Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Ben6899 wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I need to do some reading on this chap - not heard much of him, to be honest - but he took Cathy Newman to the cleaners in this interview.
He was prepared to nth degree; she appeared to be the opposite.
For real? With such made up zingers as "80% of spending decisions are made by women"?
She should have been challenging those zingers, Rick. She should have been prepared and hence recognising the zingers. I am speaking objectively on this interview, not saying I agree with him.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.0 -
Ben6899 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ben6899 wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I need to do some reading on this chap - not heard much of him, to be honest - but he took Cathy Newman to the cleaners in this interview.
He was prepared to nth degree; she appeared to be the opposite.
For real? With such made up zingers as "80% of spending decisions are made by women"?
She should have been challenging those zingers, Rick. She should have been prepared and hence recognising the zingers. I am speaking objectively on this interview, not saying I agree with him.
Seems like he was as accurate as you can be-
"Women are becoming more important in the global marketplace not just as workers, but also as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors. Women have traditionally done most of the household shopping, but now they have more money of their own to spend. Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers' buying decisions—from health care and homes to furniture and food."
http://www.economist.com/node/6802551
The criticism should be aimed at her for claiming the market is controlled by men.0 -
Surveys perhaps suggest....consumer spending.
That's kinda the point really, isn't it?
The guy fundamentally misses the entire post-modern criticism of gender. He hits pretty much every example for reasons why discrimination continues to exist.
What's frustrating is, there is a genuine problem amongst men, relating to how to be male and masculine in the modern world, and he totally misses the point and points people towards arguing over how repressed women actually are.0 -
nickice wrote:
Seems like he was as accurate as you can be-
"Women are becoming more important in the global marketplace not just as workers, but also as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors. Women have traditionally done most of the household shopping, but now they have more money of their own to spend. Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers' buying decisions—from health care and homes to furniture and food."
http://www.economist.com/node/6802551
The criticism should be aimed at her for claiming the market is controlled by men.
mmm it is isnt? i mean men design market and promote most goods and then as you say, send women out to buy them, nothing new there then.
a quick google shows (in marketing) men in better and more senior roles than women - 4x more likely to be the CEO and of course, designers and engineers more likely to be men by several factors.
what he completely misses is that women have periods, have kids, more likely to the carers, more likely to take time off for childrens sickness, more likely to be the subject of sexual advances/availability, judged on appearance and dress sense... then after all that, get hit with the menopause when they get into their 40's.,,,, but gender isnt the only issue,,,, what else does he want them to be blamed for?0 -
Nothing shows the bias women have to put up with than Abbott V Hammond, both made monumental c0ck ups with number, she had a very good excuse as she was ill.
Hammond had no such excuse..... she got castigated by the media and the public, subjected to horrendous abuse, murder, gang rape and ridicule..... Hammond got nothing.
Jess Phillips started a campaign to end online bullying, within a day she had 600 rape threats, had Hillary Benn started exactly the same campaign, nothing would have been made of it.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Nothing shows the bias women have to put up with than Abbott V Hammond, both made monumental c0ck ups with number, she had a very good excuse as she was ill.
Hammond had no such excuse..... she got castigated by the media and the public, subjected to horrendous abuse, murder, gang rape and ridicule..... Hammond got nothing.
Jess Phillips started a campaign to end online bullying, within a day she had 600 rape threats, had Hillary Benn started exactly the same campaign, nothing would have been made of it.
The above argument fails because you refer to Diane Abbott.
She has never been better than incompetent, and usually much worse. Putting her in that shadow role demonstrates servere judgement errors by her boss0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:Nothing shows the bias women have to put up with than Abbott V Hammond, both made monumental c0ck ups with number, she had a very good excuse as she was ill.
Hammond had no such excuse..... she got castigated by the media and the public, subjected to horrendous abuse, murder, gang rape and ridicule..... Hammond got nothing.
Jess Phillips started a campaign to end online bullying, within a day she had 600 rape threats, had Hillary Benn started exactly the same campaign, nothing would have been made of it.
The above argument fails because you refer to Diane Abbott.
