The Atlantic: Why cant people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying?

[Destino]

15 hours ago, zoony said:

The one you posted?  No

I did, might want to skip it because it's terribly written.  I like hit pieces, and well crafted burns amuse me even if I disagree, but this one read like an angry nerd laughing at all her own jokes.  Looked like she purposely avoided any quotes long enough to provide context (or a source so you could find the context yourself) as well. 

 

Also, Peterson or his views are not the point.  From Zoony's Atlantic article:

Quote

This isn’t meant as a global condemnation of this interviewer’s quality or past work.

....

To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

 

I don't know if Peterson is a tool, but hearing that he has his own youtube channel I'm guessing that he probably is.  The interviewer might have had a bad day or may simply want Peterson to say something crazy so that her ratings get a nice bump.  Reasonable doesn't move the needle these days, and she's in the ratings business.  The only purpose either of them serve to the writers point however, is simply to provide a useful example. 

 

This interview method represents what the writer believes is a "broader pernicious trend" of " exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation."  I'm not sure he's wrong.  We do see that sort of thing all the time and everyone does it.  We've sort of all become mind readers capable of divining the true motivations of those that disagree with us. 

[grego]

no excuses- 

 

it interesting to me that you say you like (iirc) sam harris. harris has been very critical of the left on topics like identity politics, 'campus craziness' and recently retweeted this article about the gender pay gap. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/10/economist-explains-12

 

not saying you cant disagree with someone on issues- we all obviously dont agree on everything. its just interesting that you seem to be at opposite ends of this very polarizing issue.

 

 

[zoony]

16 hours ago, Predicto said:

 

Did you read the article?  You might like it.

 

Okay so i read some of it.  Most of it seemed over the top petty, the kind of thing you write from a position of genuine fear

 

There were a few thing i agreed with.  Saying cognizant of vs know and trying very hard to use specific words is classic self aggrandizing behavior for sure  This is just like douchebags who say the word utilize.  (PSA... if you use that word for any reason you are announcing to everyone that you are a dumbass.  That advice is free) 

But, attention whoring is strong in all of academia... why else would they be in academia if not for recognition?  It aint the money

 

Now all of that said, i didnt see anything in the article actually attacking what he had to say, only attacks on the label that has been slapped on him.  Hence the point of this article.

 

This is no different right wing attacks on obama for being a socialist or communist... always easier to attack the label.  It is very different, however, when viewed with bias.

17 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Like I said, other factors, but even out of the work force due to children is realistically is somewhat the result of historical prejudice.

 

In a normal pregnancy, it doesn't take much time off work to have a kid.  Certainly, not enough to affect things like long term pay.  My wife worked up to the day that she had the baby, was out of the hospital in two days, and could have certainly gone back to work in under a week in both cases.

 

The issue is that historically maternity leave has been offered to take care of babies, but not paternity leave.  There was a societal prejudice that the woman would (and would want to) stay home with new babies and not the men.  (My wife readily admits to going stir crazy being at home with babies, but I didn't have paternity leave and she did have maternity leave so there wasn't really another option.)

 

So even when you cite things like time spent out of the workforce to have children at least part of that is due to prejudice.

 

From the above article in the economist :

The main reason why women are less likely than men to reach higher-level positions is that they are their children’s primary carers. In eight countries polled by The Economist and YouGov earlier this year, 44-75% of women with children living at home said they had scaled back at work after becoming mothers—by working fewer hours or by switching to a less demanding job, such as one requiring less travel or overtime. Only 13-37% of fathers said they had done so, and more than half of those men said their partner had also scaled back. This pattern means that men get a better shot at a pay rise or a promotion than their female colleagues, and are less likely to be in jobs for which they are overqualified. A recent study estimated that in America women’s future wages fall, on average, by 4% per child, and by 10% per child in the case of the highest-earning, most skilled white women. In Britain, a mother’s wages fall by 2% for each year she is out of the workforce, and by twice as much if she has good school-leaving qualifications.

Women’s lower salaries mean that they often fall into poverty when they divorce or are widowed. Lack of financial independence prevents some from leaving abusive partners. Policies and workplace norms that make it easier for men to split parental duties equally with their partners can tip the scale. Parents, for their part, need to instil in their children the idea that they can be anything—and not only if they are girls. Gender equality will remain elusive until boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses and full-time parents.

