Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
There's a big difference between the developed world and the developing world.
Further to this, are we talking about the amount of money spent which is decided, or the number of purchases? Given that in many parts of the world, food is a major component of spending, and women tend to be responsible for food, I could well imagine that women make 80% of household spending decisions even in poorer countries.
Ok if it’s not your money are you really making the decision?
Or is the decision being outsourced to you?
Is it actually a reflection, not of female purchasing power, but of a natural tendency to reduce their role to merely looking after the home?
We could have these back and forths about pretty much everything he says. Hence the tedium.
What he says roughly correlated with what we as a society expect genders to behave. That’s the point; why do we expect them to behave like that? Is this just a modern version of the arguments against fensle emanciparion? “That’s just how women are; too emotional; irrational at certain times of the month.”
I’m sure lots of men sagely nodded their heads when that was said 100+ years ago.
If you actually listen, he doesn't discount those factors. His message is that there are also innate factors.0 -
Alex99 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Sure, but what has that got to do with masculinity? I've heard the line that the traditional role of being the breadwinner through a job at the local male-dominated mine/factory/steelworks is gone. This suggests the problem is an uncertain future and a lack of self worth. I get that working in a SportsDirect warehouse on variable hours doesn't hit those two needs in a way that 20 years in a foundry would but why is that only affecting young white working class males?
The mines, etc are not coming back so we/they'd better find a new definition rather than clinging on to an obsolete one.
Although he didn't go into this in the C4 interview, JP suggests that what young men need is simply a 'purpose', to be useful. It doesn't have to be working in the local mine or foundry.
Agreed. I think we all need that to some extent. Question is: why is one particular group struggling to find that purpose when on the face of it the difficulties they face are far from unique.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think things are changing a little in that respect. Our house sounds like PB's, money goes into a joint account and gets spent as needed. We earn similar amounts and in our case my wife probably spends more of it than I do to be honest. In my parents house my old man earned the vast majority of the money as my mother only ever had the occasional part time job, however she spent the vast majority of it. In their case I would say my mother easily spent 80% of the money, but it was spent on the whole family of course.Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:I can’t speak for everyone but in our marriage the money is our money.
The person spending it is the one best to do so. No other demarcation.
Isn’t suggesting that it is merely outsourced a tad patronising to both parties?
I think using that stat as a way to say women 'decide the market place' as total BS. That's the point I'm making.
When you square it up with other evidence the interpretation looks wildly off.0 -
Bottom line is: number/value of purchases made is a poor indicator of who is making the real decisions.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Alex99 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Sure, but what has that got to do with masculinity? I've heard the line that the traditional role of being the breadwinner through a job at the local male-dominated mine/factory/steelworks is gone. This suggests the problem is an uncertain future and a lack of self worth. I get that working in a SportsDirect warehouse on variable hours doesn't hit those two needs in a way that 20 years in a foundry would but why is that only affecting young white working class males?
The mines, etc are not coming back so we/they'd better find a new definition rather than clinging on to an obsolete one.
Although he didn't go into this in the C4 interview, JP suggests that what young men need is simply a 'purpose', to be useful. It doesn't have to be working in the local mine or foundry.
Agreed. I think we all need that to some extent. Question is: why is one particular group struggling to find that purpose when on the face of it the difficulties they face are far from unique.
its easy to home in on one aspect (prob because most are white!) but the reality is that if you are poor, generally speaking you ve less life chances, whatever your ethnicity.
From my school teacher friends say "down to parental support, of the school and their kids"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 92016.html0 -
Agreed, just pointing out that perhaps it wasn't that much of a stretch.rjsterry wrote:Bottom line is: number/value of purchases made is a poor indicator of who is making the real decisions.0 -
0
-
In the above interview he gives a pretty good rebuttal to some of the accusations aimed at him in the wider media and some on this thread. I wonder if she'll accept his invitation for further discussion on the subjects raised?
0 -
thats funny
lol! 0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
There's a big difference between the developed world and the developing world.
Further to this, are we talking about the amount of money spent which is decided, or the number of purchases? Given that in many parts of the world, food is a major component of spending, and women tend to be responsible for food, I could well imagine that women make 80% of household spending decisions even in poorer countries.
Ok if it’s not your money are you really making the decision?
Or is the decision being outsourced to you?
Is it actually a reflection, not of female purchasing power, but of a natural tendency to reduce their role to merely looking after the home?
Yes, women do often make decisions about domestic affairs. My grandparents and great-grandparents grew up in far more sexist societies than the one in which we live today, but the women certainly weren't subservient doormats and the men never expected them to be.Rick Chasey wrote:We could have these back and forths about pretty much everything he says. Hence the tedium.
What he says roughly correlated with what we as a society expect genders to behave. That’s the point; why do we expect them to behave like that? Is this just a modern version of the arguments against fensle emanciparion? “That’s just how women are; too emotional; irrational at certain times of the month.”
I’m sure lots of men sagely nodded their heads when that was said 100+ years ago.
Science has come a long, long way since women were fighting for the vote, and I can't see that it's useful to reject what scientists are saying on the grounds that there are historical examples of pseudoscience being used to justify the denial of political rights to women.0 -
-
I find it curious how people will accept “science”, but any “social science” or humanities is apparently boll*cks.
In the context of a social issue, it’s very odd.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:To what end?
Er, maybe just to know the truth about something rather than accept an ideological position?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I find it curious how people will accept “science”, but any “social science” or humanities is apparently boll*cks.
In the context of a social issue, it’s very odd.
Make your mind up0 -
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:To what end?
Er, maybe just to know the truth about something rather than accept an ideological position?
Right.
And you think this geezer does that? In his application of a study of the individual mind to macro social issues?0 -
From where I’m sitting, he’s taken a view that the status quo is what he’s aiming for and picks stats to suit his aim.
Some of his arguments are almost tautological.
“Society shows that men and women are different and men do better in busienss environments *poinfs to some star that proves that* therefore men and women are socially different *uses some psychological term* “therefore, because they’re different, they’ll do better in busienss environments”0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I find it curious how people will accept “science”, but any “social science” or humanities is apparently boll*cks.
In the context of a social issue, it’s very odd.
If I posed the question "how old is the world?", some people would consider it a religious question and say 6000 years. Most would consider it a science question. The religious person may wonder why most people ignore religious studies in answering this question, after all, there are many books on the subject and many very well read people who have obtained a higher status due to their knowledge.
Equally, if I asked "why can't I go to a big supermarket at 9am on a Sunday?", most would not consult science for an answer, but instead look to social / religious studies for an explanation.
I believe the criticism Peterson* has of social sciences at the moment is not that they don't have a purpose, but that they have become religious in their beliefs that everything is a social construct. And this religious approach shuts down debate, prevents freedom of speech and prevents scientific advancement. That doesn't mean that these people are wrong - everything may be a social construct, but speech should always be free. Galileo could have been utterly wrong to suggest the world was round, but he should have been free to do so.
As an aside, nutritional science has found itself in a similar position on the subject of fat.
*second hand info0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:To what end?
Er, maybe just to know the truth about something rather than accept an ideological position?
Right.
And you think this geezer does that? In his application of a study of the individual mind to macro social issues?
You seem intelligent and you argue very hard for things you believe in. The way you chop and change and blow smoke, I have to conclude that you're just dishonest and probably not worth interacting with.0 -
It was more a point that there is a feeling that because what he says is 'science' it's FACT, whereas humanities take on issues is all position and posture.TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I find it curious how people will accept “science”, but any “social science” or humanities is apparently boll*cks.
In the context of a social issue, it’s very odd.
If I posed the question "how old is the world?", some people would consider it a religious question and say 6000 years. Most would consider it a science question. The religious person may wonder why most people ignore religious studies in answering this question, after all, there are many books on the subject and many very well read people who have obtained a higher status due to their knowledge.
Equally, if I asked "why can't I go to a big supermarket at 9am on a Sunday?", most would not consult science for an answer, but instead look to social / religious studies for an explanation.
I believe the criticism Peterson* has of social sciences at the moment is not that they don't have a purpose, but that they have become religious in their beliefs that everything is a social construct. And this religious approach shuts down debate, prevents freedom of speech and prevents scientific advancement. That doesn't mean that these people are wrong - everything may be a social construct, but speech should always be free. Galileo could have been utterly wrong to suggest the world was round, but he should have been free to do so.
As an aside, nutritional science has found itself in a similar position on the subject of fat.
*second hand info
I think this guy's particular style is one that seems set out deliberately to hit all the hot spots of people with a post-modern take. The quantity of assumptions the guy uses is really quite astonishing.
The frustration is, rather like if you start getting deep into molecular biology, the criticisms post-modern thinking has on that is really quite technical and requires a fair bit of existing knowledge to really get to the cricism; it has been summarised into short-hand for public debate.
I also honestly feel that the guy is arguing for the preservation of the status quo and is using huge gender generalisations to support that (by arguing that, for example, in business, male traits are successful and female traits aren't which is why men are much more successful in business, ignoring a host of other factors, from gender identities to more practical factors) and is just by-passing a vast body of evidence that suggests that, to the contrary, the status quo isn't ideal and isn't really to do with the genetic differences between men and women.
He's not engaging with that body of evidence and arguments, which have become socially accepted enough that they are now short-hand, and instead whines that he's being 'shut down'.0 -
Some slightly repetitive comments below.Rick Chasey wrote:It was more a point that there is a feeling that because what he says is 'science' it's FACT, whereas humanities take on issues is all position and posture.
Some people think the bible is a fact. Science is mostly about presenting evidence and opinions, and my take is that is what he is doing.Rick Chasey wrote:
I think this guy's particular style is one that seems set out deliberately to hit all the hot spots of people with a post-modern take.
Maybe he does, and maybe that is antagonistic and obnoxious, but all science should be challenged.Rick Chasey wrote:
I also honestly feel that the guy is arguing for the preservation of the status quo and is using huge gender generalisations to support that (by arguing that, for example, in business, male traits are successful and female traits aren't which is why men are much more successful in business, ignoring a host of other factors, from gender identities to more practical factors) and is just by-passing a vast body of evidence that suggests that, to the contrary, the status quo isn't ideal and isn't really to do with the genetic differences between men and women.
He's not engaging with that body of evidence and arguments, which have become socially accepted enough that they are now short-hand, and instead whines that he's being 'shut down'.
I think he disagrees with the "vast body of evidence" and the "socially accepted enough that they are now short-hand", because it contradicts his research. That's how science should work. He shouldn't be a hero of the alt-right or a nemesis of radical feminists, he should simply be a scientist expressing an opinion based on his research.0 -
He’s not engaging with it though.
He’s using the exact things that the work says creates and reinforces that dominant/subordinate relationship between men and women to say that’s why that relationship exists.
The criticism is of an epistemological nature; he’s arguing within the discourse, the system of knowledge, that knows the gender relationship in that way.
He’s not criticising it at all.
It can’t condradict him. That’s the point. It says the way in which he is “knowing” the topic is that that reinforces and creates that gender divide.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:He’s not engaging with it though.
He’s using the exact things that the work says creates and reinforces that dominant/subordinate relationship between men and women to say that’s why that relationship exists.
The criticism is of an epistemological nature; he’s arguing within the discourse, the system of knowledge, that knows the gender relationship in that way.
He’s not criticising it at all.
It can’t condradict him. That’s the point. It says the way in which he is “knowing” the topic is that that reinforces and creates that gender divide.
It's much simpler than. It is hard for someone that believes that genes do affect some parts of a person's personality to engage with someone who believes everything is a social construct, because there is no overlap or starting point on which they can agree. It is a fundamental difference.
It is much like debating with someone who believes something happened because god willed it. I don't have a problem with their belief, but I wish to retain people's ability to analyse, publish and speak about other causes.0 -
...0
-
But the body of evidence that sexism does exist and is the main reasons women are underrepresented in work is vast. He’s not engaging with that.
He’s just describing woolly characteristics that fit in rather too neatly with the language post modernism identifies as a signifier of that dominant/subordinate relationship of half the entire population.
Are we really to believe “assertiveness” is genetic?
He doesn’t provide evidence for that either. He notes the correlation (which is spurious at best anyway) and claims causation.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:
It is much like debating with someone who believes something happened because god willed it. I don't have a problem with their belief, but I wish to retain people's ability to analyse, publish and speak about other causes.
No one is saying otherwise. I’m saying he’s talking sh!t.
People moan he is being “shut down” from speaking whilst listening to him have 10 minutes on terrestrial prime time TV.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:He’s not engaging with it though.
He’s using the exact things that the work says creates and reinforces that dominant/subordinate relationship between men and women to say that’s why that relationship exists.
The criticism is of an epistemological nature; he’s arguing within the discourse, the system of knowledge, that knows the gender relationship in that way.
He’s not criticising it at all.
It can’t condradict him. That’s the point. It says the way in which he is “knowing” the topic is that that reinforces and creates that gender divide.
It's much simpler than. It is hard for someone that believes that genes do affect some parts of a person's personality to engage with someone who believes everything is a social construct, because there is no overlap or starting point on which they can agree. It is a fundamental difference.
It is much like debating with someone who believes something happened because god willed it. I don't have a problem with their belief, but I wish to retain people's ability to analyse, publish and speak about other causes.
That's only true if one person believes it's just down to genes and the other that it is entirely a social construct. If the 'geneticist' is prepared to accept some degree of social construct contribution then they have a place to start the debate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:He’s not engaging with it though.
He’s using the exact things that the work says creates and reinforces that dominant/subordinate relationship between men and women to say that’s why that relationship exists.
The criticism is of an epistemological nature; he’s arguing within the discourse, the system of knowledge, that knows the gender relationship in that way.
He’s not criticising it at all.
It can’t condradict him. That’s the point. It says the way in which he is “knowing” the topic is that that reinforces and creates that gender divide.
It's much simpler than. It is hard for someone that believes that genes do affect some parts of a person's personality to engage with someone who believes everything is a social construct, because there is no overlap or starting point on which they can agree. It is a fundamental difference.
It is much like debating with someone who believes something happened because god willed it. I don't have a problem with their belief, but I wish to retain people's ability to analyse, publish and speak about other causes.
That's only true if one person believes it's just down to genes and the other that it is entirely a social construct. If the 'geneticist' is prepared to accept some degree of social construct contribution then they have a place to start the debate.
You also need the entirely a social construct person to accept some degree of genetic influence, otherwise there is little to debate other than clarifying the degree to which the geneticist accepts social constructs.
The nature versus nurture debate is not new.0 -
Its always a combination of nature and nurture, genes and environment. Genes are turned 'on' and 'off' by the environment so you can't ignore either.
I'm a huge JBP fan by the way, what he says is anything but bull sh1t.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
It is much like debating with someone who believes something happened because god willed it. I don't have a problem with their belief, but I wish to retain people's ability to analyse, publish and speak about other causes.
No one is saying otherwise. I’m saying he’s talking sh!t.
People moan he is being “shut down” from speaking whilst listening to him have 10 minutes on terrestrial prime time TV.
This is being shutdown in academia
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e37377602/0 -
