Jordan Peterson interview

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Thrudge 21 Jan 2018

youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&

I've seen this described as "the intellectual equivalent of Mike Tyson fighting a child" 

3
 Bob Kemp 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Peterson:

“All credit to them [Channel 4 News] for posting the whole thing unedited. I was certain when I left that interview it would be cut to my detriment. I don’t feel like I won. ”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/21/no-exc...

 

 felt 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

My impression of it was along the lines of:

JP: Fire is hot.

CN: So you're saying that fire isn't hot?

 gavmac 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Car crash TV. Cathy Newman completely out of her depth.

'So you're saying...'

'No.' 

 

 wbo 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

So what did you learn?

1
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

They're both insufferable! I keep needing to take breaks while I let the blood pressure simmer back down again. If I ever get to the end of the damn thing I might give some reflections, by my god it's hard going.

If you'd like to see JP getting mauled by someone a thousand times better in debate, have a go with this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k&

(FWIW I don't agree with Benatar, but he's running rings around JP here...when JP starts ranting and dribbling about dragons you know he's run out of road!)

8
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I'm not going to comment on Cathy Newman's "arguments", since all she did was consistently misrepresent JP and get flustered. As you say, it was like Mike Tyson fighting a child...or perhaps more like Wolf from Gladiators fighting a child if you want a fair reflection of the level of skill displayed.

First huge problem with JPs position. He implies that we should all feel sorry for young men, they're getting a terrible deal in society. (1:57) Worse than whom? Who should be treating them better? No justification for this, which isn't surprising because the whole idea of the "crisis of masculinity" is a crock of shit.

The next huge problem renders almost the entire rest of the interview pointless. He uses perfectly good data about relative differences between man and women to try to explain (to someone who refuses to listen, but then she is in a very stressful situation given what a belligerent arsehole JP is) the inequality in outcomes. But he simplifies the facts (i.e. the shape and overlap of the distributions and how these relate to formation of social norms) to a degree that reduces the debate to complete polarisation: on one side the gender pay gap is a correct and natural consequence of the innate differences between men and women, on the other the world must change so that equality of outcome is achieved. Both these positions are stupid, and for this reason, the debate was unwatchable rubbish.

I could pick out a few very irritating bits of dishonesty where he claims "I never said that, and certainly not to wind you up/generate controversy/increase publicity/sell more books". The most obvious one is at 5:47. But if you compare what he says here with what he says elsewhere (e.g. about trans pronouns, https://tinyurl.com/y7z9ucbg), he's inconsistent and says one stupid thing to generate a reaction, and then backtracks and claims never to have said it because he knows he was just winding people up, for money.

In short, JP may look impressive when he's debating Cathy Newman, but the guy's an arsehole, and an idiot.

19
Pan Ron 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Sadly the subsequent reporting on the event, thinking primarily the prominent Independent and Guardian articles, just showed up the media as unable to report in a sensible or even-handed manner.

 Bob Kemp 21 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

Can you ex

> Sadly the subsequent reporting on the event, thinking primarily the prominent Independent and Guardian articles, just showed up the media as unable to report in a sensible or even-handed manner.

in what way? I’ve only seen the article I linked to above. 

1
Pan Ron 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> First huge problem with JPs position. He implies that we should all feel sorry for young men, they're getting a terrible deal in society. (1:57) Worse than whom? Who should be treating them better? No justification for this, which isn't surprising because the whole idea of the "crisis of masculinity" is a crock of shit.

Really?  Young males are now substantially under-performing in schools and university, few role models in the teaching profession, receive none of the workplace participation incentives females do, while huge focus in the media is given to female issues with a general view that males are incipient molesters and abusers riding a wave of privilege.   Efforts to improve equality of outcome aren't hitting the old men who hold the positions of power.  The decades of pushing equality, redoubling efforts because they weren't having any effect, are coming through like a tidal wave against a generation of male youths.  

Just because your own demographic is doing ok, it is foolish to think the next generation is benefitting from privilege.  As an example of how quickly and imperceptibly the balance can change, with no ability to equalise, think of China's one-child policy and the negative impact that had on the value of girls.  Then fast forward a few decades and its now males, unmarryable, selectively aborted, and seen as the burdens on the family while women are the valuable financial asset. 

> The next huge problem renders almost the entire rest of the interview pointless. He uses perfectly good data about relative differences between man and women to try to explain (to someone who refuses to listen, but then she is in a very stressful situation given what a belligerent arsehole JP is) the inequality in outcomes.

Belligerent?  No, he just has a style of talking.  He talks the same way in lectures to students, to people he clearly respects and gets along with.  Its just part of his delivery.  Newman can just as easily be labeled is belligerent herself.  If she can't handle him behaving the same way she is, and this is considered too stressful, then perhaps she's not up to the task.  Or perhaps the interviewee would be far less defensive if they weren't being misrepresented at every turn.

> But he simplifies the facts

I think you might be just as guilty.  Peterson was making a pretty clear case, though not articulated as well as it could have, that gender is an issue but so are many others. To claim "women are paid 9% less!", and that therefore males are privileged, is outright absurd.  That practically derails the interview because, unlike most, JP is up to challenge that point but only has a very limited time to dismantle a very complex issue while being interrupted by someone who has no interest in having that discussion.  

> I could pick out a few very irritating bits of dishonesty where he claims "I never said that, and certainly not to wind you up/generate controversy/increase publicity/sell more books".

JP is quite open that he is still formulating his views on this and many other issues he discusses.  It's clear his view has changed subtly over time, but the underlying point remains the same - compelled speech.  It's not a straight-forward issue.  He appears to acknowledge that there is nuance.  What he is quite clearly objecting to is dogma, now enshrined in law, that deems these sorts of issues cut-and-dry and which is willing to impose legal punishments and censorship on those who do not comply.  It's also clear he sees people weaponising pro-nouns to discredit those they are speaking with.  So I can quite understand if someone decides they self-identify as the proverbial "Attack Helicopter" and refuses to engage with you unless you acknowledge this, that you might just refuse to abide by their pronoun demands.  Equally, if someone does ask you to use a certain pronoun you might oblige.

The guy is reportedly making vast amount of money from his supporters as is, has a professorship, and is invited to speak around the world.  He clearly never sought out the fame and has been propelled in to it.  He simply has a strong viewpoint, one that is backed up by his work and one that people are interested to hear.  Assuming its all some intentionally antagonistic exercise in self-promotion to gain riches is a real stretch.  Simply calling him an idiot, likewise.  

Pan Ron 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/channel-4-calls-in-security...

Jordan Peterson gets support from across the political spectrum.  Yet Ruddick can't get beyond the first paragraph without pointing out Peterson is supported by the alt-right.  Then, when highlighting comments from those who praised Peterson in the debate, immediately points to Brietbart news as his source.  The entire tone is to paint someone who opposes mainstream left-wing viewpoints (large gender pay gap, equality of outcome, blank slate gender approaches, etc) as far-right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cathy-newman-abuse-channel-4-jordan-pet...

As for this one, I don't know where to start.  Barely qualifies as journalism. 

OP Thrudge 21 Jan 2018
In reply to wbo:

> So what did you learn?

About JP's views, very little, as I was already familiar with them.  Still, it was entertaining to hear him talk - when he was allowed to.

About Channel 4, that they'll give you a job as an interviewer even if you're dim and dishonest, providing you like being strident.

About Cathy Newman, that she is a bigot (I'm using the OED definition of, "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.").

2
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> Really?  Young males are now substantially under-performing in schools and university, few role models in the teaching profession, receive none of the workplace participation incentives females do, while huge focus in the media is given to female issues with a general view that males are incipient molesters and abusers riding a wave of privilege. Efforts to improve equality of outcome aren't hitting the old men who hold the positions of power.  The decades of pushing equality, redoubling efforts because they weren't having any effect, are coming through like a tidal wave against a generation of male youths.  

OK, so all other things held equal, if you're a boy you get less favourable treatment in society and this shows through in educational attainment. This is a new phenomenon, and it's caused by efforts to decrease gender inequality. That's the proposal right? So what's the evidence?

> As an example of how quickly and imperceptibly the balance can change, with no ability to equalise, think of China's one-child policy and the negative impact that had on the value of girls.  Then fast forward a few decades and its now males, unmarryable, selectively aborted, and seen as the burdens on the family while women are the valuable financial asset. 

I don't understand the relevance at all, sorry.

> > But he simplifies the facts

> I think you might be just as guilty. 

On the gender pay gap, my position is that there exists differences in outcome that relate to lots of different factors. Some of the "natural" factors will lead to social expectations and structures that then exaggerated the unequal outcomes. There will also be cases where there is simple prejudice and unfair treatement. As such, a discussion about the gender pay gap should be uncovering those places where there is unfairness (they can be dealt with legislatively), and making fair practical changes that mean that rather than exaggerate the "natural" differences, the social expectations and structures give everyone the maximum freedom to do what they're good at. 

Peterson enters the debate with "multivariant analysis [an obvious attempt to blind with science/jargon] shows that it doesn't exist". This is simplistic rubbish, and I think he was trying to wind CN up. I fail to see how I am simplifying the facts, what is the nuance you feel I'm ignoring?

> JP is quite open that he is still formulating his views on this and many other issues he discusses.  It's clear his view has changed subtly over time, but the underlying point remains the same - compelled speech.

He's made a huge amount of money off the back of this idea that some Canadian law compels one to use ridiculous pronouns. But professors of law don't even agree that that's what the law does! It's confected nonsense that fits into a wider narrative about (groan) "cultural marxism" which is more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. 

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-...

> Assuming its all some intentionally antagonistic exercise in self-promotion to gain riches is a real stretch.  Simply calling him an idiot, likewise.  

I didn't simply call him an idiot. I gave a load of reasons why he's an idiot (and I didn't even get to the god-bothering and dragons bullshit) and then concluded, on the basis of those reasons that I explained, that he's an idiot. I'll give you a load more examples of his moronic output if you like. The guy's a prick.

(Edited with the link)

Post edited at 19:01
11
 TobyA 21 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> Jordan Peterson gets support from across the political spectrum.  Yet Ruddick can't get beyond the first paragraph without pointing out Peterson is supported by the alt-right. 

But he does, and the the alt-right is only in part the traditional "far right". It is also internet enabled trolls and nihilists, exactly the type who seem to think calling a women misogynist names in Youtube comments or on Twitter led to this kerfuffle.

5
 TobyA 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's confected nonsense that fits into a wider narrative about (groan) "cultural marxism" which is more like a conspiracy theory than anything else.

Jon, do you follow Andy Kirkpatrick on instagram? If don't, then don't! It won't be good for your blood pressure. (He regularly calls anything he doesn't like Marxism or Cultural Marxism - reading the Guardian definitely makes a you a cultural marxists!)

2
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to TobyA:

If I ever get an instagram account, I wish to be put down.

6
Pan Ron 21 Jan 2018
In reply to TobyA:

You can go in to the YouTube comments on just about any video, from cooking recipes to bicycle repair, and give it enough time and there will be rants about Jews trying to take over the world to all Tories needing to be shot.  

I don't see how Peterson is responsible for these, or that those on the right predisposed to making these sorts of comments will deem him to be the enemy of their enemy and therefore cheer him.  Writing about his support as if _that_ is his support base is thoroughly dishonest and does as much to misrepresent his views and appeal as Newman appeared to try to do in his interview.  

1
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> About Cathy Newman, that she is a bigot (I'm using the OED definition of, "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.").

I think you're confusing being intolerant with being wrong and rubbish.

2
OP Thrudge 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>Peterson enters the debate with "multivariant analysis [an obvious attempt to blind with science/jargon] >shows that it doesn't exist". 

Ms Newman reared back like she'd seen a snake when she heard that word - it looked very much as if she'd never heard the word before.  But it's wildly unfair to call this an attempt to 'blind with science'.  She has a degree in English.  A first, in fact.  From Oxford, no less.  And yet she has not only failed to encounter the word in her 40-odd years, she is unable to parse it.  "Multi" - more than one.  "Variant" - that which varies.  Too hard for her, apparently.

Did any other UKC'er raise their hands in panic when they heard 'multivariant' and howl, "Whoa, whoa - easy on the science, dude!  Can you explain it in terms of doughnuts?"

This was a discussion about complex ideas and data, not story time for children.  Well, it was for JP, anyway.  Not so much for Ms Newman.

 

3
 Stichtplate 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> He's made a huge amount of money off the back of this idea that some Canadian law compels one to use ridiculous pronouns. But professors of law don't even agree that that's what the law does! It's confected nonsense that fits into a wider narrative about (groan) "cultural marxism" which is more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. 

"Cultural Marxism" is just a right wingers re-phrasing of "received wisdom", when applied to anything they don't agree with. It's not conspiracy theory, it's just how many people organise their various attitudes while adhering to group think. Unfortunate (especially for the very few genuine free thinkers out there) but that's just how people are.

> I didn't simply call him an idiot. I gave a load of reasons why he's an idiot (and I didn't even get to the god-bothering and dragons bullshit) and then concluded, on the basis of those reasons that I explained, that he's an idiot. I'll give you a load more examples of his moronic output if you like. The guy's a prick.

There's loads JP comes out with that I find disagreeable. Really dislike the way he frames loads of his opinions as undisputed facts, but he's interesting and obviously intelligent. Seems a bit harsh to label him an idiot and a prick without any knowledge of him beyond his media persona.

 

1
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

But the point is, he's wrong! Multivariant analysis hasn't shown that the gender paygap doesn't exist. It has shown that gender alone doesn't account for the 9%.

The truth is complex. There are probably some sectors in which you'll get paid more, unfairly, for *being a woman*. And some situations - more of these, at an educated guess - where female colleagues are paid less for the same work. The point is that his opening statement was false and deliberately controversial, he then qualified it/back-tracked and didn't get anywhere near the nub of the issue. The overall average isn't instructive about whether there is any need for social or policy change.

Almost everything he argued rested on averages of ludicrously large sets. E.g. "Agreeableness does not predict success in the workplace". What, in all work? I'm not disputing that this is true, I'm questioning how an average of all people over all sectors is a relevant piece of data. His view of the world is simplistic to the point of being nonsense.

For example, I'm a healthcare professional, and I work pretty much independently. I'm not part of a hierarchy in which I need to compete to succeed. It's just not that kind of job. Taking the model of a large organisation in which success is measured by your position on the organogram and using it to describe the whole of the world of work is simplistic to the point of being nonsense. It's just not how life works.

11
 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm judging him on the content of what comes out of his mouth. I think that's sound basis, I don't feel the need to spend a day with him and his family before concluding that he's shite.

6
 Bob Kemp 21 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> Jordan Peterson gets support from across the political spectrum.  Yet Ruddick can't get beyond the first paragraph without pointing out Peterson is supported by the alt-right. 

Pointing out that Peterson is supported by the alt-right is necessary context, otherwise the general reader who hasn't followed Peterson will not understand why on earth Newman has been abused.

Then, when highlighting comments from those who praised Peterson in the debate, immediately points to Brietbart news as his source.  

What's wrong with that?

The entire tone is to paint someone who opposes mainstream left-wing viewpoints (large gender pay gap, equality of outcome, blank slate gender approaches, etc) as far-right.

I can't see any painting of Peterson as far-right in this piece. 

> As for this one, I don't know where to start.  Barely qualifies as journalism. 

It's an opinion piece, not a news piece. Why not say where and how you disagree with it rather than just dismissing it?

 

Post edited at 20:53
2
 Tyler 21 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> As for this one, I don't know where to start.  Barely qualifies as journalism. 

The first thing I noticed about this piece was that it was an opinion piece in the opinions section of the paper so not something you should expect to be entirely even handed anyway  that said I read it and didn't see anything particularly controversial, quite tame really. There was obviously the odd sentence or turn of phrase I would disagree with but can't really see what justified your outrage?

 

 

1
 Stichtplate 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm judging him on the content of what comes out of his mouth. I think that's sound basis, I don't feel the need to spend a day with him and his family before concluding that he's shite.

You're judging him on what comes out of his mouth while pursuing his living. Is your professional persona completely in sync with your actual personality?

If so, it would certainly make for an interesting optician's appointment.

 Jon Stewart 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

If I do a terrible eye test, and come to completely inaccurate conclusions about my patient's ocular health and spectacle prescription, and yell it at them as a tangent in a rambling rant about dragons, then it'll be fair comment when they say "that guy's an idiot, and a prick to boot".

Similarly when I listen to one of JP's lectures...

7
 Stichtplate 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If I do a terrible eye test, and come to completely inaccurate conclusions about my patient's ocular health and spectacle prescription, and yell it at them as a tangent in a rambling rant about dragons, then it'll be fair comment when they say "that guy's an idiot, and a prick to boot".

> Similarly when I listen to one of JP's lectures...

I was more picturing your reaction to a customer in your chair wearing a Britain First T shirt, moaning about gay marriage and telling you that they didn't need perfect vision as they had Jesus to lead the way.

 

OP Thrudge 21 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think you're confusing being intolerant with being wrong and rubbish.

Those are good additions, I'd accept both as being accurate descriptions of her.

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>I gave a load of reasons why he's an idiot (and I didn't even get to the god-bothering and dragons bullshit) 

Some time ago, I was listening to a lot of Sam Harris.  I came across a discussion he had with JP, who was unknown to me at the time.  I couldn't for the life of me fathom what JP was talking about.  His arguments seemed to have structure and they seemed to develop, but I didn't understand them.  I put this down to my ignorance of psychology, so I put the discussion on hold and went off to Youtube to see what I could learn about JP.  It turned out there were a lot of lectures, so I went through dozens of those and gradually got a grip on where he was coming from.  I also found his explanations and insights to be amongst the most compelling I've ever come across, once I got a baseline understanding of his arguments - and got used to his rapid "and we're off to the races" delivery 

Re the God-Bothering and dragons, I found these areas the most fascinating of all. 

Let's do God first.  I'm on the militant end of the atheist spectrum, which turned out to be irrelevant because Peterson isn't pushing religion, he's attempting to explain religious (usually Christian) stories in terms of psychology.  He's saying these stories were written as deliberate explanations of psychological truths, moral explorations, and even attempts to explain consciousness.  And while the biblical authors undoubtedly believed in God, JP does not.  In interview, I've heard him give the following response:

Q:  Do you believe in God?

A:  [thoughtful pause] I behave as if God exists.

It's quite a subtle position, but it certainly isn't theism.

For me, this partially settled a question that's been niggling at me for many years - why are these biblical stories so varied and odd, and why do I feel I'm missing the point?  The answer is that some are history, some are poetry, and some - and this is the bit I was missing - are psychological/philosophical explorations.

Now, the dragons.  This one's easy because I can just paraphrase JP.  Google images of George and the Dragon.  Apart from the knight and the dragon, there are almost always two other common images: a cave, and a maiden or treasure.  Very often, there is also a city (usually walled) in the background.  These common elements are all symbols with specific meanings, which combine to illustrate a psychological truth:

George - you

The maiden/treasure - self knowledge/the ideal integrated personality

The dragon - chaos and fear, which prevents you reaching the maiden

The cave - it's dark, it's unknown, and it's scary because it contains a dragon.  It's the part of your mind where you have not dared to go.

The city - order, the known and the explored, which is threatened by the dragon.  And the dragon comes out of the dark and scary parts of the mind of man.

 

BTW, I recently read something about art history (can't cite it, I'm afraid, I've forgotten) which pointed out that older cultures routinely used symbology in their painting and literature and that this was widely understood.

 

Post edited at 10:30
 Arms Cliff 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

From the most recent Guardian interview, this is enough to make me doubt the quality of the the rest of his thought.

"Having said that, and noting that his lectures are purely about the psychological rather than the theological value of the Bible, Peterson is a devout Christian. “Yes. Which is a form of insanity. The ethical burden is ridiculous. God might swipe you down even though you’re doing the right thing. But it’s your best bet. There is a great level of reality out there which we don’t know and don’t understand. We can bargain with it, but it doesn’t guarantee you anything and God can turn on you. That is the thing about life. There’s no guarantee of success.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/jordan-peterson-self-help-au...

So he does confirm that, while he does spend a lot of time talking about the stories in the bible, he is also a believer.

In the Newman interview he also just regurgitates what data show about male/female differences etc., rather than being drawn into any conversation about how to change these things. The whole lobster bit is the most ridiculous end of this.

Post edited at 10:49
4
 gurumed 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But the point is, he's wrong! Multivariant analysis hasn't shown that the gender paygap doesn't exist.

You're doing exactly the same thing Newman repeatedly did; misstating his position to fit it into your own narrative.

Peterson explicitly acknowledged the earning gap, and tried to explain there are more reasons (multiple variables, one could say) than gender that cause it.

 Jon Stewart 22 Jan 2018
In reply to gurumed:

Read my post again please. 

7
 gurumed 22 Jan 2018

Jordan Peterson in the interview:

"I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and woman is only due to sex is wrong.  And it is wrong.  There's no doubt about that, the multivariate analyses have been done."

Jon Stewart:

> But the point is, he's wrong! Multivariant analysis hasn't shown that the gender paygap doesn't exist.

Peterson isn't trying to show the earnings gap doesn't exist.  That is your projection.

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Arms Cliff:

Thanks for the link, that's an excellent article - great photography, too.

> So he does confirm that, while he does spend a lot of time talking about the stories in the bible, he is also a believer.

I don't think so, not quite - his position is more subtle than that.  Bear in mind, in the preceding paragraph it says: “God, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. 

I've seen another interview with him where he gave an interesting answer to this question:

Q:  Are you a Christian?

A:  [long pause]  The answer to that is complex, but let's go with yes.

As best I can tell, and I'm basing this on having listened to a lot of his lectures and interviews, Peterson is a Christian that doesn't believe in God.  What I mean by that, is that he values the psychological and philosophical insights of Christianity and sees some of them as useful guidelines to live by, but he doesn't believe in an omnipotent being.  I suspect quite a few Anglican dignitaries are in the same boat.

BTW, I've heard him described as "a gateway drug to Christianity", which amused me mightily  :-D

> In the Newman interview he also just regurgitates what data show about male/female differences etc., rather than being drawn into any conversation about how to change these things. The whole lobster bit is the most ridiculous end of this.

He didn't refuse to be drawn on change, he was disputing the idea that male/female differences must be or even can be changed.  Or at least he was attempting to whilst being barracked.  As he pointed out, the Scandanavian counties are the most egalatarian in the world and in those counties sex differences in employment increase, not decrease.

Re the lobster thing, it's baffling that this has attracted such confusion and ridicule.  Maybe it's because lobsters look funny.  JP's point seems remarkably simple: there are profound similarities in the nervous systems of human beings and our very distant cousins the lobsters; a very important part of our biology is billions of years old.  If you are going to deny that there are biological differences between men and women as some post-modernists do (seriously) then you're pushing against a colossal tide of evolutionary evidence.

 

 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to gurumed:

> Peterson explicitly acknowledged the earning gap, and tried to explain there are more reasons (multiple variables, one could say) than gender that cause it.

That's not proven, at least not in the UK. In this country, according to the ONS, "36.1% of the difference in men’s and women’s log hourly pay could be explained by differences in characteristics between men and women included in the model; of those, occupation has the largest effect since it explains 23.0% of the differences between men’s and women’s log hourly pay."

What causes the remaining difference?

They say "However, 63.9% of the gap cannot be explained. The analysis would benefit from information on family structures, education and career breaks; without these the unexplained element is over-stated. Factors such as the number of children, the age of children, whether parents have any caring responsibilities, the number of years spent in school and the highest level of qualification achieved are likely to improve the estimation of men’s and women’s pay structures and consequently decrease the unexplained element of the pay gap. As a result, the unexplained element should not be interpreted as a measure of discriminatory behaviour, though it is possible that this plays a part."

Clearly some of these factors are gender-related, and this complicates the situation. And the role of discrimination is unknown - and probably very hard to quantify. 

(Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandwo...).

Post edited at 13:12
 Andy Johnson 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

 

People on twitter and news-site comment areas seem to be treating this as some kind of world-changing intellectual cage fight that has defeated feminism and postmoderism, and changed the intellectual landscape. In reality, it was just an interview to promote a book launch. Cathy Newman wasn't engaging in some kind of debate with Peterson, she was just doing her job and drawing him out a bit. She was probably a bit unprepared at times, but then she's a working journalist with many stories to cover. Peterson was going over arguments from his book that he is likely to be very familiar with.

Its worth just watching him rather than focusing on the back-and-forth. Given the inherent ambiguity of the subjects he was opining on,  I thought he was extraordinarily confident in his assertions - almost worryingly so. He'd clearly been "media trained". and wasn't simply an academic who'd been wheeled-in for a chat.

3
 Arms Cliff 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I'm going to leave the religion thing aside, as I'm not going to be listening to more of his stuff to gain a sufficient level of understanding of his position to debate it.

The lobster thing is an issue as his argument in the interview seems to be that hierarchical structures exist in other species and therefore it's inevitable that they will exist within human society too. This seems to set aside humanity's difference from the entire rest of the living matter on the planet (abstract thought, etc.).

In reply to Thrudge:

I just watched the full interview. I found it quite interesting. My observations are that Cathy Newman seemed emotionally charged from the outset (maybe she has seen Krishnan Guru Murthy's P60?) I also thought she said "So what your saying is...." and then misrepresented Peterson quite a few times, which gave me the strong impression she was floundering and just trying to land some weak shots.

I'm new to Jordan Peterson having only come across his name recently when reading about him in the Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-curious-star-appeal-of-jordan-peter...

(once again embarrassed by my ignorance when compared to the UKC intelligentsia who I am always seemingly playing catch up with

 

 

 

pasbury 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> Now, the dragons.  This one's easy because I can just paraphrase JP.  Google images of George and the Dragon.  Apart from the knight and the dragon, there are almost always two other common images: a cave, and a maiden or treasure.  Very often, there is also a city (usually walled) in the background.  These common elements are all symbols with specific meanings, which combine to illustrate a psychological truth:

> George - you

> The maiden/treasure - self knowledge/the ideal integrated personality

> The dragon - chaos and fear, which prevents you reaching the maiden

> The cave - it's dark, it's unknown, and it's scary because it contains a dragon.  It's the part of your mind where you have not dared to go.

> The city - order, the known and the explored, which is threatened by the dragon.  And the dragon comes out of the dark and scary parts of the mind of man.

> BTW, I recently read something about art history (can't cite it, I'm afraid, I've forgotten) which pointed out that older cultures routinely used symbology in their painting and literature and that this was widely understood.

Wow that's really profound.

2
 gurumed 22 Jan 2018

Peterson claims that there are more reasons than gender to explain the earning gap.

Bob Kemp:

> That's not proven, at least not in the UK. In this country, according to the ONS, "36.1% of the difference in men’s and women’s log hourly pay could be explained by differences in characteristics between men and women included in the model; of those, occupation has the largest effect since it explains 23.0% of the differences between men’s and women’s log hourly pay."

So at least 36.1% of the earnings gap is accounted for by reasons other than gender?  How does this contradict Petersons claim?
 

 Andy Johnson 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

What you've got there is a list of archetypes. Its a popular authorly technique to harness these kind of psychlogical/cultural symbolisms in the service of an argument because of the feeling of depth and trust they tend to create in our minds. Peterson would be aware of this.

They're also used in marketing and advertising - e.g. https://moz.com/blog/the-power-of-archetypes-in-marketing

Post edited at 14:52
 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to gurumed:

> Peterson claims that there are more reasons than gender to explain the earning gap.

> Bob Kemp:

> So at least 36.1% of the earnings gap is accounted for by reasons other than gender?  How does this contradict Petersons claim?

I didn’t say it contradicted his claim. These other reasons are simply unknown. 

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Arms Cliff:

The lobster thing is indeed JP arguing that hierarchical structures exist in other species and therefore it's inevitable that they will exist within human society too.  What he doesn't  do is argue that we cannot or should not modify these when appropriate.  Time constraints and aggressive interviewing didn't give him chance to express this, but it's big and obvious in his lectures.

BTW, fair enough if you don't fancy his religious stuff, but you may find his lectures on totalitarian regimes interesting.  He's particularly knowledgeable and insightful on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> Wow that's really profound.

Yep, blew my mind when I heard it.  And it resolved a question that had nagged me since I was a youth:  dragon guards maiden, knight kills dragon, knight wins maiden - SO EFFING WHAT?  What was the point of this story?  Be brave?  I can tell the same story in two words: 'be brave'.  So hats off to JP for explaining what I was missing 

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Andy Johnson:

Aha!  I've got a vague notion of what archetypes are, but it's an area where I've yet to expand my understanding, so thanks very much for the tip, and for the link.

pasbury 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Ah sorry, I was being sarcastic.

1
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to pasbury:

Damn!  Oh well.  I actually do think it''s profound.  Thanks for making me laugh, anyway  :-D

Post edited at 16:24
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> People on twitter and news-site comment areas seem to be treating this as some kind of world->changing intellectual cage fight that has defeated feminism and postmoderism, and changed the >intellectual landscape.

Agreed, although I think JP actually is changing the intellectual landscape.  I'm not aware that he's had much to say about feminism, but he's been giving post-modernism a thorough kicking for a long time now. 

I suspect a lot of the 'over-enthusiastic' comments you refer to are the joyful result of seeing a robust intellectual response to the now common left-wing dogmatism of "agree with me on everything or you're a racist/sexist/bigot".

> In reality, it was just an interview to promote a book launch. Cathy Newman wasn't engaging in some >kind of debate with Peterson

Indeed, and it's annoying to see it called a debate.

> she was just doing her job and drawing him out a bit. She was probably a bit unprepared at times

I'd say she was more than a bit unprepared.  She'd decided (or had been told) pre-interview that Peterson was an awful sexist bigot and she was going to expose him as such.  She didn't try to draw him out, she tried to shut him down with strawmen.

> He'd clearly been "media trained". and wasn't simply an academic who'd been wheeled-in for a chat.

I don't know if he's been media-trained or not, but it certainly isn't new to him - he's been appearing on Canadian television for at least a decade.

 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> Agreed, although I think JP actually is changing the intellectual landscape.  I'm not aware that he's had much to say about feminism, but he's been giving post-modernism a thorough kicking for a long time now. 

Changing the intellectual landscape? A big claim. Hardly a Newton, Freud or Einstein is he? More of an academic version of Richard Littlejohn. 

> I suspect a lot of the 'over-enthusiastic' comments you refer to are the joyful result of seeing a robust intellectual response to the now common left-wing dogmatism of "agree with me on everything or you're a racist/sexist/bigot".

I’d question the ‘robust’ bit. He’s certainly persistent. 

> Indeed, and it's annoying to see it called a debate.

 

5
 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> The lobster thing is indeed JP arguing that hierarchical structures exist in other species and therefore it's inevitable that they will exist within human society too.  

That’s a complete non sequitur. There is nothing inevitable about that at all.  

 

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Not to mention that through all kinds of technology humans are not as in thrall to their simple physiological constraints as the rest of the animal kingdom.

Peterson is another good example of when being a compelling speaker doesn't necessarily make you right.

1
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Changing the intellectual landscape? A big claim. Hardly a Newton, Freud or Einstein is he?

No, he isn't on the level of those people, and I didn't suggest that he is.  What he has done is bring psychological and philosophical ideas to a mass audience, partly by having access to mass media and partly by explaining his ideas particularly well.  Those ideas are now being widely discussed outside academia.  I'd call that changing the intellectual landscape.  

>More of an academic version of Richard Littlejohn. 

A very silly comment, as the two are in no way comparable.  I think we can call that a semi-Godwin.

> He’s certainly persistent. 

Yes, but then you have to be when someone asks you a question then shouts you down when you open your mouth to answer.

2
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> That’s a complete non sequitur. There is nothing inevitable about that at all.  

Well, OK I'll rephrase: it's inevitable, unless you want to be a biology denier.

May I ask if you're a religious person?

3
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Not to mention that through all kinds of technology humans are not as in thrall to their simple physiological constraints as the rest of the animal kingdom.

True, of course, and I've never heard JP argue otherwise.  

 

 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> No, he isn't on the level of those people, and I didn't suggest that he is.  What he has done is bring psychological and philosophical ideas to a mass audience, partly by having access to mass media and partly by explaining his ideas particularly well.  Those ideas are now being widely discussed outside academia.  I'd call that changing the intellectual landscape.  

I wouldn’t. Popularising ideas is not changing the intellectual landscape  

> >More of an academic version of Richard Littlejohn. 

> A very silly comment, as the two are in no way comparable.  I think we can call that a semi-Godwin.

