Jordan Peterson thread

I said this in another thread/post but it's worth repeating:

I researched a few of the 'facts' he threw out in the Cathy Newman interview.

He said that in "Scandinavia" (that famous socialist country), despite its efforts towards gender equality, there are still "20 men for every woman" in engineering.

I looked up the stats. I found them for Sweden, where it was 2:1. Same in Denmark. Etc etc. I just find the made-up stuff a bit irritating. I'm all for radical thinking and fact-based arguments, but don't make stuff up.
 
Has he repeated that claim or explained it further? He could possibly have just made a mistake.

EDIT: For Sweden I was able to find that in higher education the gap is nowhere near what JP says, but still high... I'd have to go back to listen to what he said, because it's quite clearly 2:1, 3:1 area, not 20:1 - that's way off.

Interest in programmes differs between men and women
Health care and nursing continued to be the moste female-dominated subject area with 84 per cent women, while engineering continued to be the most male-dominated area with 66 per cent men. In both cases, the gender gap between men an women has decreased. The gender distribution is most even within the natural sciences, 45 per cent women and 55 per cent men.
Click to expand...

src: http://english.uka.se/statistics/gender-equality-in-higher-education.html

I've stopped watching JP stuff recently. Found myself only watching stuff from him which isn't healthy in terms of getting a wider view of the subjects he addresses.
 
Last edited:
Fubsy said:
I've stopped watching JP stuff recently. Found myself only watching stuff from him which isn't healthy in terms of getting a wider view of the subjects he addresses.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I don't have a huge issue with JP, but his followers do get a bit entrenched in their World views.

Not being in an echo chamber and exploring other sources is no bad thing at all.
 
Anyone doing hundreds of hours worth of public speaking a year is going to make a mistake every now and then, especially when recalling information from memory instead of your typical death by PowerPoint presentations.
 
I found this interviewer particular poor considering his position, you'd think he'd come across much more intelligently then he does. however i do prefer seeing JP being challenged instead of just his lectures, that way it reduces the echo chamber and it's good to see his viewpoints validated/not validated

 
The only disappointing thing about the Cathy Newman interview is that when he obliterates her on leftist trans-activists being authoritarian, anti-individual collectivists she manages to quickly change the subject.
 
robgmun said:
I found this interviewer particular poor considering his position, you'd think he'd come across much more intelligently then he does. however i do prefer seeing JP being challenged instead of just his lectures, that way it reduces the echo chamber and it's good to see his viewpoints validated/not validated

Click to expand...
The podcast interviews with Sam Harris (Waking Up with Sam Harris) are excellent (if not a little long) and the first one does get bogged down in “the definition of truth”.

I understand they are going to do a number of live debates together and there’s talk of them coming to London — I’d really like to see that.
 
Freddie1980 said:
He speaks the truth (sadly), I work as an accountant for a big US company and the writing is on the wall for jobs like mine and I'm resigned to fact that I'll have to reinvent myself at least once before I retire.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean... he doesn't say anywhere in that video that roles like the accountant will become obsolete. He says that even jobs like McDonald's workers can't be replaced by automation because robots can't do those jobs. What he does say that the people at the bottom end of certain professions such as lawyers will struggle if they are not intelligent and creative enough. He also says that if you are intelligent and creative in those professions that you will have all the money.

He said that "low-end" lawyers will struggle, so I suppose you must consider yourself a "low-end" accountant if you are thinking this way? The ones he talks about are probably the ones who scraped by and landed themselves into these professions without actually being good enough. I'v come across plenty of people in high end jobs and management positions who are completely useless and rely on their colleagues most of the time, yet because they already have their foot in the door they can just apply and get similar high end jobs based upon the positions they already have on their CV.
 
robgmun said:
I found this interviewer particular poor considering his position, you'd think he'd come across much more intelligently then he does. however i do prefer seeing JP being challenged instead of just his lectures, that way it reduces the echo chamber and it's good to see his viewpoints validated/not validated

Click to expand...

That’s one of the big issues I see with single issue/person YouTube channels. There’s no challenge or debate.

The person can say what they want in an eloquent way and many will take it as fact, without actually checking to see if it’s actually right.
 
Amp34 said:
That’s one of the big issues I see with single issue/person YouTube channels. There’s no challenge or debate.

The person can say what they want in an eloquent way and many will take it as fact, without actually checking to see if it’s actually right.
Click to expand...

you could say the same for any form of journalism - its hardly peer reviewed.

its up to the individual to use their brain and to think objectively about what they are reading/watching, not that many do.
 
aardvark said:
you could say the same for any form of journalism - its hardly peer reviewed.

its up to the individual to use their brain and to think objectively about what they are reading/watching, not that many do.
Click to expand...

True, to an extent, but good quality commentary usually includes links to sources, which is difficult to do with a YouTube video.

Most professional journalism also has to adhere to standards, which YouTube “stars” don’t...
 
Amp34 said:
True, to an extent, but good quality commentary usually includes links to sources, which is difficult to do with a YouTube video.

Most professional journalism also has to adhere to standards, which YouTube “stars” don’t...
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is Professional journalists aren't very professional ?
 
robgmun said:
But then why does people trash the Daily Mail? :D
Click to expand...

Because they're awful, and are constantly forced to print retractions when they lie... Even then they don’t usually step over the line to outright falsehoods, just some twisting of the truth.

Minusorange said:
So what you're saying is Professional journalists aren't very professional ?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that. Professional journalists have to adhere to professional standards, or at least the commercial entities their work is published in do. There are a fair number of rules newspapers and professional media organizations have to adhere to, unlike YouTube star/blog poster no.N+1.

That’s not to say they’re perfect, as the DM is an example of (;)), but they’re usually (as a group) more reliable than “independent producers” that post on YouTube and independently run blog sites.
 
The guy is very 1 dimensional, all I bit of a facade after you watch him for a while... I think I heard him described as 'the dumb person's smart person'... I tend to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom