Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

[Mark Benson]

Not-The-Messiah said:

The more and more you see people like this and they are everywhere now in the media, business, politics. I just think what the fk is our education system doing especially University. They are teaching people what to think rather than how to think. How to look at different ideas with a open mind, how to not look at things in simplistic ways and so on.

It's the inevitable consequence of identity politics, where the group you belong to somehow confers value that used to be conferred by how you treated others.

When you 'outsource' your critical faculties to the idea of virtue by birth, you lose the ability to think critically about other people's ideas and simply label them by politics, colour, sex etc.
The more arcane and rigid the rules are, the more fervent the followers become, then when one of theirs transgresses they try to twist reality to come up with excuses for them (see the left's treatment of Toby Young vs Brendan Cox for example).

[Goaty Bill 2]

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power - Under The Skin #46 - YouTube

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Friday 2nd March 19:38

[Halb]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power

I think the first ' | ' disrupts the lin k.

Really don't like Brand, but I've watched a bit and he seems sedate.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Halb said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power - Under The Skin #46 - YouTube

I think the first ' | ' disrupts the lin k.

Really don't like Brand, but I've watched a bit and he seems sedate.

Thanks - original fixed.

I was quite impressed actually.
It's almost like he's grown up?

I never thought he lacked intelligence, only that it was being horribly misused and wasted.

In any case, he may think differently to Peterson, but he was smart enough to pay attention and 'play fair'.
I thought it went well for both of them.

[NJH]

Mark Benson said:

It's the inevitable consequence of identity politics, where the group you belong to somehow confers value that used to be conferred by how you treated others.

When you 'outsource' your critical faculties to the idea of virtue by birth, you lose the ability to think critically about other people's ideas and simply label them by politics, colour, sex etc.
The more arcane and rigid the rules are, the more fervent the followers become, then when one of theirs transgresses they try to twist reality to come up with excuses for them (see the left's treatment of Toby Young vs Brendan Cox for example).

Tempting to think it comes from simplification of the world, but on the contrary this all comes from a deep intellectual 'school' of thought that frankly has long since descended beyond nonsense. This isn't a remotely new battle either, this 'in'famous book for example set about addressing the balance 20 years ago:
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Fas...

Look up and study Luce Irigaray to get an idea what we are all dealing with, there is a long academic history behind this stuff but its still a nihilistic decent into madness nonetheless, because as Jordan Peterson points out, all of these ideas have nothing under them other than power, and an extreme marxist view of what power means at that.

[Mothersruin]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Halb said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power - Under The Skin #46 - YouTube

I think the first ' | ' disrupts the lin k.

Really don't like Brand, but I've watched a bit and he seems sedate.

Thanks - original fixed.

I was quite impressed actually.
It's almost like he's grown up?

I never thought he lacked intelligence, only that it was being horribly misused and wasted.

In any case, he may think differently to Peterson, but he was smart enough to pay attention and 'play fair'.
I thought it went well for both of them.

I'm sure he realised any flippancy and he'd be firmly put back in his box.

[Goaty Bill 2]

ash73 said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power - Under The Skin #46 - YouTube

Very good, enjoyed listening to that. Second half is better once Brand noticed Peterson was dodging a few questions and got more engaged.

The left gets it wrong, the right doesn't care summed it up well. Probably for the first time ever I agree with Brand; the choices we are being offered are too limited.

One of the reasons I have been listening to Peterson, is the dirge of reliable news and commentary on Canadian politics.
The Canadian press in general is verging on the side of insane progressive illiberal left, or right almost to the degree of Breitbart. The CBC (government funded media corporation) is utterly corrupt and untrustworthy to a degree that would make the strongest critics of the BBC reel in horror.

I could see immediately that Peterson deeply understood the problems with extremist identity politics (at both ends of the scale) and was highly critical of both.

For me, what this particular 'interview' demonstrates, is that Peterson does his best with someone who is intelligent enough to push back sensibly, and asks him to explain or clarify, and that Brand can act like an adult, and can see beyond the default almost insane anti-establishment stance he has so long taken.
It also demonstrates how two people of somewhat opposing views can come to understanding through discussion rather than outright debate.
Debate is highly overrated; dialogue is nearly always preferable.

[NJH]

Well you can't really do either when one side claims language and all the basis of science is a masculine construct used to oppress women (for example).

This is where Peterson is continually misrepresented, he isn't fighting against the left he is fighting against the irrational. Therefore I am not surprised he can have a useful discourse with someone like him or for that matter the vast majority of people one could label as left wing.

[Goaty Bill 2]

NJH said:

Well you can't really do either when one side claims language and all the basis of science is a masculine construct used to oppress women (for example).

This is where Peterson is continually misrepresented, he isn't fighting against the left he is fighting against the irrational. Therefore I am not surprised he can have a useful discourse with someone like him or for that matter the vast majority of people one could label as left wing.

Agreed, though still ever so slightly surprised by Brand.
Don't get me wrong, I am hardly right wing, nor do I believe the entire left is crazy. By no means; I just tend towards conservatism/caution.

I presume you have seen this discussion on postmodernism (Peterson and Hicks)?
Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis with Dr. Stephen Hicks.... - YouTube

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 3rd March 10:38

[cymtriks]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why is it "quite rightly unacceptable" ?

If a debate turns into an argument which then becomes aggressive there is a point where someone hits someone else due to verbal provocation, a perceived threat or because the other person has already hit them.

These stages will be different for people that are NOT equal. They will be identical for people that ARE equal.

Given that feminists have lectured us at length about being equal in every situation and want the law and society to step in line on these issues they are in the second category.

Which makes it no more or less "unacceptable" than a fight involving two men.

That's part of equality that a lot of people don't get, it isn't just about the days that money is handed out and votes are cast, its about all the other days as well.

[Goaty Bill 2]

cymtriks said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why is it "quite rightly unacceptable" ?

<etc.>

Watches with interest..

[andy_s]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

A remarkably coherent discussion between Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson - Kindness VS Power - Under The Skin #46 - YouTube

Well I have to say thanks for that; an excellent conversation that could have been paused at several points for greater exploration, full credit to Brand despite my preconceptions and an interesting intertwinement of concepts with some lovely little points; 'tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance' being an apposite quote in our times I think!

[NJH]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

NJH said:

Well you can't really do either when one side claims language and all the basis of science is a masculine construct used to oppress women (for example).

This is where Peterson is continually misrepresented, he isn't fighting against the left he is fighting against the irrational. Therefore I am not surprised he can have a useful discourse with someone like him or for that matter the vast majority of people one could label as left wing.

Agreed, though still ever so slightly surprised by Brand.
Don't get me wrong, I am hardly right wing, nor do I believe the entire left is crazy. By no means; I just tend towards conservatism/caution.

I presume you have seen this discussion on postmodernism (Peterson and Hicks)?
Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis with Dr. Stephen Hicks.... - YouTube

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 3rd March 10:38

Yes its quite long and wrought out but covers the same fundamental points touched on in this thread. The video also includes links out to his book, another given freely in pdf format so anyone following this thread has some serious reading material to follow up on (myself included).

I will say one last thing, and its something I have come to believe as the reason why so many have expended so much effort the past 100 years on philosophies/ideologies that have no conclusion to them, and underneath no reasonable basis.

We are all victims of our own vanity.

[Driller]

I've been passing this thread title for some time without clicking but yesterday I clicked the link and I am so glad I did.

This interview is a thing of beauty for many different reasons not the least of which is a guest successfully defending himself from the MSM propaganda wielding news anchors.

The image of a cat playing with a ball of wool comes to mind

[hairyben]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Thanks - original fixed.

I was quite impressed actually.
It's almost like he's grown up?

I never thought he lacked intelligence, only that it was being horribly misused and wasted.

In any case, he may think differently to Peterson, but he was smart enough to pay attention and 'play fair'.
I thought it went well for both of them.

this intrigued me quite a bit, always thought of brand as a bit of a phoney, jumping between bandwagons and contradicting himself along the way (and possibly he's just canny enough to see the momentum behind Peterson here and the inevitable self destructiveness of identity politics) but he did come across as inquisitive and making a genuine attempt to understand and impart what Peterson had to say. For Peterson its a "in" to a crowd who generally wouldn't be front of the queue to hear him so very lucrative, and worth putting up with mr selflove.

[Halb]

The KGM Ayoade 'interview' is on some new progs gone wrong on C% now.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Halb said:

The KGM Ayoade 'interview' is on some new progs gone wrong on C% now.

[Halb]

For those interested, Jordan popped up on Bill Maher's show this week

[2xChevrons]

I feel this is going to be a long post somewhat out of nowhere, because I can't sleep and have been reading something on twitter about Peterson's view on the Scandinavian model. Namely how, in his view, the fact that with all their equal-opportunity policies there is still a gender disparity across certain occupations proves that there is some intrinsic biological preference going on. I went down a bit of a research rabbit-hole. Then I see this thread lurking at the bottom of the NP&E page, and this:

NJH said:

This is where Peterson is continually misrepresented, he isn't fighting against the left he is fighting against the irrational. Therefore I am not surprised he can have a useful discourse with someone like him or for that matter the vast majority of people one could label as left wing.

For someone who is 'fighting against the irrational' he's doesn't strike me as very rational.

Take his view on the Scandinavian situation. It completely fails to consider cultural factors, and despite his claims that the biological nature of this difference has been proven by the scientific literature, a quick search of the academic literature reveals completely different conclusions and ones that are radically different from his claim that 'postmodernists' (ah, his old nemesis!) respond by questioning the scientific method itself. Here, for example, is a section from an article in the Nordic Journal of STEM Education that suggests persistent gender inequality may stem from cultural biases rather than biological differences:

Our results suggest that in Norway, like the United States, women’s voices are underrepresented in the classroom. Thus, we are the first study to suggest that despite a relatively gender equal society, women still face similar academic challenges as women elsewhere in the world. Future research will profit from a thorough examination of whether male students outperform females in other metrics of success at the undergraduate level in Norway, and whether there are lasting consequences. Research may also focus on underlying mechanisms that lead to observed gaps in participation. In the United States, one common explanation is stereotype threat, or the fear of conforming to a negative stereotype associated with one’s social, racial, ethnic, or gender group (6, 39- 41). For example, females tend to underestimate their math ability and overestimate how much ability is required to succeed at higher levels (42). Males, on the other hand, overestimate their math ability to be higher than comparable females’ ability (42). And even subtle priming can reduce females’ math performance in a test-taking environment. When asked to identify their gender before starting the SAT Advanced Calculus test, females score significantly lower than their female peers who are asked to check the gender box after the test (43, 44)

((Ballen et al, "Norway’s gender gap: classroom participation in undergraduate introductory science", Nordic Journal of STEM Education vol. 1, no. 1 (2017): 262-270))

Here's another fairly recent article showing that despite fairly equitable low-level employment, Scandinavian media continue to focus predominantly on men in news coverage, promoting the idea that the public sphere is a male space:

The public sphere in Nordic countries is still more favorable for men, and as such newsroom culture continues to reflect and contribute to a gender imbalance. In other words, the media is not only a mirror; rather, it often seems to enforce male dominance in the public sphere. Both male and female journalists seem to be the carriers of news culture, which tends to magnify male actions. In order to combat this culture, work is not only required at the structural-level, but reporters must additionally accept an individual responsibility. Simply employing the same number of males and females in the newsroom will unfortunately do nothing to improve the gender balance in news content.

((Maria Edström, ""Is There a Nordic Way? A Swedish Perspective on Achievements and Problems With Gender Equality in Newsrooms", Media Studies vol. 2, no. 3-4 (2011): 64-75))

I could go on, but let's just put it out there that when Peterson says 'the scientific literature is clear' on persistent Nordic gender gaps being attributable to biological differences he's either mistaken or lying.