They are in some ways comparable, even if you don’t think it’s a great match. And semi-Godwin? Are you comparing Littlejohn to Hitler?

> Yes, but then you have to be when someone asks you a question then shouts you down when you open your mouth to answer.

I was talking about his longer term record, not one interview.

 

3
 Dauphin 22 Jan 2018
In reply to pasbury:

That's really profound.

Read some Jung & Joseph Campbell. It is profound but it's not original work.

 

D

 

2
 Arms Cliff 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Andy Johnson:

I wonder if it's this air of certainty that draws people to him, like 'he's got it all worked out'.

Actually listening to what he says, a huge amount of it is also nonsense, but people seem to lap it up!

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> True, of course, and I've never heard JP argue otherwise.  

And yet it's a relatively obvious point for someone who's actually interested in coming to a conclusion rather than just being an arguer against someone else's view. He's basically just rambling.

 Dauphin 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Pretty normal social political Overton window set up for ambush stuff, aggressive hectoring and or shaming of the inverviewee rather than playing the ball. She has got form for it as have most of the Channel Four news team and the BBC. Main thing that was so odd about the SM reaction - I understand he has a huge following - pretty normal attempt at an ambush interview for anyone appearing to question any sort of socio- political orthodoxy or received wisdom. 

D

1
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I wouldn’t. Popularising ideas is not changing the intellectual landscape  

Having given this one some thought, I think you're right.  I should have said changing the cultural/political landscape.

> They are in some ways comparable, even if you don’t think it’s a great match. And semi-Godwin? Are you comparing Littlejohn to Hitler?

No.  Littlejohn is often regarded as a racist and a bigot, particularly by the far-left/SJW brigade.  Unless you've expressed yourself poorly, you are trying to attribute the same faults to Peterson.  And I'm saying there's no comparison.

Going back to my earlier question, would you deny the role of biology in behaviour?

 

1
 Jon Stewart 22 Jan 2018
In reply to gurumed:

I'm sorry if I've been unclear but here is what I am saying about JP and the gender paygap. 

At 5:47 JP says 

"Multivariant analysis has shown that the gender paygap doesn't exist"

My criticisms of this are twofold. One: he is simplifying the facts to create a controversial-sounding statement to wind CN up, get a cheer from his audience of men who think that "cultural marxism" (not actually a real thing btw) and feminism need to be eradicated, and create a classic youtube clip that will sell more of his books. And two, he's just wrong, multivariant analysis shows that gender alone doesn't account for the 9%.

Note that I am just repeating myself here, and I did reference the exact point of the interview when he came out with the sentence I quoted (I didn't misrepresent, thanks) in my original post. So please forgive me for asking that you re-read what I've said again. I've set out in more detail my position on the gender paygap upthread, and it's at least 50% in line with JP: there are reasons for the headline stats other than unfairness, but that doesn't mean there is no need for social change.

There is a common theme in much of JPs output which is to try to show that there is no need for social change, and (I think he implies) that it is up to the individual who finds themselves in unfavourable circumstances (e.g. born into a minority that predicts bad educational and economic outcomes) to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I despise this right-wing ideology because of the bad outcomes that policies based on this philosophy lead to. It's very frustrating for me to hear sensible scientific arguments e.g. about statistical differences between the traits of women and men, to be used to support fatuous conservative crap.

The problem with the crappy interview is that it never gets down to the nitty gritty. All CN does is fail to understand what JP says and misrepresents it, and all JP does is say "here are some banal headline stats that show your feminist argument to be wrong". It isn't a worthwhile discussion, because they never get to the point!

 

Post edited at 20:51
3
 MonkeyPuzzle 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Dauphin:

>  - pretty normal attempt at an ambush interview for anyone appearing to question any sort of socio- political orthodoxy or received wisdom. 

Or just for anyone speaking to John Humphreys about anything.

Jordan Peterson's following are a particularly fawning bunch of sycophants though, so I wasn't remotely surprised by the social media response.

3
 Andy Johnson 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Arms Cliff:

> I wonder if it's this air of certainty that draws people to him

I think that's certainly part of it. From a bit of googling earlier, he doesn't seem to change his mind very often. Which is a bad sign.

He's also undeniably intelligent, and I think that some people who see a smart guy who criticises the same things they dislike and approves of the same things they like, allow that to reflect back on themselves as moral and intellectual cover. Like "he's smart and he's just like me, so I must be clever and right too."

Edit: I'm sure he is well aware of the above.

Post edited at 21:14
 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> Well, OK I'll rephrase: it's inevitable, unless you want to be a biology denier.

There are animal species that don’t have any hierarchy (shoaling fish for example) so that would suggest there is no inevitability. 

> May I ask if you're a religious person?

I’m not sure how that’s relevant.

 

OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Arms Cliff:

> I wonder if it's this air of certainty that draws people to him, like 'he's got it all worked out'.

I never got the impression (I'm talking about all I've seen of his output now, not just the interview) that he had it all worked out.  More that he'd worked some things worked out - the development of socialist societies, for example - and that he was still grappling with others.  In fact, he often uses phrases like "as far as I can tell" and "I'm still thinking about this".

> Actually listening to what he says, a huge amount of it is also nonsense, but people seem to lap it up!

I'm hard pressed to recall anything he said that I'd regard as nonsense, unless you're referring to his views on cocaine:

youtube.com/watch?v=M2VE5vEQiR4&

 Andy Johnson 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It isn't a worthwhile discussion, because they never get to the point!

Like I said upthread, it was a book launch interview not an intellectual debate. The point was to mention the book and outline some of the main themes so that people could decide whether to buy the product.

An actual debate that went deep and got to the points you want would have had an opponent (dunno who - Naomi Klein?) with the journalist there to referee. But the book publisher's PRs probably wouldn't go for that kind of format, and I don't think such things are done much on TV now anyway.

Post edited at 21:15
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> There are animal species that don’t have any hierarchy (shoaling fish for example) so that would suggest there is no inevitability. 

Probably not a good example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208002509

> I’m not sure how that’s relevant.

I asked about religion because those with religious views that tend towards the fundamentalist see man as a creature distinct from all others, rather than related to them, the idea being "biology doesn't affect us unless we choose to let it".

Some of the post-modernists go even further and claim no biological differences between men and women - it's all just a 'social construct'.

Would either of those be your view?

1
 Jon Stewart 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> I also found his explanations and insights to be amongst the most compelling I've ever come across

I regret the amount of hours I've spent listening to his drivel. And it is a lot of hours, because he's a great speaker, tremendously charismatic, and some of the time he is indeed providing great insights into what science tells us about people. This is what drew me in, but the more I listened to him, the more of dick he appeared to be.

> Let's do God first.

Yes let's. So on this thread, we've seen that he doesn't know what he thinks. Sometimes he believes in god, sometimes he doesn't. And yet he makes a living out of telling us all about the meaning of life. I won't trust anything that he says, because his fundamental understanding of reality is completely bananas:

youtube.com/watch?v=jjYQ48t4C8U&

He doesn't understand atheism. He doesn't see that if you really look at the world, you can see that it's made out of atoms, and it follows patterns that humans can describe using the language of mathematics, and that this is as close to the "truth" as you're going to get. He's totally wrong about his entire world view - "Christian metaphysics" (or other mythological whatnot) is emphatically *not* why Sam Harris doesn't rob banks. JP's understanding of the world, of reality, of the meaning there is to be found in the universe, is a load of crap. Somehow, he's managed to grasp the ideas of evolution and how we're biological creatures with nervous systems that generate behaviour that helps our genes replicate...but then he doesn't have the intellectual courage to stare into the cosmos and see what's out there. Which is a load of atoms, and not a lot else. It's difficult to stare reality - the godless, mysterious universe with its total indifference to human experience - in the face and not become nihilistic and suffer the consequences on your mental health. But I believe if you're genuinely interested in and what reality is, what life is, and on to how we should organise society, then understanding the basics is paramount. I refuse to be lectured about being "courageous" by someone who has failed to walk out into the world without religion as crutch and a refuge to retreat into when the indifference of the cosmos starts bearing down on your existence. 

It's this failure of intellectual courage that leads me to label him an "idiot". (Of course, he is very intelligent, as his insights into evolutionary psychology demonstrate).

> Now, the dragons. 

Understanding what the universe is made of, how the human being is an evolved creature, how the brain generates consciousness and a 'self' which isn't quite what it seems...these are insights into what life is about. These insights turn inside out the whole structure of the religious or mythological world view. If you want insight, for christ's sake put down the story books and look at the world itself. It's far, far more interesting. And more useful.

To go onto the postmodernism thing, Peterson's contribution is spurious. Stephen Pinker wrote The Black Slate to deal with the unscientific ideas that lead to erroneous policies trying to achieve equality of outcome between groups. On the SJW thing, Jonathan Haidt has it nailed (great guy, down to earth, balanced, sensible - the total antithesis of JP). JP's take on this stuff is to take the actual problems and weave them together into some complex conspiracy theory in a similar way to a schizophrenic who sees connections between things that just aren't there. This giant conspiracy theory in which Derrida and trans activists are somehow in league (alarm bells?) sits neatly with his socially conservative morality (see Haidt - sanctity/purity). 

It's this conservative morality in which to be "good" is all about being the alpha male and providing for your wife and kids that you cannot be complete without that makes me label him a "prick".

 

Edit: By the way, since you're into this stuff, I really recommend that podcast I linked in my first post. It's pretty heavy going but nothing like as bad as the Sam Harris/JP ones, which were utterly turgid!

Post edited at 22:11
2
 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> Probably not a good example:

Reef fish - not what I was talking about  

> I asked about religion because those with religious views that tend towards the fundamentalist see man as a creature distinct from all others, rather than related to them, the idea being "biology doesn't affect us unless we choose to let it".

> Some of the post-modernists go even further and claim no biological differences between men and women - it's all just a 'social construct'.

> Would either of those be your view?

No, and neither of these views would have any bearing on the non sequitur we have been talking about. 

 Jon Stewart 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> Like I said upthread, it was a book launch interview not an intellectual debate. The point was to mention the book and outline some of the main themes so that people could decide whether to buy the product.

Yes. But it would have been better for JP just to tell us all about his brilliant book, rather than to have Cathy Newman constantly misunderstanding what he said, making it into a scrap in which she came off badly beaten up. It was annoying.

1
OP Thrudge 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Reef fish - not what I was talking about  

Fair enough, I missed the shoaling bit.

> No, and neither of these views would have any bearing on the non sequitur we have been talking about. 

Well, given that dominance hierarchies are extremely widespread in the animal kingdom, and widespread in human societies, is it unreasonable to suppose a biological basis for them?

(BTW, do you have any expertise with shoaling fish? I'm not trying to be provocative - if you are, I have a genuine question about them entirely unrelated to this thread).

3
 Bob Kemp 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> Fair enough, I missed the shoaling bit.

> Well, given that dominance hierarchies are extremely widespread in the animal kingdom, and widespread in human societies, is it unreasonable to suppose a biological basis for them?

I think this is a separate question. My original point was that the formal logic of your claim was based on a logical fallacy. We’ve drifted into another area, the empirical basis of your claim, so that we are now having arguments about fish! To answer your question, biological variables play a part but are in a complex process of interaction with social and environmental factors, which is why human hierarchical structures vary hugely  

> (BTW, do you have any expertise with shoaling fish? I'm not trying to be provocative - if you are, I have a genuine question about them entirely unrelated to this thread).

Sorry, no, but they are intriguing. 

 

Post edited at 22:31
 Dauphin 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

This giant conspiracy theory in which Derrida and trans activists are somehow in league (alarm bells?) sits neatly with his socially conservative morality (see Haidt - sanctity/purity).

Doesn't really make any sense ,when I saw him pontificate in this while Fox news anchors blew smoke up his arse. His flitting about between theology, mythology, anthropology, literature, psychological research, biology and politics is about as intertextual and 'postmodern' as it gets even if he spares us the stultifying semiotics of his fearsome cabal of cultural marxist conspirators. 

 

D

 

 Arms Cliff 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I really wish I hadn’t attempted to watch that video, although it does show how he makes a ‘convincing’ case by weaving a complicated plait of bullshit with the occasional thread of science, sweeping generalisation and at best, guesses. 

2
pasbury 22 Jan 2018
In reply to Dauphin:

What you’re taken in by all that St George and Dragon psychobabble? It’s facile crap.

Post edited at 22:59
 Dauphin 23 Jan 2018
In reply to pasbury:

Not at all facile. But its it's not science either. 

D

 Yanis Nayu 23 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I’ve just watched the first 5 or so minutes of it. I’ve always liked Cathy Newman, but she didn’t have her best day with this one. It’s a typical Paxman-esque prejudgment followed by not listening and ploughing on regardless in a hectoring fashion. Not good for public debate. 

1
 winhill 25 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

A much better write up from Matthew d'Ancona, correctly points out that C4 see this as a debate between the traditional liberalism of Peterson and the identity politics approach Newman takes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peters...

The problem with the identity politics approach is that it means if you don't agree you are automatically denying the human rights of the complainant and therefore inherently evil.

I'm not sure I'd agree with d'Ancona that Newman schooled him on the gender pay gap, partly because she was using UK figures but mostly because the figures she's using a just made up. The ONS uses mean hourly rate, which is only a guess, to extrapolate further guesses from. So it's not a real figure you'd want to hang your hat on.

 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Dauphin:

> This giant conspiracy theory in which Derrida and trans activists are somehow in league (alarm bells?) sits neatly with his socially conservative morality (see Haidt - sanctity/purity).

>

  Have you a link to him expounding this theory?

 Bob Kemp 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Have you a link to him expounding this theory?

I think this may come from one (or more) of the YouTube videos. I found some quotes from it in this article when I was trying to find out what he really did say - 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jordan-peterson-explains-how-communism-came-u...

It doesn't exactly match Dauphin's post, but it covers the same ground.

(This is a rather dodgy source - Falun Gong news/propaganda site - but the transcript seems accurate).

It's clear when you read this that Peterson is really a rather old-fashioned right-wing liberal, and shouldn't be tagged with the 'alt-right' label.  Many of his points probably ring true to old-fashioned leftists actually, but his rhetoric puts many people off. He seems to be one of those highly articulate people whose mouth runs away with him, so his evidence is flimsy and his arguments are too when you stop to think about what he's said. 

Here's another perspective - http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-per...

- snarky and funny, but also containing a good critique of Peterson's arguments.

Here's a more balanced blog post about Peterson that contains some useful links:

https://dreamflesh.com/post/2017/black-truths-jordan-peterson/

 

Post edited at 10:37
2
 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

That last link is an excellent read and mirrors my feelings on Peterson. Fortunately the writer is much better read and researched than I am!

1
 sg 26 Jan 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> That last link is an excellent read and mirrors my feelings on Peterson. Fortunately the writer is much better read and researched than I am!

I thought both links were good and did enough to convince me that I don't need to try much harder to grapple with Prof p. and watching 3 hour YT monologues can be avoided.

The man has clearly found a handy way to supplement his university income at least...

2
 sg 26 Jan 2018
In reply to sg:

OK since I got dislikes, I'm laid up with flu and nothing better to do, and I'm a brittle snowflake (neomarxist), I'll elaborate a little where I didn't see the need to earlier.

Firstly, I'm not going to re-state all the perfectly well made points upthread about how he seems to like to traverse a range of issues and often then conflates or confuses them, or how he perfectly taps into a general conspiracy about educational establishments being driven by leftwing groupthink, or any of the other stuff.

Secondly, I can't really find anything that constitutes a new thought or a new synthesis in what I 've read about him.

Thirdly, there are many, many academics on the planet who disseminate their ideas through books rather than videos and their books tend, by their nature, to be academic. Many academics also write popular books on their subjects but anything with a number and the words 'How to...' in the title, I tend to be suspicious of. Especially if most of the interest has been generated by youtube videos telling conspiracy theorists or muddle-headed, put-upon angry white men what they want to hear, rather than the fact that they are agreed by their peers to be an original and important thinker in their field.

Fourthly, in a world of great complexity, where simplification is always dangerous, amongst many, many others, there are kind of two ways of looking at how humans 'are supposed to live'.

One is to be true to the values we claim for ourselves as a species in according rights to others, acting collectively but with respect for difference and a sense of how each of our actions has an impact on others (human and non-human); in essence this is the view that we inherit, in some senses, from most religions and that many of us look for in the future in terms of wanting greater equality and fairness, however pathetic that may be. This view tends to accept that humans need protecting from themselves, typically by the state.

On the other hand, there is the view that individual autonomy is essential. This view often makes claims to Darwinism for what humans should or shouldn't do; I don't think that's a good idea, generally. Darwin's genius revealed how life actually works but to start drawing on evolutionary theory for guidance or support on what humans should or shouldn't do, given the human societies we now live in, seems like bad thinking.

Personally, I don't know what to think except I've given up on the idea of humans treating other humans well and think that the easiest way to reduce pain and suffering in the world is to treat non-humans better and encourage other humans to do likewise.

Sorry, just realised how badly off topic I went; very self-indulgent. Be glad when I'm well again. 

Post edited at 14:46
 Jonny 26 Jan 2018
In reply to sg:

> Personally, I don't know what to think except I've given up on the idea of humans treating other humans well

Don't give up! We already treat each other pretty well most of the time, and there are usually reasons for charity towards those who sometimes don't (which is most of us, and those that never err are usually somewhat absent from the world and its processes [monks and their ilk]).

> ...and think that the easiest way to reduce pain and suffering in the world is to treat non-humans better and encourage other humans to do likewise.

Sounds like a good plan, and somewhere we're already heading. I think we'll be pretty appalled when we look back on factory farming (which goes to show how much of morality is shaped by social consensus), although hunting and farming animals well, depending on the context, are much more easily justified.

 Jonny 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> To go onto the postmodernism thing, Peterson's contribution is spurious.

I suppose his value is in inspiring confidence in discussion and criticism thereof. He's a classic synthesiser (a saw-wave one) rather than a specialist, so profound and original contributions are a lot to ask for.

> Stephen Pinker wrote The Black Slate to deal with the unscientific ideas that lead to erroneous policies trying to achieve equality of outcome between groups.

Now that was a tour de force!

> On the SJW thing, Jonathan Haidt has it nailed (great guy, down to earth, balanced, sensible - the total antithesis of JP).

I think he has too, although I find the guy a bit staid and less swept up by his own ideas, as if he's thought of everything in his own time (which is fine if he has!). Just a different kind of mind. There's something about the schizotypal Terence McKenna-ish bard that gives a fuller sense of the extent to which a whole range of interpretations are possible. Haidt comes across as somewhat dogmatic on some issues (although it would be very unfair to single him out - it's a pretty widely appplicable charge!). He's a very knowledgable fellow, though, and rigorous too.

> JP's take on this stuff is to take the actual problems and weave them together into some complex conspiracy theory in a similar way to a schizophrenic who sees connections between things that just aren't there. This giant conspiracy theory in which Derrida and trans activists are somehow in league (alarm bells?)...

You're over-reaching here - he just places a high value on consistency and therefore has to work hard to achieve it. Doesn't mean he forgoes the criterion of parsimony on the way, which is the hallmark of conspiracy thinking. Typical conspiracy theorists are ultra-literal - if JP has said that Derrida and the activists are 'in league', you can bet he meant that their effects on the culture are additive or synergistic (and not that they meet in secret boardrooms).

> ..sits neatly with his socially conservative morality (see Haidt - sanctity/purity).

Do you have good evidence that most conspiracy theorists are on the right? And the schizoptypal ones too, if so? I'd be very surprised. Sorry if that's not what you mean to imply.

> It's this conservative morality in which to be "good" is all about being the alpha male and providing for your wife and kids...

> There is a common theme in much of JPs output which is to try to show that there is no need for social change...

I don't think that either of these are part of his message, from what I know of him. 

> ...and (I think he implies) that it is up to the individual who finds themselves in unfavourable circumstances (e.g. born into a minority that predicts bad educational and economic outcomes) to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I don't think it's a matter of bootstrapping, rather of promoting change at the individual level, which I'm sure you admit to be possible. Group (minority) membership predicts certain outcomes just like gender predicts salary - there's plenty of variable down-breaking to be done, and many of the predictive variables will be amenable to personal action. None of this excludes the possibility of simultaneous societal-level measures (all I've heard him say on that front is to be wary of tyranny - he's not a policy wonk, we can agree on that!). His is just one angle of attack.

> It's very frustrating for me to hear sensible scientific arguments e.g. about statistical differences between the traits of women and men, to be used to support fatuous conservative crap.

Sure (if it is indeed fatuous and crap), but not JP's fault for making those statistical arguments (unless you're claiming it was he who was doing the 'supporting'?).

Post edited at 21:52
 Loughan 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

This chap has an interview with JP a couple of days after the CN interview. The original interview was a car crash and of no real value but I did like JPs follow up in this interview. He explains the event from his PoV, expresses dissapointment how it went and the desire for a follow up, less combatitive interview/discsussion with CN

youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ&

He also goes onto explain some of his theories which are quite interesting in explaining the human condition which I find thought provoking when compared against the nihlistic world view that I see of many in the west today

In reply to Thrudge:

What a car crash of an interview for Ms Newman! This is what happens when you try to strawman someone of a high level of interlect.

 

Well, the shitstorm on Tw*tter that followed is symptomatic of the way our culture seems to be heading. The far left (and I consider myself more left leaning than anything else) is losing the plot. Poor little Cathy, a woman who claims to be a strong feminist upset by mild rebuttals and ridicule. C4 apparently HAD TO get in a security expert. Another YouTube video analyses the Twitter comments and the vitriol aimed at Peterson is far worse. Has he been triggered? No. My feeling is that this was done because Newman got intellectually pasted and we can't have a feminist being pasted, can we?

 

There is an element on the left that is becoming totalitarian. They are not willing to debate. if they do, they usually lose and resort to shouting down their opponent. There are subjects that are just taboo to discuss, sexual equality, race, sexuality, Islam (which is unbelieveable considering the far-left's ideology). There are people on the left that are claiming they have the right not to be offended, little babes. The free speech that has created our society and will lead us to a better future is being deplatformed. Without the right to offend free speech is gone and at best we will end up in some kind of 1984 dystopia. When I say offend, I don't mean vitriol or unfair ridicule, but the offense of ideas you might not agrree with. 

 

For some reason post-modernist have gone after our society and if it carries on it will fall. The post-modernists of the sixties tended to be former Marxists who had to abandon that line of attack on society due to Marxism being totally debunked and unworkable in human societies. Now they are the doyens of our university professors, well the humanities anyway. As Peterson says, they don't believe in equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcome. A disasterous philosophy that led to mass murders in communist countries.

 

Why are some people in our society determined to rip down what has taken us centuries to develop. Do they think they can build a new one in a day, a week, a year? Yeah, our society is by no means perfect, but be careful what to wish for, you're unlikely to get it and almost certainly unlikely to feel any happier.

 

Cultural Revolution anyone?

6
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm judging him on the content of what comes out of his mouth. I think that's sound basis, I don't feel the need to spend a day with him and his family before concluding that he's shite.

So far you've called him an asshole, an idiot, a prick and shite.

 

Well done.

Really makes me want to read the rest of your posts.

So, the views of people you don't like are not worth thinking about? You sound like one of those far-left types just shouting everyone down that you happen to disagree with.

 

TRIGGER WARNING:

 

In the words of JBP "grow up the hell up".

11
 Bob Kemp 26 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Well, the shitstorm on Tw*tter that followed is symptomatic of the way our culture seems to be heading. The far left (and I consider myself more left leaning than anything else) is losing the plot. Poor little Cathy, a woman who claims to be a strong feminist upset by mild rebuttals and ridicule. C4 apparently HAD TO get in a security expert. Another YouTube video analyses the Twitter comments and the vitriol aimed at Peterson is far worse. Has he been triggered? No. My feeling is that this was done because Newman got intellectually pasted and we can't have a feminist being pasted, can we?

Might be worth reading this - https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-shameful-hounding-of-cathy-newman...

> There is an element on the left that is becoming totalitarian.

There's been a totalitarian element there for a long time I'm ashamed to say. 

They are not willing to debate. if they do, they usually lose and resort to shouting down their opponent. There are subjects that are just taboo to discuss, sexual equality, race, sexuality, Islam (which is unbelieveable considering the far-left's ideology). There are people on the left that are claiming they have the right not to be offended, little babes. The free speech that has created our society and will lead us to a better future is being deplatformed. Without the right to offend free speech is gone and at best we will end up in some kind of 1984 dystopia. When I say offend, I don't mean vitriol or unfair ridicule, but the offense of ideas you might not agrree with. 

Have you read any of Nick Cohen's stuff? I think you'd find it very interesting.

> For some reason post-modernist have gone after our society and if it carries on it will fall. 

Post-modernism covers a multitude of perspectives and there are many different kinds of post-modernist. (This is one of the objections to Peterson's claims - he seems to be suggesting post-modernism is an organised and coherent intellectual movement. It's not. There is for example a rather unpleasant strand of right-wing post-modernist thinking.) Not every post-modernist idea is intrinsically wrong or bad. Some of them are very useful. And some very dangerous... 

 

 

Post edited at 23:55
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Yeah, all true Bob, but you know exactly which types of postmodernist JBP and I are talking about.

 

Thanks for the links.

1
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I've read the Spectator article. Sorry. Rubbish.

 

Hounded my eye! Where are any actual examples of abuse. What I've seen is very mild and basicsally calling her out for her idiotic interview technique.

 

Check this video out analysing the tweets they recieved.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=Z3NppEvbhbg&

 

 

1
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Yeah, all true Bob, but you know exactly which types of postmodernist JBP and I are talking about.

I have a fair idea but it seems to me that Peterson is very selective in his choices of post-modernist ideas because it makes his case easier.

> Thanks for the links.

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Or are they the post-modernist ideas that most require our attention at the moment?

Post edited at 00:20
1
In reply to Arms Cliff:

> This seems to set aside humanity's difference from the entire rest of the living matter on the planet (abstract thought, etc.).

Are you not setting aside that we are living matter on this planet too? We may have abstract thought, but we are still animals, with animal traits and animal instincts.

1
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Check this video out analysing the tweets they recieved.

Do you trust this source to have made an impartial analysis? 

 

 jethro kiernan 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

We have been having a cultural revolution for the last couple of decades but it’s more of a counter revolution with some people wanting to role back social gains, and at the moment the the cultural gains we have made are in danger of being stalled, equality of opurtunity is now being denigrated and the whole “left wing conspiracy” “deplatforming” “snowflakes “argument is being used to keep the door open to some pretty stupid ideas like climate change denial, creationism, flat earthers, Birthers with some of these aurguments given a disproportionate amount of air time. It was this continuous crying foul that got UKIP so much air time in it early days, far more than other political groups with a far larger and more established following at the time. 

I am not saying that some arguments put forward by the academic left don’t come across as a it airy fairy but that’s part of the exploration of academia 

i would be far more concerned about “deplatforming” of ideas in the right wing media than in academia.

 

1
 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

The Maclean's article is very funny, snark turned up to 11. It was made more amusing by my most recent little experiment in the nature/nurture debate (six months today!) drooling on me and occasionally hitting me with a not very convincingly aimed strike with a minion soft toy. I think his paltry development - he grins lots at us and looks cute (at least once the drool is wiped away), but really, is that it?! - clearly shows white, male privilege is an invention of cultural Marxist elites.

 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Yeah, all true Bob, but you know exactly which types of postmodernist JBP and I are talking about.

I don't. I have no idea what you or Peterson mean by post-modernist. Could you explain?  

I do have a bit of an idea of what pomo means to certain writers in certain fields, I have a sociology degree from the mid-90s when the word was in use, although I came across it more as I began my PhD work (but that was political science, rather than sociology). But my feeling now, and it is just a feeling, is what you mean by pomo isn't my understanding of the term.

 

 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Perhaps you could start by reading the lengthy reasoning I give for my conclusions. You don't like the conclusions or the language - fine. But I've given a lot of time to listening to his arguments, and explained mine in detail, so if you're going to respond, maybe have a look at the content of my posts? I did spend some time on them, so either ignore them (if you're offended by the coarse language, snowflake), or respond in kind, please. 

In reply to TobyA:

LOL. Without my glasses and sleepy eyes pomo looks like a different word, I wondered what the hell you were talking about.

You must have heard of Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard. Jaques Derrida was one of the most dangerous, who rejected millenia of philosophical arguments and has become a darling of the left in academia.

Peterson's and my own point is (I think) that social change is slow, evolution even slower. You can't expect that by just ripping down certain constructs you are not going to do harm to large sections of society. I just don't mean white heterosexual males, but the many other groups, including women, perhaps the whole of society. Unfortunately, we live in an entitled "me now" society and there is a vociferous section of it screaming "me now".

1
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Do you trust this source to have made an impartial analysis? 

Do you trust The Spectator?

At least actual evidence is being presented.

Post edited at 10:17
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Listen Jon, you make some good point, but you make them extremely badly and as a result your arguments lose credibility.

4
 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> You must have heard of Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard. Jaques Derrida was one of the most dangerous,

Have you actually read any books by them?

 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Peterson's and my own point is (I think) that social change is slow, evolution even slower. You can't expect that by just ripping down certain constructs you are not going to do harm to large sections of society. I just don't mean white heterosexual males,

Who did the abolition of slavery harm beside slave owners? Should we care about harming the economic interests of slave owners?

Who did the decriminalisation of homosexuality harm? Should it have been done slower to avoid harming someone?

 

 

 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Do you trust The Spectator?

> At least actual evidence is being presented

As far as I could see the video was based on a piece from Hequal. I certainly don’t trust them because they have an axe to grind and their research can’t be checked. The Spectator piece is an opinion piece. It isn’t a question of trusting their data but of assessing those opinions. I didn’t  think it necessarily presented all the best arguments but it made some worthwhile points. 

1
OP Thrudge 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Loughan:

> This chap has an interview with JP a couple of days after the CN interview.

Yes, I saw that.  Interesting to hear what JP has to say, as ever, but what really struck me was the quality of the interviewer.  He asked intelligent questions, he shut up and listened to the answers, and he dug into the ideas.  This was interviewing by and for grown-ups.  Well done that man.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I would hardly say that the likes of JBP and others (such as the "Four Horsemen") are espousing climate change denial or are flat-earthers. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and formerly Christopher Hitchens (amongst others) have been very critical of both far-left AND far-right philosopies.

It's not that I necessarily reject the philosophy of certain elements of the left, but I reject the facistic way in which these "arguments" are presented. They are not arguments, but assertions of undenialable truth and watch out if you have a different point of view. Like Mr Stewart above, it is not about being open to ideas, but rather just shouting down anyone who doesn't completely agree with the agenda or the methods being used.

Perhaps it is not so obvious in the UK, but in the American universities it seems rife (certainly in the humanities). Philosophy is about thought and debate. But it seems in certain areas this is being, at best, stifled - perhaps by both sides. What you end up with is that obviously intelligent and thoughtful people being called, "an asshole, an idiot, a prick, moronic and shite". 

But you are right about some elements of the right too. Nutbags! However, I think they are just jumping on the bandwagon of entitlement.

The problem as I see it, is that society seems to be polarising  and the centre ground instead of being used as a place of compromise and concilliation is being attacked from both sides.

3
In reply to TobyA:

Heidegger and Faucault, yes.

It is not necessarily the philosophies that I disagree with but the way in which others are implementing them.

1
In reply to Thrudge:

Agree. The Dutch interview and indeed the interviewer were excellent. Perhaps Ms Newman should have a look.

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

BTW Jon. I'm not personally offended by your language as such, just that you would use it so unjust;y against a man of intelligence. Having read your posts for several years now I would say your use of "snowflake" to descibe me is somewhat hypocritical.

 

Oh, for reference I did manage to plow my way through your posts. Some very good points, but in many places too much vitriol.

Post edited at 11:14
5
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

All you've criticised is a bit of blue language, which I don't consider to be relevant to the arguments. I haven't put forward a polarised position (other than in senses of love/hate JP), I've given credit where I agree with the guy, and specified where I think he's wrong and why. 

I think you're giving me an emotional response because I called your hero rude names. 

In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Listen Jon, you make some good point, but you make them extremely badly and as a result your arguments lose credibility.

Nonsense. Jon’s posts are brilliant polemics, seasoned with a dash of strong language, which is always backed up by the arguments made. 

 

For sure they argue a from a particular world view, and you may not be persuaded by them- but I can’t see how anyone could say that he makes points ‘extremely badly’- unless perhaps they were snowflakes who needed a safe space where they didn’t have to encounter swearing...

