২ নভেম্বর, ২০১৮
38 minutes of Swedes looking askance at Jordan Peterson.
Peterson holds forth in his usual way, quite cogent, earnest and unflappable, and not for one minute is he released from the stinkande öga.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১২৯টি মন্তব্য:
The bored ear is a hazard here. He needs to be more offensive when he's offensive.
He looks like Christopher Lee. (70s Lee when he played the villain in a 097 flick).
007 flick
"and you'd think so too if you didn't have your head up your ass."
The Swedes should be more like the Finns. Not for nothing do they celebrate St. Urho's day. Drove the grasshoppers out of Finland.
i got your Nobel Prize for Literature right here, Sven.
Is she trying to verify every blonde joke ever?
That was great, but I stopped after he had to explain science.
The woman is Annie Lööf, leader of the Swedish Center Party. She's crushed on him bigly and hasn't heard a word he's said. She's openly carnal at 29:39.
He looks much more distinguished with the beard.
Europe just doesn’t have what it takes to overcome the aristocracy.
Google is crazy fast. I googled stinkande öga and Althouse is the third hit.
And I learned this: stinkande öga is stinky eye. stinkende öga is smelly eye.
I really can't understand the brouhaha over Peterson. I mean, I like the guy, but I listen to him & he says pretty much the most anodyne, straightforward things that anyone who had training in the "soft" sciences or humanities in the 60s/70s would say. I mean, who woudda thunk that the darling of 2018 conservatives would be a Jungian!
That Peterson is seen by the Left as some fascistic bete noire is indicative of just how much of the Left is living in CloudCooCooLand.
He should try the Danes and see if he gets hygge øje
[sodal ye:] She's openly carnal at 29:39.
If she fluttered her lashes any faster, her eyelids would have flown off her head.
Good first question and answer.
She knows a man when she sees one.
I started watching a British GQ interview with Peterson last night expecting to doze off, as it was kind of late, and the video time stamp said it was just under two hours long.
I did not doze off. The interviewer was good.
It was fascinating to watch the video when he contrasted equality of opportunity with equality of results. He explained that equality of opportunity is a good thing. But he believes that mandating equality of results is a bad thing.
Immediately after, Annie Lööf chimed in to say how important it was that her daughter have the opportunity to choose whatever career she wanted. She completely ignored the distinction that Jordan had just made. As in so many of these lectures, it is as if they aren't listening to what he says *at all*.
Snooty know-it-all leftists do not know what to do with this guy.
An interesting thing about Swedes, with whom I've spent a fair amount of time discussing cultural and political issues, is that they have a whole vocabulary of nonverbal utterances. They range from grunt-like sounds to various pitches of "hmmm" with which the meaning changes along with the tone. Many a meeting, usually designed to reach a consensus on some product or marketing question, ended up being a grunt-fest as the Swedes at the table worked out their positions on the issues at hand. Consensus and the appearance of agreement in public are very important to Swedes. Not so much to us Americans at the table. Our decisions were almost always predicated on what we perceived the customer to want from us, while the Swedes had to consider what their fellow managers and colleagues thought about the subject and how their agreement or disagreement with any proposal would affect their interpersonal relationships.
However, we all agreed on schnapps and beer after the meetings.
I wish life could be Swedish magazines.
That one chick looks like she could use some Alpha-D-Galactosidase.
38 minutes of Swedes looking askance at Jordan Peterson
This headline should trend on Twitter.
It's difficult watching the woman struggle to express her ideas in English. When Peterson cited studies about the biological impact on career choices among men and women, it took her quite some time to get the words out to the effect of "No. It's all due to culture."
The interviewer fell into a certain category. A good interviewer wants the viewer to understand what the subject thinks. A bad interviewer wants the viewer to understand what the interviewer thinks. It's harder to do the former when the subject is considered controversial.
This is how discourse should be discussed. Imagine how much different this would have been if the interviewer were, say, Don Lemmon or Whoopi Goldberg.
His dedication to data supported by scientific method gives him a strong fulcrum to lever the ideological arguments. I was impressed at how little the others appeared to listen or comprehend what he was saying. His comments about devolving into tribes (the barbarians are at the gates) is spot on. It takes courage to listen to such statements and courage is not a highly-value in most ideologies, no?
I appreciate how polite the Swedes were. They seemed amused by Peterson's blatant apostasy against political correctness.
If Democrats here could emulate that behavior ...
Nah!
I remember that Blondie song "Roof of Glass."
That question about how old the children should be before divorce reminds me of this joke:
A very old couple come to a lawyer's office.
"We want a divorce."
"You're both over 90 years old! You've been married 65 years! Why would you want a divorce now?"
"We wanted to wait until the kids had died."
His point about learning to negotiate is also very important, especially about the cost of keeping what one really wants ambiguous. The hard work of marrying includes the suffering the humility of stating one's position clearly to one's spouse. While ambiguity gives the illusion of control in the short term, it continues the piling up of unresolved conflicts that often sink the boat.
"No, I don't provoke people, I just say what I think."
I do the same thing - but in places where people will shoot you.
His dedication to data supported by scientific method gives him a strong fulcrum to lever the ideological arguments.
True, but his point is it's not ideological. It's just how things are. Annie Lööf may talk about men being more sensitive and boys playing with dolls, but it's not really what boys do, unless they're bending the dolls in two and pretending they're guns.
It's the old nature vs nurture debate. It should be obvious both are important, but humans are not blank slates, and nurture works better when it takes nature into account. As in, Annie Lööf might want her daughter to be a strong, confident leader some day, but if the girl really wants to be a stay-at-home mom or a kindergarten teacher, Lööf would do well to respect that.
Listening to this without watching, I kept hearing an occasional cadence to Peterson's speech that I couldn't place. Finally, I got it. It's Jimmy Stewart. It's Jimmy Stewart cross-examining.
Why are they speaking English? Why are they appropriating my cultural language?
My culture is not a convenience!
This is how discourse should be discussed. Imagine how much different this would have been if the interviewer were, say, Don Lemmon or Whoopi Goldberg.
Don't sell Whoopi short as an interviewer. For a little while in the 90's, I think, she had a talk show of her own. One night by chance I caught her interviewing G. Gordon Liddy, the "crazy right wing nut" of the Watergate scandal. It was a wonderful, enlightening conversation.
JorPete speaks clearly and cogently about important current issues - the only downside is why he is such a rare bird these days. He almost like the cultural equivalent of "The Last of the Mohicans".
The second half of the interview went much better. They let him talk and built on his comments rather than simply contradict them. And I became intrigued with Lady Swede.
Having seen a good number of Peterson interviews, several of his video chats, a few of his lectures (on youtube) I have to say I find what he says to be thoroughly uncontroversial. The disputable and controversial ideas come from his interlocutors: Nature vs Nurture, Tyrannical Patriarchy in Western Society, Gender Pay Gap, etc.
Here's the research study in Science that Peterson mentioned.
"097 flick"
097. Wasn't that the slightly less hot than Barbara Feldon Control agent?
There was this video on YouTube. A Swedish journalist asked Swedish 'scientists' about gender differences.
'They don't exist at all.' was the constant answer by these 'scientists'.
He then went to America, Holland, Germany, Britain and asked the same question. 'Many!' Came the shocked response by the scientists. They then laid out a dozen experiments with infants, chimps etc clearly outlining gender preferences.
So Swedolist went back to the Swedish 'scientists' and mentioned all these studies with video evidence, peer review and methodology.
'Every single one of those studies is wrong. There are no gender differences.' came the doctrinaire answers.
So the fact that the Swedes can't even understand Petersen's assumptions is not surprising. It is like telling the Aztec that killing a thousand people won't make the sun rise for the year.
Alas that so much of the Academy aspires to be more and more Swedish. The Bell Curve was just the start.
From the Peterson Q&A at the Oxford Union -
"All the right wing psychologists in the world are in this room, sitting in this chair."
The Swedes have a bizarrely intense adherence to feminist principles. They have very strict equal pay/equal representation rules, and women still make less money than men. The swedes give very generous maternity leave to both the mother and the father, but the men don't use it -- which the Swedes feel gives them an unfair workplace advantage, so now they want to force men to take maternity leave.
It is as though they are determined to live lives that are unhappy and devoid of meaning.
“In man's struggle against the world, bet on the world.”
― Franz Kafka
Listening to this without watching, I kept hearing an occasional cadence to Peterson's speech that I couldn't place. Finally, I got it. It's Jimmy Stewart. It's Jimmy Stewart cross-examining.
Yes. Jimmy Stewart with a Canadian accent.
It's clear that none of them really understands his positions. They only addressed their superficial appraisals of what they think he's saying. You can't blame too much because you would have to speak for hours to clarify his ideas. Jordan is a long overdue counterpoint to radical ideologies that are not based in the realities of biology and depth psychology.Or history. they were all talking past each other.
I could only watch five minutes. Through those first five minutes, I didn't see any stink eye, in English or otherwise. So I guess the post's title is at best some puffery and saleswomanship.
That, and it seems (I say it seems because I got bored and stopped watching) that a) Peterson is equivocating about what it is to be powerful between his answers to the explicit power questions and his answers to the young men / young women question and b) he either has no idea what people are complaining about when they complain about patriarchy or he knows and is being purposefully dishonest and uncharitable.
He seems well spoken, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's not as bad a reasoner as some corners of the Internet hold him out to be. But in this video, at least in the first five minutes, he seems like an extraordinary speaker with decent but pretty ordinary ideas and decent but pretty ordinary reasoning capacities.
Mind you, moose bites can be pretty nasty.
Although I am a quarter Swede and a quarter Dane, these modern Swedes remind me of the Eloi in the Time Machine. Helpless fools.
Who signed off on that rug? Yeesh!
"Blogger FIDO said...
There was this video on YouTube. A Swedish journalist asked Swedish 'scientists' about gender differences.
'They don't exist at all.' was the constant answer by these 'scientists'."
In twenty years, maybe less, Sweden will be a Muslim country. They'll know all about gender difference by then.
Only watched half of it so far, but I have a feeling they're really struggling with his English. Peterson's language is quite advanced, and the distinctions he makes are subtle. They'd probably do better to just read his book.
Yes. Jimmy Stewart with a Canadian accent.
Yes.
aboot.
And to is too.
Kansas Scout said...
It's clear that none of them really understands his positions. They only addressed their superficial appraisals of what they think he's saying. You can't blame too much because you would have to speak for hours to clarify his ideas. Jordan is a long overdue counterpoint to radical ideologies that are not based in the realities of biology and depth psychology.Or history. they were all talking past each other.
Not quite right.
They understand and they realize the power of what he is saying. His message got to the people past their filter.
They are not misunderstanding him, they are trying to keep the masses from understanding him.
The war against the US is at it's core the Aristocracy's war against the citizen. Jordan Peterson is undergirding principles that build a strong moral character. Individual virtue is the core of liberal western civilization.
This is the foundation of a free society. You can only have a free society when you can trust the people will do the right thing when nobody is looking. The overwhelming majority of your citizens have to be good people on their own.
This is the foundation of our republic upon which the first principles can reside.
The Aristocracy wants their serfs back. This is the core battle of the modern era.
Craig,
He understands what is meant by "patriarchy" in the way it is used ideologically today. Many of the bien-pensant side are quite unclear about it though.
Essentially the complaint about patriarchy is a specific idea about human nature, in that it is held to be, by almost everyone on that side, as an artifact of culture. The nature of societies, and gender roles and the power structure that comes from that are supposed to be mutable, manipulable.
Petersons idea is that human nature is nearly entirely innate, biological, and this is exceedingly well supported by both history and science, and that such things as gender roles are not to be messed with as there are nasty consequences to doing this. Nature will object, and does.
Craig said, "Peterson is equivocating"
I don't think that is quite right. He frames answers quite narrowly, which seems to be a way he stays within his expertise. To really answer questions about power differentials, you have to move out of psychology and take on politics. And you have to move from talking about individuals to talking about statistics. He very effective avoids those more amorphous questions.
Better questioners could have pursued that goal.
Yes, it impossible to live in a society without an "archy" (literally, "ruler"), whether it is "mon", "patri", "matri", or whatever. This is quite well known, so I sympathize with the position that this is the "Aristocracy" in a power struggle. It is an interesting argument as to whether "patri" is demonstrably better than "matri" (certainly better than "oli" or "an") from data supported by the scientific method.
Can't they both lose?
And contra Henry, I can't see any way that Peterson is "staying within his expertise". Jungian Psychology and The Revival Of Western Civilization are two very different things (and the former contributes at most zero to the latter.)