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

20 hours ago, zoony said:

 

Im pretty sure hes been labeled a misogynist by the left for saying that the gender pay gap is bogus, which it is.  Hes never said it didnt exist, which is what most automatically hear.

 

Hes also been labeled far right, which is pretty funny too.  I think youtube actually banned him at one point though im not sure

 

You want to join the alt-right, but your wife won't let you.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anyway, doesn't this philosophy that Men are truly alpha warriors who are being feminized by society reappear as "a bold idea" every decade or so? I feel like you draw a line from Nietzsche to Fight Club if you were so inclined to do so.

[NoCalMike]

9 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Anyway, doesn't this philosophy that Men are truly alpha warriors who are being feminized by society reappear as "a bold idea" every decade or so? I feel like you draw a line from Nietzsche to Fight Club if you were so inclined to do so.

 

I've also read the theory, (and I am sure I will ****ize this as it was a while back I read it) that a lot of the white male right-wing rage is partially due to their role in society going from the producers and manufacturers to your basic everyday cubicle worker, so outside of work they feel compelled to wear the alpha male costume and project what they feel is the traditional strong male prototype. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I mean, there is something to this idea. It's why it becomes so popular over time. And I certainly very strongly subscribe to ideas that are variations on this idea. China worries the hell out of me not for Trumpian economic reasons but because historically, whenever a country has a surplus of young men, that country goes to war. I also firmly believe that the war on drugs in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was designed in part to deal with a black male population that no longer served an economic purpose in a society going through de-industrialization.

 

I don't know, however, how hard-wired we are with gender roles.

[zoony]

25 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

China worries the hell out of me not for Trumpian economic reasons but because historically, whenever a country has a surplus of young men, that country goes to war.

 

Dont worry, we have millenials

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, zoony said:

From the above article in the economist :

The main reason why women are less likely than men to reach higher-level positions is that they are their children’s primary carers. In eight countries polled by The Economist and YouGov earlier this year, 44-75% of women with children living at home said they had scaled back at work after becoming mothers—by working fewer hours or by switching to a less demanding job, such as one requiring less travel or overtime. Only 13-37% of fathers said they had done so, and more than half of those men said their partner had also scaled back. This pattern means that men get a better shot at a pay rise or a promotion than their female colleagues, and are less likely to be in jobs for which they are overqualified. A recent study estimated that in America women’s future wages fall, on average, by 4% per child, and by 10% per child in the case of the highest-earning, most skilled white women. In Britain, a mother’s wages fall by 2% for each year she is out of the workforce, and by twice as much if she has good school-leaving qualifications.

Women’s lower salaries mean that they often fall into poverty when they divorce or are widowed. Lack of financial independence prevents some from leaving abusive partners. Policies and workplace norms that make it easier for men to split parental duties equally with their partners can tip the scale. Parents, for their part, need to instil in their children the idea that they can be anything—and not only if they are girls. Gender equality will remain elusive until boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses and full-time parents.

 

 

1.  That's the main reason, but that isn't all of it.  Nobody is claiming that isn't a large component.

 

2.  A lot of women being the primary care giver has to do with the historical bias of family leave and things like maternity vs. paternity leave.  If you are going to take a couple of 6 weeks+ off 3 times over a 6 year period, it is hard to keep a high caliber career going.  The other thing is that young women are less likely to be promoted then men (for reasons that aren't clear, but possibly due to the fact that might take time off to have a baby).  This then puts them behind their male counterpart:

 

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21729993-women-still-earn-lot-less-men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender

 

"It also found that women and men were promoted at similar rates, except at the lowest rungs of the career ladder, where women lagged behind. A possible reason is that managers are reluctant to promote women who are starting families, or are likely to do so soon."

 

Historically, through bias in who and how family leave is taken and who gets promoted and so therefore makes more money, we created a situation where the male is more likely to make more money so when it makes sense for somebody to step back from their career, it makes less sense for the male to do so because a decrease in their income is a larger penalty.

 

So at least part of the pay gap that is attributed to families is actually attributable to historical bias.  That then created a historical male/female bias of who were the leaders in their fields.  That then influences future generations.

 

3.  The other thing you get into is women frequently at least perceive they have a hit a glass ceiling due to unfair bias (and certainly historically this was an issue).  This then creates a situation when looking at life/work balance and being in a job where they feel like they have limited ability to advance women are more likely to be willing to cut back on work.