 

In reply to TobyA:

> Who did the abolition of slavery harm beside slave owners? Should we care about harming the economic interests of slave owners?

> Who did the decriminalisation of homosexuality harm? Should it have been done slower to avoid harming someone?

Both of those were examples of extreme injustice that needed addressing. Also, they are relatively modern in our society. Slaves were used in our society for a relatively short time and let's not forget that homosexuality was actively encouraged in ancient Greece.

I forget the word to describe your post (the onset dementia?), but you have used extreme examples to rebutt my argument. Our society has been structured along certain lines for tens of thousands of years. We have certain elements preprogrammed. We are biological creatures with certain needs and certain skill sets which we need to take heed of. All I'm saying is be careful what you try to replace it with. If it is not done with extreme care it will almost certainly fail to the detriment of all.

Post edited at 11:45
5
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If you have ever read my posts (and I know you have - I was formerly Hugh J), you will know that I have no objection to blue-f*cking-language. What I object to is it being used as a personal attack on a man of intellect by an optician.

 

BTW, some of the stuff that comes out of JBP's mouth I could (but out of respect wouldn't) descibe as shite.

Post edited at 11:35
8
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

>Our society has been structed along certain lines for tens of thousands of years.

There have been numerous structures over tens of thousands of years  Tribalism, feudalism, capitalism just for a start. 

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

They are all forms of tribalism to some degree.

2
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Are you taking offence on JBP’s behalf, Hugh...?

 

and why so dismissive of opticians...?

 

 

 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> All you've criticised is a bit of blue language, which I don't consider to be relevant to the arguments. I haven't put forward a polarised position (other than in senses of love/hate JP), I've given credit where I agree with the guy, and specified where I think he's wrong and why. 

> I think you're giving me an emotional response because I called your hero rude names. 

I could reply to your views and will if you ask me to (nicely - pretty please with a bow ), but I would just be repeating the arguments of the likes of Thrudge and Dave Martin.

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Shall we say an attack on the beliefs of a God bothering conspiracy theorist by an optometrist? 

Post edited at 12:08
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Are you taking offence on JBP’s behalf, Hugh...?

> and why so dismissive of opticians...?

>

LMAO.

Perhaps. I'm taking offense at a man that is worth spending some time contemplating his philosophy, whether you agree or not, being called offensive names.

And… I have nothing against opticians per se, just some of the moronic shite coming out of a particular opticians mouth.

6
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Well, if it’s personal abuse you object to, it didn’t take long for you to lower yourself to his level...!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

This seems the point Jon. You seem to have rejected his philosophies, almost wholesale, due to the perception that he seems to be somewhat on the religious side of agnostic.

I am an atheist, whatever that means. But that doen't mean I will not listen to people who have elements I reject and by listening modulate my own philosophy.

And this to me seems like the crux of the matter. It seems that too many people, both right and left have become so polarised and have such high levels of intransience, that debate has descended into mud-slinging, deplatforming or just shouting down your opponent. Which is exactly what Ms Newman was doing to JBP.

Post edited at 12:29
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Hook, line and sinker!

 

In JBP's words …. "GOTCHA".

Post edited at 12:26
3
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> LMAO.

> Perhaps. I'm taking offense at a man that is worth spending some time contemplating his philosophy, whether you agree or not, being called offensive names.

I think Peterson would tell you to be brave.

> And… I have nothing against opticians per se, just some of the moronic shite coming out of a particular opticians mouth.

If you've actually managed to read Jon's posts on this and come to the conclusion you have, I'll suggest that comprehension is not your forte.

 

Peterson's arguments are basically a compellingly-delivered, wordy, but ultimately vacuous call to old-school conservatism dressed up as radical free-thought. His army of fawning sycophants just make him more tedious.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Not a fan then?

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If you've actually managed to read Jon's posts on this and come to the conclusion you have, I'll suggest that comprehension is not your forte.

This demonstrates my whole point. You seem to think Jon is some kind of intellectual collosus, while dimissing Peterson as a vacuous old-school conservative, merely because Jon's views align more with your own.

3
In reply to Thrudge:

BTW. I am totally unsurprised (and totally not bothered) by the dislikes I'm getting. I consider myself left of centre, but UKC is predominately well left of centre and is becoming somewhat of an echo-chamber for those who think their brand of social justice is the only brand of social justice that is in fact just.

5
In reply to Thrudge:

Rather than Peterson's ideas, I think this whole episode has kicked off a debate about how we debate and as far as I'm concerned it can only be for the better. I couldn't care less about Newman's or C4's perception about the reaction to the interview. If it leads to a better culture in debate, it's about time and in the grand scheme of things, so be it.

And Jon…. no one is really giving a flying fuck about Peterson's actual views here (or yours). The reaction across the internet is about how we debate. Now, Newman is a lightweight compared to Peterson, but you just can't strawman people or talk over them in the way that she did. I feel you have let your personal dislike of Peterson cloud your perception somewhat.

Post edited at 13:10
4
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> BTW. I am totally unsurprised (and totally not bothered) by the dislikes I'm getting. I consider myself left of centre, but UKC is predominately well left of centre and is becoming somewhat of an echo-chamber for those who think their brand of social justice is the only brand of social justice that is in fact just.

It's not really an echo-chamber. That's one of the attractions - diverse opinions. I can guarantee that much of what I post will be challenged in some way, and that's good. My impression is that you may be right in that there are more left of centre than right of centre posters but there are certainly enough of the latter to be significant. And the left-of-centre posters are by no means a uniform bunch - they don't have one brand of social justice. As you demonstrate... 

Post edited at 13:23
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> This seems the point Jon. You seem to have rejected his philosophies, almost wholesale, due to the perception that he seems to be somewhat on the religious side of agnostic.

> I am an atheist, whatever that means. But that doen't mean I will not listen to people who have elements I reject and by listening modulate my own philosophy.

I've spent hours and hours listening to JP. That's how I came to my views. I've posted that embarrassing clip where he says that the reason Sam Harris doesn't rob banks is that really he follows Christian ethics (this is describing the guy who wrote The Moral Landscape, which sets out in detail how you don't need any religious or mythological metaphysics to understand morality! ). 

My problem is that he does not understand the world. He is wrong at the deepest possible level. 

> And this to me seems like the crux of the matter. It seems that too many people, both right and left have become so polarised and have such high levels of intransience, that debate has descended into mud-slinging, deplatforming or just shouting down your opponent. Which is exactly what Ms Newman was doing to JBP.

I cannot understand why you think JP is a victim of oppression of his freedom of speech. He has the biggest platform on the f*cking planet. Every day I switch on my phone or laptop and I get a stream of notifications about his latest videos. Cathy Newman misrepresented what he said, and he responded. The whole video was released unedited. I haven't slung any mud, everything I've said relates directly to the words he has said publicly, and I've quoted and referenced at every turn.

Not agreeing is not mud slinging or shouting down. I don't understand what your problem is, except that some people (it seems about 50-50 to me, check the dislikes on my posts too) don't agree with you. Well, sorry about that. 

1
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> but you just can't strawman people or talk over them in the way that she did. I feel you have let your personal dislike of Peterson cloud your perception somewhat.

I feel that people are forgetting what Cathy Newman's job is. She is expected to get people to articulate their position and to counter-argue, and presenting straw men is a common tactic for drawing people out - you hear it on TV and radio in many news/opinion programmes. She was just doing what her editorial team expected of her. She probably had a very short period of time to learn about Peterson and come up with some questions, and I wonder if her production team let her down in not briefing her adequately. That leads into your point about the quality of debate: we should probably be questioning is that whole confrontational model of doing news. In many cases it's counter-productive and forces people into polarised and absolute positions. The opportunity for any kind of nuance goes out of the window.

 

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> This demonstrates my whole point. You seem to think Jon is some kind of intellectual collosus, while dimissing Peterson as a vacuous old-school conservative, merely because Jon's views align more with your own.

Jon may or may not be an intellectual colossus - I don't know him - but most on here wouldn't argue that his posts aren't usually well-researched and well-argued, and, pot-kettle-black, you've clearly simply taken exception because he's given a compelling argument that your BFF is talking out of his arse a lot of the time.

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> She is expected to get people to articulate their position and to counter-argue, and presenting straw men is a common tactic for drawing people out - you hear it on TV and radio in many news/opinion programmes.

Exactly. Jon Humphreys and all of Radio 4's presenters do it all day every day, but the difference here is that it was a woman doing it whilst interviewing a man beloved of men who hate feminists.

 

2
 Bob Kemp 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> They are all forms of tribalism to some degree.

I think I should have been clearer with my terms there - tribal structures would probably have been better. Agrarian and and industrial societies present radically different structures despite any tribalist tendencies that exist within them. 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Welll put Bob, it's funny how the obvious is sometimes hard to relate.

Yes, Newman is expected to do her job. The problem is how she's expected to do her job. And as Peterson points out, some of her traits are typically masculine traits like her conbativeness and have served her well.

I totally believe in the equality of opportunity, but like Peterson I believe equality of outcome is not only discriminatory (and discrimination is discrimination in any form), but downright dangerous to the well-being of our society.

Post edited at 14:20
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Exactly. Jon Humphreys and all of Radio 4's presenters do it all day every day, but the difference here is that it was a woman doing it whilst interviewing a man beloved of men who hate feminists.

Nonsense. I loathe Humphry's style and the hostile / Devil's advocate / strawmanning techniques of most mainstream media. What happened here and why it has attracted so much attention is the fact that Newman's obvious strawmanning ("So what you're saying is… insert prevertion here") was so completely destroyed, so incredibly easily. The fact that she is a feminist has cause a lot of glee for the worse types has unfortunately detracted from the crux of the matter.

Post edited at 14:28
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sorry Jon, but you called him an asshole and an idiot in your very first post, then later described his views as moronic and shite. If that isn't mud-salinging I don't know what is.

Now, despite what you and MonkeyPuzzle think. he isn't my BFF and I have stated that I could descibe some of the things that he says as shite, but out of respect for a man that is obviously thoughtful, considerate and compassionate I wouldn't. Your arguments (and some are excellent) would carry even more weight and more influence if you also refrained from that.

He's not Farage, he's not Anjem Choudrary, he's not Adolf Hitler.

 

P.S. Sorry about the winding up, I'm just trying to prove a point.

Post edited at 14:28
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I cannot understand why you think JP is a victim of oppression of his freedom of speech. He has the biggest platform on the f*cking planet.

And that platform was fascillitated by SJWs.

 

You tell me if this isn't an oppression of his freedom of speech.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw&

Post edited at 14:26
1
 GridNorth 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I didn't know Peterson nor his reputation but what I saw in that interview was a very obnoxious, rude, female journalist pursuing her own agenda and attempting to humiliate a man who to me appeared calm, well mannered well informed, especially under the circumstances.  She was so outclassed I was embarrassed on her behalf. 

Al

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Nonsense. I loathe Humphries style and the hostile / Devil's advocate / strawmanning techniques of most mainstream media. What happened here and why it has attracted so much attention is the fact that Newman's obvious strawmanning ("So what you're saying is… insert prevertion here") was so completely destroyed, so incredibly easily. 

Which is *exactly* what Humphreys and Co all do. Feminist vs. darling of the YouTube anti-"Feminazi" crowd is all that marks it as different. I've seen people describing the interview as "iconic", so desperate are Peterson's followers to claim a victory. It's just a lazy journalistic technique and an interviewee who wants to ramble about lobsters. It was actually shit telly.

> The fact that she is a feminist has cause a lot of glee for the worse types has unfortunately detracted from the crux of the matter.

I think you'll find on social media that has become the crux of the matter.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Ever thought about being a humanist rather than a feminist?

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Ee gads, what does that even mean?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

But it's not about victory. Peterson said himself he doesn't consider it a victory and was rather sad that the opportunity for a worthwhile debate has passed. He also said that he would like to do the interview again in light of these developments. He has also said there is no excuse for abuse across social media, but believe me, he gets far more than she ever has or ever will.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

You mean the opportunity to plug his book?

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

The problem (as I percieve it) is there are elements of feminism that have become anti-man rather than pro-woman.

 

We're all in this boat together. However, there are many men who are now adrift in the sea and no-one is throwing them a rope. Suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45 in the UK and whilst I am very slightly older, I have had some dark times recently where I have considered joining them. And for the very reasons Peterson points out. I often feel unvalued, unwanted and sometimes even detested.

youtube.com/watch?v=h2XvMGJYWLU&

 

Edit: Sorry, wrong link.

Post edited at 14:59
4
 Arms Cliff 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Suicide is the biggest killer of men and women in that age group, we are all in the same boat, as you said. 

4.5 million views for the C4 vid now, nice bit of extra revenue for them! 

 

1
In reply to Arms Cliff:

Given that the population is roughly 50-50 the following data only supports your claim for 20 to 34 year olds, where it is the biggest killer of men from 20 to 49 and the second biggest for 5 to 20 year old men. Then you must also look at the actual number of cases on the bottom line of the graph. For the under 50s it's about 600 women to 2300 men.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/nesscontent/dvc227/deathchart.html?in...

 

And if you look at the all-ages graph, suicide doesn't even make it for women.

Oh, and breast cancer is the biggest killer of women under 50 and thankfully we are doing all we can to reduce this.

Post edited at 16:42
1
 Arms Cliff 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

You’re right I was looking at 20-34, wouldn’t want to undermine your point about the poor downtrodden male adult. 

2
In reply to Arms Cliff:

So you don't think 2300 men offing themselves and hundreds more overdosing is a problem then. It must just be a quirk then.

2
 Arms Cliff 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Oh damn it must be windy out as the goalposts seem to be moving a lot! Did 2300 men kill themselves because of nasty feminists?

2
In reply to Arms Cliff:

I could used some Jon Stewart type staements to describe what I think about your last 2 comments, but I'll refrain. There is a significant proportion of young men who feel disenfranchised, unwanted and undervalued. Suicide rates are rising, college drop out rising, education achievement falling, but as long as you're alright, what does it matter?

2
In reply to Arms Cliff:

Oh bollocks to it, you sir, are a moron.

BTW, UKC blocked me from using the word I wanted to.

Post edited at 18:09
4
 Arms Cliff 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Drop in suicide rates from 15-16 according to ONS. 

If you really wanted to talk about the topic we could discuss the criminally poor mental health provision in the UK, but that doesn’t fit the narrative. 

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> So you don't think 2300 men offing themselves and hundreds more overdosing is a problem then. It must just be a quirk then.

In the interview, CN says "there's a 9% paygap - that's obviously because of discrimination against women" or words to that effect. JP says, "there might be a 9% difference, but if you look at multiple variables to try to tease out the causality, then discrimination doesn't account for that 9%". In fact he over-reaches and says that analysis shows the paygap doesn't exist (which is incorrect).

You're now quoting suicide figures and implying that these are caused by social attitudes towards men. But what does a multivariant anaylsis show? What do we know about the causality behind the figures? I don't have any idea what research has been done - but it's completely wrong to assume that the problem must be that men are the victims of some form of discrimination. Although we can't rule that out unless we see evidence to the contrary.

I was accused of doing exactly what Cathy Newman was doing - I wasn't. I'm now accusing you of precisely that, and it really seems to me that you are.

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Sorry Jon, but you called him an asshole and an idiot in your very first post, then later described his views as moronic and shite. If that isn't mud-salinging I don't know what is.

I would use "mud-slinging" to refer to digging up some kind of dodgy accusation about someone (e.g. misrepresenting something from their past) to discredit them and attack their reputation. If you use it just to mean hurling insults, then fair enough, I can't deny that!

There's two reasons I wrote in the language I did: firstly, they're the words I *think*, so they're the words I write. Secondly, although I could moderate the tone to sound far more reasonable, I don't bother because rather than attempt to convince JP fans of my view I'm more into spoiling for a fight on this one! I've been quite fascinated with JP for the last year or so, and most of the people I talk to in real life have pretty similar views to me (they think he's insane because of the god-bothering and dragons) so it's much more fun to argue with his fans.

1
In reply to Arms Cliff:

Mental health provision have always been "criminally poor", so what explains the rise in suicide in young men?

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

OK Jon, perhaps mud-slinging was the wrong choice. How about openly offensive.

 

I can see how you would think I may be strawmanning with the suicide figures, but I haven't directly insinuated that it's down to feminism (that was the moron above who insinuated that). So what explains this rise in suicides amongst young men. If you can convince me that it's anything other than how some men are feeling about themselves, that they feel lost, undervalued and that they are often accused of having a prediposition to toxic masculinity, I'll concede the point.

1
In reply to Thrudge:

This will ruffle some feathers! Many a true word are spoken in jest. The bit about Mao at around 14 minutes made me cry with laughter.

youtube.com/watch?v=CaaSCU7d7U4&

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> So what explains this rise in suicides amongst young men. If you can convince me that it's anything other than how some men are feeling about themselves, that they feel lost, undervalued and that they are often accused of having a prediposition to toxic masculinity, I'll concede the point.

I genuinely don't know. I don't know the nature of the rise (how much, where, when, what demographic, etc) and no idea of the causes. We need a lot more info to comment on this. It seems to me that you've got a narrative about men feeling this way, and you want the facts to fit the feeling.

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Mate, I know I'm definitely feeling that way.

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

I couldn't really respond to your in depth post from my phone at work, so here goes!

> You're over-reaching here - he just places a high value on consistency and therefore has to work hard to achieve it. Doesn't mean he forgoes the criterion of parsimony on the way, which is the hallmark of conspiracy thinking. Typical conspiracy theorists are ultra-literal - if JP has said that Derrida and the activists are 'in league', you can bet he meant that their effects on the culture are additive or synergistic (and not that they meet in secret boardrooms).

He claims that the philosophy of postmodern neo-Marxism is at the root of the petulant "SJW"/trans activists' behaviour. He also claims that Marxism is "motivated by hatred" (alarm bells: myth of pure evil!) - sorry I can't find the link where he says this, if you press me I will! I don't understand much at all about postmodernism (I think he means the view that pretty much everything's just a social construct) nor about Marxism, but I think he's making connections that are total nonsense. The people who protest at his college talks aren't motivated by some abstruse philosophical ideas, they're 19 years old! They're just motivated by looking cool in front of their peers, and that's about it.

When I was 19 and a student, I wasn't particularly politically motivated, but I had a very clear idea of my identity, the type of person I was, wanted to be, wanted to look like, and wanted others to know that I was. It was the late 90s, all my clothes were really baggy and I was really into stuff like Mo'Wax records instrumental jazz/hip-hop music. This, I thought, was really really cool, and I wore the clothes and went to the clubs, and smoked the drugs, etc. that went along with that identity. That's what being 19 is like for some people: they're cultivating a strong personal identity (often along the lines of some identifiable tribe or template which brings with it a sense of belonging and security). This is what "SJW"s are all about, I think. Nobody serious or influential supports their OTT, petulant behaviour, and they're not a threat to anyone. They're not a threat to freedom of speech, just an inconvenience at any particular time and place. If JP or any other speaker can't talk at a university, then that's utterly undesirable because it's one group of people selfishly imposing their views over others. But in terms of a threat to freedom of speech, come off it. The ideas of all these no-platformed speakers aren't restricted at all! Their ideas are all over the internet where they reach millions of people! The fact that they were obstructed at an in-person event is crappy and reflects very badly on the state of universities that they can't host speakers from a range of viewpoints, but it has zero effect on the spread of ideas.

> Do you have good evidence that most conspiracy theorists are on the right?

Sorry, no, I didn't mean to imply that. I'm think his conspiracy theory is specific to a right-wing view of the world in which the evil enemy (the postmodern neo-Marxists) have their tentacles spread through society's institutions (particularly the Canadian law and universities) in a deliberate coordinated  attempt to bring to end a morally pure society based on traditional Christian values. I think it's the most laughable tub of pish I've ever heard.

> I don't think that either of these [being the good alpha male and arguing against the need for social change] are part of his message, from what I know of him.

OK, first the social change thing. In the interview, he says that the gender pay gap doesn't exit (which sounds like an attempt to state outright that there is no need for change!), and he points to differences in personality traits between the genders to explain why women may get paid less for the same work (agreeableness = poor negotiators). An alternative view on the same facts is that there are good reasons to pay people according to their merit rather than their skill at negotiating their salary, as that will get the best people in jobs, and the best work out of them. It would take social change to make this happen.

I struggle to see how saying that "white privilege is a lie" is different to saying that racism doesn't exist, and that there shouldn't be any attempt to counter it. Have a look at this, it's utterly bonkers!

youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA&

Where do you start with this? "The postmodernists"?? WTF????

The stuff about "purity" and the alpha male and whatnot is complicated. It doesn't come up in the interview and seems a bit out of scope of this discussion so I was probably wrong to throw it in there. Happy to expand when I've got a bit more time and I'm not completely Petersoned-out!

> Sure (if it is indeed fatuous and crap), but not JP's fault for making those statistical arguments (unless you're claiming it was he who was doing the 'supporting'?).

Yes, I'm saying that JP uses sensible scientific arguments to support fatuous crap (that's his bread and butter). So as I've said, he seems to be arguing against social changes towards equality (he'd say he's arguing for equality of opportunity, I'd say he's arguing for keeping the status quo and seeing how it pans out which is not the same thing).

To look more broadly, and away from the god question, there are huge, fundamental problems that I have with JP's philosophy. He thinks that truth lies in the Bible and Jung. I think both these are bollocks and are not supported by science (aka reality). Along the lines of Jung he thinks that the self is the ultimate unit of existence (or something like that), that the self can be "complete" or somehow "maximised in potential" by following moral codes that are not derived from rational inquiry, and somehow float down from another dimension where all the dragons and whatnot live. I think that the self doesn't even exist (see Bruce Hood, Sam Harris)!

 

Edit: sorry for all the edits!

Post edited at 20:06
1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Mate, I know I'm definitely feeling that way.

Shit, that's no good. As it happens, I'm much less miserable than I used to be, but I put it down purely to the individual circumstances of my life rather than what's going on in broad terms "out in society". But I can only speak for myself on that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I could rant for hours about what I think of "society out there". I hate it to my core. It is a sham of what it should and could be. The denegration (as I see it) of masculinity is just a small part of it. But it is the general injustice. I can accept life is unfair, difficult and full of suffering, that's life. But I just can't abide self-imposed injustices, be that against men, women, transgender, race or just plain aesthetic ugliness. And injustice (again, as I see it) seems rampant in our society.

I mean, man, look at some of the things going on. We have a government selling arms to an openly racist and mysogynist state that is bombing a neighbouring state into oblivion, in the process killing thousand of innocent men, women and children and barely anyone bats a eyelid. If that doesn't feel your soul with horror then you don't have one. Yet as soon as some little babe gets triggered all hell breaks loose.

Post edited at 21:00
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Here's another (female) perspective on what's going on in North American universities. Very interesting and honest.

youtube.com/watch?v=ns89BugBvbs&

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I agree, I think the only way to stay sane is to don an effective pair of blinkers.

I believe that the hope lies with rational thinking - I take the view Sam Harris (who I disagree with on some stuff of course) sets out in The Moral Landscape (not read it, but seen the youtube clips... will get round to it).

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

I really don't think that there is any mileage in teaming up with right-wing fanatics against this fictitious bogeyman of the postmodernist neo-Marxists, or cultural marxists, or SJWs, or "the left". While you'll find plenty of stupid behaviour from that part of the political spectrum, I don't believe they're making any difference to the state of the world.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't believe they're making any difference to the state of the world.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are probably right.

However, I do believe we are at a crisis point for masculinity, whether that has been designed or not. And as JBP states, it could mean huge difficulties for our society in the not so distant future.

7
 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

You're the one going on about it all being biologically determined and not socially constructed.

1
 Jon Stewart 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> However, I do believe we are at a crisis point for masculinity, whether that has been designed or not. And as JBP states, it could mean huge difficulties for our society in the not so distant future.

I just don't get this. In my job, I see people of all ages, from across the social spectrum. I've worked in inner city Sheffield, Rotherham and now in Cumbria. For example, I see a lot of young men joining the forces (they need an eye test as part of their application), or coming for tests as drivers, electricians, etc. It all seems totally normal and traditional to me. I don't see the world becoming swamped with gender-fluid snowflakes who are being handed life-opportunities at the expense of the lads who just want to get on with a traditionally masculine role. I don't understand what the crisis is.

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well maybe it's just me and Peterson then?

 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Have a look at this, it's utterly bonkers!

> Where do you start with this? "The postmodernists"?? WTF????

I only managed a couple of minutes before thinking there must be something more useful to do with my time but by "bloody marxists" do you think he meant literally or in sweary way? Either way this postmodern marxist thing makes no sense. This mixing of postmodernism and marxism is a bit bizarre. Of course around the world there are "Marxists" still who maintain the central materialist focus of Marx's original writings - it's not called dialectical materialism for nothing! How you mix postmodernism with that I have no idea. But in western academia where Marxist ideas have been most influential is via Critical Theory and the Frankfurt school - but Habermas, at the centre of that tradition had a long running debate with Derrida, over the abandoment of the enlightenment ethic in Derrida's postmodern ideas.

I've been vaguely aware of Peterson for a few years, and I knew he had an alt-right following but could accept that that wasn't necessarily his own fault, but watching your link I'm not so sure! The uncomfortable thing about his chosen terminology for describing his enemies is how much it resembles the terminology used by Anders Bering Brevik in the manifesto he emailed to rightwing figures around the world just before he committed his massacre on Utoya and in Oslo.

1
 TobyA 27 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

This is worth a quick peruse on the cultural marxism "conspiracy theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_...  I remember reading the Martin Jay article quoted in there back when I worked on related issues. The whole thing somehow goes well with James Ellroy's Underworld USA triology which are some of my favourite books.

 Arms Cliff 27 Jan 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks, I learnt the term Paleoconservatives, which I would have otherwise thought referred to right wing people who didn’t eat carbs. 

 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> This is worth a quick peruse on the cultural marxism "conspiracy theory" 

Mad!

 

 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I was reading another Andy Kirkpatrick Instagram post earlier where he was on about cultural Marxism again.

 

...along with European Christianity being responsible for ending slavery in a post that referenced Venezuela. I could get much further than WTF?!?

 Jonny 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

> He claims that the philosophy of postmodern neo-Marxism is at the root of the petulant "SJW"/trans activists' behaviour. He also claims that Marxism is "motivated by hatred" (alarm bells: myth of pure evil!) - sorry I can't find the link where he says this, if you press me I will! I don't understand much at all about postmodernism (I think he means the view that pretty much everything's just a social construct) nor about Marxism, but I think he's making connections that are total nonsense. The people who protest at his college talks aren't motivated by some abstruse philosophical ideas, they're 19 years old! They're just motivated by looking cool in front of their peers, and that's about it.

'Motivated by hatred' is patently ridiculous, but there's no doubt that 'SJW' thinking is rooted in PoMo and neo-Marxist ideology. Certainly, in the same way that you illustrate with your personal 19 year-old example, there needn't be much explicit philosophy going on. It is the case, though, that certain movements influence large swathes of acadaemia, well beyond their original ken, cf. behaviourism during the first half of the 20th century, and neo-Marxism today. Students imbibe this thinking, and it influences their actions. This goes well beyond acadaemia, of course, and the very fact that Channel 4 thought it necessary for the interview questions to be such that they were is evidence that these are questions people have on their mind. The Marxist influence is evident in the questions' structure (aggregate-level thinking cf. 'barriers are being put in women's way'; group markers as determinants cf. 'the patriarchy setting the agenda'), and PoMo to a lesser extent ('biology hard-wires us to run along tramlines' - hopeless, lazy thinking that completely fails to give 'opponents' the benefit of the doubt, which is the main thing that irks me in these cultural clashes. Not to mention a perspective (and sentence) that few scientists would be able to parse).

> I was really into stuff like Mo'Wax records instrumental jazz/hip-hop music. This, I thought, was really really cool.

That stuff was cool. Although DJ Shadow had 'Why Hip Hop Sucks in 96' as a song title, it was a gross, vast, sweeping generalisation! I know plenty of songs from that year that didn't suck.

> This is what "SJW"s are all about, I think. Nobody serious or influential supports their OTT, petulant behaviour, and they're not a threat to anyone. They're not a threat to freedom of speech, just an inconvenience at any particular time and place.

That's a major part of what freedom of speech actually is. The legal side is only half of the issue, and the rest is how much unconstructive and redundant resistance one encounters when making basic points. This would be normal on the frontiers of human understanding, but this isn't at all where these debates are localised.

As you alluded to when mentioning the fact that the northerners you've worked with don't seem to manifest these problems, it depends on which of the circles in which one moves one is talking about. I've certainly encountered widespread credence of, for example, 9/11 conspiracy theories among certain groups of friends-of-friends. Diversity of opinion and thinking style is to be celebrated, but this is actually the opposite, and it means the conversation starts from an inane place, if we are even to broach these topics in the first place. These are bright people in other respects, so something powerful is making them stupid in this domain. That thing is what I think is regrettable. Herd behaviour is not unique to our era, but we needn't fan the manifestor flames.

> [Deplatforming] has zero effect on the spread of ideas.

Perhaps, but self-imposed suppression of speech and thought because of unnecessary indignation does have an effect. I don't know if the basic statistical facts surrounding the gender-pay gap have ever been laid out for half an hour on Channel 4 before now, and yet the general topic has been endlessly discussed. Something's gone wrong.

Post edited at 12:19
 Jonny 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry, no, I didn't mean to imply that. I'm think his conspiracy theory is specific to a right-wing view of the world in which the evil enemy (the postmodern neo-Marxists) have their tentacles spread through society's institutions (particularly the Canadian law and universities) in a deliberate coordinated  attempt to bring to end a morally pure society based on traditional Christian values. I think it's the most laughable tub of pish I've ever heard.

It would be, if that's how it was described.

> OK, first the social change thing. In the interview, he says that the gender pay gap doesn't exist (which sounds like an attempt to state outright that there is no need for change!)

Well, at at least one point he said that 'it doesn't exist because of gender', and that's what he meant if he simplified at other times (belieing his 'very, very, very careful' use of words perhaps!). And he also gave examples of how he personally promoted change. Let's be charitable where we can be.

> ...and he points to differences in personality traits between the genders to explain why women may get paid less for the same work (agreeableness = poor negotiators). An alternative view on the same facts is that there are good reasons to pay people according to their merit rather than their skill at negotiating their salary, as that will get the best people in jobs, and the best work out of them. It would take social change to make this happen.

He stated why certain feminine traits partially explain salary differences, given existing social structures. You are describing social changes which would make those traits moot as variables. The two points are perfectly compatible, and I don't think JP would disagree.

> I struggle to see how saying that "white privilege is a lie" is different to saying that racism doesn't exist, and that there shouldn't be any attempt to counter it. Have a look at this, it's utterly bonkers!

I'll have a listen when Endtroducing has finished (and a bunch of other stuff from that era of whose existence you've happily reminded me) and when I'm back from the mountains later on. Something too look forward to I'm sure!

> ...Happy to expand when I've got a bit more time and I'm not completely Petersoned-out!

Peterstoned?

> Yes, I'm saying that JP uses sensible scientific arguments to support fatuous crap (that's his bread and butter). So as I've said, he seems to be arguing against social changes towards equality (he'd say he's arguing for equality of opportunity, I'd say he's arguing for keeping the status quo and seeing how it pans out which is not the same thing).

Maybe, but I'm not actually convinced he's all that (socially) conservative. If you're into psychedelic drugs, celebrate the cultural changes of the 60s (albeit not those of the 70s), and have an epistemology (and not just morality) grounded in natural selection, you are not an 'academic Richard Littlejohn', as someone said here. And therefore, perhaps the social changes he's concerned about are extremes that we would also hope not come about, even as social liberals.

> To look more broadly, and away from the god question, there are huge, fundamental problems that I have with JP's philosophy. He thinks that truth lies in the Bible and Jung. I think both these are bollocks and are not supported by science (aka reality). Along the lines of Jung he thinks that the self is the ultimate unit of existence (or something like that), that the self can be "complete" or somehow "maximised in potential" by following moral codes that are not derived from rational inquiry, and somehow float down from another dimension where all the dragons and whatnot live.

Yeah, these are vague claims, and I sympathise with your not buying into them wholesale just because JP said them. I suppose we shouldn't have higher standards for him, with respect to him having all the answers, than we do for anyone else, else its we who are creating the 'guru'.

> I think that the self doesn't even exist (see Bruce Hood, Sam Harris)!