Blogger Henry said...
Craig said, "Peterson is equivocating"
I don't think that is quite right. He frames answers quite narrowly, which seems to be a way he stays within his expertise. To really answer questions about power differentials, you have to move out of psychology and take on politics. And you have to move from talking about individuals to talking about statistics. He very effective avoids those more amorphous questions.
Better questioners could have pursued that goal.
---
This is just a flat misreading or misunderstanding of Peterson, at least vis-a-vis his talk of power and strength at the outset of the video.
The Petersonian position is that a true matriarchy is impossible.
Humanity simply isn't made that way.
Any female power is either of the form that suits women, that is, the sort where their power is largely covert and exercised privately, which is the way, historically, that societies with matriarchical tendencies actually worked, or it is an implicit or explicit grant by men, which can withraw the grant as necessary. Female rulers anywhere in history ruled through a consensus of a group of powerful men, and the women obtained or held on to power through their exceptional circumstances or exceptional political skill.
Blogger buwaya said...
Craig,
He understands what is meant by "patriarchy" in the way it is used ideologically today. Many of the bien-pensant side are quite unclear about it though.
Essentially the complaint about patriarchy is a specific idea about human nature, in that it is held to be, by almost everyone on that side, as an artifact of culture. The nature of societies, and gender roles and the power structure that comes from that are supposed to be mutable, manipulable.
Petersons idea is that human nature is nearly entirely innate, biological, and this is exceedingly well supported by both history and science, and that such things as gender roles are not to be messed with as there are nasty consequences to doing this. Nature will object, and does.
11/2/18, 1:53 PM
---
This is misreading the debate, or, at best, this is attributing to all of the participants on side of the debate a minority view held by some proper subset of them.
At this late point in my life, I admire two public men: Trump and Peterson. They both say the truth. Dr. Peterson also has a tempermental side.
@Craig, @Kirk -- I'll rephrase. What struck me about the way Peterson answers questions is that when he is challenged on a bold claim, he retreats to the narrow bounds of individual psychology.
A trivial example was the question about makes him angry (or annoyed or whatever it was) and he answered "being hungry."
I don't follow Peterson, so I'm just responding to this video.
So what you're saying is the Swedes were skeptical and rude?
In the last segment of this useful interview, Peterson describes the benefit of an all-meat diet for the serious autoimmune disorders of both daughter (who discovered it worked for her) and himself.
If he's so good at researching things, he probably should have described the diet in the context of this 2017 paper:
Nature Communications
Bioenergetic state regulates innate inflammatory responses through the transcriptional co-repressor CtBP
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00707-0.pdf
Better described in understandable language by the UCSF PR release:
How Ketogenic Diets Curb Inflammation in the Brain
Blocking a Protein in Glucose Metabolism Could Have Same Effect as the Diet
"Ketogenic diets – extreme low-carbohydrate, high-fat regimens that have long been known to benefit epilepsy and other neurological illnesses – may work by lowering inflammation in the brain, according to new research by UC San Francisco scientists.;;;"
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/09/408366/how-ketogenic-diets-curb-inflammation-brain
Elsewhere, Peterson described the effect of his [ketogenic diet] on losing a lot of weight.
Back in the 1970's, it was called the Atkin's diet. And yes, I tried it and also lost a lot of weight. As well as the unexpected resolution of severe night owl issues.
The all-meat thing is crazy. You can get the same results by trying to eliminate carbohydrates.
My diet consisted mainly of King Oscar Norwegian Brisling Sardines and salads, instead of the former chocolate chip cookies, ice cream, and pizza.
Wouldn't mind meeting Peterson someday to learn him a thing or two about inflammatory issues.
"38 minutes of Swedes looking askance at Jordan Peterson."
Is that like two Poles walking abreast?
Craig,
It is not a misreading of the "debate" as it applies to its social, cultural and political expressions. That is, as a component of a cultural dogma or an ideology to justify a given exercise of power.
What is carefully worded in an academic paper is almost always entirely irrelevant in the HR department.
StephenFearby,
Peterson's diet is hardly Atkins. All-beef literally means all and only beef. And did you miss the part about where he drank a little apple cider and literally--and he means literally-literally -- did not sleep for 25 days?
