Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview
Comments
-
Eating too much, particularly of the wrong foods, makes you fat. Better diet does have an effect on height.nickice wrote:Eating a lot doesn't make you tall. It makes you fat. Malnutrition means to don't grow to be as tall as you
could be. The genetic contribution to it is described in the article above.0 -
That I couldn't tell you, my massively scientific study didn't cover that. Many species have size differences between genders so I suspect it is down to genetics to an extent at least. Huge guess on my part obviously. My slightly smaller scientific study of my daughter does indicate that she eats more than her friends and is taller than them. But does being taller make her eat more?rjsterry wrote:But are the differences in heigh between genders down to genes or, for example, boys being encouraged to have big appetites to grow up big and strong?0 -
rjsterry wrote:That onlinelibrary link talks about precisely what I was trying to say - that a lot of research assumes that variances in the prevalence of traits are due to one or the other of heredity and environment and misses the fact that because of the traditional family structure, people more often than not share both genes AND environment, making it very difficult to separate the effects of each. This is before you take into account that the expression of genes is also affected by environmental factors.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that men and women are identical, just that population level trends for the prevalence of certain character traits are not a valid way to determine remuneration. That it is not all down to an oppressive patriarchy is no reason to let up on it.
"just that population level trends for the prevalence of certain character traits are not a valid way to determine remuneration."
I don't recall anyone claiming this?
People do indeed usually share genes and environment. But the methodology to tease apart these factors does exist e.g. statistics and twin studies. Twins that grow up apart from each other turn out remarkably similar on a range of measures.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Eating too much, particularly of the wrong foods, makes you fat. Better diet does have an effect on height.nickice wrote:Eating a lot doesn't make you tall. It makes you fat. Malnutrition means to don't grow to be as tall as you
could be. The genetic contribution to it is described in the article above.
The point was that eating a lot or too much doesn't make you taller. Not being malnourished does but is anyone arguing that girls are generally malnourished and boys aren't? I don't think so.0 -
nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:It's not illegal when it comes to individual salary negotiation or if it is, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to prove. If women will accept a lower wage, for the same job, then it would absolute sense to hire them over men. At the lower end of the scale we have the minimum wage or wage bands but that's not where the difference is.
I'm not buying the whole gender is a social construct argument and you haven't provided any evidence for it. I'm not ruling out some social conditioning but the evidence cited above points in a different direction.
If it were down to agreeableness, why in some professions and jobs there are negative pay gaps? or in some professions, like Doctors and solicitors the pay gap is large? are you seriously suggesting a female solicitor or surgeon is timid and will accept lower pay? or is it she is a female in a mans worlds and they make the rules down on the Golf course?
vehicle assemblers, a relatively low paid job, the pay gap is 34%, would it be also safe to assume that men make up the majority of managers at Ford/Vauxhall etc.
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-do-the-jo ... r-pay-gap/
Its also interesting that JP has a new book out, his interview with C.Newman must have been money from haven for sales, clever guy is our Dr JP.
It's not all down to agreeableness, though. He said it was one of many factors and says nothing about individuals. And, no, I'm not suggesting any of what you said. You're coming at it from the Cathy Newman angle which says 'there are differences so it must be discrimination". What he said was that, yes, there is prejudice but much less than what some people think.
Regarding the book, he's trying to sell his book but the agenda was set by Cathy Newman so she's the one he should thank for increasing his book sales. It could have easily been an uncontroversial interview but she didn't want it to be.
Well, JP stating its a multiple of factors is blinding obvious.... but the main one, is gender bias.
Its just easy to over complicate it with inherited traits etc and my evidence is that in industries where emplyers have to tried to address pay gaps, they succeeded, women have not changed!
it appears that in vehicle assembly, bias is alive and kickin, why would anyone employ someone who is genuinely worth 34% less?