That's a fascinating and deep issue, perhaps slightly off topic. Is the self a 'constructed narrative' as Bruce Hood might say? Well, sure! But, what else were we expecting, a solid self-lump inside the brain? It exists like tables and chairs exist (and they are clouds of matter devoid of any 'table-' or 'chair-ness' to speak of.) Selves exist as loci of moral concerns, as concentrations of agency, as a representation of the thing to which things matter. Can they dissolve under certain circumstances? Absolutely - I've had that sort of experience, and it's fascinating (just to be a body, and not to have one), but that just demonstrates that there was something which is now dissolved. Think of what life would be like forever on LSD, and you have, by subtraction, a model of what the self is and what its functions are!

Post edited at 12:20
In reply to Jonny:

Great response Jonny, makes me realise how thick I am.

I can see where Jon is coming from, but like all philosophies there is a fair amount of nonsense in what Peterson says, but also a fair amount of truth. I've stated it above, but I think as a species, many of us are losing touch with the fact that we are animals, albeit animals the likes of which we know no other comparison, except perhaps the great apes. To just write off Peterson wholesale seems disingenuous to the point of arrogance. It seems a typical trait of modern times (to me at least).

Peterstoned - LMAO

Your last sentence makes me think of Sam Harris talking about meditation and the white noice of our thoughts that accompany us through most of our lives without many of us even realising it.

1
Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> I consider myself left of centre, but UKC is predominately well left of centre and is becoming somewhat of an echo-chamber for those who think their brand of social justice is the only brand of social justice that is in fact just.

It's an unfortunate reality of social media that people seem to take more entrenched positions.  Most of my friends are left of centre, as I consider myself, and even when discussing politics with similarly minded near strangers face-to-face, I find I can get degrees of agreement and the conversation remains civil and thoughtful.

Debating this stuff online on the other hand, even within the confines of UKC where there is a degree of familiarity with the personalities you engage with, things quickly degenerate to slurs, name calling and gross generalisations about the holders of views. 

The last few days has given me pause to think more about this.  Given the tone of previous discussions, I decided not so long back to venture on to UKC less frequently to engage with topics of politics or social issues.  I did pop back a week ago and within days was being declared a misogynist and so on.  I gave up on the debate as a result as I found it alarming how quickly, and in my mind inaccurately a debate can degenerate, or people appearing to willfully take a Newman-esque approach to deconstructing your arguments.  It the end result is ever more sound-proofing around the echo-chamber.

For me it was particularly salient: I've spent the last two years of my life volunteering, full-time and unpaid, within an organisation that specifically provides poverty alleviation support to women and children.  I've made considerable sacrifices to do so, and I'm sure none of our beneficiaries would ever consider me to be a misogynist - I am one of the few males in a staff of 100+.  As part of our programmes I've worked about as close to coal face as you can get within an HIV/AIDS and general outreach programme directly supporting sex-workers (including transgender/MSM, street workers, hostesses, brothel workers).  Yet I only have to come to UKC to venture a non-absolutist viewpoint here about issues I have a direct first-hand involvement with and I am quickly declared a women-hater or of holding regressive attitudes towards sex, the treatment of women generally, or sexual abuse.

I find it deeply disturbing.  The way the left presents itself online is increasingly every bit as bad regressive as the lunatic right. 

 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> but there's no doubt that 'SJW' thinking is rooted in PoMo and neo-Marxist ideology.

Is it? Campus activism (I might start a personal moratorium on the use of "SJW") seems focused almost solely on identity issues - so I might give you PoMo/Derrida - but in what way is neo-Marxist?  And I'm aware we being slippery with terms here, Marxist, cultural Marxist, now neo-Marxist. But Marxism is a materialist philosophy. It's class war, not race war or gender war. Marx himself had little to say on women and as far as I know even less to say on ethnicity.  And look at how just a year ago BLM activists were critical of Bernie Sanders, and feminist writers came up with the #Berniebros. Bernie's brand of democratic socialism put economic injustice at the top of the ills facing society and saw other forms of injustice as subservient to it. It's a step back from the intersectionality argument. So where is the Marxism in these supposed Marxists?

1
In reply to David Martin:

All I can say is, I have that T-shirt too.

I call it polarisation, whilst you call it absolutism. The centre seems the worst place to be at the moment. The left calls you a fascist, the right calls you a snowflake.

What worries me is that I have been doing some research into the fall of empires recently. Every one goes through the same 6 stages, the ages of pioneers, conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and ends with the age of decadene. What worries me further is that no empire has recovered from the age of decadence and falls in a very short time (a few decades). We are currently in this age, defined by celebrity worship, ostentation, a huge disparity between rich and poor and dare I say it, feminism amongst other things. I only hope that due to the fact we live in a global society that the Western Empire becomes the first to survive.

Still, maybe in the aftermath (if I survive) I can have nine wives and be able to chose them? OK Ms Newman, you can be wife number three.

Post edited at 13:48
4
In reply to TobyA:

The neo-Marxism comes from the fact that many post-modernists were former Marxists that had realised Marxism just isn't a viable practical option. This was illustrated perfectly in Leninist and Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, where millions upon millions perished.

As for BLM and college SJWs, my opinion is that they make some very valid points, but the way that they operate is with childish entitlement. Again, equality of opportunity is eminently desirable. Equality of outcome is hugely undesirable and why Marxism fails.

Post edited at 13:44
2
 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> The neo-Marxism comes from the fact that many post-modernists were former Marxists

Who exactly? When are we talking about? I thought we were talking about 20 year old college kids shouting down Peterson? If so, not quite sure how they had time to see that Marxism failed and have moved on to "postmodernism" as they left their teens?

I do remember 15 years ago, how we were all interested in the neo-Conservatives and thinking it was strange how many of them had started out as 60s Marxists before traversing the political spectrum to end up in the Bush administration...

Perhaps this to will pass.

1
Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Re: JP, I'm still undecided about him myself.  Been absorbing his work since first coming across him interviewing James Damore after the Google memo story broke.  I'm quite content if he is exposed as nothing but a charlatan in time to come, but at present I really don't see that at all.  Rather he appears to simply be someone very much left-field in his delivery against the prevailing style of non-Left thinking.  

Found him fascinating, if rambling, and while having immediate issues with aspects of what he says, still trying to come to grips with much of it, and finding his delivery style (and the near evangelical nature of some of his supporters) grating at times, he is undeniably throwing the cat among the pigeons with his willingness to venture forth a free-flow of thought. 

Can't help but feel people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because he appears to come from a place they find repellant (conservative, Christian, a belief in the primacy of self-control and virtue above victim narratives, generally internalising over externalising blame for personal failure and shortcoming).  One overwhelming view I've come to over the process of listening and watching him is that I suspect he really is not strongly Christian or conservative.  Rather his thought process leads him in a direction sympathetic to those ideas.  Also there is a degree of expecting perfection and absolute consistency in his views, despite Peterson being quite open about being involved in an evolving process of formulating a world view, much of it being delivered off-the-cuff.

In reply to TobyA:

Derrida? From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

"Derrida referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a certain spirit of Marxism.[52][53]"

Lyotard? From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Lyotard

"In 1954, Lyotard became a member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, a French political organisation formed in 1948 around the inadequacy of the Trotskyist analysis to explain the new forms of domination in theSoviet Union."

I don't need to tellyou about good ol' Leon do I? He got an ice-pick, that made his ears burn.

In reply to David Martin:

Are you in my head?

In reply to TobyA:

Also, with reference to 20 year old SJW types, I feel like Peterson and many others that certain elements of academia are encouraging this behaviour.

I've posted it above, but this is quite disturbing:

youtube.com/watch?v=ns89BugBvbs&

As for your neo-Conservative observation. There are many people who have sold out in the face of wads of cash!

1
Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

We are the echo-chamber.

In reply to David Martin:

LMAO !!!

Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Also, with reference to 20 year old SJW types, I feel like Peterson and many others that certain elements of academia are encouraging this behaviour.

In my experience on campus this is definitely the case.  I've probably overstated their numbers and other's have been right to say the SJWs do only make up a small minority of students. 

But their vocalism, and the fact they at least represent a push in the direction most in the mainstream want us to go in, gives them power beyond their numbers.  I've sat through over a decade of committees, forums, meetings and panels where the SJW/hard-left of the spectrum absolutely monopolised the agenda and essentially dictated policy.  To even question them is tantamount to treachery.

Point is, it doesn't take a majority to control a social change.  Human nature is malleable, and a small number pushing in a direction a much larger number are broadly willing to be pushed in, does give them control.  I think it was Zizek who makes the point that there is in fact a progressive hegemony today, despite economic and political neo-liberalism still probably exerting control over top of that.  He was solidly hounded for making this point, as the Left will probably never concede that it ever has power. But its worth the Left considering where it is and being mindful of "power".  An unwillingness to acknowledge your own power is defnitely dangerous.  I think this is very much a point that Peterson identifies and tries to articulate.  Bret and Eric Weinstein do a similar take on it.  The combined intellect of the three is without question and somewhere in amongst their critiques there are surely issues the Left needs to be mindful of. 

 Bob Kemp 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Derrida? From Wikipedia:

> "Derrida referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a certain spirit of Marxism.[52][53]"

> Lyotard? From Wikipedia:

> "In 1954, Lyotard became a member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, a French political organisation formed in 1948 around the inadequacy of the Trotskyist analysis to explain the new forms of domination in theSoviet Union."

It's facile to simply associate Marxism and left wing thinking with post-modernism. As I've said before there is a huge range of ideas that can be placed under the umbrella of post-modernism. Many of them are contradictory, and they don't always easily match with older ideas of left and right. What they often share is a critique of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Heidegger is one of the key sources for many post-modernists and flirted with fascism, Paul de Man, a key post modernist, did as well. In fact Richard Wolin argues that the problem with post-modernist thinking is that it provides a basis for fascist ideas. 

 

 

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Fair point Bob. I don't think it's necessarily a deliberate neo-Marxist conspiracy, but rather how things have just slipped that way without conscious intervention. Which, is perhaps even more dangerous.

 

Edit: I think your last sentence is what many of us are worried about.

Post edited at 14:50
In reply to Thrudge:

I'd just like to say, that dispite some of the interactions, what a great debate this is and even posts from people like Jon and Toby are helping to modulate my thoughts and gain further understanding.

 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> We are the echo-chamber.

Indeed you are.

I've given up trying to understand how I can spend hours on UKC having a really interesting discussion with people disagreeing with almost every word I've said, where I've had to go away and learn new stuff to understand the subject better and work out more thoroughly what I think about a topic, where there's genuine engagement from two or more sides picking through every paragraph of each response for the areas of contrast...for someone to claim after a week of this "god I can't stand this bloody UKC echo chamber!".

I just don't get it, sorry!

 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Haha! You got in there just before I posted my last message. Appreciated, likewise!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes, perhaps my echo-chamber statement was somewhat an overreaction. I feel a lot more positive today. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't last.

Perhaps I need to listen to more JBP?

 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> In fact Richard Wolin argues that the problem with post-modernist thinking is that it provides a basis for fascist ideas. 

Indeed, I read a reference to a debate between Foucault and - of all people - Chomsky the other day where Chomsky whilst saying Foucault seemed like a nice person, was essentially morally slippery - he didn't seem to believe in anything. From the "normative turn" in International Relations theory that I had to engage with for my PhD, I see essentially the same the argument between Critical Theory/Frankfurt School influenced types and the Derrida followers, with the former saying to the latter "but what do you believe in? How can you say anything is wrong if nothing is true?"

 

 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

But my understanding of Derrida's work is that it is conscious a turning away from enlightenment project that Marx represents. I think it might have been Derrida who wrote something along the lines of the wreckage of failed utopias rest on the bodies of their victims. Again there doesn't seem to be much linking that strain of thought to any type of Marxism.

 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> Can't help but feel people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because he appears to come from a place they find repellant (conservative, Christian, a belief in the primacy of self-control and virtue above victim narratives, generally internalising over externalising blame for personal failure and shortcoming). 

Not really. At first, I found him really compelling because he speaks really well on the evolutionary explanations for human behaviour and psychology. But then I learned a lot of the stuff I've said on this thread (I've posted some but not all of the relevant clips) and concluded that the stuff on which he makes sense is totally overwhelmed by the utter nonsense he believes.

Above you paint a division between two views, one you paint as good (self-reliance) and the other bad (victim mentality). I totally disagree with this analysis of the world. Right-wing thinking is based on the fallacy of the meritocracy and the deeper philosophical mistake of free will. We live in a causal universe. The reason I'm doing fine isn't because I'm great, it's because I was born into a middle class household, surrounded by books, with two parents who were both educators, who provided the type of upbringing that gave the highest probability of me being successful in education and entering the labour market with all the odds stacked in my favour. I've also had the advantages of inheriting money that's helped me buy my own home, the financial security allowed me to study of a second degree to find more fulfillment in work...I could carry on, but I'll make myself sick! As it happens, I'm also part of a minority that's had absolutely dreadful treatment in the past and I've seen society change vastly for the better on this issue. So I can see very clearly what happens when battles for policy changes to achieve equality are fought and won. Attempts to undermine these positive social changes (see the JP clip I described as "bonkers" upthread) don't go down too well.

There is an attempt in your characterisation (self-reliance vs. victim mentality) to accuse anyone who argues the case for policies to provide equality of "victim mentality" - and you're wrong. The arguments for social changes towards equality that I stand by are about evening out the factors that people *cannot* control, the circumstances they were *born into*. It's no good allowing people born into social disadvantage to get to what, 16? 18? when they've already got a criminal record and no education, and then saying: "don't blame your failings on society, where's your self-reliance?". The promotion of self-reliance is all very well if you live in a society which provides equal life chances at the outset. In one that doesn't, the damage is done before the individual has the wherewithal to do anything about it.

I'm making an argument in favour of policies that attempt to even out inequality that has got absolutely nothing to do with postmodernism, nor identity, nor Marxism. It's just a pragmatic position, based on nothing but rational ideas of minimising harm in a causal, natural universe. So I'd rather it wasn't painted as a "victim narrative" or, while we're at it, as "identity politics". I see JP as promoting a "f*ck'em" attitude towards those born into disadvantage - all based on completely fallacious arguments with, incidentally, barking mad philosophical underpinnings. There's a hell of a lot of grubby bathwater, and not a lot of baby if you ask me.

2
In reply to TobyA:

Perhaps that was a rejection of his former Marxist philosphy? I don't know. He was howeve,r a big influence on "left" thinking. Surely any philosophy that could be critiqued with the statement "but what do you believe in? How can you say anything is wrong if nothing is true?" leaves the door open for all sorts of "shite", as some might put it?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I don't think there is anyone calling you a neo-Marxist / postmodernist Jon. Perhaps that's a touch of paranoia?

When it comes to race and sexuality, were biological differences are so small or even non-existant, there is no excuse whatsoever for discrimination. I could perhaps make some exceptions with race, look at athletics and sports like American football where black people obviously excell far more than other races or swimming where Caucasians excell, but I digress.

Sorry, posted too early by mistake - I haven't finished.

(Fair play I'm crap at typing )

Post edited at 16:44
Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you are misreading my point.  I'm entirely cognisant of the fact that people are dealt a bad hand and that this screws them over for life (I've been dealt a few in my life, among others, and by no means the worst, even ending up homeless and sleeping on the streets, in January, though fortunately for only a couple of nights).

What Peterson seems to be angling against is the over-arching view that this can all be blamed on some external enemy.  Drawing it back to my experience managing staff, then working in a progressively minded office, I would probably be liable for grievance proceedings if I ever pointed to personal failings in any of my staff who were under-performing; its simply a no-go area, everything has to be softened and couched in terms of externalisation.

I can see the merit in that.  But, and you may not agree, you can start to create a dependency and blame culture that completely overlooks inward failings.  JP is a reaction against that.  And much of the right (maybe for self-serving reasons, maybe not) point to this dependency as failing the very people it claims to serve.  He even touches on a possible gender difference here in that this current trend in pointing to externalities may be particularly problematic for males.  Who knows if that is true, but if we are accepting that the emotional workings of one gender have been perpetually put to one side, acknowledging that attempts to redress that may just put the emotional workings of another gender to one side as well.  The road to hell being paved with good intentions, it is probably worthy of discussion and consideration at least.

I don't think he is seeking wholesale to undermine change either.  Rather, and this is where it links to the case Damore was making, that those pushing these changes actually need to look more holistically than they do and consider even those they think are the oppressors may also be oppressed in some ways.  A Quillette article hit on this recently when arguing that Critical Theory fails to be "critical" when it doesn't critique its own assumptions (e.g. power hierarchies automatically being negative).  Same goes for social movements for positive change - what if their change doesn't so much as level the playing field but just tilt it in another direction (e.g. equality of outcome, or in ways that take years to bed in and so are presently invisible - hence my point on the other thread about male youths, unlike us, being adversely impacted by elements of the current feminist movement).

I agree broadly with what you are saying about disadvantage and lack of control.  I've been banging in to Ben Shapiro's outwardly compelling "If you are black; get married, have a child in wedlock, get a job - and you are statistically likely to succeed" solution to failure.  Great stuff and undoubtedly true.  But I've also been rereading "The Corner" recently, with dozens of pages dedicated to the trajectory that leads corner-boys or local teenage girls to having kids and renewing the cycle of poverty.  This more nuanced view is instantly more compelling and clearly way more on the money, filling in, as always, entire swathes of reality that Shapiro misses.  But doesn't necessarily mean Shapiro is wrong - just way too short-sighted.

Where I think your argument falls short is you overlook the real impact that SJW/post-modernism/social-Marxism, whatever you want to call this movement, is having - it is succeeding.  The degree to which it is actively influencing future thinkers, dragging a narrative in a certain direction, actively working to close off realms of opinion and discussion, and the likelihood it won't stop of its own accord in seeking out more oppressors and oppressed without ever realising that it may just get things wrong sometimes.

Post edited at 16:38
In reply to Jon Stewart:

(continuation of my previous post) at 16:14).

However, when it comes to gender there are massive biological differences, right down to the chromosone level, not to mention tradition preprogrammed attributes that are thousands of years old. Now, if a woman is doing exactly the same job as a man, again, there is no excuse for discrimination (as in the BBC pay debacle) and to tell the truth, this has been my experience in my field (engineering). What Peterson is arguing for is the traditional emotional needs of the genders. Many women want a family and are the child bearers. I'm not sure it's possible for women to reach the very top of certain careers (where the big bucks are) if they also want to be a successful mother, which many women do. I think that one or the other and probably both will fail. This may seem unfair, but, to quote a woman on the film "This is... Spinal Tap", "Money talks and bullshit walks".

The other thing is that she will be entering a man's world (unfortunate but reality) and let's face it, there are some real nasty pieces of work out there that she will have to compete with. If a woman is up for that, I say go for it! But she may find she will lose some essense of what made her a woman, which maybe a price she is willing to pay (and 7 out of the FTSE100 directors have perhaps made that choice).

I've a feeling that gender equality is only massively rife in the world of complete scumbags at the top of the food chain.

But, I am quite happy to be proved wrong.

I am sorry if this comes across as misogynistic, that's not my intent (nor Peterson's). I only want what is best for us all as a society.

1
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> I don't think there is anyone calling you a neo-Marxist / postmodernist Jon. Perhaps that a touch of paranoia?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they had. I was arguing against the idea that JP has a good point in defending those good people who believe in self-reliance, versus the evil postmodern neo-Marxists who promote victimhood. I'm saying that promoting equality is (for me at least) rooted in a rationalist philosophy which has solid scientific foundations, and as such it is a far more compelling position than JP's, which attempts to undermine social progress* based on a philosophy that takes the Bible and Jung to be pillars of truth.

 

*reference: the "bonkers" clip in which JP scratches his head in bafflement at why the "postmodernists" choose to categorise people by race, gender and sexual orientation.

1
In reply to David Martin:

I'm feeling a bit of an intellectual lightweight amongst you guy!

 

I saw some corner-boys (with teenage girls) whilst walking to the shops the other night. As I approached them (to the amusement of the girls) one of the lads started saying something (incomprehensible) but it was directed at me as he was looking directly at me, and for some unknown reason he was obviously taking the piss. Not so long ago I would have laid him out, but this time I only felt sorrow for him.

God Save the Queen …… no future, no future for you.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they had. I was arguing against the idea that JP has a good point in defending those good people who believe in self-reliance, versus the evil postmodern neo-Marxists who promote victimhood. I'm saying that promoting equality is (for me at least) rooted in a rationalist philosophy which has solid scientific foundations, and as such it is a far more compelling position than JP's, which attempts to undermine social progress* based on a philosophy that takes the Bible and Jung to be pillars of truth.

But surely, self-reliance in the face of discrimination is a valid course to take - a "f*ck 'em" policy.

> *reference: the "bonkers" clip in which JP scratches his head in bafflement at why the "postmodernists" choose to categorise people by race, gender and sexual orientation.

Yeah, I know what you mean and it's somewhat self contradictory on his part. But it goes too far. Identity politics, in my opinion, is promoting victim complexes, which I think can only do long-term harm. There is a certain theory amongst some members of the left that experience is all the matters, i.e. if a person (but not a white heterosexual male) feels victimised, then that is the truth because it is their experience, which feels like more than just a touch of entitlement. What kind of preperation is that for these young people to face up to the harsh world that we live in.

That seems "bonkers" to me.

 

 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> But she may find she will lose some essense of what made her a woman,

Is this essence in her genes? Socially constructed? Or in the mind of God perhaps?

I guess it can't be the first if she can lose it by taking a new job! But that seems to be going against everything else you've been saying.

Can you see how what you are saying might just be seen by others as you saying you don't find women in positions of authority as womanly somehow? Perhaps there is no "essence", just how we view others.

 

1
Pan Ron 28 Jan 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Would it not be fair to say that the behaviour of a fortune-500 chief really is a long way from the behaviour of a parent?  Especially a female parent?  In that case, the ones who reach those positions do appear to have "lost" something, for want of a better way of phrasing it.

I think the way a parent behaves and CEO behaves are necessarily different - this isn't by design but an adaptation to the style, or channelling or individuals, required to run a successful large company...eggs need to be broken. 

The point, a fair one, that Newman was trying to make was that maybe the heights of management a CEO holds need to become structurally more "feminine".  Sadly, I don't think that is possible in any great measure - again, because the companies are less that way because they are inhabited be old-white men, but because the roles require the persona that men, particularly the 1% of men at the far end of the bell curve, are likely to exhibit.  Very much Jordan Peterson's point too.

Post edited at 18:09
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> (continuation of my previous post) at 16:14).

> However, when it comes to gender there are massive biological differences, right down to the chromosone level, not to mention tradition preprogrammed attributes that are thousands of years old. Now, if a woman is doing exactly the same job as a man, again, there is no excuse for discrimination (as in the BBC pay debacle) and to tell the truth, this has been my experience in my field (engineering). What Peterson is arguing for is the traditional emotional needs of the genders...

Like JP, I'm completely OK with the (true, scientific) idea of natural, statistical differences between the sexes, and I'm totally against trying to manufacture equality of outcome as proof of fairness. But I think that the best outcomes will be generated by opening up as much freedom as possible for individuals who might find or might not find themselves with traits close to the average for their gender.

Although less likely than men, there are certainly loads of women who do want to achieve in exactly the same domains as men. They want to be in the positions of power traditionally occupied by men. The fact that fewer women than men might aim for these positions isn't a good reason to perpetuate a culture of low expectation and exclusion. "Women's average traits compared to men's lead naturally and fairly to this outcome" (which is my reading of his argument in the interview) is far oversimplifying a complex issue, and it militates against positive change which could share opportunity more fairly.

There are large portions of what JP says in the interview on this topic that I agree with. But then I think he's guilty of looking only at the peak (mean) of distributions and concluding that society should be set up so that it serves that part of the distribution at the expense of the rest, and this is where I disagree.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A very good reply Jon.

And I would be in total agreement if the world was fair and mild place to live. But it's not, it's unfair and harsh and as much as we'd like to think, we are not the masters of it. My worry is that by drastically changing the fabric and order of a society too quickly may lead to it's demise. I very much doubt what will replace it will be fair and equal, in fact I suspect it would be the polar opposite. And many of us, including me, would not want to live in that world.

1
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I guess I'm just not so worried about about the demise of western civilisation. Unless you mean because of climate change, and the mass-migration and wars for resources that I expect will ensue as a result...

1
In reply to TobyA:

Yes Toby, I can see your point. But, I actually find a woman in a position of dominance very attractive! But I digress.

It would have to be in social construct terms I suppose or perhaps it's psychology. I would love to see more women in power, but the examples at the very top, I feel, have not been great examples of womanhood in our society. Would you say there are obvious female qualities in the following;  Mageret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Golda Mier, Deborah Meaden. I think they had to become more like men to succeed, do women want that? I would probably say that it's about the same proportion of men who would want to be more like women. Some but not many.

So if we accept that most women don't necessarily want to be like men, but we still want full equality, that leaves us with two option.

1. We need to change the governing of society to become more women orientated, which given some of the nasty bastards in our world may lead to our society being overrun by said nasty bastards.

Or

2. We have to accept equality of outcome and I don't need to go there do I?

But I accept that I could be seen as contradicting myself. Like I said, I'm feel a bit of an intellectual lightweight amongst you guys and I have two of you to contend with now! Or am I playing the victim?

 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

> I think you are misreading my point.  I'm entirely cognisant of the fact that people are dealt a bad hand and that this screws them over for life

That's heartening - it's the broader idea of self-reliance vs. victimhood which I see as a self-jusitifyng fallacy which I object to.  I have complete disregard for the "go out and achieve like I did" narrative satirised brilliantly here:

youtube.com/watch?v=xJjCnWm5cvE&

> I can see the merit in that.  But, and you may not agree, you can start to create a dependency and blame culture that completely overlooks inward failings.  JP is a reaction against that.  And much of the right (maybe for self-serving reasons, maybe not) point to this dependency as failing the very people it claims to serve. 

Any political view will be counter-productive if it's taken to an extreme. As such, over-egging the pudding of disadvantage is bad for everyone, as is over-egging any pudding.

> I don't think he is seeking wholesale to undermine change either...

I was referring to his attempt to unravel the value of the whole of the equal rights movement in the "bonkers" clip. It's not a good argument he's making there! I suspect in that talk, he was trying quite specifically to woo a mildly alt-right audience and increase his standing on that side of the political spectrum. For me, this is morally unimpressive behaviour, made so much more pitiful by his self-aggrandisement as a defender of honour and courage in an age of degradation.

> Where I think your argument falls short is you overlook the real impact that SJW/post-modernism/social-Marxism, whatever you want to call this movement, is having - it is succeeding.  The degree to which it is actively influencing future thinkers, dragging a narrative in a certain direction, actively working to close off realms of opinion and discussion, and the likelihood it won't stop of its own accord in seeking out more oppressors and oppressed without ever realising that it may just get things wrong sometimes.

This is our usual sticking point and we shouldn't waste our time trying to convince one another that the SJW agenda is or isn't an important social issue. I simply haven't seen the examples of the impact, and I don't hold up social science academics as leaders of our society (sorry Toby!), I think that they make a living from wallowing in self-referential esoterica. 

Post edited at 19:59
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

In a way I would like to see Western society fall also, it's pretty gross. But what will replace it?

Personally I think the proponents of Salafism are just waiting in the wings for it to happen. (No, I don't want to stir up that hornet's nest). Will feminists then expect a largely disenfranchised male popualtion to defend them? Well, they probably would defend society, but they would probably fail without going nuclear and then they still might fail. History suggest that will be our fate.

2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I have complete disregard for the "go out and achieve like I did" narrative….

Could you explain why you have complete disregard for this?

(Honest question).

 

Post edited at 20:21
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Gosh, lots to go at there...

> This goes well beyond acadaemia, of course, and the very fact that Channel 4 thought it necessary for the interview questions to be such that they were is evidence that these are questions people have on their mind. The Marxist influence is evident in the questions' structure (aggregate-level thinking...

I'm just not convinced. Here's another explanation: you look out into the world yourself and you personally perceive what you see as unfair, without having absorbed any theory,  Marxist or otherwise, about group identity or power structures. When I grew up, the unfairness that I saw in society was just completely obvious and undeniable. Maybe Cathy Newman looks at the data on gender differences in this way, rather than through the eyes of a Marxist?

> That's a major part of what freedom of speech actually is. The legal side is only half of the issue, and the rest is how much unconstructive and redundant resistance one encounters when making basic points. This would be normal on the frontiers of human understanding, but this isn't at all where these debates are localised.

> Perhaps, but self-imposed suppression of speech and thought because of unnecessary indignation does have an effect. 

My view is that in the age of the internet, the hard left, the alt-right, the centrists, whoever, have more opportunity than ever before to speak out, or to listen and absorb information that bolsters their political ideology. The internet also provides places like this where there is genuine interchange and discussion between people who don't agree.  "Freedom of speech is under threat" simply isn't an agenda I can get behind because I see no meaningful evidence of it - as I say, petulant student protests are an embarrassment rather than a threat.

>> I think [JP's postmodernism/Neomarxist conspiracy theory] is the most laughable tub of pish I've ever heard.

> It would be, if that's how it was described.

OK, that's my reading of much of his output but if you want to keep it more specific we can go back to the interview and talk about his claim that trans activists are guided by the same underlying ideology as Maoist China. I think this is a laughable tub of pish. 

> Maybe, but I'm not actually convinced he's all that (socially) conservative. If you're into psychedelic drugs, celebrate the cultural changes of the 60s (albeit not those of the 70s), and have an epistemology (and not just morality) grounded in natural selection, you are not an 'academic Richard Littlejohn', as someone said here. And therefore, perhaps the social changes he's concerned about are extremes that we would also hope not come about, even as social liberals.

He's a very peculiar mixture of things. One minute, he's taking the ideas of science and rationality seriously, the next he's dismissing them as a facade overlying the deep truth of the Bible. He's so weird and muddled in his view of reality that he's difficult to pin down, and I agree I was wrong to categorise him as "socially conservative" as this is only one element of a much more complex (/bizarre) picture.

> Is the self a 'constructed narrative' as Bruce Hood might say? Well, sure! But, what else were we expecting, a solid self-lump inside the brain?

This needs its own thread! But Hood's argument is much stronger than you reflect here. He's saying that the constructed narrative is an illusion: under examination, it's so inconsistent and incomplete that it falls apart. It's serious stuff with deep implications!

Post edited at 21:11
1
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Could you explain why you have complete disregard for this?

In short, because I don't believe in free will (and therefore moral responsibility). 

You don't control the genes you were born with, and you don't control the environment you inhabit. So you can't claim responsibility for who you are or how brilliantly you've done - that's just how it turned out as time rumbled along.

Might sound nihilistic, but if you really work through the implications, it makes for a perfectly sound and positive view of the world. Sam Harris articulates it well in his really short and clearly written book 'Free Will'.

2
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I'm having some serious problems viewing UKC today, hopefully posting this will allow me to see response since my previous post.

Edit: yep, that worked.

Post edited at 21:59
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sounds a bit postmodernist to me!

 

I haven't read "Freewill" by Harris, but another one of your post has tempted me to pick up my copy of "The Moral Landscape".

Post edited at 22:16
1
 Jon Stewart 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I'm not even sure I know what postmodernism is (reading the wikipedia article a hundred times doesn't help much). And as for The Moral Landscape, I need to read it too, given how I keep basing half of what I write on what I think's in it!

But I assure you the whole free will/self illusion/moral landscape thing hangs together very nicely as a totally rational, evidence-based world-view and isn't all wobbly "it's all up for grabs" crap which I think (maybe) typifies postmodernism.

1
In reply to Thrudge:

The UKC site is completely doing my head in today!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That's why I like Harris, even though his podcasts can be a bit "turgid".

Post edited at 22:21
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thinking about it (and with reference to Bob's posts above), Peterson does throw around the word "postmodernists" like an insult, without actually defining any specific genres within a very large sphere.

1
 TobyA 28 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

But which Salafism? Quietist Salafism or Jihadi Salafism?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll get mydishdasha.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> You mean the opportunity to plug his book?

An interested insight into JBP.

youtube.com/watch?v=FaKl4yO8HAA&

1
In reply to TobyA:

Very good!

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Did you listen to the Harris / Peterson podcasts?

The first one (Waking Up #62) was very heavy going and they couldn't get passed certain semantic points concerning truth. It's quite amusing that Peterson sounds a bit like a postmodernist in this podcast!

