Current Events > Jordan Peterson "Can men and women work together in the workplace?"

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

D E E G S posted...

He just wanted to start a conversation.

Well there are better ways then saying women who wear makeup are asking for it.

You're not wrong but you're missing the joke.
---

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Like hell they're not

What science do people cite for using gender neutral pronouns? Scientific evidence for transgenderism isn't the same thing.

Well there's Bill Nye's "Sex Junk" episode where he argues that gender is on a spectrum. He actually goes beyond the binary which is critical in justifying things like gender neutral pronouns.

More fundamentally, in the countries where they're trying to get using the wrong pronoun listed as a hate crime, you need to prove "material harm" to justify its status as a crime and they suicide rate in the LGBT[A-Z]* community is used as evidence that words cause physical harm, and so intentionally using the wrong pronoun is tantamount to assault.
---

None of that post addressed his question.
---

Gender is definitely a spectrum, sex is pretty much exclusively binary. Is that even up for debate?

COVxy posted...

None of that post addressed his question.

Are you also saying that nobody arguing for enforcement of personal pronouns is attempting to use science to justify its need?
---

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

None of that post addressed his question.

Are you also saying that nobody arguing for enforcement of personal pronouns is attempting to use science to justify its need?

No, he's saying what you cited isn't people citing science as the rationale to use gender neutral pronouns. Stop trying to change the argument to something you can actually argue because you fundamentally disagree with transgenderism.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

None of that post addressed his question.

Are you also saying that nobody arguing for enforcement of personal pronouns is attempting to use science to justify its need?

No, he's saying what you cited isn't people citing science as the rationale to use gender neutral pronouns. Stop trying to change the argument to something you can actually argue because you fundamentally disagree with transgenderism.

Says the guy attempting to turn the discussion to transgenderism. Statistical analysis is science. Arguing the existence of the nonbinary requires science.
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Richard Dawkins for right wing millennials

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH this triggered me almost as much as the time Bill Maher compared Milo Yompanomalous to Christopher Hitchens

Show some respect
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are you also saying that nobody arguing for enforcement of personal pronouns is attempting to use science to justify its need?

The Great Muta 22 posted...

No, he's saying what you cited isn't people citing science as the rationale to use gender neutral pronouns.

---

We've been doing for decades.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Statistical analysis is science.

Also, it's hard for me to resist pointing out how silly this statement is.
---

Where do women wear red lipstick to work?
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Statistical analysis is science.

Also, it's hard for me to resist pointing out how silly this statement is.

So what's your point in all this? Do you agree with anteater that the people pushing for gender neutral pronouns are doing so via baseless arguments? Or do you agree with me that they're attempting to back their claims with science?

Forget my examples for a minute if they're bad. I feel like you're nitpicking what I selected to avoid addressing the actual point.
---

I mean, I've never seen anyone claim that gender neutral pronouns were better because a scientific study suggested we should use them, no.
(analogical to: you should stand up straight because lobsters!)

This is entirely beside the original point, which is that the evolutionary psychology bullshit that he peddles is primarily just there as a garnish to make his positions seem scientific.
---

COVxy posted...

I mean, I've never seen anyone claim that gender neutral pronouns were better because a scientific study suggested we should use them, no.
(analogical to: you should stand up straight because lobsters!)

This is entirely beside the original point, which is that the evolutionary psychology bullshit that he peddles is primarily just there as a garnish to make his positions seem scientific.

honestly i cant even believe a 2nd tier school like Harvard hired him lmao

The more I see of this guy the more I wonder why anyone holds him up as someone people should listen to

Axiom posted...

The more I see of this guy the more I wonder why anyone holds him up as someone people should listen to

If you are serious about it, I'd recommend listening to his biblical lectures. I'm a pretty staunch atheist and i found them really engaging and fun

or if you are really serious about it, read his book maps of meaning. Its heavy duty, but really rewarding and will make you think about things differently after reading it

Axiom posted...

The more I see of this guy the more I wonder why anyone holds him up as someone people should listen to

It's primarily because he "fights the ultra-PC alt-left", though no one will admit it.
---

I don't think he ever said "women who wear lipstick are asking for it".

What people do with people they don't like is twist their words and then repackage them into something offensive. He said "this is the reason why women wear lipstick and this is the effect it has". The fact that sexual harassment in the workplace is a thing is simply true. Whether or not it can be eradicated is definitely a "we'll see". Even in the most progressive communities, sexual harassment both exists and thrives.