The guy is either insane or amazingly dishonest.
buwaya said...
Craig,
It is not a misreading of the "debate" as it applies to its social, cultural and political expressions. That is, as a component of a cultural dogma or an ideology to justify a given exercise of power.
What is carefully worded in an academic paper is almost always entirely irrelevant in the HR department.
---
Peterson should know better. His audience should expect better. The version of originalism I'd get from most people, even from most lawyers, is clearly wrong (as in, not a particularly thoughtful or promising idea of how judges should behave) and also not what thinkers like Scalia or Michael Rappaport call originalism. When I want to think about whether originalism captures something right, I should either: i) solely think about the best versions or ii) think about those best versions, and work on educating the rest of the people I talk with about their flawed versions. That people who get originalism wrong are wrong is not interesting...
But in this video, at least in the first five minutes, he seems like an extraordinary speaker with decent but pretty ordinary ideas and decent but pretty ordinary reasoning capacities.
In a field were reasoning capacities don't seem to be valued, this is part of his appeal. So many of his critics complain, 'He's just stating common sense. What's the big deal?' without thinking it through.
Craig,
Welcome to humanity, and the real world. Physicists do not write or enforce nuclear reactor operations procedures either, or design cars or highways.
And people are not led by "educating" them in the theoretical basis of originalism. They want an outcome, and if you can give it to them through some mumbo jumbo only you can understand, then you are their honored wizard. If not, not.
Craig: This is misreading the debate, or, at best, this is attributing to all of the participants on side of the debate a minority view held by some proper subset of them.
Perhaps you can enlighten us then, Craig. Please explain to us "what people are complaining about when they complain about patriarchy" in Western societies, that is not being properly understood by the critics of complainers about the patriarchy.
Something that one can get a handle on and debate properly, not just this usual tedious "not all X!" stuff. And no motte-and-bailey maneuver, please.
Editor’s note: The following essay is Jordan B. Peterson’s new foreword to the new edition of The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Penguin, November 2018, 544 pages). Reproduced with the kind permission of the author.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/01/the-gulag-archipelago-a-new-foreword-by-jordan-b-peterson/
Sorry I'm too incompetent to post an active link!
And no motte-and-bailey maneuver, please.
That's a great term. I hadn't run across it before.
It strikes me that what I'm describing in regards to Peterson is precisely a motte-and-bailey maneuver: he backs up bold claims with narrow answers.
Part of what his strategy effective is the bailey-and-motte strategy of his interlocutors. They back up weak specifics with bold claims.
@Henry: And to is too.
I started saying these words in my head and I pronounce them quite differently. Sometimes "to" is just the "t" sound, even said full out it is much shorter than "too." They are not really homonyms, unless you speak like a dictionary.
From a non-legal professionals point of view, abstruse legal arguments might as well be a contest between shamans shaking fetish-sticks at each other. Althouse and others here are aficionados of this sport, and can give points for deft twirling of the shrunken heads.
No interviewer ever asks JP what I consider the crucial follow-up: If we want more women in STEM, let's say, should we promote a less egalitarian culture? Should traditional gender roles be emphasized in order to encourage women to thrive in professional extremes?
Their heads explode too early in the interview to ever get to this social mind-bender.
"That Peterson is seen by the Left as some fascistic bete noire is indicative of just how much of the Left is living in CloudCooCooLand."
They are. But Peterson is exposing their folly, showing they have no arguments, just attitudes. As inarticulate as the Cathy Newman Swedes are, they realize someone is calling BS on their BS. He's making CloudCooCooLand just a tad less comfortable.
The swedes give very generous maternity leave to both the mother and the father, but the men don't use it
Men too in my experience. All the Swedes I knew took it. It might be mandatory now. My marketing counterpart Hans S used it and about ten years back.
Blogger buwaya said...
"Petersons idea is that human nature is nearly entirely innate, biological, and this is exceedingly well supported by both history and science, and that such things as gender roles are not to be messed with as there are nasty consequences to doing this. Nature will object, and does."
Peterson's list of the technological changes that led to feminism seems way too short to me. The biggest changes have been that we are so wealthy we can afford to be individualists, and so healthy we can (almost) maintain our population by women having only two children in a lifetime. Nature used to simply get rid of anyone who didn't play the game the usual way.