The second one (Waking Up #67) is much more productive.

Here's some critiques by the likes of Chomsky, Peterson and Hicks on postmodernism. It is bookended by clips of French postmodern philosophers (I don't know who - Lyotard, Darrida?). They seem absolutely batshit crazy to me. When I tried to read some Faucault it was almost incomprehensible and Heidegger was a real struggle too.

youtube.com/watch?v=G9EZbSTAgHg&

1
OP Thrudge 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I don't think you're taking this seriously....... Keith.

In reply to Thrudge:

Here's a few of my thoughts about the Peterson phenomenon.

Peterson first came into the public eye due to his opposition to a Canadian parliamentary bill C-16. In specific his opposition to the compelled use of speech, more specifically the compelled use of gender neutral pronouns.

http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

I think Peterson's noteriety is not necessarily due to his views. I think it's due to him being someone willing to make a stand for the majority over the tyranny of the minority. Politicians won't do it, in fact, many do the opposite to promote themselves by virtue signalling, regardless of their actual views. I think that his supporters have finally found someone with the balls (literally ) and crediibility to stand up to this tyranny, which he feels is in danger of severely damaging our society. Now, you may think that's an overreaction, but you must remember that a large section of humanities students will end up in the institutions that govern our society and thereby enact law. OK, you may think that is a good thing, but it appears that a lot of their views are not based on empirical evidence, but on some twisted presuppositions, where evidence is at best unnecessary. It's almost a definition of postmodernism of the worse kind, that individual experience is the only truth. That just sounds like a recipe for disaster. His noteriety is further accentuated by attempts to shut him down or discredit him, which he seems to be able to brush off with consumate ease, the C4 interview being an example. Now, is that because he's a brilliant orator or is it because on this issue, at least, he's absolutely right? Or both? He must be driving elements of these influential and powerful postmodernists nuts.

What you reap, is what you sow.

He has recently been labelled "the stupid man's smart person".

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-per...

An interesting use of pronouns there - a man is stupid whilst being smart means you're a person, that's blatant sexism by their logic or indeed anyones. Oh I forgot, you can't be sexist against men, just like you can't be racist against Caucasians. How would this statement go down, "the stupid woman's smart person"? But rather than a slur, I would wear this statement as a badge of honour. He is reaching the people that his detractors leave wondering "just what the f*ck is happening here?"

 

1
In reply to Thrudge:

How dare you, I'm totally taking this seriously!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and sanitize some telephones.

Yours, sincerely, K.

P.S. I shall also be exploring my poly-bi-curiosity.

Post edited at 12:07
cb294 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

This link is great, but how do you position yourself in a public debate where both sides are obviously idiots?

Peterson is both a bullshit artist and a wind up merchant. The BA bit is that he takes half baked scientific ideas he seems to understand at best partially, and uses them to impress his followers who are apparently to stupid to spot the lack of scientific rigour (and I say this having posted extensively in support of the idea that our civilization is only a thin veneer covering our evolutionary baggage!). The wind up bit is that he uses this half science to support alt right political ideas, usually with justifications that are tenuous at best. And again, I too dislike using artifically created, PC phrases for referring to e.g. students or refugees, but at least I admit that I do so because of a subjective aesthetic judgement.

Derrida and his postmodernist ilk fall more on the side of charlatans and BS artists, less winding up on purpose. The emperor is naked nevertheless, and this should have been public knowledge since the 1996 book by Sokal and Bricmont (variously called Scientific Impostures or Fashionable Nonsense depending on edition). My favourite one is where one of the postmodernist stars used the axiom of choice to claim something about free will rather than set theory).

You could laugh about postmodern philosophy actually entertaining the idea that scientific fact and scientific consensus are the same thing, and as the latter is clearly influenced by sociology, so must be the former. However, in an age of homeopathy and anti-vaxxers the jokes wears thin.

 

CB

 

 

3
 rossowen 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Am I right in thinking then, according to Harris and others, that people who for example, go out to achieve a particular significant goal, like qualifying as a doctor or setting up a successful business, to better the lives of themselves and significant others, needn't be applauded and congratulated for their efforts as they're simply carrying out their genetic code as time goes on.  Or am I missing something?

In reply to rossowen:

I think the point may be that they are doing something that shouldn't be seen as remarkable. It is only remarkable because so few of us do it. But then, shouldn't a milling machine operator also be applauded, they have some very high skill levels also. I don't see them being applauded too often. And without them, bang goes your cars, your home-comforts and your holiday to Costa del Brit.

We all have different skills. Jon and Toby could out-debate me all day, but I'd like to see them try to outdo me when it comes to programming machinery or DIY around the house. So who is the better person? The answer, of course, is none of us. I think the argument could be we have a duty to society to use our sprcific abilities to further society for all.

I suppose your agreement depends on whether you are an individualist or a collectivist.

 Jon Stewart 29 Jan 2018
In reply to rossowen:

> Am I right in thinking then, according to Harris and others, that people who for example, go out to achieve a particular significant goal, like qualifying as a doctor or setting up a successful business, to better the lives of themselves and significant others, needn't be applauded and congratulated for their efforts as they're simply carrying out their genetic code as time goes on.  Or am I missing something?

I think there's good reasons to applaud those who do difficult things to useful ends: it's a reward that encourages others to do likewise. 

 rossowen 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Oh I see, so we each have our own specific skills sets which makes things easier for one than it may be for another.  

Does it follow then that are no remarkable acts or achievements?  

We shouldn't be surprised for example that the doctor decides to give up their career to care for their aging neighbor, or that the monk self-immolates to help a cause.  Neither are remarkable since their genetic make-up makes it relatively easy to take those decisions?

 rossowen 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

What are the reasons to applaud them though if they didn't use free will to bring those achievements about (based on the assertion that they don't have free will to begin with)? Those things would have happened anyway.

Are you not using your own free will to decide to applaud them, with the hope that others will be encouraged to do similar good deeds?

Sorry if I am misunderstanding something simple/basic here.  

In reply to rossowen:

I think you'll get an answer you won't expect from Jon (and Harris) concerning freewill.

Also, of course there are remarkable achievemants that should be applauded. But then I have seen some guys do some incredible stuff with machinery, they're not celebrated too much. Look under the bonnet of your car and marvel at the skill it took to create.

Having said that, I am wondering if, by your posts, you are setting a philosophical trap. Sorry if this isn't the case or if I've called you out.

 Jonny 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm just not convinced. Here's another explanation: you look out into the world yourself and you personally perceive what you see as unfair, without having absorbed any theory,  Marxist or otherwise, about group identity or power structures. When I grew up, the unfairness that I saw in society was just completely obvious and undeniable. Maybe Cathy Newman looks at the data on gender differences in this way, rather than through the eyes of a Marxist?

That's fine. I'm not wedded to this phenomenon being a manifestation of neo-Marxism (although the two have plenty in common). And I don't have any reason to believe that Cathy Newman looks out through explicitly Marxist eyes.

You describe someone looking afresh on the world, and perceiving certain outcomes to be unfair.

Firstly, no man (or woman) is an island, and nor are the verbal boats that land on his or her shores. Cathy Newman has absorbed just as much theory as you or I, and that's an awful lot (be they intuitive heuristics or more explicit, academically-formulated theories). It comes to us through the culture.

Secondly, it's the thought process that leads to her concluding that certain situations are unfair that I have a problem with. That thought process was manifest throughout the interview: complaining about 'generalisations' being used to explain other generalisations (average traits explaining average pay); not understanding distributions or continua; simplistic views of stereotypes as harmful misperceptions; views about how persistent imposed inequalities are through time, etc. These are not accusations that can be levelled at an average human less exposed to a constant cultural pressure that encourages these failures of reasoning. We are, as a species, master statisticians (to the point that many consider this capacity [to generalise from sparse data] likely to be one of the last to be attained by artificial intelligence). And the data here isn't even sparse. What's more is that it's a failure of reasoning that is encouraged to manifest only in very specific domains - it would be catastrophic if widely applied, but Cathy Newman fans seem to be more or less functional. So it's a highly specific, ideologically-driven perception of injustice, injustice that visitors from more theory-naive cultures wouldn't see.

> I struggle to see how saying that "white privilege is a lie" is different to saying that racism doesn't exist, and that there shouldn't be any attempt to counter it. Have a look at this, it's utterly bonkers!

Yeah, that clip was pretty weak. Regarding the first sentence here, it might be taken to mean something like 'institutional racism doesn't exist', for which a fair claim could be made, but not the more general case. A white person throwing a brick through a black person's window because he's black (racism) is no privilege to anyone, unless the assailant (and an undue proportion of those who commit similar crimes) avoids punishment because he's white (institutional racism). Only in this second case could white people be considered privileged And then only with respect to this scenario - the privilege to one group or another may even out in the aggregate (over all crimes, and beyond that, over all social interactions).

Whatever their historical ontology, there are a whole handful of words, clichés and types of arguments in common (non-SJW) use (bits of language we're probably as bored of hearing attacked as used in earnest). 'White privilege' is an example. Like all words and the grammar that connects them, they speak to the user's beliefs about the world. And very unflatteringly in these cases ('Heal your Toxic Whiteness' courses, anyone?). They are extremely abstract, are used lazily and without further elaboration as is typical only for conversations between people 'in the know'. Whatever they're in the know about is the 'theory' here.

In case I give the wrong impression, I don't actually come across this language very often (I live in Spain, which might explain part of it [they're probably 15 years behind on these issues here], although Spanish has its equivalents), in physical life or in my (very few) interactions online. But I find the failures of reasoning are rife in both worlds. Even that isn't something that greatly affects my life, but then I'm not somebody particularly placed for it to affect. I do have a lot of sympathy for those who are though. Perhaps it's my scientific bent that leads me to be irked by a common human foible, but as I said above, I think it's actually less common in the less educated (scientifically and otherwise) person than in the overeducated.

> My view is that in the age of the internet, the hard left, the alt-right, the centrists, whoever, have more opportunity than ever before to speak out, or to listen and absorb information that bolsters their political ideology.

I agree. One thing is where the conversation can go. Another entirely is where it is going. That's the crux for me.

> This needs its own thread! But Hood's argument is much stronger than you reflect here. He's saying that the constructed narrative is an illusion: under examination, it's so inconsistent and incomplete that it falls apart. It's serious stuff with deep implications!

I'll read up on his specific claims (I have one of his books lying around somewhere - thank goodness for charity shops!) and we can start that thread.

Post edited at 16:21
 Jonny 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Thanks for your kind comment!

For me it's also on the psychological front that Peterson speaks well, much more than on the political. I've always enjoyed noticing how psychology follows physiology (how much psychological and behavioural information one can glean from gaits, muscle and bone structures, facial features, posture etc), but it wasn't until I had lived a decent chunk of my life (I'm 30) that I saw first hand how psychology impacts on physiology. Of course, the subtle truth is that neither 'follows' the other - they go hand in hand, and the extent to which they do is striking.

There is a huge gap in standard accounts of 'health', which are pretty much just about sleeping well, eating well, exercising and avoiding carcinogenic stuff. That doesn't cover the half of it. There's a nice way of putting it that the Andalusians use: 'murió de lo suyo', which means something like 'he died of his own business'. Peterson recognises this possibility, like alternative health practices often do, but brings a bit more rigour to the table.

I think we've also seen a 'physicalisation' of thought on well-being. Depression is sooner described as a chemical imbalance than a manifestation of your body's adaptations to what it is expecting next, expectations which are formed by the history of one's actions (and are therefore under one's own control - metaphysical free will notwithstanding or otherwise!)

And finally, it seems like there's been a shift in the skills we value in others. Academic smarts take pride of place. Systematisers (theorists) are valued above people with physical or social skills. This is one side of the 'gender-' and 'racial equality' discussions that I find very narrow in vision: where are the complaints about the lack of female bin men, mechanics, crane operators, power line installers, drillers and blasters? Do we need to encourage more black quantum physicists at the expense of black musicians or athletes (if it indeed isn't the case that competent black people that want to be quantum physicists still aren't getting the job)? It's always about the CEOs and scientists, which excludes most of the human gamut.

I'm in science myself, but I think that the increasing focus on the cerebral has narrowed our vision..

Post edited at 17:14
 Ramblin dave 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> Yeah, that clip was pretty weak. Regarding the first sentence here, it might be taken to mean something like 'institutional racism doesn't exist', for which a fair claim could be made, but not the more general case. A white person throwing a brick through a black person's window because he's black (racism) is no privilege to anyone, unless the assailant (and an undue proportion of those who commit similar crimes) avoids punishment because he's white (institutional racism). Only in this second case could white people be considered privileged And then only with respect to this scenario - the privilege to one group or another may even out in the aggregate (over all crimes, and beyond that, over all social interactions).

But in some sense - the sense that "white privilege" is normally used - not having to worry about having bricks chucked through your window on accounts of your race is a privilege. It's not privilege in the same sense that the Bullingdon Club smashing up a restaurant and the police turning a blind eye after someone's daddy had a word about some donations to the Police Benevolent Fund, but it means that as a white person I should be aware that this is something that I haven't had to deal with that other people might have done and that that might affect how they respond to a given situation in a way that I would expect by just extrapolating from my own experience.

Post edited at 20:30
1
 winhill 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Exciting stuff for the people of Vancouver;

https://www.pangburnphilosophy.com/sam-harris-jordan-peterson

OP Thrudge 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

That one is just a dishonest hatchet piece.

"To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there’s a reason he’s as popular as he is on the alt-right. You’ll never hear him use the phrase “We must secure a future for our white children”.

Well, we can all play that game, can't we?

To be clear, Tabatha Southey has never said, "Gas all the Jews until those vermin are wiped from the face of the earth" . But her views on Israel are well known .

Yay, look at me, I just did 'journalism', I'm snarky and funny.....

 

 

 Jon Stewart 29 Jan 2018
In reply to rossowen:

> What are the reasons to applaud them though if they didn't use free will to bring those achievements about (based on the assertion that they don't have free will to begin with)? Those things would have happened anyway.

The way I see it is that we're all machines, and our outputs are dependent upon the inputs we get through the environment. But, we're very special machines, we're conscious. We have brains which accompany our actions with an internal world, which includes a sense of self that feels in control of the actions. But this sense of control, while it feels very real, is an illusion. In fact, even the self, the 'me' looking out from behind the eyes, that feels it has free will is an illusion. The thing that's real is the machine that's taking in input from the environment and chucking out behaviour.

So if you change the inputs, you change the outputs. If every time someone does something kind they get a rock chucked at their head, they'll stop doing anything kind. If every time they do something kind they get a biscuit and a blowjob, they'll do as many kind things as they possibly can. And if everyone knows that doing kind things results in this reward, then pretty much everyone will increase the number of kind things they do. This doesn't require free will. It just requires consciousness to enjoy the biscuits and blowjobs.

> Are you not using your own free will to decide to applaud them, with the hope that others will be encouraged to do similar good deeds?

It feels that way, but really what I'm doing is learning what the best behaviour is for my success. If I throw a rock at everyone who does something good, my life will be disastrous. But if I do the socially approved thing that helps me and everyone live together, and join in the applause when people do good things, then this is behaviour will be good - which is why it feels right. And also, I can choose to use my rational brain to support the fact that it's a good thing to do, so I'll definitely carry on doing it. It feels like free will, but free will isn't needed to explain why I do it.

> Sorry if I am misunderstanding something simple/basic here.  

Nothing simple or basic here. These are really hard ideas to get your head around. I've spent hours and hours with books and videos, reading and watching the same stuff loads of times to try to get it, and I'm only a bit of the way there!

There's stacks of youtube clips of Sam Harris talking about this stuff - but here's quite a good starting point, because this guy's got an open mind on the topic (unlike me, I'm totally convinced that there's no free will and it's just an illusion):

youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8&

 

Post edited at 21:26
1
 Bob Kemp 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

> That one is just a dishonest hatchet piece.

It may be a hatchet piece, but dishonest? Somewhere in there are some valid points - particularly towards the end. Any chance of some reflection on them?

 

 Bob Kemp 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

I'm enjoying your thoughtful and interesting comments but unfortunately I haven't got much time to engage properly with them at the moment. Here's one small point I spotted and thought 'hang on a minute' though:

>where are the complaints about the lack of female bin men, mechanics, crane operators, power line installers, drillers and blasters? Do we need to encourage more black quantum physicists at the expense of black musicians or athletes (if it indeed isn't the case that competent black people that want to be quantum physicists still aren't getting the job)? It's always about the CEOs and scientists, which excludes most of the human gamut. 

It isn't always... here's something I've noticed recently

http://www.harveylawrence.com/shortage-of-women-in-construction-continues/

That provoked me to do a very cursory search, and I spotted a few complaints about bias etc., eg. this one - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Report-Finds-Bias-Against-Female-Mech...

I'd also suggest that the prejudice against the more physical and manual work is not exactly new is it? It goes back to the days when white skin as opposed to tanned skin was fashionable because it signified that one wasn't working class. 

> I'm in science myself, but I think that the increasing focus on the cerebral has narrowed our vision..

 

 Jon Stewart 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> Firstly, no man (or woman) is an island, and nor are the verbal boats that land on his or her shores. Cathy Newman has absorbed just as much theory as you or I, and that's an awful lot (be they intuitive heuristics or more explicit, academically-formulated theories). It comes to us through the culture.

Absolutely true. I don't really believe that CN is seeing the world from a culturally naive perspective, I'm just illustrating that characterising her view as anything like "marxist" or "postmodernist" is daft as a much simpler and more compelling explanation is simply that she thinks the world is unfair to women. You don't need to subscribe to any complex ideology to take this view - yes, it's informed by culture (the concept of sexism is a familiar one to all of us), but to see in her very simple and poorly reasoned  questioning a reflection of some abstruse social theory sounds to me like total claptrap.

> Secondly, it's the thought process that leads to her concluding that certain situations are unfair that I have a problem with. 

I have a problem with her failure to understand and respond properly to what JP was saying. But I think that the background that informs her views is largely well-justified. It's only a hundred years since women got the vote, so it would be a miracle if the process of moving towards complete fairness was complete (or had tipped the balance the other way).

This was on this evening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66d#play 

There's good evidence in here that we live in a society that unintentionally perpetuates unfavourable judgement of women compared to men for precisely the same work. The anti-feminist lot won't like this, perhaps they might like to listen and give some reflections?

> We are, as a species, master statisticians (to the point that many consider this capacity [to generalise from sparse data] likely to be one of the last to be attained by artificial intelligence). 

My understanding (from Khaneman, Ariely) is that we're bloody awful statisticians! We like to generalise, and we've evolved great mental hardware for doing it quickly, but we suffer from myriad cognitive biases that render our conclusions highly suspect. Don't trust what people think, trust the data!

> Yeah, that clip was pretty weak. Regarding the first sentence here, it might be taken to mean something like 'institutional racism doesn't exist'

So weak that I feel by itself it justifies my claims that he's "shite" and "a prick". It's not JP on an off-day, or him caught off-guard, this is a lecture he's giving for mass consumption. As you can probably see from my posts, I tend to reason by inference to the best explanation - and the best explanation for this claim that white privilege is a lie is that he's wooing a racist audience. 

> They are extremely abstract, are used lazily and without further elaboration as is typical only for conversations between people 'in the know'. Whatever they're in the know about is the 'theory' here.

On one side you have people throwing around stupid terms about "toxic whiteness" or inventing absurd lists of pronouns and claiming that ordinary people have some duty to care. On the other you have people throwing around stupid terms about "cultural marxism". Best not to side with any of these idiots, I'd say.

 

Post edited at 23:05
2
 aln 29 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You don't exist. I do. Only me. 

 aln 30 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

The interviewer being the petulant child? 

 Jonny 30 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> ...To see in her very simple and poorly reasoned  questioning a reflection of some abstruse social theory sounds to me like total claptrap.

It's certainly hard to give quantitative answers. It's enough for me to observe that the way she manifestly views the world has a lot in common with those theories, but it's not a hinge of or lever for the real arguments.

> I have a problem with her failure to understand and respond properly to what JP was saying. But I think that the background that informs her views is largely well-justified. It's only a hundred years since women got the vote, so it would be a miracle if the process of moving towards complete fairness was complete (or had tipped the balance the other way).

It wouldn't be a miracle at all. When arbitrary barriers (analagous to women not having the right to vote) to the participation of certain groups in various sports were removed during the 30s to 60s, the excluded groups often came to dominate almost immediately. Black athletes in basketball or sprinting are dramatic, but fairly typical, examples. These are cases where the participation and success set-points in the absence of barriers was far from the situation in their presence. In cases where the true equilibrium isn't so far away and the changes are only modest, we shouldn't conclude that progress there is slower.

An understanding of fairness that implies equal representation is doomed to find guilt wherever it looks. I know it's a well-rehearsed statement, but it really is one of the sticking points. We don't apply this conception of fairness at the individual level, and I'm not sure why we expect it to emerge as the appropriate conception at higher levels.

> This was on this evening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66d#play 

> There's good evidence in here that we live in a society that unintentionally perpetuates unfavourable judgement of women compared to men for precisely the same work.

I'm afraid I couldn't get beyond the half-way point of that programme. To take the Twitter 'retweet bias' study as an example of its many failings: if you take a variable that covaries (almost) fully with being a woman (gender), and try to ascertain its relevance in explaining an effect (retweeting of men's vs women's tweets), you will have to control for every single other factor that covaries with being a woman (versus being a man) before you can say anything about the effect of gender per se. Before you've done that, your output for the effect of gender will approach, but not reach, its true value. Controlling for just two factors in this study, the apparent effect was already cut in half.

I think what I say below gets at what I think of the 'bias' issue.

Post edited at 14:40
 Jonny 30 Jan 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My understanding (from Khaneman, Ariely) is that we're bloody awful statisticians! We like to generalise, and we've evolved great mental hardware for doing it quickly, but we suffer from myriad cognitive biases that render our conclusions highly suspect. Don't trust what people think, trust the data!

We 'suffer' from cognitive biases, but they don't necessarily render our conclusions suspect. I'll explain what I mean.

An experiment of Kahneman's that I find illustrative is one in which he asked subjects to state how well they thought they understood how a ball-point pen works. He then had them draw a schematic cross-section of the pen, and found they didn't have any idea how it actually worked. The 'overconfidence effect' was thusly supported. The trouble is that he didn't actually test whether or not they understood how the pen worked. Had he had them do other things with it, he would have found that they evince all kinds of knowledge about how it actually works. They would know to shake it if the ink stopped flowing (so they have some approximation of an understanding that the ink needs to reach the ball at the tip). They would know to moisten the end if that fails (...that the ball needs to be able to rotate). To scribble on a page until it started writing again (...that a rotating ball takes a while to become ink-covered again). That it doesn't work upside down (... that the ink isn't pressurised), etc. Their confidence would reflect their perception of the totality of this inclusive form of knowledge. And further, it would depend on who's asking, on what is dependent on on their answer ('why are they asking?' which implies 'how much do they expect me to know?' and 'relative to what standard?'). It's not enough to dismiss these other types of knowledge as products of mere association in the absence of an underlying theory. To start with, associationism (as you described further up with you rock metaphor), was pretty convincingly rejected philosophically several decades ago at the level of linguistic elements (Fodor, Chomsky) and has more recently been completely inverted in neuroscience with the new predictive processing theories (which is kind of annoying, because it robs me of a simple metaphor with which to explain the neuronal processes of memory that I work on). But more germane is the extent to which the human brain (and the brains of other animals) are turning out to be extremely holistic thinkers for whom all things are considered. If a single scientific experiment (or set thereof, along similar lines) turns out to go against centuries or millennia of received knowledge we should think long and hard about our interpretation of it, because it probably won't be that simple (especially in higher level sciences like psychology). The various 'bugs' in memory mostly turn out to be features, for example.

Karl Friston's work (if you have any inclination towards this stuff, then what a treat awaits you here - I come close to envying those who haven't yet discovered it) has described a general principle that represents the currency the brain uses in its statistical calculations. This quantity (what is referred to as free energy) is optimised (minimised) at all levels of a hierarchy that aims to make inferences about the causes of sensory impressions. There is mountains of neuroimaging and behavioural evidence that it does this in a manner that is optimal with respect to Bayes' theorem (the statistical idea that the base rate must be considered for us to make valid statistical inferences). This judgement about the likelihood of an event, taking into account its base rate is known as a prior, and some manifestation of it is probably what is being measured in tests such as the implicit association tests (IAT). This is all very abstract, but the upshot is that a prior is essentially a best guess about probability of something in the absence of further information. It can usefully be considered analogical to prejudice, or bias, and is a manifestation of correct Bayesian statistical inference, the gold standard for statistical reasoning.

So then we see that the term prejudice, if we wish it to retain its negative sense, actually maps onto 'judging an individual by ones preconception of them even in the presence of further information that should disconfirm, or force the updating of, that preconception'. (Bias still has the sense of 'prior', which 'prejudice' would retain if we were being more accurate.) So the IAT (which was discussed in what I heard of that programme) just reflects the (mostly unconscious) conclusions about base rates that one has come to over the course of one's life with all its specificities - that base rate will be relevant to your particular circumstances, and not necessarily those at the national rather than local level, or those in other places. And then, conscious and unconscious processes are involved in choosing whether to apply those base rate judgements in a particular situation (when one is far removed from one's typical context, for example). All these factors affect one's final actions. If we want to criticise the existence of prejudice and biases, we first need to know whether or not they are true. That's a hell of a task given their context-specificity. We can, and are right to criticise letting prejudice override new information that ought to be sufficient to disconfirm that prejudice. Neither the manipulated CVs, the Twitter study nor the IATs manage to do that.

So we're bloody awful statisticians if you restrict how far the consequences of our judgements are allowed to ripple (by demanding explicit answers, or considering local systems as closed). Otherwise, we're brilliant!

In reply to Jonny:

> I'm not wedded to this phenomenon being a manifestation of neo-Marxism (although the two have plenty in common). And I don't have any reason to believe that Cathy Newman looks out through explicitly Marxist eyes.

I believe there is an element of truth. The French postmodernist movement of 1960's France carried a lot of intellectual clout globally. People like Jaques Derrida and other postmodernists came form Marxist / Trotskyist schools of thought. A harsh description would be that they were disillusioned Marxists. Their philosophies had a big influence on Western Culture and have enabled the age of identity politics. I remember TV programs like The South Bank Show being dedicated to people like this and influences such as Sartre. However, I don't think it's a particularly positive idea of Peterson's to so conclusively rubbish there modified ideas just because they were former Marxists. Sometimes the manner in which he delivers his denouncements seems a little vulgar and perhaps a little discriminatory. If I were to psychoanalyse his behaviour I could suggest his darkest fears are getting the best of him. But, I still contend that he is making a very valid point.

> Firstly, no man (or woman) is an island, and nor are the verbal boats that land on his or her shores. Cathy Newman has absorbed just as much theory as you or I, and that's an awful lot (be they intuitive heuristics or more explicit, academically-formulated theories). It comes to us through the culture.

> Secondly, it's the thought process that leads to her concluding that certain situations are unfair that I have a problem with. That thought process was manifest throughout the interview: complaining about 'generalisations' being used to explain other generalisations (average traits explaining average pay); not understanding distributions or continua; simplistic views of stereotypes as harmful misperceptions; views about how persistent imposed inequalities are through time, etc. These are not accusations that can be levelled at an average human less exposed to a constant cultural pressure that encourages these failures of reasoning. We are, as a species, master statisticians (to the point that many consider this capacity [to generalise from sparse data] likely to be one of the last to be attained by artificial intelligence). And the data here isn't even sparse. What's more is that it's a failure of reasoning that is encouraged to manifest only in very specific domains - it would be catastrophic if widely applied, but Cathy Newman fans seem to be more or less functional. So it's a highly specific, ideologically-driven perception of injustice, injustice that visitors from more theory-naive cultures wouldn't see.

Beautifully put. I have written above and Peterson basically said in the interview that Newman was just doing job to the best of her ability. I think she and her team probably had a bad day or just didn't expect the beast they got with Peterson (poor research?) She works for a leftish TV channel and is probably a left leaning journalist using her very considerable abilities to help promote causes that she feels are just.

There's not much point replying to the rest of your post, other than we are almost in complete agreement and let's avoid the "echo chamber".

I'm a little busy right now, will reply to your other posts and those of other a bit later. I've read them all, I just need to formulate some consider responses. Some fascinating stuff coming out here. Thanks to all.

 

 Jon Stewart 30 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Fascinating reply, thanks! It'll take me a few reads to digest all of that, and I'm off on a trip first thing tomorrow so I won't be able to reply for at least a week. But I promise I'll have another good read through your reply and try to get to grips with it.

Great discussion, cheers!

Jon

 Jon Stewart 30 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Did you listen to the Harris / Peterson podcasts?

I did have a go with the second one. I very rarely get to the end of any of them, this was no exception and I can't remember much about it. I might give it another go as I think Sam Harris is probably the right person to get some sense out of JP and get him to set out his position in a way that's not playing to an anti-SJW gallery.

> Here's some critiques by the likes of Chomsky, Peterson and Hicks on postmodernism.

I'm afraid I didn't understand much of that! Given that I don't understand what they're criticising, I just couldn't follow it. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since I don't have any background in philosophy nor the humanities. I'm fascinated by some philosophical questions, but they tend to ones that relate to subjects I have some sort of grasp of (e.g. psychology/neuroscience/consciousness or physics/scientific method). I guess the free will and consciousness stuff that I'm into probably sounds like bollocks to other people...

Have a good week and I hope this thread has cheered you up a bit. Can't beat a critique of deconstructivism when you're feeling blue

Jon

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes, there were moments of clarity in the second podcast for both. The first one is a bit of a car crash, but fascinating in a similar way to the C4 interview. I can see what you're saying about Harris podcasts. I used to work night shifts, basically being cover when people needed my skills, so I had plenty of time to listen to them. But these days I find it harder to devote 2+ hours to them in one sitting.

We all have a background in philosophy.

I feel that your previous post commenting about the nature of existence could be read as having some postmodernist threads woven into it. Do you think this could be due to your parenting? Obviously you don't have to answer that if you don't want to. It is a very finite definition of life. I think that life could be much more multi-layered, but I also believe that your philosophy is completely valid in certain layers of this structures. I also believe that there are female perspectives that are not just valid, but truly desireable in other layers, just as there are for men's and any other genre encompassing the human spectrum. I think perhaps our greatest challenge is to recognise this, absorb it and order our society by synthesising our greatest ideas where needed.

I have more than a few thoughts in my head that I feel I should mull over longer, the above is barely an  incomplete synopsis. Luckily, I always have time for thought.

Have a good trip.

One last thought. Do you believe in the collective unconsciousness?

Post edited at 23:46
 Jon Stewart 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> I feel that your previous post commenting about the nature of existence could be read as having some postmodernist threads woven into it. Do you think this could be due to your parenting?

The one about biscuits and blowjobs? This view of the world as people as conscious machines is just what I've come to from being interested in science, and finding it all makes for a consistent view of what the world is all about. If postmodernism is to do with becoming 'unanchored' from fixed ideas, then maybe I see what you mean. But my ideas are 100% fixed in being consistent with what we know about the natural world, even if this means having to give up loads of intuitions we take for granted (e.g. the self, free will). Physics gives good examples of where if you're really convinced about something (such as the speed of light being the same whatever way you try to measure it), then you have to give up other intuitions that you've always taken for granted (the idea of universal time). It's a good lesson.

> Obviously you don't have to answer that if you don't want to. It is a very finite definition of life. I think that life could be much more multi-layered, but I also believe that your philosophy is completely valid in certain layers of this structures. I also believe that there are female perspectives that are not just valid, but truly desireable in other layers, just as there are for men's and any other genre encompassing the human spectrum. I think perhaps our greatest challenge is to recognise this, absorb it and order our society by synthesising our greatest ideas where needed.

I see men's and women's perspectives as two distributions with an enormous overlap - to the point where while there most probably is a statistical difference, that's kind of academic. When you meet a man or a woman, you can't guess much about their perspective or traits from their gender.

> One last thought. Do you believe in the collective unconsciousness?

Jungian stuff? Not really. I'm sure there must be some very basic psychological ideas that are common to all people (since we all pretty much all experience things like hunger, sexual desire, fear of death, etc) but the archetypes stuff is, I think, just plain old made up nonsense.

Post edited at 00:26
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The one about biscuits and blowjobs?

Teah, that's the one. Whilst it is a good explanation for life and I am not convinced it describes tthe nuances living, especiallly the interaction between lifeforms.