She has never been better than incompetent, and usually much worse. Putting her in that shadow role demonstrates servere judgement errors by her boss
She might be a terrible shadow minister; how does any of that justify threats of rape, etc? There seems to be a lot of effort to minimise and excuse that kind of behaviour. There's even a conspiracy theory that C4 reported bringing in security consultants just to "make Newman the victim".1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:Nothing shows the bias women have to put up with than Abbott V Hammond, both made monumental c0ck ups with number, she had a very good excuse as she was ill.
Hammond had no such excuse..... she got castigated by the media and the public, subjected to horrendous abuse, murder, gang rape and ridicule..... Hammond got nothing.
Jess Phillips started a campaign to end online bullying, within a day she had 600 rape threats, had Hillary Benn started exactly the same campaign, nothing would have been made of it.
The above argument fails because you refer to Diane Abbott.
She has never been better than incompetent, and usually much worse. Putting her in that shadow role demonstrates servere judgement errors by her boss
She might be a terrible shadow minister; how does any of that justify threats of rape, etc? There seems to be a lot of effort to minimise and excuse that kind of behaviour. There's even a conspiracy theory that C4 reported bringing in security consultants just to "make Newman the victim".
Indeed. Trying to argue that incompetence deserves to be met with such vitriol is absolutely idiotic.
I think the trust which Peterson puts in the "market's" ability to sort stuff out/promote an optimal outcome is possibly foolish. But I think he has interesting viewpoints.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
rjsterry wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:Nothing shows the bias women have to put up with than Abbott V Hammond, both made monumental c0ck ups with number, she had a very good excuse as she was ill.
Hammond had no such excuse..... she got castigated by the media and the public, subjected to horrendous abuse, murder, gang rape and ridicule..... Hammond got nothing.
Jess Phillips started a campaign to end online bullying, within a day she had 600 rape threats, had Hillary Benn started exactly the same campaign, nothing would have been made of it.
The above argument fails because you refer to Diane Abbott.
She has never been better than incompetent, and usually much worse. Putting her in that shadow role demonstrates servere judgement errors by her boss
There's even a conspiracy theory that C4 reported bringing in security consultants just to "make Newman the victim".
It's not that ridiculous though, is it? As if C4 had done it for the reasons I suggested, it worked a treat.
She didn't get that much abuse on twitter and nobody has seen any death threats. Look at the abuse Katie Hopkins gets. She's an awful woman but if we're going to take insults on twitter seriously we can't pick and choose. Have you seen the photo of her laughing at the comments? Like I said, she's got form for lying - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... s-reaction.
If she genuinely feels unsafe at being called a bitch a few times then she's got some serious issues.0 -
Editing my post to dodge the question: why should anyone have to put up with that? (the abuse, not you dodging the question
) 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Cathy Newman should be embarrassed about that one. He tore her apart.
I can’t really see that.
He has a lot of assumptions that he throws out as fact.
A lot of those are, ironically, illustrative of the things post-modern thinking suggests are at the root of the problem.
He comes across as a male fantasist who rates clichéd male traits more highly than women’s.
I didn't see that he rates male traits more highly. He's being asked about the pay gap so he discussed that traits proposed to be the main contributing factors to that.
Overall, I think Cathy made every attempt to start each point with a misrepresentation of his position. Corrected each time, so torn apart seems fair enough.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.0 -
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.
Which is not:
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"0 -
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.
Which is not:
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
Agreed. He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable (I've seen him talk about why this is and he thinks it's because women traditionally looked after children for which you need to be pretty agreeable) which he claims does not predict success in the workplace. Men tend to be less agreeable which is why he said that to Cathy Newman. Basically, he said the market decides. Jordan Peterson doesn't set the rules of the market he was only talking about how he's helped female clients get pay rise. He explained it all pretty clearly...0 -
And there's a confusion between being male and having characteristics traditionally associated with males. Anecdotally, the successful women I know are pretty assertive and not always agreeable. Just like the successful men I know.0
-
Who is generally setting the rules of the market?0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:Who is generally setting the rules of the market?