 

https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women

 

"Even for HBS women who are currently out of the workforce to care for children, “opting out” is not an accurate description of their experience. Our survey data and other research suggest that when high-achieving, highly educated professional women leave their jobs after becoming mothers, only a small number do so because they prefer to devote themselves exclusively to motherhood; the vast majority leave reluctantly and as a last resort, because they find themselves in unfulfilling roles with dim prospects for advancement. The message that they are no longer considered “players” is communicated in various, sometimes subtle ways: They may have been stigmatized for taking advantage of flex options or reduced schedules, passed over for high-profile assignments, or removed from projects they once led. One alumna, now in her late fifties, recalled, “I left my first job after being ‘mommy-tracked’ when I came back from maternity leave.”"

 

Taking a lower caliber job that pays less for your family when you feel like you are in a job that isn't going anywhere anyway isn't actually that much of a sacrifice.

 

And this is cyclic where one generation feeds the next.  Multiple studies of different populations have shown that having related mentors and role models help under represented populations succeed.  Male nurses are more likely to stay in nursing if they have a male mentor (I don't feel like digging up the link now, but I posted it in the link in the thread of the guy at google).  The historical lack of women (which again was certainly partly due to prejudice) at the top of organizations and in fields where people make the most money is going suppress women there currently due to the lack of role model and mentors in previous generations.

 

That'll change (if we work at it), but it will take generations.  In 50 years, there is still going to be a pay gap due to male achievement being higher in many fields because there just weren't an equal number of role models and mentors for females at high levels and in some high paying fields as there were for men.

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Maternity leave doesn't seem like a valid reason for a company not to promote and/or give raises to someone over.  What is the number of children these days for a family unit? Two? Three?  So you mean to tell me taking Maternity leave 2-3 times during your career is a valid reason to hold up career advancement? (From the corporation's perspective).  It seems like an excuse and a bad one.  

 

I am interested to see how this matches up with other countries that give a lot more time off to the mother & father when a new baby arrives.  I know at my company the father can take the 6 weeks & additional 6 weeks off when a baby is born so in theory I could take just as much time off if I chose to.

 

I know for childcare issues, if it is a big enough deal that one of us have to leave work, my wife and I usually rotate who is going to go handle it based on who has more vacation/sick time saved up. 

 

First, you are assuming that everything companies due is rationally long term.  That isn't at all true.

 

From there, comparisons between countries have lots of problems, but good studies show that offering equal paternal and maternal leave decreases male wages while increasing female wages and so helped shrink the pay gap:

 

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1764&context=scripps_theses

 

"In addition, our regression analysis shows us that women of childbearing age (19-45 years) saw an increase in their wages after the policy implementations, while men of childbearing age saw a decrease in their wages. This led us to the conclusion that paid family leave policies may be effective in decreasing the gender wage gap; however it is problematic that men’s wages decreased, implying that the policies may not be totally welfare optimizing. However, we came to an important conclusion that will hopefully entice more states and the federal government to implement policies to better support working parents."

 

[grego]

If maternity leave is a reason, or the main reason, for the gap, I'm not sure how much of that can be 'fixed'. You can't get around women actually giving birth and likely nursing the child. Men aren't actually necessary for any of this. 

 

My neighbor, college educated, smart woman, had a baby last year and quit her job to raise the child. 

 

It doesn't seem like that a woman as opposed to a man on this role is going to change. 

 

But to nocals point - is maternity leave a reason to pay someone less? Or is it that some positions require more of a long term time commitment (and those positions tend to pay more) and men are more likely than women to embrace a job like that? 

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, grego said:

If maternity leave is a reason, or the main reason, for the gap, I'm not sure how much of that can be 'fixed'. You can't get around women actually giving birth and likely nursing the child. Men aren't actually necessary for any of this. 

 

My neighbor, college educated, smart woman, had a baby last year and quit her job to raise the child. 

 

It doesn't seem like that a woman as opposed to a man on this role is going to change. 

 

But to nocals point - is maternity leave a reason to pay someone less? Or is it that some positions require more of a long term time commitment (and those positions tend to pay more) and men are more likely than women to embrace a job like that? 

 

As I cited, states where by law paternity leave balances maternity reduces the pay gap.  Giving birth in most cases isn't that hard and doesn't require taking much time off.  From there, it doesn't take long to establish breast feeding and women can pump during the day and nurse evenings and mornings.

 

Studies show young women are less likely to get promoted.  The cause for that isn't clear.

[Gamebreaker]

4 hours ago, grego said:

If maternity leave is a reason, or the main reason, for the gap, I'm not sure how much of that can be 'fixed'. You can't get around women actually giving birth and likely nursing the child. Men aren't actually necessary for any of this. 

 

I disagree with the bolded. If men were offered paternity leave, it would decrease the stress on new mothers and actually allow them to return to work within those 90 days or less. Yes a man can't breast feed the child, but not having to worry about getting to work in the morning makes it easier for couples to share the duty of caring for a newborn who's sleep cycle is every 4 hours. Speaking from experience, I got push back from my then-employer for using two weeks PTO when my first two children were born. It was absolutely necessary since my wife has had a c-section for all three of our children, and yet not nearly enough time to help her out. With my last child, I've taken two weeks PTO and every male co-workers who's also had a newborn has done the same. With our last child, she actually needed to take an additional two weeks, unpaid, over the 90 days provided. 

 

I could see many women, especially if they have the higher income of the two, actually going back to work in 30-45 days and not even taking the full 90 if they could rely on their husband to be able to do 90 days off as well. 

 

Furthermore, it just helps even things out. Even if the rationale for paying women less due to maternity leave isn't as prominent as perceived, other countries offer paternity leave(Germany), and it simply eliminates the chance it can become an impediment to a potentially better candidate. IMO, leave for a newborn child should be offered to both genders or not at all. 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I don't know, however, how hard-wired we are with gender roles.

Men are naturally more aggressive and violent.  Even our physical differences seem well purposed for this difference in behavior.  It's going to take a while for evolution to catch up with our modern needs. Until it does a very large population of men unhappy with what society has to offer them, is likely to remain a very dangerous situation. 

[PeterMP]

Just having a situation where either the female can stay home the first month or so and then the male can stay home for a month or so until the baby can enter day care even things out.

 

Or even probably better, the female can have a week off after the baby is born, and then the father gets a week, and it keeps going back and forth until the baby is born helps even things out.

[JCB]

True stuff there. For a country that blathers on about families all the time, we're awfully bad at creating and nurturing the conditions that actually lead to healthy ones.

[Zguy28]

22 hours ago, LD0506 said:

I didn't know who this guy was an hour ago.

 

Now I can't say that.

 

Damn you people

Me neither. I thought it said Jesse Peterson.

[tshile]

my wife and i put off trying to have a second child because she was up for a huge promotion and her getting pregnant (or her boss thinking she was trying to get pregnant) would impact the decision making process. 

 

i sucked. it still sucks. i was very angry about it. but, it was a big opportunity.

 

her boss is a woman, before anyone jumps to conclusions.

 

[DC9]

On 1/25/2018 at 8:37 PM, Destino said:

This interview method represents what the writer believes is a "broader pernicious trend" of " exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation."  I'm not sure he's wrong.  We do see that sort of thing all the time and everyone does it.  We've sort of all become mind readers capable of divining the true motivations of those that disagree with us. 

 

It's almost like reading political discussions on this board.  Are we even capable of having them anymore?

 

Even about the subject, in this thread, it took two or three posts.

 

For the most part, I'm not sure we are. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, DC9 said:

 

For the most part, I'm not sure we are. 

 

We still have to try though.

[PeterMP]

The funny thing is, the complaint of many on the far left is that nobody actually listens to them, and they'd see the way Peterson discusses the pay gap (very artificially where he doesn't then go into details that part of the reason why women have ended up in the less demanding and lower paid job is because they were the ones that had leave to take care of babies) as evidence of that.

 

Realistically, I think we have a lot of people that either don't want to or for some reason can't be (intellectually) honest on a lot of topics (and I'd put Peterson in that list).  And that then hurts discussions.

 

Even looking at the NFL/anthem protest.  Many see complaints about footballers standing as an effort to eliminate their voice and therefore diminish the driver of the discussion on police violence.  The (far) left has been trying to push the conversation on police violence and corruption (towards minorities) for a long time without getting much of anywhere so that they are forced to do extreme things to get attention.  But when they do extreme things, they end up with other negatively attached labels (e.g. unpatriotic, mobs, etc).