> I see men's and women's perspectives as two distributions with an enormous overlap - to the point where while there most probably is a statistical difference, that's kind of academic. When you meet a man or a woman, you can't guess much about their perspective or traits from their gender.

I don't have much of an argument against that.

> Jungian stuff? Not really. I'm sure there must be some very basic psychological ideas that are common to all people (since we all pretty much all experience things like hunger, sexual desire, fear of death, etc) but the archetypes stuff is, I think, just plain old made up nonsense.

Can of worms!

I think I am talking about human's collective knowledge, being an abstract entity in itself, not the afterlife as such, I also don't believe in the "sitting on a cloud for eternity" stuff. i.e. No one can know more than a fraction of this knowledge. but the whole of our knowledge still exists. Being even more isoteric, perhaps there is a link to abstract thought?

 Offwidth 31 Jan 2018
In reply to David Martin:

Those poor managerialist victims forced to run universities by hard left student groups and trade unions. The Vcs didn't want or need those huge pay rises but the trots made them have it (Uni HQ the new gulag where political sins are rectified)  and forced a collectivist pay freeze on themselves whilst shifting from patched tweeds to hair shirts. Five year plans forcing mass casualisation of professional labour that would make Sports Direct blush but necessary to further the revolution. Mass no-platforming of views of anything to the right of Corbyn (with fake news ludicrously claiming that nearly every one of only a handful of cancelled talks were caused by management responding on dubious H&S grounds... who could possibly believe such nonsense). No control whatsoever on what academics can do or say as long as they stay hard left. Student fees the new form of marxist economics to force social equality. What has the Bristish University come to under a series of stalinist governments..

Good luck on what sounds like a fabulous contribution to the world in your real life but please keep it quiet or you might be forced to face leftist plaudits. Of course this is a web forum and ideas can get challenged, especially dumb ones where experience seems to fly in the face of anyone important, I guess like mine in my academic life... hey ho... but even totally correct ideas like yours (and some lecturer bloke in Canada who was just unlucky enough to be an expert in everything). Although I'd say name calling is a bit childish you can understand why it happens sometimes: we are human and emotions can run high on the web especialy when just back from the pub. Please forgive, its the moral thing to do, the Canada Man said so before the transexuals and feminists staked him up.

Post edited at 09:54
1
 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

>People like Jaques Derrida and other postmodernists came form Marxist / Trotskyist schools of thought. A harsh description would be that they were disillusioned Marxists. Their philosophies had a big influence on Western Culture and have enabled the age of identity politics. I remember TV programs like The South Bank Show being dedicated to people like this and influences such as Sartre. However, I don't think it's a particularly positive idea of Peterson's to so conclusively rubbish there modified ideas just because they were former Marxists. 

It's always more complicated than we think. I've already mentioned the fascist connections in postmodernism. How about the CIA's support for post-modernist thinking? 

“Even more effective in undermining Marxism,” the moles write, “were those intellectuals who set out as true believers to apply Marxist theory in the social sciences but ended by rethinking and rejecting the entire tradition.” They cite in particular the profound contribution made by the Annales School of historiography and structuralism—particularly Claude Lévi-Strauss and Foucault—to the “critical demolition of Marxist influence in the social sciences.” Foucault, who is referred to as “France’s most profound and influential thinker,” is specifically applauded for his praise of the New Right intellectuals for reminding philosophers that “‘bloody’ consequences” have “flowed from the rationalist social theory of the 18th-century Enlightenment and the Revolutionary era.” 

From: http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intelle...

 

 

 

Post edited at 11:24
cb294 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> So then we see that the term prejudice, if we wish it to retain its negative sense, actually maps onto 'judging an individual by ones preconception of them even in the presence of further information that should disconfirm, or force the updating of, that preconception'. (Bias still has the sense of 'prior', which 'prejudice' would retain if we were being more accurate.) So the IAT (which was discussed in what I heard of that programme) just reflects the (mostly unconscious) conclusions about base rates that one has come to over the course of one's life with all its specificities - that base rate will be relevant to your particular circumstances, and not necessarily those at the national rather than local level, or those in other places. 

 

View this from an evolutionary perspective and it becomes quite obvious how you get there. Our entire consciousness and reasoning is implemented on "hardware" as well as "software" that evolved in an entirely different, animal context.

If confronted with a new situation it is generally better to take a guess (as informed as possible with a limited amount of input) and act on it. This gives you a much better chance of not being eaten by the nice and cuddly cave bear than being open minded until forced to make a judgement. No surprise that higher cognitive functions are implemented along the same lines.

CB

 

edit: of course that legacy hardware becomes counteradaptive at some point. I am not advocating that we should blindly follow our prejudices, but that we should be aware that they exist and why, and that they therefore carry the danger of misleading us!

 

 

Post edited at 11:35
In reply to Offwidth:

Lowest form of wit?

Oh, the poor repressed university lecturers on a pay freeze. How can they support their ideologies on such a pittence? I mean, just how can they survive at a average of just £45K per annum, whilst having to deal with the tedium and sheer physical drudgery of it all? I mean, it's not like they have an easy life in the Western Empire and I'm sure they would rather be hefting around breeze blocks in the freeze cold for minimum wage, just so they can experience what it's like to be Solzhenitsyn.

Two can play at that game, anything of value to add?

1
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Interesting stuff, but shows the power of intellectual movements and the influence they can have on society and indeed, how clandestine scumbugs can manipulate them for their own ends.

I'm more with Peterson though, I think large elements of the Marxist movement (especially in France) just rebranded Marxism after it's utter failure to even get off the ground and the massive human cost due to it's bastardisations.

A lot of postmodernist is just bolony too. I mean, if Noam Chomsky (and you could hardly say he is a doyen of the right) has no idea what they're going on about…. Just listen to the utter nonsense coming out of mouth of Derrida (I think) at the end of the link I posted (now posted below).

youtube.com/watch?v=G9EZbSTAgHg&

I'm wondering if they felt that if we can't have Marxism of the body, then we'll have Marxism of the mind. I think it has led to identity politics and an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Peterson's claim is that this has been by design, I feel its just a consequence of a few  intellectuals, who were full of themselves and couldn't admit they were / are wrong, having too much influence, probably because they were seen as cool and edgy. Have you seen the sponsorship adverts on Film4 for Boursin with "Alain and Audrey". It's a parody, but there is enough truth to inform what these postmodernists of Parisienne cafés where really like. And this was a continuing theme of obscurity that traversed the French intellectual world from Paul Cézanne to Jean-Paul Sartre and beyond. I personally find a certain elements of masterbatory indulgence in a lot of postmodernism and feel it rarely addresses the problems of the real world, but is instead, intellectual pursuit for its own ends. But then, maybe we all need to become w****rs to become enlightened (and I was always told that it would make me blind!)  

"Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity

Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity."

Friedrich Neitzche

Post edited at 16:11
 Jonny 31 Jan 2018
In reply to cb294:

I agree about how we got there, absolutely. I'm not convinced 'software running on hardware' is a useful metaphor for the brain and its functioning, but that doesn't detract from the evolutionary argument.

My main point in that paragraph was that our moral force should be behind focusing on correct updating of our priors (prejudices) in the presence of new information, rather than on getting hung up on the existence of preducies per se. Forms of (what we would typically call) prejudice that I notice are typically failures to update, rather than the a priori existence of a preconception. Focusing on proper updating isn't necessarily setting an unreasonably high bar and thereby defining wrongdoing out of existence; there is so much information in the way a person looks, moves, dresses, or even in the circumstance in which you find yourselves with them, that it will (or should) often immediately overwhelm your weak prejudice before a word is uttered. The prejudice helped your early orientation, and the updating overhauled it - everything is working perfectly. On average, of course, your prejudices will be confirmed, if they are accurate to begin with. That's fine too. The IAT measures the prejudice someone has, and not their efficiency of updating. That makes it is close to useless for fulfilling the current goals of its users.
 
You mention 'legacy hardware', but I don't actually think that having prejudices (again, in the sense of priors) is a contingent fact of our evolutionary history (contingent on past environments, and therefore that it may since have lost its raison d'être). Rather, it is a universally implemented (among all forms of life, in neural but also molecular instantiations) engineering solution to having to predict the future. Expert systems and other forms of AI have their analogues of prejudice (and the isomorphism is particularly conspicuous in Bayesian implementations) - independent convergent evolution of a kind, since the engineers who designed them weren't particularly inspired by biology!
cb294 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I really wonder how the French postmodernists became labelled as Marxists, they are nothing of the kind. For one, traditional Marxist ideology is materialist to the core and has no time for the postmodernist esoteric litcrit/psychobabble mashup peddled by Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva, ad their ilk.

I have posted a link above, but if you by chance have not seen it, it is always worth having a look at the Sokal book I mentioned above. The postmodernist establishment was absolutely livid about the hoax paper called ""Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" that proposed that gravity was a social and literary construct. Seriously, the title alone should have been a dead giveaway, but the postmodernists lapped the bullshit up, as if they were suddenly taken serious by proper physicists. The book also analyses other abuses of maths and physics. 

My problem in this debate is that Peterson's "science", at least where he invokes concepts from biology or statistics that I can judge, is just as dodgy. Using it to justify alt right ideas through some primitive biologism dressed up in fancy words is just repellent.


CB

cb294 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Jonny:

I absolutely agree, and was/am of course simplifying. 

What I meant by legacy hardware is that some prejudices are ingrained at very basic levels in our brain: We are in general still afraid of foreigners, snakes, the dark, etc., which all made sense / were adaptive while living in a cave at the time these instinctive prejudices were fixed.

However, all of them are a hinderance or at best an irrelevance for functioning in a modern, open, 21st century society. The best way to deal with such kind of evolutionary baggage is to acknowledge that it exists.

Similarly, and more pertinent to the original topic of this thread; If you think about the sociobiology of male/female relations you will find exactly the same baggage: Most of the moral or religious precepts causing oppression of women are simply a consequence of humans evolving under conditions (ecology, population density, generation times, ...) favouring mate guarding polygyny. Thus, no surprise there either, but we should not be content with, say, a gender pay gap "because biology". Instead, we should strive for equality for moral and ethical reasons, and precisely despite our biological background.


CB

 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

>I think large elements of the Marxist movement (especially in France) just rebranded Marxism after it's utter failure to even get off the ground and the massive human cost due to it's bastardisations.

Maybe true of some French postmodernists, but many were disillusioned with Marxism and the postmodern positions they developed were highly critical (hence the CIA's support for postmodern ideas as in the piece I cited). And many Marxists see postmodernism as completely inimical to Marxism too.

>I personally find a certain elements of masterbatory indulgence in a lot of postmodernism and feel it rarely addresses the problems of the real world, but is instead, intellectual pursuit for its own ends. 

This rather depends on which postmodernism you're talking about. Postmodernist ideas may seem like bullsh*t at times but they can also be useful in destroying bullish*t - they can help produce more carefully critical and reflective analyses of social phenomena, artworks, world-views, ideologies and political positions - anything where subjectivities of one kind or another may be concealed or obscured (by accident or design) and hyperbole and propaganda loom large. 

It's also remembering that postmodernist ideas have had an effect on art, architecture and literature. How you regard these may be another question for another thread of course!

 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to cb294:

>I really wonder how the French postmodernists became labelled as Marxists, they are nothing of the kind.

You got there before me...

In reply to cb294:

> I really wonder how the French postmodernists became labelled as Marxists, they are nothing of the kind. For one, traditional Marxist ideology is materialist to the core and has no time for the postmodernist esoteric litcrit/psychobabble mashup peddled by Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva, ad their ilk.

Postmodernism is also post-Marxism. Many postmodernist came from socialist / Trotskyist / Marxist schools of thought, which they were forced to "reject" due to its utter failure. The guys that bookend my YouTube post should give you plenty of insight of their vacuous self-importance.

Alain: Audrey?

Audrey: Oui Alain?

Alain: C'est rein.

Audrey: Oui, c'est rein.

> I have posted a link above, but if you by chance have not seen it, it is always worth having a look at the Sokal book I mentioned above. The postmodernist establishment was absolutely livid about the hoax paper called ""Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" that proposed that gravity was a social and literary construct. Seriously, the title alone should have been a dead giveaway, but the postmodernists lapped the bullshit up, as if they were suddenly taken serious by proper physicists. The book also analyses other abuses of maths and physics. 

What? Someone actually dared to show how full of it they were? Just as well the parents of SJWs were stll floating around in grandad's sack.

> My problem in this debate is that Peterson's "science", at least where he invokes concepts from biology or statistics that I can judge, is just as dodgy. Using it to justify alt right ideas through some primitive biologism dressed up in fancy words is just repellent.

Ah yes, Peterson, a clinical psychologist. A man who spent 30 years trying to figure out the reasons for horrors of National Socialism in 20th century Europe. An eminent professor at the eminent Canadian university. What would he know? What a charlatan, eh? As about as reliable as Joseph Smith I should think.

 

Post edited at 17:11
cb294 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

As a biologist I would definitely trust my own understanding of biology more than that of almost any psychologist (a discipline that has a long history being unable to distinguish cleanly between proper science, unsubstantiated fads, esoteric claptrap, or ideology. FFS, it is the discipline that gave us Freud and Jung and maintained a straight face....). It does not matter how renowned he may be.

In fact, though, he may well be right in much of what he says, but I could not judge. I therefore limited myself to the claim that in several instances when JP invokes biology he is either simplifying to the point of being wrong, or is extrapolating from undisputed biological facts beyond the point where this approach remains valid. In some of the links above he also displays a rather cavalier attitude towards statistics. He then uses big and complicated words like MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS to simulate a profound scientific grounding to his audience. This is pretty much the same thing the postmodernists were doing, and to me fatally undermines his credibility on the aspects I cannot judge.

Both emperors are naked!

CB

1
 Offwidth 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Cut the silly name and I might debate. My debate with David goes back a way and I find it odd that a self proclaimed  left of centre person, even with his unfortunate experiences, extrapolates the way he does. I've faced the trots and their cronies directly in elections as I dislike their effect in academia so much. The real modern UK threat to academic freedom I see is where the power is.... nearly always managerialism. Mangers cut those talks, in fear of mobs they said. Managers performance manage Profs away from things they want to do to a paper and money chase (or gagged retirement). Managers regularly discipline those in academia blowing the whistle, and if they don't tow the line performance manage them out and again gag.

Our canadian friend is probably feeling a lot more like an academic Brian than Jesus but doesn't seem so publicity shy or as careful as he should. The massive hoo ha involving the likes of breitbart is clearly indicative of something... most getting upset on his behalf are probably clueless about his work and have a very different agenda to his.

In reply to cb294:

> Thus, no surprise there either, but we should not be content with, say, a gender pay gap "because biology". Instead, we should strive for equality for moral and ethical reasons, and precisely despite our biological background.

I think that you too easily dismiss the fact that we are biological creatures. I also think that this fact has been dismissed by much of the Western population. And I believe this is a dangerously arrogant position.

And getting back to the subject, I think you need to listen to Peterson's views that the "gender pay-gap" is only partially due to misogyny and that many factors conyribute towards this.

You must also listen to the 9% figure in its entirity. It is a 9% gap at the median pay level, a figure massively skewed by the scumbags at the very top. I have a feeling the pay-gap is only really relevant at the levels where you have to negotiate your salary.

So what I'm saying is…. women are useless at pay negotiations.

Edit: Just read your next post and I am truly surprised you are a biologist! So, does that fact that we have different chromosones, hormonal differences and physical difference have no bearing on the working of oyr brains?

Post edited at 18:12
In reply to cb294:

> He then uses big and complicated words like MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS to simulate a profound scientific grounding to his audience. This is pretty much the same thing the postmodernists were doing, and to me fatally undermines his credibility on the aspects I cannot judge.

Peterson gave many examples of how men and women differ and simply did not leave it at "multi-variate analysis shows…"

 

 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Ah yes, Peterson, a clinical psychologist. A man who spent 30 years trying to figure out the reasons for horrors of National Socialism in 20th century Europe. An eminent professor at the eminent Canadian university. What would he know? What a charlatan, eh? As about as reliable as Joseph Smith I should think.

There's no point in trying to appeal to his authority. His reputation as an academic, which I am not qualified to assess, bears no relation to his (non-peer-reviewed) polemics. His employment of dog-whistle tactics, his doubtful commitment to academic freedom and his related tactic of smearing anyone who opposes him all serve to reduce his credibility. 

1
In reply to Offwidth:

Cut the silly name says "Offwidth"!

Man, sounds like your getting it from both sides. Sorry for the dig, it was an open goal.

But, this thread isn't about funding or the wages of uni lecturers.

However, it would be interesting to know if you think there is some kind of caldestine policy being exerted on universities and whether or not you feel this could be a reaction by right leaning factions to the fact that universities are commonly left leaning.

Post edited at 18:25
 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Cut the silly name says "Offwidth"!

What do you mean - it's a 'cracking'  name for someone on a climbing forum...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

> This rather depends on which postmodernism you're talking about. Postmodernist ideas may seem like bullsh*t at times but they can also be useful in destroying bullish*t - they can help produce more carefully critical and reflective analyses of social phenomena, artworks, world-views, ideologies and political positions - anything where subjectivities of one kind or another may be concealed or obscured (by accident or design) and hyperbole and propaganda loom large. 

Yes, this is perhaps another thread, as is Offwidth's comments on the state of British higher education.

However, there are some, including me who think things are going to far. I've heard rumours that some children are no longer being taught stories from a allegorical point of view to benefit them, but rather a social one. Who's the victim, whose the one striving for power, etc.

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

> There's no point in trying to appeal to his authority. His reputation as an academic, which I am not qualified to assess, bears no relation to his (non-peer-reviewed) polemics. His employment of dog-whistle tactics, his doubtful commitment to academic freedom and his related tactic of smearing anyone who opposes him all serve to reduce his credibility. 

Not a fan then?

I have previously said that I disagree with him and especially some of his tactics. This does not mean that I would just dismiss him wholesale. BTW, you could apply your criticism to just about anyone.

 Jonny 31 Jan 2018
In reply to cb294:

> What I meant by legacy hardware is that some prejudices are ingrained at very basic levels in our brain: We are in general still afraid of foreigners, snakes, the dark, etc., which all made sense / were adaptive while living in a cave at the time these instinctive prejudices were fixed.

I wouldn't put snakes (a threat that was previously, but no longer, commonly encountered) and the dark (something that no longer hides many threats, because the world is so much safer) in the same category of foreigners (a designation of an out-group member, which is still potentially a useful categorisation - the ease with which we adapt to foreigners that become part of our in-group suggests this is what they are a proxy for). I tend to agree, though, and there are plenty of other good examples: flying and heights come to mind (I think they're different from each other). It's still the case that updating is the key, and we are capable of this for all of these examples, but it's true we start from the wrong prior in some cases. Apparently the Baldwin effect may be nearly as slow to reverse as it is to occur initially, if that is indeed how these bevahiours evolved!

> Similarly, and more pertinent to the original topic of this thread; If you think about the sociobiology of male/female relations you will find exactly the same baggage: Most of the moral or religious precepts causing oppression of women are simply a consequence of humans evolving under conditions (ecology, population density, generation times, ...) favouring mate guarding polygyny.

> Thus, no surprise there either, but we should not be content with, say, a gender pay gap "because biology". Instead, we should strive for equality for moral and ethical reasons, and precisely despite our biological background.

Sure, although those biological adaptations to mate guarding polygyny had psychological corollaries, which we shouldn't assume to be any less persistent over time. Those corollaries do have moral valence, so we oughtn't be fighting anything in spite of them. And realising that they are contigent on an (ancient) evolutionary history is not enough. We don't know the relative contributions of certain historical circumstances to our present-day psychological make-up, so we can't say, from examining how our present day environment is different from the one in which the traits evolved, which psychological traits are ectopic with respect to time (no longer appropriate).

So we end up asking the kind of questions Peterson was: 'how much of the gap is due to gender?' and 'what do we mean by equality?'. No biological assumptions are inherent in these questions.

 

Post edited at 18:52
In reply to Bob Kemp:

And Hugh Janus is a great name for someone who talks a lot of shite!

In reply to Jonny:

Just an observation, but the "hardware" hasn't been updated for tens of thousands of years.

But I'm enjoying the analogy, especially the "software" part. Perhaps we are trying to run Windows 10 on a ZX81? Though in reality we are probably running MS-Dos on Big Blue.

Post edited at 18:48
 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Not a fan then?

Ah, it shows?

> I have previously said that I disagree with him and especially some of his tactics. This does not mean that I would just dismiss him wholesale. BTW, you could apply your criticism to just about anyone.

I don't think he should be dismissed wholesale. He's clearly a qualified and capable academic. But his academic work is very different from his other activities, where he hasn't done the research and doesn't have any academic credibility. Some of his research actually looks interesting, and in what appear to be decent journals. (Although he seems to be last author on a lot of his publications, which suggests he's at that stage in his career where he's got lots of PhD students and other more junior researchers doing the lead work. Spending too much time on his other interests...)

 Bob Kemp 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> And Hugh Janus is a great name for someone who talks a lot of shite!

I'll have to give you that...

(BTW - did you know that Janus was the Roman god of future and past, so he had two faces, one looking forward and one looking back?) 

Post edited at 18:50
 Eki 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

Oh come on... the guy is using lobsters as an example to defend gender pay gap. Case closed.

2
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Really? That figures. Was his name Hugh as well?

 Jonny 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Just an observation, but the "hardware" hasn't been updated for tens of thousands of years.

Evolution probably occurs a bit quicker than that, but it won't have had large effects as a result of the 20th century's social changes, that much is certainly true. Which point are you referring to here?

To be clear, I'm not much of a fan of the hardware versus software analogy, either to describe two levels of the brain's functioning or to describe genetics versus culture, or something like that. I like your two possible scenarios though!

Post edited at 19:08
In reply to Jonny:

It also not a great analogy for the following reason. Last week my "head was all of the place" for whatever reasons, at the weekend I felt like I had real clarity of thought, whilst today, I just don't seem able to get things out the way I'd like too. Whereas a computer runs fairly uniformly unless you really start messing around with it (or do I just think that because I use a Mac? ).

 

Edit: I just chose your post to comment on the analogy, as you seemed to be the primary explorer along this line. I can't remember who said something about software and hardware updates.

Post edited at 19:24
In reply to Jonny:

I think the objection Peterson is making is that these are not the preprogrammed prejudices that you are alluding to, that can be updated, but rather new reprogrammed predjudices being updated..

Prejudism is almost alway a bad thing, (obviously not things like sabre-toothed tigers), but surely introduced prejudices are on an entirely different level as they result from deliberate thought rather than from instinctive fear.

Post edited at 19:57
 planetmarshall 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I must be alone in having never heard of this person.

 Jonny 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> I think the objection Peterson is making is that these are not the preprogrammed prejudices that you are alluding to, that can be updated, but rather new reprogrammed predjudices being updated..

Which specific prejudices are the ones you're saying Peterson is talking about? Just to make sure I'm understanding what you're referring to.

> Prejudism is almost alway a bad thing, (obviously not things like sabre-toothed tigers), but surely introduced prejudices are on an entirely different level as they result from deliberate thought rather than from instinctive fear.

I think my basic line of reasoning in my last few posts has been saying that prejudices aren't typically a bad thing in and of themselves, they just reflect our expectations about the world. Sometimes these expectations are stuck in the past (like ones that cause us to see snakes in the shadows), and sometimes we cling to them despite contradictory evidence, but they usually start neutrally and get properly updated as we go through life. This is even the case for most stereotypes. These prejudices mostly correspond to the 'introduced prejudices' you talk about (I agree that it's helpful to distinguish, even though things could get very muddy with some of them). Sometimes its hard to know to what degree a prejudice is being unduly influenced by persistent 'memories' (e.g. genetic, cultural) of past environments that are no longer relevant to the present. This doesn't make prejudices useless, but it means we should check their accuracy if their consequences matter. They may or may not be accurate. The root of this argument was the implicit association test being used as evidence that there is an unjustifiable bias against women, and that this bias has real world consequences. Both of these claims I think are false.

As far as the gender pay gap is concerned, I think it's true that gender per se explains a very small proportion of the variance in pay, once everything else has been controlled for. (The situation reminds me of the debate around consciousness, actually: you explain all of the constituents and the glowing orb that is supposed to be something in its own right shrinks to nothing.) Then, as I think Jon pointed out somewhere in the preceding metres of page, we can have separate debates on whether we think agreeability etc should be factors in determining pay. But at that point these traits will have been cut loose from their bearers, and we can discuss their merits without respect to men, women, people with three arms, or any other subdivision of humanity.

In reply to Jonny:

> Which specific prejudices are the ones you're saying Peterson is talking about? Just to make sure I'm understanding what you're referring to.

I'm gonna get pilloried here and I wondering how long before someone says "check your privelige", but here goes. It is the prejudices that seems to be being engineered against men in an attempt to correct historical inequalities. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or just a natural consequence of a century of women's rights movements. Peterson rails against the idea of equality of outcome rather than the equality of opprtunity, believing it a Marxist nightmare that will ultimately do more harm than good to society. Hence, my assertion that many men are now feeling disenfranchised with a world that wasn't great in the first place. This may explain the rise in suicides for under 50 year old men. Women are out stripping men under thirty in education, employment and yes, average wages. If I were to be controvertial (who me?), I would say there might be certain elements trying to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy. But maybe that's paranioa? It may also go some way to explaining what appears to be a polarisation of our society.

> I think my basic line of reasoning in my last few posts has been saying that prejudices aren't typically a bad thing in and of themselves, they just reflect our expectations about the world. Sometimes these expectations are stuck in the past (like ones that cause us to see snakes in the shadows), and sometimes we cling to them despite contradictory evidence, but they usually start neutrally and get properly updated as we go through life. This is even the case for most stereotypes. These prejudices mostly correspond to the 'introduced prejudices' you talk about (I agree that it's helpful to distinguish, even though things could get very muddy with some of them). Sometimes its hard to know to what degree a prejudice is being unduly influenced by persistent 'memories' (e.g. genetic, cultural) of past environments that are no longer relevant to the present. This doesn't make prejudices useless, but it means we should check their accuracy if their consequences matter. They may or may not be accurate. The root of this argument was the implicit association test being used as evidence that there is an unjustifiable bias against women, and that this bias has real world consequences. Both of these claims I think are false.

Yes, I don't think I really explained that properly. Prejudices, as you say, may not be all bad and perhaps even initial to ensure survival. Rather, it is their continuation despite receiving good "software updates" plus the injustices and discrimination that are carried out in their name that is wrong. Obviously, bad updates, such as an EDL rally will compound these prejudices. As for the genetic stuff, I'm not sure anyone knows how much baggage we carry from the ages.

On a side note. Apparently when asked if you had the the choice to save 5 lives by sacrificing another ("the trolley dilemma") something very interesting happens. Usual both politically left and right leaning people will save the group. Now if subtle hints are given that the one person is black and the group is white, left leaning people will not sacrifice the individual, but right leaning people still save the group. Unfortunately, I don't know the results if the races are reversed. (It was on a Sam Harris podcast).

> As far as the gender pay gap is concerned, I think it's true that gender per se explains a very small proportion of the variance in pay, once everything else has been controlled for. (The situation reminds me of the debate around consciousness, actually: you explain all of the constituents and the glowing orb that is supposed to be something in its own right shrinks to nothing.) Then, as I think Jon pointed out somewhere in the preceding metres of page, we can have separate debates on whether we think agreeability etc should be factors in determining pay. But at that point these traits will have been cut loose from their bearers, and we can discuss their merits without respect to men, women, people with three arms, or any other subdivision of humanity.

I agree with the first half of your paragraph. But, I could only accept the second half if men and women had the same desires, but they don't. Unless we all become androgynous there will always be different desires for men, typically to provide for and protect the tribe (family) from outside danger and women, typically motherhood and the protection of the tribes resources (children). Or at very least, these traditions will take a long time to equalise, (so I suppose that might suggest evidence of genetic baggage). I think these differences in gender roles (and opposable thumbs) could be reason human have been such a successful species. It may indeed be that given our technology these differences are no longer required. But perhaps caution is required, for example, Marxism is an architypical argument against a lack of foresight and whatever, any social engineering must be done in a just way. Two wrongs and all that.

 

 winhill 31 Jan 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> That last link is an excellent read and mirrors my feelings on Peterson. Fortunately the writer is much better read and researched than I am!

Not this one?

https://dreamflesh.com/post/2017/black-truths-jordan-peterson/

This is very much part of the problem and I'd wonder what you have against Steven Pinker?

A guy trying to get to grips with this malignment of Pinker;

youtube.com/watch?v=CVkxAWQPYMc&

This is a good example of the problem with identity politics, where science is forced into a backseat because reasons. 

The current fetishisation of transgender politics is a very good example, the closing of the muslim mind over the last 700 years another, Pinker's sole error is to be working in a field (evo-psych) that doesn't dovetail with some feminist politics so he is mis-described as Right Wing.

 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Jan 2018
In reply to winhill:

I've not read any Pinker, so can't comment.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Nor any Peterson, I'd hazard a guess.

 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Arf.

You're actually right of course. Just listened to him for way longer than I should.

Post edited at 22:41
1
 Offwidth 31 Jan 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

Seriously,  change your name here.. are you twelve?

Offwidth is a type of climb I'm associated with and as such hardly an unusual name on a climbing site

David linked in the University stuff and no platforming is very relevant to the arguments on this thread (except UK students only banned people like neo nazis or religious hate speakers: pretty all the big headline cases that caused outrage in the Telegraph, around threats to freedom of speech, and are now policy in the Office for Students, were cancelled by local mangements due to crowd risks or simlar). The modern student protests seemed to epitomise an outcome of freedom of speech... they held legal opinions and made them clear. Nearly 40 years back when I was an undergrad the real power of students, especially the left, was still there but in decline; yet protests still effected change. These days the SWP rent-a-mob would hardly fill a VC's office (if the management were incompetant enough to allow such a thing to happen) and most of the elected SU officials are full on consumer champions alongside their restrictive views: hardly trots. NUS is a bit more left but thats a bit detached to the price of beer in the SU bar and ordinary students too often don't vote (a bit like UCU elections sadly). SU officials are often not even of the left and then sometime share a common modern theme in University management... seemingly liberal in some outwards respects but very controlling and highly intolerent of any disagreement and very preachy. There is no significant left wing threat to UK HE but there is a huge soft right intolerance and control threat through management and government policy. Universitys are to be engines of growth, no longer the luxury (and danger) of centres of scholarship, intellectual exploration and of free thought. The irony of Jo Johnson's parting comments was palpable; the man who brought in TEF, making Universities fatter by weighing them more, using hardly stellar KPIs.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-n...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/05/boris-tatchell-greer-were...

 

Post edited at 00:04
3
In reply to Offwidth:

> Seriously,  change your name here.. are you twelve?

Non / deplatforming of any kind or even an attempt to do so, especially given the examples shown in your links, is in my opinion, totally conterproductive to education. I bet they wouldn't dare non-platform Anjem Choudrary. Bad ideas are only ultimately defeated by good argument, not having a hissy fit. If they haven't got any good arguments then they should kindly STFU. We now have a generation of "adults" mostly brought up and educated by women. "Adults", who for the whole of their lives (because of all the bad men) have never been left alone for 5 minutes to work life out for themselves. "Adults" with the ability to appeal instantly to a higher power and have that appeal granted. And many are still behaving like the spoilt brats they are. Non-platforming Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell, FFS. Two people who have done more for peoples rights than the whole of the NUS have done in the entirity of their existence.

By the way, as you seem so concerned about my username, what do you suggest I should change it to? Wayne Kerr? If you say I don't care, I'll tell you to STFU as well.

1
 Jonny 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> ...I would say there might be certain elements trying to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy. But maybe that's paranoia?

If you exchange the place of 'men' and 'women' in some of Cathy Newman's statements and imagine them said by a man, you get some truly Victorian results ('what's in it for the men [if women are learning how to sort their lives out]?'; 'What gives you the right to say that [dominating women is bad for men]? Maybe that’s how men want their relationships.' Kind of amusing. So that's at least one 'element' right there, and one with plenty of support.

> Unfortunately, I don't know the results if the races are reversed.

I remember reading that paper, and the results when the races were reversed were the same for those on the right and left (that is, now both save the group). Interesting, indeed! I stopped thinking about how I would self-identify (left or right) a long time ago, so it's not a conclusion I interpret personally, but it's very revealing about some states of affairs out in the world. 