I don't think anyone sets the rules of the market. What works works and what doesn't work won't survive. I suppose consumers and competitors influence what happens. He did say in the interview that a company could be set up with more typically more 'feminine' characteristics and see if that works. It's not like the freedom to do that doesn't already exist.0 -
nickice wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.
Which is not:
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
Agreed. He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable (I've seen him talk about why this is and he thinks it's because women traditionally looked after children for which you need to be pretty agreeable) which he claims does not predict success in the workplace. Men tend to be less agreeable which is why he said that to Cathy Newman. Basically, he said the market decides. Jordan Peterson doesn't set the rules of the market he was only talking about how he's helped female clients get pay rise. He explained it all pretty clearly...
Right, let's break this down.
. I mean, that is not a statement of any value. That's just made up nonsense. Your own cognitive bias might read people like that, but I mean, come on. That generalisation is just pointless.nickice wrote:He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable
. Anyone who actually gets anywhere in a company has to be able to get on with people. Social skills are right up there. Part of that is coming to consensus. I spend my days talking to C level people, and a good deal of them are friendly, tactful, and warm. This is just more plain made up rubbish. It's not that it's the opposite of what's true, it's just ridiculous to make such a claim.nickice wrote:which he claims does not predict success in the workplace.
. What market? The labour market? If we establsih men are predominantly heavily over-represented in senior management; where the hiring decisions are made, is he saying the predominalty male market decides that women get less of a deal, in favour of men? Riiight.nickice wrote:Basically, he said the market decides.
What this entire analysis misses, is the idea that, by it's nature, by the way we are brought up, the way society 'knows' our gender identities is stacked up against women.
In the same way, in the 19th Century, the African man was known as a 'savage' and 'uncivilised' (thus creating the epistemological space for the power relationship between Europeans and Africans; the colonisation of Africa and the domination of them by Europeans, and by opposite, the Europeans were mild, gentle, civilised, despite their record of mass murder, attempted genocide, mass mutilation, etc), we know men and women in a similar way, helping define the way we know men and women, and the way the (power) relationship occurs.
All those assumptions above, about 'women being agreeable, not assertive' are just mere constructs used to help define that dominant/subordinate relationship.
They're there, whether by design or otherwise, and they support the dominant/sub relationship. And rather like many people are coming around to the idea that people of African origin are no more savage or civilised than Europeans, because that idea was a mere social construct, people are doing the same with regard to women. They're beginning to 'know' women in a different way.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.
Which is not:
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
Agreed. He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable (I've seen him talk about why this is and he thinks it's because women traditionally looked after children for which you need to be pretty agreeable) which he claims does not predict success in the workplace. Men tend to be less agreeable which is why he said that to Cathy Newman. Basically, he said the market decides. Jordan Peterson doesn't set the rules of the market he was only talking about how he's helped female clients get pay rise. He explained it all pretty clearly...
Right, let's break this down.
. I mean, that is not a statement of any value. That's just made up nonsense. Your own cognitive bias might read people like that, but I mean, come on. That generalisation is just pointless.nickice wrote:He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable
. Anyone who actually gets anywhere in a company has to be able to get on with people. Social skills are right up there. Part of that is coming to consensus. I spend my days talking to C level people, and a good deal of them are friendly, tactful, and warm. This is just more plain made up rubbish. It's not that it's the opposite of what's true, it's just ridiculous to make such a claim.nickice wrote:which he claims does not predict success in the workplace.
. What market? The labour market? If we establsih men are predominantly heavily over-represented in senior management; where the hiring decisions are made, is he saying the predominalty male market decides that women get less of a deal, in favour of men? Riiight.nickice wrote:Basically, he said the market decides.
What this entire analysis misses, is the idea that, by it's nature, by the way we are brought up, the way society 'knows' our gender identities is stacked up against women.
In the same way, in the 19th Century, the African man was known as a 'savage' and 'uncivilised' (thus creating the epistemological space for the power relationship between Europeans and Africans; the colonisation of Africa and the domination of them by Europeans, and by opposite, the Europeans were mild, gentle, civilised, despite their record of mass murder, attempted genocide, mass mutilation, etc), we know men and women in a similar way, helping define the way we know men and women, and the way the (power) relationship occurs.
All those assumptions above, about 'women being agreeable, not assertive' are just mere constructs used to help define that dominant/subordinate relationship.
They're there, whether by design or otherwise, and they support the dominant/sub relationship. And rather like many people are coming around to the idea that people of African origin are no more savage or civilised than Europeans, because that idea was a mere social construct, people are doing the same with regard to women. They're beginning to 'know' women in a different way.
"All those assumptions above, about 'women being agreeable, not assertive..."
I'm pretty sure those are not just assumptions. Maybe you need to read up a bit.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:She teased out of him that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male, and that he fundamentally doesn't understand the arguments he so criticises.
We have a clear idea of his assumptions and they were teased out too.
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
That's not what he said! That's what you think he means.
No?
He said the way males behave means they are more successful in work, didn’t he?
And that it was their choices to be successful in work that meant they were. And that women do not choose to do that, and those that do, behave in characteristically male way. He even describes the interviewer as that.
Which is not:
"that he believes the way to be successful in work is to be male"
Agreed. He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable (I've seen him talk about why this is and he thinks it's because women traditionally looked after children for which you need to be pretty agreeable) which he claims does not predict success in the workplace. Men tend to be less agreeable which is why he said that to Cathy Newman. Basically, he said the market decides. Jordan Peterson doesn't set the rules of the market he was only talking about how he's helped female clients get pay rise. He explained it all pretty clearly...
Right, let's break this down.
. I mean, that is not a statement of any value. That's just made up nonsense. Your own cognitive bias might read people like that, but I mean, come on. That generalisation is just pointless.nickice wrote:He clearly stated that women tend to be more agreeable
. Anyone who actually gets anywhere in a company has to be able to get on with people. Social skills are right up there. Part of that is coming to consensus. I spend my days talking to C level people, and a good deal of them are friendly, tactful, and warm. This is just more plain made up rubbish. It's not that it's the opposite of what's true, it's just ridiculous to make such a claim.nickice wrote:which he claims does not predict success in the workplace.
. What market? The labour market? If we establsih men are predominantly heavily over-represented in senior management; where the hiring decisions are made, is he saying the predominalty male market decides that women get less of a deal, in favour of men? Riiight.nickice wrote:Basically, he said the market decides.
What this entire analysis misses, is the idea that, by it's nature, by the way we are brought up, the way society 'knows' our gender identities is stacked up against women.
In the same way, in the 19th Century, the African man was known as a 'savage' and 'uncivilised' (thus creating the epistemological space for the power relationship between Europeans and Africans; the colonisation of Africa and the domination of them by Europeans, and by opposite, the Europeans were mild, gentle, civilised, despite their record of mass murder, attempted genocide, mass mutilation, etc), we know men and women in a similar way, helping define the way we know men and women, and the way the (power) relationship occurs.
All those assumptions above, about 'women being agreeable, not assertive' are just mere constructs used to help define that dominant/subordinate relationship.
They're there, whether by design or otherwise, and they support the dominant/sub relationship. And rather like many people are coming around to the idea that people of African origin are no more savage or civilised than Europeans, because that idea was a mere social construct, people are doing the same with regard to women. They're beginning to 'know' women in a different way.
OK, Rick, just this once I'll engage with you (given your usual stellar thinking I'm surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet). You've got some balls to say that agreeableness means nothing when it's widely recognised as a trait in psychology.
Companies want the best labour at the lowest cost. If women were much cheaper to hire than men, why don't companies hire only women? In any case, nobody is arguing there isn't prejudice just that it's more complicated than that.
You're accusing him of making generalisations but that's exactly what talking about the pay-gap does. Then you talk about the people you've personally spoken to but that's anecdotal evidence. Also, agreeableness doesn't mean politeness. I'm going down the road of pyschology here that I don't know (nor it appears do you) know much about but, Jordan Peterson is right on agreeableness-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/
And this- http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016101 ... sonalities
"all three large, cross-cultural studies by Costa, McCrae and others actually found men and women differed in average personality more in more developed and gender-egalitarian cultures, such as in Europe and America than in cultures in Asia and Africa where there is less gender equality (as measured by such things as women’s literacy and life expectancy).