Whether that means that Nature is now ready to let us play by any rules we like, as many seem to suppose, is another question entirely.
The Swedes have a bizarrely intense adherence to feminist principles.
Are they the ones where you're not allowed to pee standing up?
The Petersonian position is that a true matriarchy is impossible.
Humanity simply isn't made that way.
Mother has a kill right. Father does not.
Henry: That's a great term. I hadn't run across it before.
I like it too. Very good descriptor for a particular form of bait-and-switch.
It strikes me that what I'm describing in regards to Peterson is precisely a motte-and-bailey maneuver: he backs up bold claims with narrow answers.
I've never listened to him so that could very well be an apt description.
"Are they the ones where you're not allowed to pee standing up?"
It's not the Germans. A German court has ruled against mandatory sitzpinkling.
I think that view is a little harsh, except for that modest suggestion with Cavanaugh, has he been about suppressing speech,
Only watched half of it so far, but I have a feeling they're really struggling with his English.
As someone who visits the Nordic countries regularly, their English skills are nearly the equal of skilled native speakers.
"
Blogger SDaly said...
Here's a new book expounding on the Peterson phenomenon: Jordanetics"
Wow, that excerpt is completely inaccurate. The book must suck, and the author seems to be projecting massively.
Kirk Parker said...
"Peterson's diet is hardly Atkins. All-beef literally means all and only beef. And did you miss the part about where he drank a little apple cider and literally--and he means literally-literally -- did not sleep for 25 days?
The guy is either insane or amazingly dishonest."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
The pernicious of Identity Politics. Easy to sprew, hard to justify.
And you're wrong that Peterson's version of a ketogenic diet doesn't channel Atkins:
What is a Ketogenic Diet?
May 9, 2017
You may have heard the buzz about ketogenic diets—they are low in carbs and high in fat. This may sound very familiar to you, or, quite like Atkins. The difference is that Atkins has been around for 40 years, while ketogenic diets (or, rather, the term “ketogenic”) are relative newcomers to the low-carb world, but still follow the basic premises introduced and proven by Dr. Atkins years ago.
In other words, a low-carb diet by any other name is still a low-carb diet. And there’s research that continues to back the efficacy of low-carb diets.
https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/atkins-blogs/colette-heimowitz/what-is-a-ketogenic-diet
For those who might benefit from same.
SteveFear,
Being real Keto means being low carb and low protein.
Not accurate to lump all low carb stuff together w/o acknowledging meaningful differences, e.g. big limits on protein.
IMHO.
research that continues to back the efficacy of low-carb diets
It depends on the individual metabolic state and physical activity. Most people are not in a physical condition and sufficiently active to metabolize the carbohydrates before they are stored as body fat.
Peterson is the nemesis of the edu academic frauds of the western world. He speaks perfectly until their faked ideas are literally destroyed.
Her facial expressions softened at times towards the end of the interview. That parodoxically subverted the impact of his words. When she was in full Margaret Dumont mode, the interaction was more compelling to watch.......Mostly he says 2+2=4. I get the idea that he's trying to convince himself. Reason is such a frail windbreaker in the howling storms.
One area of disagreement: I'd recommend every young man master the art of self pity. If there's one thing I've learned in my weary passage through life, it's that if you want anyone to take pity on your plight, you have to do it yourself. You just can't expect pity from anyone but yourself.
I've put off paying attention to Jordan Peterson. No more. He's amazing.
Surprised a bit at hearing his emotion when talking about young men and women who rarely hear a word of encouragement.
Notice how he nods whenever his interlocutor manages to utter a true statement. I'm guessing that's a habit developed from years of dealing with people whose grasp on reality is tenuous. Agree whenever possible.
He said conservatives are not entrepreneurial. What?
I call BS on that one.
They unfurrowed their brows eventually
"I believe that people are stronger than their misfortunes."
"I call BS on that one."
What about his BS about gals "liking people," that's why they traditionally went into the nursing track? Do F-ing docs care about things rather than people, hence it was for the boys, before modern egalitarianism?
And re that stuff about egalitarian countries being bad re gals having more representation re good jobs. Who knew that Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and China were so egalitarian.
"He said conservatives are not entrepreneurial. What?
I call BS on that one."