The video I watched had him talking about "hierarchies of competence" and he says that we live in a meritocratic society. He believes these hierarchies are based on competence and that the number one trait that determines success in Western societies is intelligence and the number two trait is hard work. But again, he completely ignores cultural factors that mean not everyone climbs these hierarchies at the same rate, with the same level of progress for each amount of effort, or with the same level of opportunity.He's a fine speaker if you're a white man and think of the world solely in terms of how white men relate to other white men, but as soon as you consider gender or racial dynamics his theorising falls apart. He would have no answer for the studies which show a white man with a criminal record is more likely to get a callback for a job than a black man without one, because that would completely destroy his idea that everyone has the equal opportunity to work their way to the top. Take a subject close to my own heart, orchestras:

We have collected, from orchestral management files and archives, a sample of auditions for eight major orchestras. These records contain the names of all candidates and identify those advanced to the next round, including the ultimate winner of the competition. The data provide a unique means of testing whether discrimination existed in the various rounds of a hiring process and even allow the linkage of individuals across auditions. A strong presumption exists that discrimination has limited the employment of female musicians, especially by the great symphony orchestras. Not only were their numbers extremely low until the 1970’s, but many music directors, ultimately in charge of hiring new musicians, publicly disclosed their belief that female players had lower musical talent.

Using the audition data, we find that the screen increases—by 50 percent—the probability that a woman will be advanced from certain preliminary rounds and increases by severalfold the likelihood that a woman will be selected in the final round. By the use of the roster data, the switch to blind auditions can explain 30 percent of the increase in the proportion female among new hires and possibly 25 percent of the increase in the percentage female in the orchestras from 1970 to 1996.57 As in research in economics and other fields on double-blind refereeing (see, e.g., Blank, 1991), the impact of a blind procedure is toward impartiality and the costs to the journal (here to the orchestra) are relatively small. We conclude that the adoption of the screen and blind auditions served to help female musicians in their quest for orchestral positions.

((Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse, "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians", American Economic Review vol. 90, no. 4 (2000): 715-741))

Anyone who think this problem is limited solely to orchestras is fooling themselves. Peterson, as a psychologist, should know that what matters in establishing these hierarchies isn't competence (nor power, which he claims is what the postmodernist thinks) but perceptions of competence, and white men continue to be perceived as significantly more competent than women or BAME people in virtually every aspect of life and work. The example he gives of wanting the best neurosurgeon to remove your father's brain tumour is flawed because while we may perceive that neurosurgeon to be the best but we will be overlooking the various steps along the way that weeded out (possibly numerous) people who were actually more competent but were perceived to be less so due to cultural biases, from birth through every level of education through every stage of hiring and promotion.

The fundamental problem in Peterson's thinking (which goes for a lot of conservative thought) is the view that the current state of affairs is right simply because it is the current state of affairs. The assumption is that if there were a better way to do things we would have already discovered it. The other fundamental assumption is that we may have already discovered the better way and then moved away from it because of some corruption of modernity (or postmodernity, as Peterson would probably have it). The assumption is never that the better way to do things might lie in the future, undiscovered or untested.

What is the problem with this thinking - besides that it's exactly the kind of ancient-past-focused thought the Enlightenment thinkers that Peterson worships rejected? The problem is that it completely ignores structural inequalities in current systems by assuming that those structures were put in place for some just reason. So, in Peterson's world, Syrians haven't developed an individualistic culture because they don't care about individualism. If they did, they would have developed an individualistic society. Women haven't risen to the top of the business world because they aren't interested in business. If they were, our society would have changed to accommodate them.

This perspective completely ignores the fact that society has always been changing and will always continue to change. 100 years ago people were using the exact same 'rational' reasons to say that women shouldn't have the right to vote: if it was better for society that women could vote, some society would have already tried it and we would see that it was better. 200 years ago conservatives were using the exact same assumptions to say that black people were better off as slaves: if it was better for society that black people be free, some society would have already tried it and we would see that it was better.

He is a literal small-c conservative, who wants to preserve the world as is with all its inequalities and imperfections. Probably (and I know I'm reaching here, but indulge me) because he fears the alternative will be worse for people like him, even if it's better for lots of other people.

Plus, his voice sounds exactly like Kermit the Frog and he got rapped by his university for trying to build a machine to detect postmodernism, both of which I find hilarious. Take your pick of my critiques.

[Gecko1978]

interesting points and I agree there is definatly cultural bias. While my exposure to JP is just his interview on C4 and a few links on this thread. I recall in the interview he mentioned there were multiple factors behind the pay gap with gender accounting for 5% pf that gap. So I infeer he does indeed accept there are other factors biology being one and not the only one. He does sound a bit like kermit which of course mad kathy newman interview all the more ammusing.