This seems to run against the idea that our personalities develop from cultural expectations around traditional gender roles. "
In fact, this ties in with what JP was saying about Sweden.
Any other arguments you've made are negated by the evidence above. Do you genuinely believe that we're some kind of blank slate? (that book by Steven Pinker)0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Oh my goodness. I've been so blind. Rick, you're right about everything!0 -
The irony of all of this is that JP was over here to promote his 12 Rules for Life book.
Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Rule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helping
Rule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for you
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Rule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world
Rule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
Rule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Rule 10 Be precise in your speech
Rule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding
Rule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
I'm a bit lost on rule 12, but I can certainly see why he doesn't think that interview was great for him either.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:The irony of all of this is that JP was over here to promote his 12 Rules for Life book.
Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Rule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helping
Rule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for you
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Rule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world
Rule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
Rule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Rule 10 Be precise in your speech
Rule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding
Rule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
I'm a bit lost on rule 12, but I can certainly see why he doesn't think that interview was great for him either.
I'm about halfway through it. It's quite good (if a little rambling) and actually talks about the Bible in a way I've never really heard before. The biblical references may not be to everyone's taste, though. Apparently his lectures on the Bible are very good.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:The irony of all of this is that JP was over here to promote his 12 Rules for Life book.
Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Rule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helping
Rule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for you
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Rule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world
Rule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
Rule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Rule 10 Be precise in your speech
Rule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding
Rule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
I'm a bit lost on rule 12, but I can certainly see why he doesn't think that interview was great for him either.
I'm about halfway through it. It's quite good (if a little rambling) and actually talks about the Bible in a way I've never really heard before. The biblical references may not be to everyone's taste, though. Apparently his lectures on the Bible are very good.
Now when someone says "rule 5, dude" I'm going to have to ask which one.0 -
If anyone wants a crash course on nature vs. nature in sex/gender differences, this debate is pretty interesting.0
-
nickice wrote:
OK, Rick, just this once I'll engage with you (given your usual stellar thinking I'm surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet). You've got some balls to say that agreeableness means nothing when it's widely recognised as a trait in psychology.
Companies want the best labour at the lowest cost. If women were much cheaper to hire than men, why don't companies hire only women? In any case, nobody is arguing there isn't prejudice just that it's more complicated than that.
You're accusing him of making generalisations but that's exactly what talking about the pay-gap does. Then you talk about the people you've personally spoken to but that's anecdotal evidence. Also, agreeableness doesn't mean politeness. I'm going down the road of pyschology here that I don't know (nor it appears do you) know much about but, Jordan Peterson is right on agreeableness-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/
And this- http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016101 ... sonalities
"all three large, cross-cultural studies by Costa, McCrae and others actually found men and women differed in average personality more in more developed and gender-egalitarian cultures, such as in Europe and America than in cultures in Asia and Africa where there is less gender equality (as measured by such things as women’s literacy and life expectancy).
This seems to run against the idea that our personalities develop from cultural expectations around traditional gender roles. "
In fact, this ties in with what JP was saying about Sweden.
Any other arguments you've made are negated by the evidence above. Do you genuinely believe that we're some kind of blank slate? (that book by Steven Pinker)
So, I'm arguing that we only know the world in a certain (in this instance, sexist and patriarchal) way, and that that conditions our behaviour. If you only know yourself as x or y, then surely you'll have a much higher propensity to be either x or y, right?
So all this 'look, the evidence is people we think do x do x, and the people who do y do y' is missing the point. All you're doing is citing the output of what I explained above.
And as for
, well, bluntly, there are laws against that.Companies want the best labour at the lowest cost. If women were much cheaper to hire than men, why don't companies hire only women?
(And once upon a time in the 19th Century ,that's exactly what happened. There was even a nice little example of it on the 'house through time' program, where a saddler company gets a competitive advantage by hiring women at a quarter of the rate of pay to the men, and so undercutting the competition.)0