I think he's being very narrow with both definitions of conservatism and entrepreneurialism. (Most modern start-ups, etc are borne of more liberal people)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
The furrowed brows were trying to push him into an ideological corner, and I thought he over-protected himself.
All in all I think Peterson is a brave voice in a sea of Neo-Marxist fraud-cultism and gender-based victimology.
"Do F-ing docs care about things rather than people"
Yes. Things like organs and systems, etc.
"And re that stuff about egalitarian countries being bad re gals having more representation re good jobs. Who knew that Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and China were so egalitarian. "
You're comparing apples to oranges. He's talking about policies in democratic states.
His book is pretty good. Better to read it than about it. It changed my thinking on some stuff.
KnownU,
One fact blows away both of your statements: More egalitarianism in democratic states has resulted in more gal docs.
Not to mention that JP claims to be talking about inherent human characteristics. He wants to say that the differences are innate, not learned or societally influenced. Hence gals want to be barefoot and pregers cause they know they need to make wee ones. And, dudes are meant to bust nuts and be the boss cause seeds gots ta be planted. And, the trannies and loon-genders are insane cause they don't fit these two categories. Gays get a pass from JP, sure that's not logical re his base thesis re gender roles, but that's why it fits perfectly w/ the rest of his stuff.
China is a curious thing.
Chinese culture is remarkably egalitarian. Han is Han.
There are no real social castes, there is no social gentry or aristocracy.
Money and power make a man more important than another, but not birth or family - unless it comes with money and power. The self-made man is as good as any other. There is nothing about old money looking down on new money.
Its more so, in that respect, even than the US. Of course, one must be properly Chinese, and until recently there was a lot of regional/sub-ethnic structure.
Arabs are something else. They have pedigrees, family and clan, and some people are "better" than others.
To get more women into STEM we just need more men to define themselves as women. Problem solved. It would be a phony answer but then it's a phony question.
One of Jordan Peterson's strengths is that interviewers find it hard to put him down. He seems to be just quietly talking but gradually you realize that the interviewer is working in total bad faith. Then Peterson becomes interesting as an example of how to handle lefty bad faith as well as for his ideas. Swedes just sitting non-responsively was a planned maneuver to make him get mad or flustered. But he realized what it was right away and just talked calmly on since that was the defeating response.
And re that stuff about egalitarian countries being bad re gals having more representation re good jobs. Who knew that Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and China were so egalitarian.
This is either a willful misinterpretation of his statements and stances OR a unknowing misunderstanding due to a shallow read or only being exposed to disingenuous critics of JP.
Assuming the later, here we go.
1) In times past, there were strong cultural barriers to female doctors.
2) Since then, many societies have become more egalitarian. Nordic countries, according to his suspicious assertions, are the 'most' egalitarian. (I am conceding the point to him)
3) Once all cultural barriers are removed and in fact some cultural INCENTIVES are added for female doctors, the number of female doctors raise from tiny x to 'gender' X, where gender X = number of women who are naturally and temperamentally willing to do the incredible amount of bullshit it takes to be a doctor.
4) However to SJ dicks, since X < 50%, they assume (illogically) that the fact that this number is < 50% is proof that there are still all kinds of cultural, social and economic barriers (that famous 'patriarchy') 'oppressing' girls rather than that for a lot of women, the good life includes a lot more having babies, drinking wine with friends, and taking long walks on the beach rather than lancing boils on a fat man's ass for 30 hours straight.
5) And adding more incentives to that doctor path has convinces fewer and fewer extra women that 30 hours of ass lancing is keen, making SJW dicks more and more suspicious about that subtle oppressive patriarchal nature. Because patriarchy is always the answer to anything they don't like because Daddy Issues.
A gender preference. Because women can marry status and wealth as well as make their own; a man has to earn those things individually all the time and is judged SOLELY on his own merits. Women are born with Vagina Privilege: useful for banging and babies even if she is as dumb as a stump.
This is the Althouse effect: Madam Althouse COULD have been a judge, with the power to carve out law and precedent for decades. Maybe even a Hillary appointee to the Supremes. But that is a lot of work and sacrifice. She didn't want that.
Althouse could ALSO have been a high price lawyer, pulling down $400/hr and being the female version of Johnnie Cochran. But he died sort of young, stewed in controversy and had to put in insane billables per week to be able to afford all those suits.