Other than the way he framed his argument, he didn't say anything outlandish. Furthermore, that's an edited video, which frames questions even worse than they were actually framed.
---

@Axiom

If you have the patience, I'd say to look at this video, or even the first 5 minutes. The woman interviewing him is obviously left-leaning, but watch exactly how he is treated in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
---

A stupid person being interviewed by an even stupider person only makes them look smart by comparison.
---

Here's a stupid person

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

COVxy posted...

A stupid person being interviewed by an even stupider person only makes them look smart by comparison.

I don't actually care what you think broski.

I have to hear or read something that he says specifically that I think is stupid. If you point me to something like an interview or a book, or really anything, I'll definitely read/watch it. But I'm not going to take your opinion of someone and use it to color my own. I don't know you.

Oh, and when I say stupid, I don't mean "objectionable". I mean actually dumb.
---

s0nicfan posted...

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

s0nicfan posted...

iClockwork posted...

s0nicfan posted...

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

I appreciate the amount of effort it must take to intentionally misrepresent his argument this badly.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Watch the video.

LOL these are fantastic.
---

AdviceMan posted...

Oh, and when I say stupid, I don't mean "objectionable". I mean actually dumb.

I mean, we just spent the better half of 100 posts talking about how the evolutionary psych stuff he peddles is bullshit. So either he's deliberately peddling bullshit or is dumb enough to believe it.
---

Romes187 posted...

Here's a stupid person

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

Here's someone dumb

COVxy posted...

AdviceMan posted...

Oh, and when I say stupid, I don't mean "objectionable". I mean actually dumb.

I mean, we just spent the better half of 100 posts talking about how the evolutionary psych stuff he peddles is bullshit. So either he's deliberately peddling bullshit or is dumb enough to believe it.

I wouldnt call being misinformed as being dumb but thats just me.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

I wouldnt call being misinformed as being dumb but thats just me.

I mean, supposedly he's educated in this stuff, so...
---

Meh, theres tons of academics who are polar opposites of one another regarding fundamentals of their field. One or both is very wrong, does that make them both dumb? I think youre discounting how ideological underpinnings guides a persons line of reasoning more than raw intelligence
---

COVxy posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

I wouldnt call being misinformed as being dumb but thats just me.

I mean, supposedly he's educated in this stuff, so...

I mean, there evolutionary psychologists exist, and i'm sure a lot of people think that your field of research is nonsense.

As someone who is not a psychologist, I have no real reason to believe that their research and field is bunk, nor do i have a real reason to believe that it is real. I'd need someone to explain to me why it is bunk. I went out of my way to read the wikipedia article about criticism of evolutionary psychology, but it's far too neutral to make me believe one thing or another.

Furthermore, his evolutionary psychology arguments are probably the least consequential thing that he argued. For me to think this guy is an idiot, I would need to see someone worth their salt challenging him directly on his claims.
---

I get sexually harassed by a woman I work with every day

but I like it
---

If fundamentals include being able to discriminate between science and pseudoscience, it makes them bad at what they do, if they are supposedly scientists.

If you've gone through decades of training and cannot tell what is scientifically valid, then you have some limitations. Though, my guess is he just doesn't give a shit about evidence based reasoning, given he is a fond Freudian.
---

Well, a bad scientist isnt necessarily a dumb one but I see your point
---

AdviceMan posted...

@Axiom

If you have the patience, I'd say to look at this video, or even the first 5 minutes. The woman interviewing him is obviously left-leaning, but watch exactly how he is treated in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Oh god, was that the ridiculous interview he had with the embarrassing Cathy Newman? She was awful. Like meme-worthy stupid. Seriously, the way she acted during this interview sparked memes poking fun at how practically all of her responses were deliberate misinterpretations that didn't at all resemble what the man actually said not even 5 seconds ago.

Jordan would say "the sky looks blue to me; it could look different to other people " and Cathy would immediately respond with "so you're saying the sky is red and it compels you to support misogyny ".

Almost all of Cathy's responses were blatant attempts to twist Jordan's words into something villainous and anti-women, when he really just gave his typical mechanical-sounding answers...that coincidentally happen to be supported with more facts than anything Cathy spouted.

I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson, particularly some of his statements on non-hetero men. However, Cathy Newman continuously trying to railroad him in that interview was shamefully disingenuous. Even more civil-minded feminists commented negatively about her performance. All she did was demonstrate the stereotype of a militant leftist out to idiotically crucify anyone with a differing opinion. Competent feminists want the movement to move AWAY from shit like that...



