Comments (35)

 
Jan 20, 2018 - 8:03pm

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.

https://arthuxtable.com/
 
Jan 21, 2018 - 12:47pm

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/jordan-peterson-cathy-ne…

Array
 
Jan 22, 2018 - 12:09am

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.20160995

I have a friend who lives in the country, and it's supposed to be an hour from 42nd Street. A lie! The only thing that's an hour from 42nd Street is 43rd Street!
 
Jan 22, 2018 - 12:40am

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.

Array
 
Jan 22, 2018 - 12:59am

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?

I have a friend who lives in the country, and it's supposed to be an hour from 42nd Street. A lie! The only thing that's an hour from 42nd Street is 43rd Street!
 
Jan 22, 2018 - 1:15am

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.

Array
 
Jan 22, 2018 - 1:27am

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.

I have a friend who lives in the country, and it's supposed to be an hour from 42nd Street. A lie! The only thing that's an hour from 42nd Street is 43rd Street!
 
Best Response
Jan 22, 2018 - 2:00am

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.

Array
 
Jan 27, 2018 - 12:25pm

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.

 
Jan 23, 2018 - 4:47pm

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.

Array
 
Jan 23, 2018 - 4:52pm

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 25, 2018 - 8:43am

this thread is so gay yo

heister:

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

https://arthuxtable.com/
 
Jan 27, 2018 - 12:04pm

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.

Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

September 2020 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (17) $704
  • Vice President (45) $323
  • Associates (255) $228
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (37) $203
  • 2nd Year Analyst (141) $153
  • Intern/Summer Associate (133) $141
  • 1st Year Analyst (561) $129
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (544) $82

Leaderboard See all

1
LonLonMilk's picture
LonLonMilk
98.3
2
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.3
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.2
4
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
97.8
5
Addinator's picture
Addinator
97.6
6
redever's picture
redever
97.6
7
Edifice's picture
Edifice
97.6
8
frgna's picture
frgna
97.5
9
NuckFuts's picture
NuckFuts
97.5
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
97.4