> I agree with the first half of your paragraph. But, I could only accept the second half if men and women had the same desires, but they don't.

I think you've misunderstood me here. If we've got so far in the analysis of the pay gap that we've found gender not to explain much or any of the variance in pay, it means all the other factors together do explain it! Those factors encompass psychological factors, of which desires is one. So, absolutely, men and women have different desires.

> I suppose that might suggest evidence of genetic baggage.

Oh, there's plenty of that. Genetics is a kind of long-term memory engaged in a dance with the world as the organism develops. It makes no sense at all to lament genetic influences, any more than lamenting accumulated wisdom from one's own life (and yet one sees that all the time - it's parochial).

 
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Precisely this.

 

CB

1
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I guess you misunderstand my point. I am arguing that quite obviously we are a product of our evolution, but any differences that became established while we were living as non-cultural animals, or cave dwelling early humans may under current circumstances be counterproductive or unethical. The main reason is that cultural evolution has dramatically outpaced genetic evolution over the last 50.000 years.

It makes no sense to claim that a fear of snakes or foreigners is a) still relevant and b) ethical just because it may have been shaped by biology. Precisely because we are cultural animals we are free to set our ethical standards, and it useful to try and understand where many of the traditional ethics come from (i.e., selective pressures during the much longer non cultural phase of our evolution). In order to overcome any injustices caused by these evolved social structures/religions/.... it is essential to understand their evolutionary background!

What I accuse Peterson of is that he broadly argues that differences between men and women are biological in origin (quite obviously!), but that he then insinuates that this means that this is how it should be. He would not put it that bluntly, as it would be easy to spot that this conclusion is not supported by anything, but the dog whistle message is there, nicely dressed up in impressive sounding language.

Back to work, need to run and tell my students something about the biological differences between sexes, fortunately embryonic development not psychology!
 

CB 

 

1
In reply to cb294:

> I guess you misunderstand my point. I am arguing that quite obviously we are a product of our evolution, but any differences that became established while we were living as non-cultural animals, or cave dwelling early humans may under current circumstances be counterproductive or unethical. The main reason is that cultural evolution has dramatically outpaced genetic evolution over the last 50.000 years.

Yes, this is more or less my personal view as well.

> It makes no sense to claim that a fear of snakes or foreigners is a) still relevant and b) ethical just because it may have been shaped by biology. Precisely because we are cultural animals we are free to set our ethical standards, and it useful to try and understand where many of the traditional ethics come from (i.e., selective pressures during the much longer non cultural phase of our evolution). In order to overcome any injustices caused by these evolved social structures/religions/.... it is essential to understand their evolutionary background!

Woah, hold on there partner! I'm not sure if you ignore prejudice and just willing accept "foreigners"  (a better word is probably aliens) with no prejudice (a better word is probably caution) into your "tribe" and with no thought for the consequences, you are not running the risk of the "snake in the grass" type scenarios. This could be applied to any rational fear. I think prejudices help us survive. Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse to hold onto them after you've had the "update" that informs you that your prejudice is invalid (irrational fear).  Although I believe your "50,000 year" theory is more or less correct, this only applies to technology and not to nature and we have to deal with both. However, in an ideal world, you are right of course, especially given the power of our minds and it is perhaps where we should be in ethical terms by now. BTW, I have an irrational fear of earwigs.

> What I accuse Peterson of is that he broadly argues that differences between men and women are biological in origin (quite obviously!), but that he then insinuates that this means that this is how it should be. He would not put it that bluntly, as it would be easy to spot that this conclusion is not supported by anything, but the dog whistle message is there, nicely dressed up in impressive sounding language.

Do you not think that men and women shouldn't be different? If we are different physically why not emotionally? Perhaps that is an inevitability? If you believe we should be the same, which way do we go. Ultra-feminists (misandrists) will insist we all become like women. I can't think of the equivalent in men. It's not patriarchs (misogynists) as they would prefer women to stay as they are (or more likely as they were). I think what Peterson is arguing is that by forcing change at an unhealthy pace ("me now") it is causing real problems for men and will ultimately cause problems for women and society in general. And conflict, division and strife within our society is the last thing we need at this juncture in history. I will admit he often uses hyperbolic statements and is guilty of just thinking this is some kind of postmodernist conspiracy. He also seems somewhat obsessed with allegorical stories, especially from the bible, often giving them too much importance and reading into them theories that the author will not have consciously thought of. I certainly don't think middle-eastern goat herders knew more about the ways of the world than we do. However, I believe the essence of what he is saying from a societal point of view to be true. I think he is effectively saying,"Look people, if we don't consider the full consequences of our actions we're gonna be in big, big trouble".

Perhaps we need to learn which female traits are appropriate for men to assimulate and vice versa, whilst also learning which are not appropriate.

> Back to work, need to run and tell my students something about the biological differences between sexes, fortunately embryonic development not psychology!

Bricks and mortar? The problem is, what kind of house do you want to live in.

You and Offwidth are academics and could quite easily "wordsmith" me into a corner and defeat. Is that not a form of prejudice? I'm not an academic but just a bloke who used to program machines. The thing I and others have, which you (academia) should use is, this is how it feels to the many of the average Joes that you view from your ivory tower.

 

Post edited at 09:59
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018
In reply to winhill:

> This is a good example of the problem with identity politics, where science is forced into a backseat because reasons. 

The extremes of identity politics may be guilty of this, but I don't see anyone here arguing that science should play second fiddle because reasons. However, I do see Peterson arguing with Cathy Newman that reasons can do one because science, which is an equally absurd argument. If we keep on pulling that particular thread, shouldn't there be no marriage for example, with alpha men fighting over harems of women, so we can bare as many offspring as possible. This is a shit idea because of the damage it would do to our social group and so we have civilised ourselves as a species, which means effectively denying or restraining some of our inate biological urges for the betterment of our species group as a whole. That's why when Peterson starts waffling about lobsters to try and justify a gender pay gap (one he says doesn't exist and then says can only be attributable in part to gender alone), he gets called out on talking shite. Identity politics may be a squawking, mess of victimhood, but on the flip-side new Darwinism is a pig-headed, demonstration of something close to sociopathy.

 

2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

It is Peterson's view that a man (or a woman) should choose one partner and stick with them. He is very much a monogomist so I don't see where your harem argument comes from.

As for birth rates, you really should research the link between birth rates and the collapse of societies. A civilisation dies with a birth rate of less than 2.1 children per woman.

"New" Darwinism! WTF? OK, you obviously know better 3.5 billions years of evolution.

 Jonny 01 Feb 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> ...so we can bare as many offspring as possible.

That would be a strange kind of paedophilia.

 

In reply to Jonny:

I think we seem to have come to some kind agreement / understanding on a lot of stuff. You just seem a little more level headed where I have a tendency to bristle somewhat.

> Oh, there's plenty of that. Genetics is a kind of long-term memory engaged in a dance with the world as the organism develops. It makes no sense at all to lament genetic influences, any more than lamenting accumulated wisdom from one's own life (and yet one sees that all the time - it's parochial).

Parochial might be a little harsh, what else are we supposed to do? I'm not in your head, your not in mine. But I accept your point.

I probably didn't explain my vague genetic theory properly. I am possibly on dangerous ground, given who some of those who are interested in this thread are, but may be in no more a dangerous place than anyone would be. I'm wondering whether a lot more is passed on through our genes than we believe. I guess what I'm hinting at is the possibility of some sort of collective unconsciousness or natural wisdom, if you prefer.

Post edited at 10:53
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

That, saves me typing my own reply!

CB

2
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

You are of course right, conflating a reasonable fear of snakes (now largely irrelevant) with a much more complex response to outgroup members (even in chimps other bands can variously be treated as enemies or mating partners, depending on context like territory size and food availability) was a rhetoric sleight of hand. In a way this is precisely what I was accusing JP off, but I hope it was pretty transparent in what I was doing. 

Of course I think men and women should be allowed to be different if they choose so, but if we aspire towards individual freedom we should not limit this by harking back to some biologically founded differences in psychology and, more importantly, societal organization.

Who is to stop a woman who wants to take a career break to care for her small children? However, for the sake of equal opportunities society should also provide women with the option (and the resources required) to combine childcare and a career.

To argue that one life choice is better than the other "because biology" is as bad as forcing women under a burka, as the ultimate purpose of such religious oppression is also explained by biology.

In any case I think we are not that far apart in our arguments, but I have zero tolerance for what I consider abuse of science by JP through his dishonest use of biological arguments to support his political ideas.

CB

1
In reply to cb294:

No one is forcing women to do anything. (Even the present leftist philosophy is that the burkha is an expression of freedom). But by that rational why should men be forced to concede? Both Peterson and I have stated that if a woman wants to enter a man's world (and thereby change it from within) and accept what comes with that territory, then go for it.

The other provisions you describe would be ideal in an ideal world. But unfortunately, … money talks and bullshit walks in our society at present.

In reply to Jonny:

Very good Jonny, took me a while to notice.

Given my spelling, missed letters, bad punctuation and the amount of editing I have to usually do, it would be hypocritical of me to criticise.

Edit: And dyslexia!

Just noticed that I wrote above "you are not running the risk of the "snake in the grass" type scenarios." when I meant to say  "are you not running the risk of the "snake in the grass" type scenarios?" I think that sometimes my brain is going way to fast for my typing skills.

Post edited at 12:25
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

I guess is this is where the difference lies, because I believe that we are not so far apart as far as the the diagnosis of what the current situation is, and how we got here, is concerned:

The world my daughters should enter should not have to be a "man's world" they have to "put up with", a society shaped by our evolutionary and subsequent religious history. Even if this were so, it could maybe explained but never justified by biological arguments.

What I demand for them is a society where we consciously and for ethical reasons strive to provide a level playing field! This involves recognising and changing, not accepting, inbuilt prejudices and biases that lie at the foundation of the current societal organisation.

That said, as students in subjects with excellent job prospects they will already benefit from the changes our generation has experienced and in part enacted. In fact, at my older daughter's medical school the majority of students who managed to obtain one of the limited places are female.

I have no doubt that they will later find it easy to combine a family (should they want one) and a career. Both will definitely have starting salaries higher than what I earn today....

This is actual progress, as 50 or certainly 100 years ago that would have been impossible. I would argue that this is a good thing, JP would denounce it as anti biological Marxism....

The problem remains much more pertinent in other sectors of society, where women remain excluded from full opportunities (e.g. certain Muslim immigrant communities or religious conservatives, to bring up another controversial topic).

CB

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> It is Peterson's view that a man (or a woman) should choose one partner and stick with them. He is very much a monogomist so I don't see where your harem argument comes from.

Yes, we know Peterson contradicts his own arguments all the time. His hilarious "lobster" argument for hierarchical systems is exactly in keeping with his "hard-wired" explanation for society's existing structures. Alpha chimps having the pick of the females being applied to human  society would be a logical extension of that argument. The fact Peterson doesn't go on to make it is down to him cherry-picking to support his central argument.

> As for birth rates, you really should research the link between birth rates and the collapse of societies. A civilisation dies with a birth rate of less than 2.1 children per woman.

All civilisations? Even accounting for modern infant mortality rates?

> "New" Darwinism! WTF? OK, you obviously know better 3.5 billions years of evolution.

Apologies, New Social Darwinism.

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Ha! Fair play, good catch.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018

^^^ What a strange comment to 'dislike'. It's almost like someone a) is just automatically disliking the comments of posters with whom they disagree, regardless of the content, and b) that they think anyone remotely sensible bases their views on how many likes or dislikes a comment has.

Or, Putin has the afternoon off.

 

Post edited at 13:08
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Not me, 'onest guv!

Yes, I've noticed this happen to my post too, even when totally neutral. Serial diskers? Big over-evolved thumbs? Or is that a Petersonesque conspiracy theory?

Don't worry about it, I've had 30 to 1 against before and it didn't change my views. Only good argument will do that.

I'll get back to your other post in a bit.

Edit: LOL, you've got another one!

Re-edit: I actually scan for posts with dislikes or ones with lots of likes if I want to get the gist of a thread, but don't want to read everything (imagine reading all of this one in a sitting - you'd end up going mad!). So if you feel it's a form of deplatforming, don't worry, it's totally counterproductive.

Post edited at 14:02
 Jonny 01 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

You seem to be arguing that wherever we see a mismatch between the environment in which a behaviour evolved and the modern-day environment, we can consider that behaviour as something to be 'overcome' (for lack of a good premise, if you will). But this is an extremely crude, top-down approach - for a start, evolution is much more dynamic than that, such that each trait is a mosaic made by artists (selective pressures) from many eras. If we can't get smoothly from the environmental mismatch to the inappropriateness of the behaviour, then we will have to justify or reject behaviours on their own merits.

This involves demonstrating that a given injustice exists. You really haven't demonstrated that this is a "man's world", or said what makes you say that we don't already have a level playing field. To make things more concrete, what do you think about the gender pay gap?

> The world my daughters should enter should not have to be... a society shaped by our evolutionary and subsequent religious history.

That is such a strange sentence for a biologist to utter (and not because 'biology-makes-right'!).

cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Right, I see what you mean. Of course society IS in fact shaped by evolution and its influence on mating strategies, psychology, all mashed up into religious precepts, as discussed above... 

My issue is as cultural animals we should be beyond that, and have indeed started working on this essentially forever, but specifically since the age of enlightenment. People like JP try to push us back, perversely under the guise of following "science".

There is no need for our ethics (and secondary to that the organisation of our societies) to be dominated by concepts that have become ingrained in our psychological makeup in response to selective pressures from pre-cultural times. 

The term man's world was in reference to the post by HJ I responded to, but very clearly our societies are rigged against women achieving high rank (be it in business or politics) without sacrificing more of their options than a man would have to.

The fact that we can nowadays elect female heads of government like May or Merkel is to be applauded (not that either of them would be my favourite, but the principle counts), but it is no coincidence that neither has children, while most of their male colleagues do, often from several women in serial monogamy.

That the more religious US are still to elect a female president, and indeed that they elected a sociopathic piece of shit like Trump in part to avoid having suffer a female president (probably that was asking too much after the poor deplorables already had to put up with a black man in the white house), is in this context rather revealing. 

The pay gap exists, and is in part indeed due to "female psychology" (I use this term as carefully as possible, but women tend to be prepared to accept longer career breaks than men), but the undeniable fact of a difference in career progress also reflects that we still force women into deciding between children and career (this decision will then be biased by biology).

This addresses only pay differences through differences in career paths, but perversely statistically there are clear pay differences also between men doing the same jobs side by side in an office. JP argues that this is inevitable and hence good "because science", I would argue that this something that can be identified as a problem and tackled.

That Jacinda Acern will soon be PM of her country and have a baby is a sign of further progress, presumably much to the dismay of JP, but certainly for his followers!


CB

1
In reply to Jonny:

Cheers Jonny, you just saved me from a lot of effort and perhaps hours of thinking.

It seems our personal philosophies are somewhat aligned and that perhaps our only real differences are our personal experiences. Oh crap! I'm starting to sound like a postmodernist!

In reply to cb294:

I suspect Jonny will have given you a far clearer reply before I've finished my own.

> Right, I see what you mean. Of course society IS in fact shaped by evolution and its influence on mating strategies, psychology, all mashed up into religious precepts, as discussed above... 

> My issue is as cultural animals we should be beyond that, and have indeed started working on this essentially forever, but specifically since the age of enlightenment. People like JP try to push us back, perversely under the guise of following "science".

Ah, I see, gut feelings for justice must take precedence over science. Religion lost that debate centuries ago.

> There is no need for our ethics (and secondary to that the organisation of our societies) to be dominated by concepts that have become ingrained in our psychological makeup in response to selective pressures from pre-cultural times. 

If you look into the causes of empire collapse you will find there is every reason to be alarmed at your proposal. We are just a swing of the sword away from the new dark ages. If you think that's an exaggeration, check out what happened to the "Golden age of Islam".

> The term man's world was in reference to the post by HJ I responded to, but very clearly our societies are rigged against women achieving high rank (be it in business or politics) without sacrificing more of their options than a man would have to.

Sorry, this is bollocks. For a man to achieve a high rank he must sacrifices many of his options. I don't suppose there are too many FTSE100 CEOs posting on UKC or even climbing. Why, because they have to work 80 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, for most of their working life, often away from home, often missing out on large sections of their family life, totally stressed from the complex work and competitive / combative nature of their work. There are not many men willing or capable of doing that and whilst I suspect there are just as many women capable of doing this, but I suspect far less are actually willing to do this.

> The fact that we can nowadays elect female heads of government like May or Merkel is to be applauded (not that either of them would be my favourite, but the principle counts), but it is no coincidence that neither has children, while most of their male colleagues do, often from several women in serial monogamy.

In this kind of competitive environment there is no room to take out time and successfully raise a family. As women are the child bearers with a natural motherly instinct, it is their natural role. If they choose something else that is fine by me. Just don't expect both, because with the forces of chaos at our very borders I'm not sure we can afford both.

Here's a personal challenge. Would you rather that your daughters becomes successful business leaders or raise successful families? Both is not an option and you can't cop out by saying "I'll support whichever decision they make. Which do you think would bring more happiness?

> That the more religious US are still to elect a female president, and indeed that they elected a sociopathic piece of shit like Trump in part to avoid having suffer a female president (probably that was asking too much after the poor deplorables already had to put up with a black man in the white house), is in this context rather revealing. 

Sorry bollocks again. They elected that sociopathic piece ot shit to avoid electing an establishment sociopathic piece of shit.

> The pay gap exists, and is in part indeed due to "female psychology" (I use this term as carefully as possible, but women tend to be prepared to accept longer career breaks than men), but the undeniable fact of a difference in career progress also reflects that we still force women into deciding between children and career (this decision will then be biased by biology).

So which would you rather have, sucessful women or a society brought up by serrogate mothers?

> This addresses only pay differences through differences in career paths, but perversely statistically there are clear pay differences also between men doing the same jobs side by side in an office. JP argues that this is inevitable and hence good "because science", I would argue that this something that can be identified as a problem and tackled.

There is evidence young women earning more than men:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-sa...

There is also evidence that women are doing better than men in education too. I contend this is down to young men becoming disenfranchised with a system rigged against them by an education designed for and delivered in a large part by women.

> That Jacinda Acern will soon be PM of her country and have a baby is a sign of further progress, presumably much to the dismay of JP, but certainly for his followers!

Yeah, and I bet she'll have loads of time to be a mother. Not.

 

1
cb294 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

No time for a full reply, but you seem to miss my point again. Probably caused by me posting in a hurry when I have gaps of a couple of minutes, if so my apologies.

You say that religion lost against science in determining what should be considered ethical. I agree, but the only reason is that science destroyed the overall legitimacy of religion for setting these rules (by explaining the evolutionary origins of religion and undermining the case for god).  Science itself in fact has nothing to say about ethics, except of course helping to make increasingly reliable predictions about the consequences of certain actions (e.g. climate change or environmental destruction).

What I and others have argued is that religious precepts and biological consequences of evolution ingrained in our psychology are essentially the same thing: Rules that lead to men restricting the freedom of women are a simple consequence of our mating system over most of our evolution (mate guarding polygyny).

The reason is simple: You can always be sure that the children of your daughters will carry your genes into your grandchildren's generation, even if they have moved in with the clan in the cave in the valley next door. You cannot be that sure about your daughters in law, hence is adaptive from a genetic viewpoint to lock your daughters in law up once they reach puberty (and your own, lest they become "devalued" in the eyes of a potential suitor). 

This is what JP would have to sell as a good thing if he took his lobster argument to its logical conclusion. No idea why he went so far away in evolution, arthropods really are rather distantly related, there would have been much more pertinent examples from mammals. A limited knowledge of biology, just having picked up some snippets of info here and there seems a plausible explanation!

The point of this is that what we generally accept as good and fair basis of organising our societies, e.g. as summed up in the declaration of human rights, cannot be deduced from science, if anything, exactly the opposite! There have been multiple attempts to justify these principles on a philosophical basis, but the arguments essentially boil down to that it works, ideals like equality make for a pleasant and productive society. Followers of IS or Taliban, ans of course also fundamental Christians or Hindus will disagree, both about the rules and their derivation! 

Science thus can only inform us about the reasons why we fail whatever ideals we set ourselves as a society, and as a scientist I therefore find the line of reasoning employed by JP particularly perverse.

Last post for today, no more breaks before I am off...

CB

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Yes, we know Peterson contradicts his own arguments all the time. His hilarious "lobster" argument for hierarchical systems is exactly in keeping with his "hard-wired" explanation for society's existing structures. Alpha chimps having the pick of the females being applied to human  society would be a logical extension of that argument. The fact Peterson doesn't go on to make it is down to him cherry-picking to support his central argument.

He is simply saying that despite being evolutionally seperated by 300 to 600 million years that hiarachical structures is still massively important in evolutionary terms as it is still present in many species, including us. The physical effects that hiarachical struggles produces happen at neuro-chemical level. A lobster's nervous system is in part regulated by serotonin, like ours. If you give a defeated lobster antidepressants they will fight again, just like humans will "fight" again when given antidepressants.

> All civilisations? Even accounting for modern infant mortality rates?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-standard-birth-rate-required-for-a-societ...

The basic premise is that society must replace itself every generation with a bit left over. In developed countries this is 2.1 per woman. The 0.1 is to acount for mortality before procreation. In developing countries with higher infant mortality it is over 3 children per woman.. This is necessary to replace the workforce and prehaps it needs to be even higher in our society to support an aging population. No society has coime back from a ratio of less than 1.9 and if it reaches 1.3 it is considered impossible to reverse. Europe currently stands at 1.38!

Any solutions coming from Utopia?

It's shit, but we have to produce more children instead of just striving for our utopian ideals or else it will be a very short experiment.

Funny you should mention Putin. He's very worried about it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save-mother-russia-putin-spends-6-4bn-to...

> Apologies, New Social Darwinism.

No wuccas.

Post edited at 18:16
 TobyA 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> There is also evidence that women are doing better than men in education too. I contend this is down to young men becoming disenfranchised with a system rigged against them by an education designed for and delivered in a large part by women.

The "feminisation of education" is thesis going back to the late 90s as an explanation for why girls are doing better than boys through the UK education system (and many other comparable countries too). Unfortunately there is very little evidence of its importance. Have look at p.5 of http://tonystephens.org.uk/download/5._misc._documents_relating_to_smsc(2)/... and you can follow the references up from there if you want more. Socio-economic class remains a stronger indicator of educational success/failure than gender, despite the attainment gap between girls and boys.

1
In reply to cb294:

> No time for a full reply, but you seem to miss my point again. Probably caused by me posting in a hurry when I have gaps of a couple of minutes, if so my apologies.

> You say that religion lost against science in determining what should be considered ethical. I agree, but the only reason is that science destroyed the overall legitimacy of religion for setting these rules (by explaining the evolutionary origins of religion and undermining the case for god).  Science itself in fact has nothing to say about ethics, except of course helping to make increasingly reliable predictions about the consequences of certain actions (e.g. climate change or environmental destruction).

I have either got your point and we simply disagree or you've missed me again.

I can think of only one occassion where ethics has triumphed over science and that was sertiously spurious science to say the very least - the Holocaust. Science could have rubbished that too if need be. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have on average an IQ that is 15 points higher than any other race. ( I know it must be illuminati disinformation). How does that make them inferior? It probably explains their eminence amongst Nobel Prize Laureates.

> What I and others have argued is that religious precepts and biological consequences of evolution ingrained in our psychology are essentially the same thing: Rules that lead to men restricting the freedom of women are a simple consequence of our mating system over most of our evolution (mate guarding polygyny).

I think you underplay the importance of biological comsequences of evolution in favour of your ethical judgement and this really surprises me coming from a scientist.

> The reason is simple: You can always be sure that the children of your daughters will carry your genes into your grandchildren's generation, even if they have moved in with the clan in the cave in the valley next door. You cannot be that sure about your daughters in law, hence is adaptive from a genetic viewpoint to lock your daughters in law up once they reach puberty (and your own, lest they become "devalued" in the eyes of a potential suitor).  

Yes, that is a good argument that I must think on and probably research more. But, I'm not advocating a law to "lock up your daughters", this isn't Saudi Arabia and I would never want it to be.

> This is what JP would have to sell as a good thing if he took his lobster argument to its logical conclusion. No idea why he went so far away in evolution, arthropods really are rather distantly related, there would have been much more pertinent examples from mammals. A limited knowledge of biology, just having picked up some snippets of info here and there seems a plausible explanation!

But I don't think that's his intent with the lobster analogy. It is simply to illustrate the importance of hiarachical structures within species. Does ability of abstract thought excuse us from the laws of nature? Because as far as I can tell, that is all that seperates us from the beasts. 

 

> The point of this is that what we generally accept as good and fair basis of organising our societies, e.g. as summed up in the declaration of human rights, cannot be deduced from science, if anything, exactly the opposite! There have been multiple attempts to justify these principles on a philosophical basis, but the arguments essentially boil down to that it works, ideals like equality make for a pleasant and productive society. Followers of IS or Taliban, ans of course also fundamental Christians or Hindus will disagree, both about the rules and their derivation! 

Is there a possiblity that the Declaration of Human Rights is not yet completely resolved? I suspect that it is aimed at opportunity rather than outcome to avoid some of the disasters of the 20th Century. Again, equality of opportunity is eminently desireable, especially for our ethical structures and maybe even for wellbeing and happiness, but equality of outcome could be massively destructive, history would suggest that it is.

Followers of IS and fundamental Christian can &£$*@^ %!&$%^£ $&*(£@€ themselves. They believe in neither science nor ethics in my opinion.

> Science thus can only inform us about the reasons why we fail whatever ideals we set ourselves as a society, and as a scientist I therefore find the line of reasoning employed by JP particularly perverse.

OK. Fair enough, that's your opinion.

> Last post for today, no more breaks before I am off...

 

1
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks Toby, I'll have a read.

However, I did instantly notice this which made me go hmmmmm…...

 

Thanks go to Gemma Moss of the Institute of Education, University of London, Becky Francis of Roehampton University and Christine Skelton of University of Birmingham who made major contributions to the production of this resource.

Edit: Confirmation bias?

Post edited at 19:40
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> Does ability of abstract thought excuse us from the laws of nature? Because as far as I can tell, that is all that seperates us from the beasts.

Dependent on what you mean by "Laws of nature", technology (including inventions like structured education, religion, philosophy, as well as hard technology itself) in many cases absolutely allows us to behave "unnaturally". We have, as a species, stepped a little outside evolution as experienced by the rest of the animal kingdom.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Good points.

 

(Have a like )

Post edited at 20:02
In reply to TobyA:

Observations:

 

1. From page 3 "Myth: All boys underachieve, and all girls now achieve well at school. "

Who is saying that. That's a massive "Newmanism"

2. From page 5 "Whilst males are under-represented at all phases of schooling, studies have shown that the vast majority of boys and girls prioritise a teacher’s individual ability as a teacher, and their level of care for their students, rather than a teacher’s gender."

Does this not confirm Peterson's suggestion that boys have very few role models to actually engage with. That's why Wayne Rooney and John Terry are their role models.

3 From page 7 "The reasons why there is unequal performance in English amongst pupils and between schools are complex…. "

How convenient!

Sorry, I'm just not buying most of that. Spurious myths that can be easily answered in favour of your own ends.. Nothing to see… move along. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> 3 From page 7 "The reasons why there is unequal performance in English amongst pupils and between schools are complex…. "

> How convenient!

Rather than "complex", you would say they're "multi-variant". *insert wink emoji*

 

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Laws of Nature.

I like seeing Julia Bradbury prancing around in skimpy lycra.

If you harm or insult my family you'd better watch out.

If you try to cause me harm you'd better watch out.

I like chocolate because it tastes nice.

Serena WIlliams would be ranked around 700 in the men's tennis rankings, (John McEnroe's claim not mine).

I could go on but I suspect you've got the point.

Post edited at 20:33
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Touché

 TobyA 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> 1. From page 3 "Myth: All boys underachieve, and all girls now achieve well at school. "

> Who is saying that. That's a massive "Newmanism"

You've been making the point through this thread that boys face systemic disadvantages in education. The difference between girls' pass rates at GCSE (A* to C) and that of boys has been a bit below 10% for over a decade now. It actually got slightly wider last summer https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/gcse-results-2017-girls-... despite changes in the results.

Maybe not you, but it is quite a common misconception that it is as simple as 'girls do better than boys' at school.

1
In reply to TobyA:

It could be quite interested to see if there is any correlation between the subject boys outscore girls and the ratio of male teachers in these subjects.

I'll see what I can find.

In reply to TobyA:

Here's a US study. There is only one subject where there is a marginally higher ratio of men, but in general it shows there are far more men in the subjects where boys do better.

https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=30

Obviously, it would be wrong to draw any conclusions without multi-variate analysis

Post edited at 22:22
In reply to TobyA:

Here's an interesting view:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37552056

It is interesting to compare the language used by the male teacher and the government spokeswoman. Absolutely no firm commtment to address the problem.

In reply to Thrudge:

Not that it matters much, but ...

Will the person who is disliking the just about every comment of my fellow debaters without having the decency to comment themselves, please stop.

it's a bit rude and to tell the truth, unhelpful for this fascinating debate.

Sorry if you feel this is a bit ungrateful.

Thanks, P.

1
 Jonny 01 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> ... society IS in fact shaped by evolution and its influence on mating strategies, psychology, all mashed up into religious precepts... 

> My issue is as cultural animals we should be beyond that.

That first sentence is some understatement! Evolution affects everything.

It designed our most basic perceptions of the world, chopping up the EM spectrum into colours [we can't see ultraviolet or infrared]; it incorporated circumstantial facts about the way our world is into our visual expectations [the sun is above us, so we interpret all shadows as being below the object that cast them, leading to some fascinating optical illusions]; it conferred on us intuitive understanding only of the medium-sized, the moderately fast, the lukewarm [we are boggled by the infinite]; it gave us the statistical machinery to infer causality [which is stumped by the big bang, or when told of an event without a cause]; it made us obsessed with faces [to the point that we see them on toast, and on Mars]; we were given grabbers on the ends of meat-pistons [such that every object is perceived with its graspability as an integral part of its own image]; it gave us memory, a re-coming into being of distillates of past experiences, recontextualised for the present self's affordances [but memories don't last, they don't reliably come to mind, we blank on them, we are suggestible, we misattribute them, 'false' ones often do last]; it gifted us with rich interpretations, while also keeping up with the world [the experienced 'present moment' actually lasts for several seconds]; it let us weave intervals of sound into angelic harmonies [but too many minor ninths and tritones and we baulk]...

We haven't flown the perch, moved on, are not 'beyond this as cultural animals'. If you would have us 'transcend' the bracketed contingencies, I think I'll stay behind.

(Lots to say on the more explicitly social aspects, but the above are the bricks and mortar of the latter, and serve to make the point for now).

 TobyA 01 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh Janus:

> There is only one subject where there is a marginally higher ratio of men, but in general it shows there are far more men in the subjects where boys do better.

Where does it say which subject areas boys are doing better in?

In reply to Jonny:

I do wonder somewhat about the lack of intellectual dissonance on CB's part given to him being a scientist (even a biological). It either goes to show the power of political correctness or else CB hasn't yet managed to relate his philosophy properly yet. Again, when has science been disproved by ethics without it being an obvious abberation? You just can't ignore the "building blocks".

Personally, I think that due to our gift abstract thought, we need to form our society from a considered synthesis of nature and ethics. We can't ignore our nature because we will perish, we can't ignore our ethics becaise it offends our principles. Having said that, we can't yet change one of these factors.

Over to you CB.

 

I just love this guy's parodies. This one explains what Peterson is trying to say about the gender pay-gap, the power of political correctness and will (maybe / hopefully) have you in tears of laughter.Best of all ut demolishes Piss Morgan.  (Lots of strong language).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Us4wcMtl4&t=767s

Post edited at 00:49
In reply to TobyA:

> Where does it say which subject areas boys are doing better in?

Sorry, that came from your previously link. I guess I can't use US statistic to explain a British phenomenon. I couldn't find any British statistis, but I wouldn't mind betting that the British gender divide in education is similar or perhaps more startling.

Post edited at 00:49
 MonkeyPuzzle 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

So, if everything we do is a product, directly or indirectly of evolution, or a filter through which everything we experience must percolate, then that must include our philosophy, of which post-modernism (and any other you choose to name) is part. Ergo, the biological argument against it forwarded by Peterson cannot be true; he is simply only discounting the products of evolution after an arbitrarily chosen point.