Wasnt there a film made about the female Ford workers who went on strike to earn more?
i d add that if a woman takes a few years out to raise children, then this obv effects her earnings, as it would a man who did similar but pay gaps exist in the under 25's
As i said, JP played CN to get the reaction he wanted.0 -
nickice wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Those whose world view was challenged in that interview will quickly distract away from the interview and the issues, towards the fallout and the victimization of poor Cathy on Twitter and the fears for her security. The victim card will be played. A string of hit pieces on JP will attempt to blur the distinction between him, the alt-right, and anyone being abusive on twitter. JP will be labelled as "dangerous". Organized and sometimes violent rallies will appear when he's due to give a public appearance. Eventually, public appearances will be cancelled for "security reasons". Effectively, he'll be silenced.
Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?
I'm friends with a women in the public eye and when she's done something in public it's normal for her to receive a dozen or so of those, and she's hardly as high profile as a news reporter.
Oh yes, absolutely they should. Of course one could argue that they aren't his real supporters anyway, unless you have an interest in lumping him in with various other groups. They certainly don't seem to align with anything that he says.
People get threats and abuse for Youtube videos on carpentry and knitting. Comments sections are a cesspool. To some degree, people need to get over it and stop playing the victim.
I agree with this and it's part of a broader conversation about anonymous abuse on the internet. Was there not some study done about the biggest online abusers of women being women? As far as I know, she didn't get any rape threats and I haven't seen any death threats either. As you said, it's an unfortunate side to the internet but only some people choose to 'weaponise' it (to quote Douglas Murray). Someone also pointed out that even though a youtube search showed up '*****' 500 times (I'm not totally convinced it's credible) that it didn't show the many uses of that word (to ***** etc.). If Channel 4 genuinely believe that being called a '*****' in a youtube comments section is a credible threat, they're living on another planet. Just look at the Quentin Tarantino interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy and how much abuse the interview gets in the comment section. By the way, Jordan Peterson also got abuse on twitter.
There is an issue with how people behave online. But, in many cases this cry of "help, people are being mean on Twitter" is part of a strategy to discredit and silence.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Those whose world view was challenged in that interview will quickly distract away from the interview and the issues, towards the fallout and the victimization of poor Cathy on Twitter and the fears for her security. The victim card will be played. A string of hit pieces on JP will attempt to blur the distinction between him, the alt-right, and anyone being abusive on twitter. JP will be labelled as "dangerous". Organized and sometimes violent rallies will appear when he's due to give a public appearance. Eventually, public appearances will be cancelled for "security reasons". Effectively, he'll be silenced.
Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?
I'm friends with a women in the public eye and when she's done something in public it's normal for her to receive a dozen or so of those, and she's hardly as high profile as a news reporter.
Do you know for sure that she did get rape and death threats?0 -
Just watched it. She let him off the hook when he said that women dominate the market because they make 80% of the consumer purchasing decisions. That really doesn't work when talking about the jobs market, does it?0
-
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Those whose world view was challenged in that interview will quickly distract away from the interview and the issues, towards the fallout and the victimization of poor Cathy on Twitter and the fears for her security. The victim card will be played. A string of hit pieces on JP will attempt to blur the distinction between him, the alt-right, and anyone being abusive on twitter. JP will be labelled as "dangerous". Organized and sometimes violent rallies will appear when he's due to give a public appearance. Eventually, public appearances will be cancelled for "security reasons". Effectively, he'll be silenced.
Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?
I'm friends with a women in the public eye and when she's done something in public it's normal for her to receive a dozen or so of those, and she's hardly as high profile as a news reporter.
Do you know for sure that she did get rape and death threats?
More likely that not, given both the precedent of how women who discuss this topic in public are treated, and the specifc response of both the channel and her colleagues, for example: https://twitter.com/bendepear/status/954344199373185024
Now, if you want to argue that point feel free, but you won't be arguing with me.0 -
I remember similar arguments regarding death threats to MPs during the Brexit campaign, and then they fell silent after the murder of Jo Cox.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Those whose world view was challenged in that interview will quickly distract away from the interview and the issues, towards the fallout and the victimization of poor Cathy on Twitter and the fears for her security. The victim card will be played. A string of hit pieces on JP will attempt to blur the distinction between him, the alt-right, and anyone being abusive on twitter. JP will be labelled as "dangerous". Organized and sometimes violent rallies will appear when he's due to give a public appearance. Eventually, public appearances will be cancelled for "security reasons". Effectively, he'll be silenced.
Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?
I'm friends with a women in the public eye and when she's done something in public it's normal for her to receive a dozen or so of those, and she's hardly as high profile as a news reporter.
Do you know for sure that she did get rape and death threats?
More likely that not, given both the precedent of how women who discuss this topic in public are treated, and the specifc response of both the channel and her colleagues, for example: https://twitter.com/bendepear/status/954344199373185024
Now, if you want to argue that point feel free, but you won't be arguing with me.
You're probably right. How seriously they should be taken is another issue.
Did you see that JP asked for people to stop the abuse? If you needed one, it's a sign that they are 'not his people'. Also it is claimed that JP also came under significant abuse and threats of violence. Here is a more detailed analysis of the abusive messages from both groups of supposed "supporters":
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ssion=true
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:HEqual?
Bahahahaha.
You throw this unsubstantiated stuff out like:
"Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?"
You seem to have no issue smearing someone in this way. Classic lazy leftist way of trying to shut someone up.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:No-one's shutting you up. I'm just laughing at the sources you use.
Laugh away. I'm pointing out that where you choose (or not) to apply your critical skills is very telling.0 -
nickice wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Eating too much, particularly of the wrong foods, makes you fat. Better diet does have an effect on height.nickice wrote:Eating a lot doesn't make you tall. It makes you fat. Malnutrition means to don't grow to be as tall as you
could be. The genetic contribution to it is described in the article above.
The point was that eating a lot or too much doesn't make you taller. Not being malnourished does but is anyone arguing that girls are generally malnourished and boys aren't? I don't think so.
There's pressure for girls to eat less - whether this amounts to malnutrition in more than a few cases is another question. It wasn't really a serious example; I was more trying to illustrate (badly) that even if height is partly inherited, that does not necessarily explain the observed differences between genders.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Those whose world view was challenged in that interview will quickly distract away from the interview and the issues, towards the fallout and the victimization of poor Cathy on Twitter and the fears for her security. The victim card will be played. A string of hit pieces on JP will attempt to blur the distinction between him, the alt-right, and anyone being abusive on twitter. JP will be labelled as "dangerous". Organized and sometimes violent rallies will appear when he's due to give a public appearance. Eventually, public appearances will be cancelled for "security reasons". Effectively, he'll be silenced.
Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?
I'm friends with a women in the public eye and when she's done something in public it's normal for her to receive a dozen or so of those, and she's hardly as high profile as a news reporter.
Do you know for sure that she did get rape and death threats?
More likely that not, given both the precedent of how women who discuss this topic in public are treated, and the specifc response of both the channel and her colleagues, for example: https://twitter.com/bendepear/status/954344199373185024
Now, if you want to argue that point feel free, but you won't be arguing with me.
You're probably right. How seriously they should be taken is another issue.
Did you see that JP asked for people to stop the abuse? If you needed one, it's a sign that they are 'not his people'. Also it is claimed that JP also came under significant abuse and threats of violence. Here is a more detailed analysis of the abusive messages from both groups of supposed "supporters":
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ssion=true
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
From what I've read about him, the 'supporters' have almost completely misunderstood him, but as I said before, I find it odd that beyond a couple of "lay off, now, lads" tweets he doesn't seem that bothered about being completely misrepresented by these goons.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Alex99 wrote:rjsterry wrote:That onlinelibrary link talks about precisely what I was trying to say - that a lot of research assumes that variances in the prevalence of traits are due to one or the other of heredity and environment and misses the fact that because of the traditional family structure, people more often than not share both genes AND environment, making it very difficult to separate the effects of each. This is before you take into account that the expression of genes is also affected by environmental factors.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that men and women are identical, just that population level trends for the prevalence of certain character traits are not a valid way to determine remuneration. That it is not all down to an oppressive patriarchy is no reason to let up on it.
"just that population level trends for the prevalence of certain character traits are not a valid way to determine remuneration."
I don't recall anyone claiming this?