---

AdviceMan posted...

As someone who is not a psychologist, I have no real reason to believe that their research and field is bunk

I mean, there literally is no research for these things. It's literally just sitting in a chair and postulating about what might have been advantageous and therefore evolved. You are literally just generating evolutionary narratives around modern behavior. I talked about pretty much the only attempt to test an evolutionary psych idea earlier.
---

COVxy posted...

AdviceMan posted...

As someone who is not a psychologist, I have no real reason to believe that their research and field is bunk

I mean, there literally is no research for these things. It's literally just sitting in a chair and postulating about what might have been advantageous and therefore evolved. You are literally just generating evolutionary narratives around modern behavior. I talked about pretty much the only attempt to test an evolutionary psych idea earlier.

Is evolutionary psychology even falsifiable? How do they label t as a science if it isnt? Though I guess its more looked upon as a soft science like sociology
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Is evolutionary psychology even falsifiable?

No, that's the primary obvious criticism.

Obviously, like I've alluded to before, it's not as if there aren't conserved neural mechanisms across species, but this is very much outside the realm of evolutionary psych.

Kazi1212 posted...

How do they label t as a science if it isnt?

People don't lol.
---

Hey Covxy did you check out any of his works yet?

Or heard any of his lectures yet? I know in that last topic you were mentioning how you haven't read any of it so just wanted to see if you took up my suggestions :)

Romes187 posted...

Romes187 posted...

Here's a stupid person

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

Here's someone dumb

I see what you're saying Cov, that makes sense.

Doing some more research into the guy (made sort of a project of it, since I didn't know who he was until this topic), he seems to have a problem with all the gender pronouns. It seems like an odd thing to have a giant hang-up on, although I suppose it has something to do with Canada's attempt to make it law.

Does anyone know if his problem using pronouns of transmen or transwomen, or just the extended vocabulary of gender pronouns.
---

They can work together, but don't fool yourself into thinking your wife won't get hit on at work by someone. That's life, now whether you can trust her is another story.
---

If you have issues working with women, the issue is with you. Literally billions of men and women work together without incident
---

COVxy posted...

AdviceMan posted...

Oh, and when I say stupid, I don't mean "objectionable". I mean actually dumb.

I mean, we just spent the better half of 100 posts talking about how the evolutionary psych stuff he peddles is bullshit. So either he's deliberately peddling bullshit or is dumb enough to believe it.

He's a clinical psychologist, not an evolutionary biologist. I understand that neuroscience has a great deal of overlap with psychology, but I would be way more inclined to listen to a former Harvard professor with decades of clinical experience when it comes to psychoanalysis. Yeah, the lobster shoulders back bullshit is incredibly stupid and out of his area of expertise, and he has no business giving his opinions on evolutionary behavior. But there is definitely more gravitas in his statements regarding his area of expertise than I think you give him credit.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

If you have issues working with women, the issue is with you. Literally billions of men and women work together without incident

Definitely though I think his point is that there are certainly those who cannot. And if so (I could be wrong), what are the effects

MrPeppers posted...

I would be way more inclined to listen to a former Harvard professor with decades of clinical experience when it comes to psychoanalysis.

Why would you be inclined to listen to anyone who would even be willing to touch psychoanalysis with a 10 ft poll?
---

AdviceMan posted...

Does anyone know if his problem using pronouns of transmen or transwomen, or just the extended vocabulary of gender pronouns

He said multiple times he doesn't care a bit calling someone their preferred pronoun but doesn't want the law to mandate language

Though not 100% sure if that extends into the zhe zim zer thing

I also don't think the problem is that men don't know the rules. It's that their desire get laid outweighs their good sense. I do think there are accidental slip-ups and those are inevitable, but I assume his argument was not that a man cannot work with a woman without incident, it's that men (as a group) and women (as a group) cannot work together without incident (or that we'll see).
---

COVxy posted...

MrPeppers posted...

I would be way more inclined to listen to a former Harvard professor with decades of clinical experience when it comes to psychoanalysis.

Why would you be inclined to listen to anyone who would even be willing to touch psychoanalysis with a 10 ft poll?

Because it's interesting:) have you listened to any of his ideas yet? I also linked all of his scholarly work for you to peruse

Come now, surely not all forms of modern psychoanalysis is utter bullshit? What about cognitive behavioral therapy?
---