 

Historically, "voices" (e.g. tv and radio editorials) have gone to people that have money (and power) and historically those people have leaned to the right (at least that's the perception of the far left).

 

If you are ever confronted by a far left "mob" don't tell them to calm down, don't tell them to listen, and don't try and lecture to them.  You will just make them angrier.  They want to be listened to and feel like their voice is not the voice that is heard.

[DC9]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We still have to try though.

 

I completely agree.  I just think it's past the point of return.  Especially politically.

 

I feel like folks, especially on the internet, have preconceived notions and full playbooks ready to go when you ask a simple question or make a simple statement.

 

I'm guilty of it myself.

On 1/26/2018 at 12:49 PM, zoony said:

 

Dont worry, we have millenials

 

Dude, we're in for a rude awakening.  I've had more training on how to train millenials for the last three years than I have had training for combat.  And I just spent the last year getting ISIS out of Mosul. 

 

Thank goodness I'm about 5 years away from retirement.

[DC9]

On 1/26/2018 at 12:23 PM, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I don't know, however, how hard-wired we are with gender roles.

 

On 1/26/2018 at 2:17 PM, Destino said:

Men are naturally more aggressive and violent.  Even our physical differences seem well purposed for this difference in behavior.  It's going to take a while for evolution to catch up with our modern needs. Until it does a very large population of men unhappy with what society has to offer them, is likely to remain a very dangerous situation. 

 

I think that it's more "cultural" than it is "hard-wiring" if I'm being honest.

 

Plenty of European men aren't what I would call the pinnacle of manliness.  Same with several men in the middle east.  I never watched GOT before this past year, but I found it interesting how they portrayed the Dothraki (sorry if I've misspelled that) and how they follow the "strongest," until they show signs of weakness.  I couldn't agree more with that.  The amount of training we've given the Iraqi and Afghan security forces means nothing when they would run and hide and be disorganized at the first sign of trouble.  Though the Iraqi's, 10-15 years later, were VERY impressive this last go round in how they dealt with ISIS. 

 

I remember having a conversation with some mentors during my first tour in 2006 after interacting with the locals... I said there was no way we'd make a difference over there unless we were willing to make a generational comittment.  Those dudes needed to have freedom from tyranny for a while before they'd act the part of the proverbial man/defender.  Otherwise as soon as we leave they're going to be as non-confrontational as they were before and let cats run rough shot over them with an iron fist.

 

Just my opinion.

 

EDIT:  That also has me worried for the future of our country.  Security is a nasty business and we can't wait to focus the attention of our kids on some of the dumbest issues ever, like we're assuming that security will always be there.  It's scary. 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

I completely agree.  I just think it's past the point of return.  Especially politically.

 

I feel like folks, especially on the internet, have preconceived notions and full playbooks ready to go when you ask a simple question or make a simple statement.

 

I'm guilty of it myself.

I hear you, and it never ceases to amaze me how often in discussions I get with people that support Trump that when they disagree with something I have plenty of sources to back its either A) ...but, Hillary, or B ) your source is a liberal dishrag.  I've mentioned a couple times how one of my closest friends went to the inauguration he's in so deep and doesn't even trust Politifact.  I mean, WTF do you do with that? When I find sources we both can agree on, I'll be sure to share it.

 

 I have some ideas to get us back from the ledge, but I'm about to go out, so may start thread tomorrow to see what we all can come up with.  We may have to chalk up this period in our history as the closest we ever came to flirting with fascism, but there's way more sensible people in this country then I believe we give ourselves credit for. 

[Springfield]

52 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Dude, we're in for a rude awakening.  I've had more training on how to train millenials for the last three years than I have had training for combat.  And I just spent the last year getting ISIS out of Mosul. 

 

Thank goodness I'm about 5 years away from retirement.

 

Arent you around my age (mid 30’s)?

 

Born in 82, technically that makes me a millennial.  I work with two other guys who are 6 years older than me.  They are definitely gen x and I’m definitely a millennial.  That said, there are things in gen x that I can relate to being an “older” millennial.

 

They younger guys that I manage, born in the mid to late 90’s, can be problematic.  I can tell which ones were raised right and which ones were babied.

 

To me, it’s ultimately a problem created by the parents who come from gen x or even the baby boomer generation.  People love to **** on millenials be never lay blame on the generation(s) that raises them.