People do indeed usually share genes and environment. But the methodology to tease apart these factors does exist e.g. statistics and twin studies. Twins that grow up apart from each other turn out remarkably similar on a range of measures.
So we're now not trying to partly justify the pay gap by reference to inherent gender differences in the prevalence of character traits?
In a way you're right, none of that enters the head of a guy who chooses not to give employee A the same pay rise as employee B, because he thinks A may be about to go on maternity leave.
By the way, identical twins separated at birth make up what percentage of the population? We can learn a lot from them, but they are hardly representative. They also share an environment for arguably the most formative 9 months of their lives.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Who do you think these people are supporting?Alex99 wrote:Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?0 -
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:No-one's shutting you up. I'm just laughing at the sources you use.
Laugh away. I'm pointing out that where you choose (or not) to apply your critical skills is very telling.
You'll end up going round in circles with him. Not worth it, IMO.
There's not much wrong with the source you posted (certainly more evidence is provided from him than Channel 4 have). You won't get many people with the time or the inclination to do something like that so I guess you have to depend on people like that. There is another screenshot of the Ben de Pear liking a tweet calling Boris Johnson a c*nt. What I still find incredible is the argument that because Ben de Pear said something, it must be true. It completely ignores the narrative that Channel 4 want to create. If there was anything serious, Channel 4 would be straight to the police as it would definitely be in their interests. The point is people are rude on youtube and twitter.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Who do you think these people are supporting?Alex99 wrote:Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
Maybe they just saw a dishonest journalist trying to bully a guest and expressed themselves using vulgar language which is very common on youtube? Being critical of her behaviour doesn't automatically make someone a fan of her interviewee. The video has been trending on youtube so a lot of people who've seen it will have never heard of him. He has no responsibility for these comments.0 -
nickice wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Who do you think these people are supporting?Alex99 wrote:Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
Maybe they just saw a dishonest journalist trying to bully a guest and expressed themselves using vulgar language which is very common on youtube? Being critical of her behaviour doesn't automatically make someone a fan of her interviewee. The video has been trending on youtube so a lot of people who've seen it will have never heard of him. He has no responsibility for these comments.
They've picked the wrong guy to be their hero. They've misinterpreted his ideas. Nevertheless they appear to have made him a hero.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If we're going to talk about unsubstantiated, what on earth has any of this to do with leftist politics?Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:HEqual?
Bahahahaha.
You throw this unsubstantiated stuff out like:
"Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?"
You seem to have no issue smearing someone in this way. Classic lazy leftist way of trying to shut someone up.
Someone who entitles their blog Hequal is setting out their prejudices pretty clearly. The argument in that blog is just "yeah, well they did it, too". Oh well that's alright then, so long as they flung more sh*t than you. Keep on fighting the fight, brother.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Alex99 wrote:You're probably right. How seriously they should be taken is another issue.
Did you see that JP asked for people to stop the abuse? If you needed one, it's a sign that they are 'not his people'. Also it is claimed that JP also came under significant abuse and threats of violence. Here is a more detailed analysis of the abusive messages from both groups of supposed "supporters":
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ssion=true
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
yeah should be taken seriously, some guy looked at a far right website and then drove down some Muslims tending a guy who d had a heart attack, killing a few in the process, Jo Cox anyone? there are some serious deranged folk out there, very easily influenced, tbh there are few on here too
As for him calling for people to stop the abuse? oldest trick in the book, since when has this ever worked? he could nt care less about CN or her "feelings", the longer this goes on, better sales for his book.
to me, he is just another con man, trading controversial views for cash and notoriety0 -
rjsterry wrote:
If we're going to talk about unsubstantiated, what on earth has any of this to do with leftist politics?Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:HEqual?
Bahahahaha.
You throw this unsubstantiated stuff out like:
"Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?"
You seem to have no issue smearing someone in this way. Classic lazy leftist way of trying to shut someone up.
Someone who entitles their blog Hequal is setting out their prejudices pretty clearly. The argument in that blog is just "yeah, well they did it, too". Oh well that's alright then, so long as they flung more sh*t than you. Keep on fighting the fight, brother.