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> What I and others have argued is that religious precepts and biological consequences of evolution ingrained in our psychology are essentially the same thing: Rules that lead to men restricting the freedom of women are a simple consequence of our mating system over most of our evolution (mate guarding polygyny).

Sure, all this is no doubt a contributing factor to mating behaviour and resulting societal structures. But (more) monogamous arrangements also have their evolutionary rationales. We could put those in terms of strategies for parental investment affecting the desirability of offspring. The relative attractiveness of these strategies (and many other possible ones) depends on a whole host of factors, many of which are changing in the world as it modernises (window of female fertility, safety of the world, family wealth [how much you can afford to invest in each child]... the list goes on and on). If we have changed in our arrangements, it's because the world has changed. If more women are dedicating their lives to their careers, at least part of the reason why is because it is a now a better strategy to have few children, or just one, and invest a lot of the time they've freed up in accumulating wealth, to invest in the child and make it more desirable. (These rationales need never be explicit, it goes without saying.) If we haven't moved to the extreme of this continuum, it's probably because the conditions in the world don't yet merit it (that is, those women that haven't 'got with the program' shouldn't necessarily be encouraged to [they've probably already got it just right for their circumstances, thank you very much]). Nor do I think we should endeavour to engineer societal conditions to compensate for the sacrifices any one group has to make to achieve the same outcomes as another. We all have our specific niches, and our complement of talents and aptitudes reflect very real trade-offs the world imposes upon us (those facts enclosed in brackets in my last post are the results of these trade-offs [mostly at sub-societal levels, in those cases, but higher-level equivalents exist], and how we have chosen to 'play' them). We would not be any more free if those trade-offs didn't exist (in the same way that an immortal soul, if you actually imagine it, has precisely zero degrees of freedom).

As you well know, our genetic inheritance sets us up for certain behaviours in certain conditions. Change the latter and you enter a completely different parameter space. At no point do we float free from our history. As we shift from one parameter space to another, cultural evolution occurs and provides us with fast adaptations to the changing conditions. It operates in parallel, and in concert with, the novel expression of our genetic endowment in the new space. It doesn't outpace, and therefore supersede or make redundant, the products of biological evolution.

cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

I agree absolutely, my point about the mating system is only a particularly obvious example with respect to religious precepts, psychology of gender relations, and societal organization. I have no idea how one be so wilfully blind not to see this connection.

What I do not understand is the connection you and others appear to make between what we learn from science about, say, psychological differences between the sexes and what we want our society to be. 

I can see no constructive way to derive ethics from science, except utilitarianism. Of course science can protect us from stupid assumptions and their disastrous consequences, but you cannot derive the charter of human rights or the preamble of the declaration of independence from first scientific principles. 

One may actually even argue that gender equality is unlikely to work "because biology", but one cannot justify discriminating rules on that basis.

CB

cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

I will reply later, need to run to give another lecture right now.

 

CB

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> What I do not understand is the connection you and others appear to make between what we learn from science about, say, psychological differences between the sexes and what we want our society to be.

I'm not actually reasoning from psychological differences to how we want our society to be. Individuals sort themselves into close-to-optimal arrangements, given their specific aptitudes, desires etc. That optimal assortment is how we want society to be. Differences in these latter traits will result in differential assortment.

That is, I'm not reasoning from the differences, rather from the traits themselves given a certain environment.
 

> One may actually even argue that gender equality is unlikely to work "because biology", but one cannot justify discriminating rules on that basis.

I'm sorry to be obtuse, but it depends on what you mean by 'equality' and 'discriminatory rules'! In no other domain do we have the same conception of equality or discrimination (in a negative, non-technical, sense, which I think is actually very poorly defined) as I think you're hinting at. 'Allowing' height to matter in basketball is not 'discriminatory', although it is discriminatory. Nor is a predominance of tall players 'inequality', although it is inequality.

 

 Bob Kemp 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> I'm not actually reasoning from psychological differences to how we want our society to be. Individuals sort themselves into close-to-optimal arrangements, given their specific aptitudes, desires etc. That optimal assortment is how we want society to be. Differences in these latter traits will result in differential assortment.

I'm possibly misunderstanding you here in terms of the scope of this proposition, but I'm struggling to see how individuals sort themselves into close-to-optimal arrangements given the huge variations in environment and circumstances that prevail for so many people. Could you expand a bit?

 

 

cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Think of how recent women were granted suffrage even in the most progressive western societies. Would you be prepared to argue that women were excluded from voting because it was something in their specific aptitudes or desires that made them better off when excluded from the political process? After all, as we wanted society to be like that it must have been optimal! What about burkas?

As for basketball,  any proper sport has weight classes (judo or wrestling), so what about height classes? Dwarf basketball? I would favour weight classes for sport climbing comps, too, else I feel discriminated!

But seriously, you certainly cannot compare the importance of participation in sports to suffrage. Indeed, the point of sports may at its very core be that it gives us an arena where we can compete without the playing field being level, so we can enjoy our differences.

CB

1
In reply to Thrudge:

Just got up. Someone has really pissed me off. Therefore, I won't be posting for a while as my mind won't be capable of relating things as I could and should to this complex discussion. I need time for the rage to die down.

Sorry, have fun.

1
cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

The holocaust is a terrible example both of science getting it wrong and of science being abused as a source of ethics. I prefered to type up a considered post  on such a  tricky topic, hence my belated reply.

The average IQ of Ashkenazi jews is indeed higher than that of other populations in various IQ tests, but IMO that says more about the tests than about the populations tested (similar things applies to african and white americans), but that is leading to another difficult but highly interesting discussion, so let us maybe set this aside for another day. 

The Nazis considered race as the relevant unit of a Darwinian struggle between different populations. Group selection is a tricky issue in evolutionary biology alone, but let's assume they were right in this aspect of the "scientific" basis of their ideology. Would you suggest that this would justify genocide, as it would be their "evolutionary duty" to monopolize living space in the East?

The ethical problem is that  it is a scientifically undeniable fact that there is struggle for limited resources amongst a growing world population. So at some level, individuals or groups WILL compete for these resources. Does this mean that aiming for dominance by all means foul and fair is the ethically preferred course of action for a given country, let's randomly call it Trumpistan? 

At its core the difference between "America first" and the genocide of "subhuman" populations is only gradual (it is of course a huge difference in grade, but not a difference in principle): If you subscribe to the idea that a people or a country has the duty to seek its benefit also at the cost of others (which is the consequence of viewing international interactions as a zero sum game) who can rot in their "shithole" countries you have to accept as justified that your actions will be damaging to others.  IMO this is a very a slippery slope. 

The same considerations apply to struggles for limited resources between groups within one society. If a certain segment of society is in fact able to limit the freedom and resource access of others (no need to invoke men and women, let's stick with landlords and tenants, rich and poor, ...), does this prove that this is how it should be?

I agree with scientists like Gould or Teller who have forcefully argued that science can inform us about why and how certain psychological, ethical, social preferences, traits and behaviours have arisen, but cannot prescribe a course of action.


CB

 

 

1
OP Thrudge 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

> Will the person who is disliking the just about every comment of my fellow debaters without having the decency to comment themselves, please stop.

Hey, it wasn't me!  I'm pretty sure I've never hit 'dislike' in a thread.

In reply to cb294:

Thanks CB, I have some ideas on your post, which on the whole, I am in agreement with, but please see above. I'll get back to you and will continue to follow the discussion.

1
 aln 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

How does the swinging lifestyle fit here? Or Hotwife 

cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

Sure, no problem! This must be one of the most engaging threads on here in quite a while, surprising topic for that!

CB

1
In reply to Thrudge:

> Hey, it wasn't me!  I'm pretty sure I've never hit 'dislike' in a thread.

It was just a comment to all as I didn't know who it was. I chose to "reply to thread" which automatically choose you, as you are the OP.

Edit: I mean just who the fuck disliked CB's post directly above this one? Just what is there to dislike about a more than polite post that was specifically posted for my benefit? Truly moronic!

Post edited at 12:39
OP Thrudge 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

I know, I was just kidding 

In reply to Thrudge:

I guessed as much. My experience on here is that you can't even take a chance with the most basic statements, even if their intent is obvious.

 aln 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

Just to say it wasn't me. I don't do dislikes, if I disagree with someone I tell them. 

In reply to aln:

> …if I disagree with someone I tell them. 

Can't say I'd ever noticed!  

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> The Nazis considered race as the relevant unit of a Darwinian struggle between different populations...

Yes! We moved from semi- to full-on, no-holds-barred Godwin! The thread is finally coming of age. Beyond the amusing prescience of Mr Godwin, I think your analogy is actually well-stated.

 aln 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Hugh J:

I do however do likes. 

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

Thanks for the thoughtful questions - Bob Kemp and MonkeyPuzzle too. My turn to be busy, so I'll reply in a piecemeal way to each of you.

> Would you be prepared to argue that women were excluded from voting because it was something in their specific aptitudes or desires that made them better off when excluded from the political process? 

The consequences on women's lives of being ruled by government A versus government B were much less pronounced in the decades and centuries before suffrage. It was men who were in business, paid taxes, had paid work, and fought, and so bore the consequences of regulation, tax rates, working conditions, and foreign policy. For various reasons (mainly increased participation in the aforementioned activities), these things came more and more to matter to women, until they'd had enough and won suffrage for themselves.

Injustices exist while conditions are ripe for change, but the change hasn't yet happened. It's hard to say when this was true for suffrage - probably a while before it actually happened, but also well after men had the right to vote. I don't think it's right to say that women were tolerating a gross injustice from the conception of democracy. So to answer your question directly, yes, I think there was a point at which that was true. Perhaps, if we had the ability to intervene in history, we would have been better off 'giving' women the right to vote some time earlier. But such acts of God very often wouldn't be the right thing to do. The beautiful novel 'Things Fall Apart', by Chinua Achebe, is a wonderful illustration of the double-edged sword of imposed 'advancement' (that is, without consideration of local conditions). Quite germane to current themes in world politics.

As soon as being a woman became a sufficiently poor proxy for lack of knowledge about the workings of the systems their voting would have consequences on (the situation before is analagous to the fact that we still consider age to be a good proxy), an injustice arose. So the way we justify the need for change is not by extrapolating recent trends to their limits, but rather to to show that there is an injustice.

So, as a question for you, what do think is a modern-day analogue of suffrage?

cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

Not me, guv, honest....

Hugh suggested that the Holocaust was an instance where "ethics" triumphed over science, whereas I believe that on the contrary it was a case of misguided scientism, in fact the worst case imaginable: A Darwinian struggle between races used to justify genocide in a competition for resources.

Might look Godwinish, but for a change actually pertinent to the thread!

 

CB

1
cb294 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> So, as a question for you, what do think is a modern-day analogue of suffrage?

Good question, and leading back right to the top of the thread:. I have argued that in our society it should be possible and desirable to organize work in such a way that raising a family does not lead to a gender pay gap due to enforced career breaks. Not doing so, and declaring the higher echelons of politics and business a "man's world" could be considered the same as denying women first an education and then suffrage.

I support attempts at such structural changes even though I have suffered directly from the consequences: It is currently much easier for female scientists to be shortlisted for a professorship, as HR departments are desperate to appoint more female professors. Sometimes the qualifications of female candidates that get shortlisted are a complete joke, which discredits the whole effort.

CB

1
 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

My oversight! That moment is yet to come, then, though I don't actually expect it soon. You folks just aren't the type.

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> I have argued that in our society it should be possible and desirable to organize work in such a way that raising a family does not lead to a gender pay gap due to enforced career breaks. Not doing so, and declaring the higher echelons of politics and business a "man's world" could be considered the same as denying women first an education and then suffrage.

OK, that's a handful of positions that might account for perhaps a tenth of one percent of the female workforce. And these are people who would have had exceptionally high-powered jobs in any case. Not quite like denying education and the right to vote to 100% of women.

> I support attempts at such structural changes...

Hold on, I thought we were just talking about the higher echelons of business and politics? Is biology a man's world? Not from my vantage point, even if men predominate among the professorship.

> It is currently much easier for female scientists to be shortlisted for a professorship, as HR departments are desperate to appoint more female professors.

Do you support this attempt to increase the proportion of female professors? What does this have to do with the pay gap?

> Sometimes the qualifications of female candidates that get shortlisted are a complete joke, which discredits the whole effort.

How much worse should their qualifications be able to be not to discredit the whole effort? A bit of a joke? 'Not as good as the man on the list, but nobody will notice'?

 TobyA 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jonny:

> The consequences on women's lives of being ruled by government A versus government B were much less pronounced in the decades and centuries before suffrage. It was men who were in business, paid taxes, had paid work, and fought, and so bore the consequences of regulation, tax rates, working conditions, and foreign policy. 

You said you were a scientist didn't you? Because I'm afraid the above is complete historical illiteracy. Whether post-industrialisation or under feudalism, the idea that women were economically inactive, isn't just wrong it's a bizarre claim. You might just be able to make an argument that all people without suffrage weren't really affected by changes in governance, but only in the sense they were starving and ignorant under one ruler, and remained that way under the next king or parliament, although radical political movements going back into feudal times tend to say even that affect is minimal.

Post edited at 18:45
2
 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Hehe, I thought in retrospect someone might pick up on that specific case of lack of clarity. Half an hour had passed, so too bad. Although since it's been a common theme in the thread, you might have been a little more charitable and assumed I was talking about differences in distributions... 

So, to be clear, '...the proportion of men who were in business, paid taxes, had paid work, and fought, and so bore the consequences of regulation, tax rates, working conditions, and foreign policy, was larger, relative to women, in the centuries preceeding partial female, and then universal, suffrage, than immediately preceeding those changes.'

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

To inaugurate your new name:  youtube.com/watch?v=DruXykiH5V8&.

In reply to Jonny:

Superb!

Thanks mate for cheering me up!

 Jonny 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

Glad to hear it! Hope the rage faded, sage made it, into the carrot soup, and I ate it.

 Postmanpat 02 Feb 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I really don't think that there is any mileage in teaming up with right-wing fanatics against this fictitious bogeyman of the postmodernist neo-Marxists, or cultural marxists, or SJWs, or "the left". While you'll find plenty of stupid behaviour from that part of the political spectrum, I don't believe they're making any difference to the state of the world.

>

  Mr.Harris seems somewhat concerned by these "fictitious bogeymen"

youtube.com/watch?v=nJ5XoMXyH28&

 

In reply to Postmanpat:

Harris? Haidt? What would they know? Thank God we have found Newmanism, with which we can destroy these insidious morons!

Here's a commentary on the infamous interview by Paul Weston that I think you might appreciate. It includes a very erudite opinion on why this has become such a phenomenon across the net.

youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM&

Have you seen Sargon's take on it?

In reply to Jonny:

> Thanks for the thoughtful questions - Bob Kemp and MonkeyPuzzle too. My turn to be busy, so I'll reply in a piecemeal way to each of you.

> The consequences on women's lives of being ruled by government A versus government B were much less pronounced in the decades and centuries before suffrage. It was men who were in business, paid taxes, had paid work, and fought, and so bore the consequences of regulation, tax rates, working conditions, and foreign policy. For various reasons (mainly increased participation in the aforementioned activities), these things came more and more to matter to women, until they'd had enough and won suffrage for themselves.

Not only has Toby picked you up on the economic involvement of women through the ages, I think you should perhaps research men's right to vote as well. Pre-1832 only men over 21 with land above a certain value were allowed to vote. The Great Reform Act of 1832 extended this to other reasonably affluent men. It was not until 1918, when women over 30 with property were allowed to vote, that all men over 21 were allowed to vote (they could hardly say no after Ypres, Passchdaele and The Somme). Women voted in their millions at the next election. In 1928, all women were given the same voting rights of men. In 1968 the voting age was lowered to 18.

https://www.halarose.co.uk/news/a-timeline-of-british-voting/

It seems the male hegemony wasn't quite the hegemony that it is often thought to be.

> Injustices exist while conditions are ripe for change, but the change hasn't yet happened. It's hard to say when this was true for suffrage - probably a while before it actually happened, but also well after men had the right to vote. I don't think it's right to say that women were tolerating a gross injustice from the conception of democracy. So to answer your question directly, yes, I think there was a point at which that was true. Perhaps, if we had the ability to intervene in history, we would have been better off 'giving' women the right to vote some time earlier. But such acts of God very often wouldn't be the right thing to do. The beautiful novel 'Things Fall Apart', by Chinua Achebe, is a wonderful illustration of the double-edged sword of imposed 'advancement' (that is, without consideration of local conditions). Quite germane to current themes in world politics.

The suffrage debate started around the time of the 1832 GRA. It obviously took way too long to resolve. It seems absolutely bonkers to me that people (men and women) who's lives were going to be effected by the choice of governance were denied the right to have a say in a "democracy" (Or is it "democrisy? ). But then, those were different times I suppose.

> As soon as being a woman became a sufficiently poor proxy for lack of knowledge about the workings of the systems their voting would have consequences on (the situation before is analagous to the fact that we still consider age to be a good proxy), an injustice arose. So the way we justify the need for change is not by extrapolating recent trends to their limits, but rather to to show that there is an injustice.

Sorry, speak English boy! That's way over my head. Just joking, I think I get it. The real nail in the coffin (as above) was the fact that women were doing "men's" work whilst there brothers, sons and husbands were being slaughtered. Of course, 15 years of the suffragette women throwing themselves in front of racehorses had a massive impact too.

> So, as a question for you, what do think is a modern-day analogue of suffrage?

The disparity between the haves and the have nots? It's a thorny problem with no real known solution as of yet and no real justification either.

 

In reply to cb294:

> Good question, and leading back right to the top of the thread:. I have argued that in our society it should be possible and desirable to organize work in such a way that raising a family does not lead to a gender pay gap due to enforced career breaks. Not doing so, and declaring the higher echelons of politics and business a "man's world" could be considered the same as denying women first an education and then suffrage.

> I support attempts at such structural changes even though I have suffered directly from the consequences: It is currently much easier for female scientists to be shortlisted for a professorship, as HR departments are desperate to appoint more female professors. Sometimes the qualifications of female candidates that get shortlisted are a complete joke, which discredits the whole effort.

> CB

Sorry CB, but I think that has all of the well intentioned ethical values of Marxism, but will probably end with similar results. In principle it sounds perfect, but would it work? It could be a very high risk ideal to chase.

I think a) it would have to be very carefully done as the current system has served us well (to a degree) and b) it would have to be global. I can't imagine China or Russia (ironically) giving us a free pass on that one.

You also have to take into account Peterson's argument, do (most) women actually want this? His comments about Sweden in the C4 interview would indicate that, when given a free choice women gravitate towards their traditional roles, like nursing and men theirs, like engineering. Markets set the price, price sets the wages. So, do we change the market to equalise the value of these roles? Again, a very big risk. Also, when it comes to high end, very competitive jobs, no man is going to roll over and die for the sake of equality and a woman's right to motherhood. Now, I will reiterate (God knows you have to these days), if a woman wants to enter into this "man's world" that you speak of, I say, go for it sister.

I think there might be a similar situation in politics too, where we seem to have fully embraced the concept of equality of outcome. I know there aren't many who regularly post on this site, but this thread seems to have a paucity of women commenting on it, which I believe is a great pity. Again, you have to ask. What do most women want? Perhaps there aren't that many who want to listen to us men talking shite? 

Perhaps this is also worth thinking about; do you think you should personally suffer (and perhaps your customers too) in the name of equality?

In reply to Rock The Lobster:

For those with the time and interest (fortitude), Jordan Peterson was on the Joe Rogan Experience the other day (30.01.18), It's long - about 2 ½ hours.

youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI&

 TobyA 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

Do you spend a lot of time watching Paul Weston videos? Don't you just know what he would have to say before even starting?

 TobyA 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

BTW Hegemony has very specific meaning - I think in early modern and pre modern times it makes complete sense to say the hegemony was patriarchal because of the importance of religion on society. Although I don't think have changed hugely even now.

What you meant is that poor people (men and women) had no power of political and social structures. And I totally agree with you. So did this chap called Karl, he just called the poor people the proletariat...

 

In reply to TobyA:

> Do you spend a lot of time watching Paul Weston videos? Don't you just know what he would have to say before even starting?

To tell the truth, I just stumbled across the video, I only had a vague idea who he was. Didn't he get arrested for a speaking out in public against Islam or something? It seemed a bit full of rhetoric (and a bit of something else too), but I still thought he made some very erudite points. Do you have any prejudices against him? Personally, I wil give anyone a chance to be heard (with the exception of worst kind of extreme bigots and extreme SJW activists) and I just thought it would be right up PMP's street.

Oh, thanks for the education on "hegemony", I hear it bandied around a lot these days and thought it just meant a social monopoly.

Edit: I think Karl had some theoretically beautiful, but ultimately murderous ideas. It's a bit like some of these loons on the left, good ideas taken way too far, to the point of causing destruction and is actually totally juxtaposed to their ideals, (some of these loons are just sociopathic). 

Post edited at 10:17
 TobyA 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

Weston has been connected to various far-right and anti-Muslim British political group for a decade or more I guess. When I used to research anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant political organisations and networks he used to regularly pop up as a blogger and an activist.

I know what he says and I know what political organisations he has been involved in - so if you want to say that's a prejudice, I'm cool with that.

cb294 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

No I do not think I should suffer, and feel quite pissed off by the way the changes to the recruitment process are currently implemented here in Germany. That does not change my conviction that the aim as such is worthy. 

The notion that market should set prices and wages is anyway arbitrary, there are so many instances where we as a society agree that this should not be the case, just think about healthcare: Should hospitals exclusively sell cancer treatment at maximum profit? Should water suppliers be unregulated?

But when it comes to, say, demanding that companies above a certain size should have to provide on site childcare, or that there should be paid baby breaks for both parents, such regulation suddenly becomes "Marxism"? Give me a break.

I actually wonder how many of the right wingers whining about Marxism actually have read anything by Marx (I know, his German is unbearably long winded to the point that Das Kapital is essentially unreadable). The analysis seem to be Marx = USSR = bad, when much of what he predicted about the concentration of power and wealth away from those who do the work to those owning the means of production is PRECISELY what we are observing right now. Of course his suggested solutions are dated, but why not read Piketty for a 21st century diagnosis?

I blame constant capitalist brainwashing for this lack of reflection. Why the f*ck do we need constant information on the level of the Dow Jones? You cannot escape being showered with this crap on any news channel, even though it is essentially only of interest for speculants and gamblers (they should not be called investors, this is just another whitewash wording). Everybody else and their pension funds should be concerned with long term trends only.

You can even spot this biasing in the jubilant voice of the radio news reader when they announce that some stock has risen, even though that probably meant that the company have just sacked a couple of thousand people and have moved the jobs to Bangladesh where pay is cheap and environmental protection nonexistent.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

CB

 TobyA 03 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

Mr cb, I happened to listen to this yesterday while about various chores. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/audio/2018/jan/31/the-al... Very interesting about novel types of localised socialist policies being given a go. I'm not that far from Preston and heard nothing about these policies at all. After your heartfelt rant above (totally agree about stock prices being totally unimportant to the vast majority of people) it might make you feel happier!

 

OP Thrudge 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

The JP/Joe Rogan talk is very good.  JP also appeared on Jocko Willink's podcast:

youtube.com/watch?v=23dArPpXgCM&

(3.5 hours - settle in with plenty of beer)

On the face of it, JP and JW are poles apart: a cautious, compassionate academic with a passion for Neitzsche, Jung and Solzhenitsyn; and one of the manliest men ever to do man things, an ex-SEAL who's seen active service and is a martial arts expert and management consultant.  Ivory tower versus macho power.

In practice, the two have a remarkable amount in common when it comes to their views.  It's a thoughtful and intelligent conversation that covers a lot of ground.

In reply to Thrudge:

Thanks man, I'll have a look.

cb294 03 Feb 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks, will listen to it later (sat in my office again, while the sun is shining outside...)

CB

In reply to cb294:

> No I do not think I should suffer, and feel quite pissed off by the way the changes to the recruitment process are currently implemented here in Germany. That does not change my conviction that the aim as such is worthy. 

You're in Germany! Wow, that's a lot nearer the sharp end than I'd like to be!

> The notion that market should set prices and wages is anyway arbitrary, there are so many instances where we as a society agree that this should not be the case, just think about healthcare: Should hospitals exclusively sell cancer treatment at maximum profit? Should water suppliers be unregulated?

As stated above, we need to be very careful about what we do. Personally, I think more of the taxes from business (and more should actually be collected) should be funnelled into public institutions to make their value more equitable with business. i.e. Pay nurses more! At the moment, the opposite seems to be happening. However, I have some reservations on this, business will have you believe that if you tax them more they will go else where and you'll end up with nothing (how very ethical of them). I think this has to be another global policy, probably set and enforced (fat chance) by the G20.

> But when it comes to, say, demanding that companies above a certain size should have to provide on site childcare, or that there should be paid baby breaks for both parents, such regulation suddenly becomes "Marxism"? Give me a break.

I see what you mean. This seems like an eminently sensible compromise and the kind of solutions we need. However, I do wonder if it is a bit entitled. Is it too much freedom? Should the choice be, for the benefit of society, you are either a good parent or a good business person? Perhaps this synthesis would just create someone who is neither?

> I actually wonder how many of the right wingers whining about Marxism actually have read anything by Marx (I know, his German is unbearably long winded to the point that Das Kapital is essentially unreadable). The analysis seem to be Marx = USSR = bad, when much of what he predicted about the concentration of power and wealth away from those who do the work to those owning the means of production is PRECISELY what we are observing right now. Of course his suggested solutions are dated, but why not read Piketty for a 21st century diagnosis?

As I have stated, Marxism though theoretically a just philosophy just doesn't work because of human nature. I would say, Marx = a just but flawed philosophy = bad. USSR = example of the flaws in this philosophy in practice = bad. I contend that true Marxism is only workable between a few hippies on a kibbutz.

> I blame constant capitalist brainwashing for this lack of reflection. Why the f*ck do we need constant information on the level of the Dow Jones? You cannot escape being showered with this crap on any news channel, even though it is essentially only of interest for speculants and gamblers (they should not be called investors, this is just another whitewash wording). Everybody else and their pension funds should be concerned with long term trends only.

Yeah, it's bollocks isn't it and I don't think it's ever directly effected me apart from the scumbag captains of industry saying, "Sorry, you we can't afford to give you a pay rise", year on year on year on year, whilst scooping up their bonuses with a f*cking JCB!

> You can even spot this biasing in the jubilant voice of the radio news reader when they announce that some stock has risen, even though that probably meant that the company have just sacked a couple of thousand people and have moved the jobs to Bangladesh where pay is cheap and environmental protection nonexistent.

> Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yes, disgusting on their part and blinkered on "our" part.

 

cb294 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

Yes I am a German in Germany,  thought that was rather well known on here. I stuck around this forum since my time in the UK where I unfortunately did not manage to do as much climbing as I would have liked to (bloody Cambridge tends to take care of that). Unclear what you mean by sharp end, though.

Some of the ideas you propose sound pretty "Marxist" to me (funnelling tax money to public institutions, don't you know that you are getting in dangerous territory there), but no complaints from me on that account! 

I totally agree that the Warsaw pact socialist economies were complete failures. However, other places like, say, Cuba saw a vast improvement in living standards for most people after Castro's communists deposed the Batista dictatorship, only for progress to collapse again under US sanctions. Nevertheless, even today healthcare in Cuba is broadly still better than in most parts of the US!

Same in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s: You could always tell if a small town was rund by a PCI (communist) council, swept streets and sufficient bins usually were a giveaway sign (employing enough people to do the sweeping rather than cutting council expenses at all cost helped).

I would argue that you have to distinguish between Marxist economic analysis and Marxist economic solutions:

The key point of Marxist economic diagnosis absolutely holds true, even in the 21st century: Allowing capitalist corporations to concentrate the means of production, to privatize profits while socializing their losses shifts power from people actually generating wealth to those merely siphoning it off. This is also why capitalism NEEDS a degree of unemployment: How better to force workers to sell their labour cheaply?

The rise of multinational corporations has actually exacerbated that problem, because no one is left that can be held to account locally. Instead, states are pitted against each other in some kind of beggar thy neighbour game to get at least some tax scraps from the multinationals.

So Marx' diagnosis holds true, even if his language and examples are dated.

In contrast, like you I disagree with his proposed solutions, such as a transient, socialist dictatorship of the proletariat as a step on the way to full on communism. You are absolutely right, human nature is not made for this.

I would already be happy with some traditional Scandinavian or continental European social democracy, but if you look at polls Europe wide I guess I am on the losing side for good, especially if I want some green policies thrown in, too! Decrying such ideas as "Marxist" to me just proves that someone has no idea, and discredits the rest of their arguments.

Cheers,


CB

 

 

 

1
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

Just a few of idle thoughts.

I do wonder if most of the contributors (including myself) to this debate are somewhat on the same page? I think we really are. Does this constitute an "echo-chamber"? Does that actually matter, as it's just similarly minded people helping each other modulate thought, rather than confirming our own thoughts.

I've said it before, we really could do with some more female input on this thread, not just for balance, but we could really do with a true comprehension on what 'ordinary' women ACTUALLY want, so that we can workout which is the best way to go forward.

The Alt-Right and the SJW Left are so close-minded that they are almost irrelevant, yet both groups seem to have cornered the debate market somewhat.

There is a beautiful part from the JRE link above where Peterson (with all his flaws) says that conservatives and liberals really do need each other. Basically, the conservatives are good at running things, whilst the liberals are good at creating solutions. I think this is a vital observation. "We can walk our roads together, if our goals are all the same".

 

In reply to cb294:

It's all a question of degrees and balance in my opinion. See my last post above.

I guess what I mean by "the sharp end" is the consequences of some of Merkel's more lunatic policies.

cb294 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

There was a bit of a refugee problem for a few months in 2016 (e.g. when we dropped our daughter at uni in Passau there were 30.000 refugees steady state in a city of 40.000 people!), but overall we cope well. I have multiple reasons to severely dislike Merkel, but the refugee decision is not one of them! 


CB

 Jonny 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

> Not only has Toby picked you up on the economic involvement of women through the ages, I think you should perhaps research men's right to vote as well.

I should say that I did know that much about the history, and my point would take the small fraction of men with suffrage as the control situation (we are, after all, trying to isolate the variable of gender). It would then be about whether some equivalent population of women (the wives of those men, perhaps) were equally impacted by a given change of governance. It wasn't the best scenario to attempt to defend, and since cb294's proposal for modern reform is on an entirely different (that is, vastly smaller) scale, it's not even necessary. To draw an analogy with Kuhnian descriptions of the advance of science, I would defend the relevance of desires and aptitudes during 'normal science', and perhaps not during 'paradigm shifts'.
 
Finally, I will concede that history, especially at levels lower than the anthropological, is not something I've been comprehensively educated in, and there will be many, many gaps in my knowledge. (A horrible consequence of giving 14 year-olds the prerogative, and indeed the obligation, to drop either history or geography. I would have suffered either way, but I made the wrong choice.). As a result, I'm much happier discussing the other aspects of this issue. 
 

> Sorry, speak English boy!

'You see, I'm very, very, very careful with my words', and that's the unfortunate result.

> The disparity between the haves and the have nots? It's a thorny problem with no real known solution as of yet and no real justification either.

I think that's a much more important issue. As I think we can glean from cb294's proposal (without reading too much into it before he's had a chance to defend himself), changes in the domain of 'gender equality' are going to bring the biggest benefits to the thin layer of women near the top of the writhing human cake. I'd rather we focused on the chasm between the women and men who are being left behind (and to a certain degree, domesticated) and those with more influence.

Worldwide, by far the biggest boons to the lives of women are to be had by increasing wealth in the developing world. 

 Jonny 03 Feb 2018
In reply to Rock The Lobster:

> I do wonder if most of the contributors (including myself) to this debate are somewhat on the same page? I think we really are. Does this constitute an "echo-chamber"? Does that actually matter, as it's just similarly minded people helping each other modulate thought, rather than confirming our own thoughts.

I think there have been plenty of disagreements on differences of emphasis. And those disagreements, which may seem pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, are probably reflected in our living fairly different lives, and having different temperaments and values.

I think this impression of consensus, and the warm sense of being in this together, is the natural product of respectful debate in which people are sincere in the points they make, and give the benefit of the doubt to the ultimate motives of others. If Ms Newman could only modify her style a bit, she could join us in this contructive and optimistic mood, I'm sure of it!


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...