a huge part of their success. There are plenty of sites set up to attract this kind of attention, go there. It'd be very wise of them to stick to their niche as long as possible, and try to keep the ratio of bullshit to helpfulness as low as possible. It's great you skip over discussions you don't like, but when someone comes here for the first time, clicks offtopic, and sees it's a bunch of political garbage they probably wouldn't stick around.

There are 100 threads per page. Of that, right now, about 5 are politically related. So, 5% of topics being politically related does not equal "a bunch of garbage" taking up space on an OFF TOPIC FORUM.

The reality is, there was no censorship of those topics for 10 years(?) until just this week when some little bitch liberal started complaining about it. Just like with Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, if/when conservatives start getting a voice on platform that's when liberals believe it's time to start demanding censorship. It's frankly pathetic that WSO gave in to it.

Jan 24, 2018

There's just not any benefit to hosting content that takes any strong political stance when it's so far from your mission statement. All it will do is alienate some people, and it sure doesn't help the others.

Jan 25, 2018

this thread is so gay yo

heister:

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

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 27, 2018
    • 2
Jan 27, 2018
Jan 28, 2018