Have you looked at the blog? Look at the posts and then decide whether they're invented or credible.0 -
rjsterry wrote:
If we're going to talk about unsubstantiated, what on earth has any of this to do with leftist politics?Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:HEqual?
Bahahahaha.
You throw this unsubstantiated stuff out like:
"Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?"
You seem to have no issue smearing someone in this way. Classic lazy leftist way of trying to shut someone up.
Someone who entitles their blog Hequal is setting out their prejudices pretty clearly. The argument in that blog is just "yeah, well they did it, too". Oh well that's alright then, so long as they flung more sh*t than you. Keep on fighting the fight, brother.
I posted about what I expect will happen to JP next (labelled, dangerous, events cancelled for security reasons etc...), Rick's response suggests that all of that is OK, because his supporters are OK with rape and murder. It's dishonest trick, frequently used by leftists to trample on people when the argument is being lost. He even went on to say that he wasn't sure that those threats had been made! Not very nice.
I suppose the blog title Hequal would suggest that the author feels that there is some inequality that is to the detriment of males. I suggest reading it critically rather than presupposing anything about the authors intentions.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Alex99 wrote:You're probably right. How seriously they should be taken is another issue.
Did you see that JP asked for people to stop the abuse? If you needed one, it's a sign that they are 'not his people'. Also it is claimed that JP also came under significant abuse and threats of violence. Here is a more detailed analysis of the abusive messages from both groups of supposed "supporters":
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ssion=true
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
yeah should be taken seriously, some guy looked at a far right website and then drove down some Muslims tending a guy who d had a heart attack, killing a few in the process, Jo Cox anyone? there are some serious deranged folk out there, very easily influenced, tbh there are few on here too
As for him calling for people to stop the abuse? oldest trick in the book, since when has this ever worked? he could nt care less about CN or her "feelings", the longer this goes on, better sales for his book.
to me, he is just another con man, trading controversial views for cash and notoriety
Should he say nothing? Think the worst of the man if it suits you.
There are some deranged folk out there. But they're not getting murderous ideas from JP 0 -
There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Alex99 wrote:You're probably right. How seriously they should be taken is another issue.
Did you see that JP asked for people to stop the abuse? If you needed one, it's a sign that they are 'not his people'. Also it is claimed that JP also came under significant abuse and threats of violence. Here is a more detailed analysis of the abusive messages from both groups of supposed "supporters":
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ssion=true
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that the small minority posting offensive material might not be HIS "supporters"?
yeah should be taken seriously, some guy looked at a far right website and then drove down some Muslims tending a guy who d had a heart attack, killing a few in the process, Jo Cox anyone? there are some serious deranged folk out there, very easily influenced, tbh there are few on here too
As for him calling for people to stop the abuse? oldest trick in the book, since when has this ever worked? he could nt care less about CN or her "feelings", the longer this goes on, better sales for his book.
to me, he is just another con man, trading controversial views for cash and notoriety
The irony of all this is that Thomas Mair didn't threaten Jo Cox (at least as far as I can see) prior to murdering her. If far-right websites gave him the idea then of course they share the blame. If you can show me a threat made against Cathy Newman that is based on a plausible interpretation of something Jordan Peterson said, I'm all ears.
Darren Osborne allegedly (purely used this word for legal reasons) killed one person ( not a few) And you should actually be blaming the BBC if you really want to go down that road.
"An unemployed father of four accused of carrying out the Finsbury Park terror attack became "brainwashed" and a "ticking time bomb” obsessed with Muslims after watching a BBC drama about the Rochdale grooming scandal, a court has heard."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01 ... ainwashed/
I don't think you can as nobody would take the documentary as incitement to commit violence or murder.
Not really sure what you wanted JP to do? Say 'stop the abuse' or say nothing? There were only two real choices.
It's still amazing to me that you don't see that the biggest contributor to his book sales is Cathy Newman. He also appeared of 5live and the interview was uncontroversial (what were the controversial views on channel 4 in your opinion?) because the interviewers weren't trying to trip him up? Which interview improved his book sales the most do you think and why?0 -
Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.0