Althouse didn't value the status or money enough. She wanted to be able to lord it over students and make a significantly above average (but not insane) income with lots of time off in the summer to snap pictures.
And is that such an insane choice?
Nope!
I like Jordan Peterson.
"Blogger Dave said...
She knows a man when she sees one."
Being a Swede, she likely hasn't met that many.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
They unfurrowed their brows eventually
Muscle fatigue.
I noticed that the stink eye did recede, when Peterson began to discuss his relationship with his father. Some nods of agreement also manifested themselves. Perhaps the lady is just afflicted with Resting Stink Eye.
Female rulers anywhere in history ruled through a consensus of a group of powerful men, and the women obtained or held on to power through their exceptional circumstances or exceptional political skill.
The above statement modified to fit historical reality:
Rulers anywhere in history ruled through a consensus of a group of powerful people, and the rulers obtained or held on to power through their exceptional circumstances or exceptional political skill.
No one ruler, male or female, is EVER able to rule alone. They ALWAYS require a group of influential supporters that go along with the ruler.
Some further thoughts:
The stares are the stares of folks who are confronted with something that is unthinkable – in their case – the truth about their societies’ social engineering failures. The interviewers’ apparent reliance on Lefty narratives in regards to Peterson somewhat hampered their planned embarrassment of him (by revealing him to truly be the “alt-right” monster they heard about) when he deftly avoided the traps they thought they would catch him in. Peterson has had a lot of experience of this in the past 2 years and probably knows what they are going to say before they do.
Another interviewer I watched tried a different tactic. This poor creature had written a book, evidently thought of herself as an “expert” as a consequence, and had decided to challenge Peterson on scientific grounds. Peterson calmly destroyed all her “scientific” musings and misunderstandings and in the end she had to resort to the same cliches as did the above mentioned Scandinavian interview. These of course met the same end as they always do – the failure and embarrassment of the interviewer.
Blogger buwaya said...11/2/18, 9:51 PM - I'm assuming this is your opinion. Cause the facts don't align with your list. Everything you list is wrong - "Han is Han", "remarkably egalitarian" LOL! No such thing. Throughout China's history there have been tribal riots.
"There are no real social castes, there is no social gentry or aristocracy." LOL - 10 million communist party members will beg to disagree. Try the egalitarian B.S. on Army Generals who really control the country. Where do you get this" - "The self-made man is as good as any other." Dude, over 80% of the Chinese are still in the agrarian state of development(over 800 million people), you must be dreaming!
As a person who has often had to operate in acquired languages, let me assure you the what you saw in the eyes was not "stink eye" -- it was intense concentration to follow the conversation well. I could evaluate, within the first two minutes, each persons comfort with English, just by their eyes. They, especially the woman, were also having difficulty with Peterson's Alberta accent, which differs even from the more standard Ontario version. They all *speak* fairly internationalized English, but LISTENING is different.
For decades my personal policy for private conversations in Europe has been exactly to observe the intensity of the other person's eyes for an indication of their comfort in acquired languages. Many times we can find another mutually-acquired language -- meaning I intentionally give up my native-tongue advantage with English -- but if we cannot I will immediately slow down my pace, avoid contractions, common English expressions, long sentences, and complex grammatical constructions.
Peterson speaks rapidly, using long sentences with complex grammatical constructions, and even though most educated Swedes speak excellent English, it took intense concentration to make sure they did not miss what he was saying, and they had to do it in public for 40 minutes. That is bloody difficult.
I noticed that the stink eye did recede, when Peterson began to discuss his relationship with his father. Some nods of agreement also manifested themselves. Perhaps the lady is just afflicted with Resting Stink Eye.
The warming was because Peterson had moved into territory that they were familiar with, acccepted and understood. When he was taking about his relationship with his father that's about how Peterson's behavior may have been influenced by socio-cultural forces (ie his Dad.) If you believe that socio-cultural forces are everything, that's fine.
But if you believe that socio-cultural forces are everything, it's the suggestion that biology may have some infuence on how people behave that sticks in the throat and brings you out in a nasty case of stinkeye. Peterson was expressing this sort of heresy in the first part of the interview.
Lol this idiot gave himself braindamage and got owned by zize
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন