I highly recommend this one: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
This interview is a microcosm of modern social discourse - or at least, some aspects of it.
Mrpopo, that was an extremely enjoyable link. I was unaware of Jordan Peterson, but now I am certain I will steal time from something else to hear more from him. Thanks for the direction.
Your comment about it implies your point is how, in today's discourses, (although I think this is a timeless illustration), what is said, is too often received - and repeated, as what the listener wanted, or expected, to hear; since I do not think this is a new phenomena, I am uncertain where you hope the discussion will lead, but I am certain of my impression of that interview. I agree completely with his observations, but what most impressed me was his absolute refusal to let the interviewer imply he said something he didn't.
Plus, I was impressed with how carefully he stated his points - leaving no room for misinterpretation, or 'spin'. He forced the listener to accept what he actually said. This fellow is a man after my own heart.
I'm glad you enjoyed it GA. It's hard not to like Peterson speaking - his precision and clarity are something to behold.
I think what you basically described is psychological projection, and I agree, it does preclude modernity. What I meant by modern discourse is regarding these specific talking points - things like the wage gap, or the gender make-up of certain fields, are part of the modern left's narrative (or at least, one faction from the left).
If any discussion arises I'd be happy, but I mostly wanted to share Peterson's video. One thing that comes to mind though is Google firing James Damore for talking about the same things Peterson talked about in the interview. That sort of censorship is part of a worrying Orwellian trend in the Western world.
The two points you mention mrpopo; the wage-gap, and gender make-up in specific fields, are ones that are seldom discussed beyond the initial "gender-gap" declarations, (except for the CEO suite, we hear that too often).
Discussions about gender-gap never seem to delve into the various aspects of the "why" - just that one exists. And because it is gender-defined, that is usually, the only aspect discussed.I suppose it is frustrating to to have a perspective diminished by the forced inclusion of non-supportive considerations. And I can't remember the last gender-gap "inequity" discussion that talked about fields other than business management. I will *star the medical vs. engineering fields example Peterson highlighted for future discussions.
I haven't looked into your James Damore mention, but I will.
Re: gender gap. I watched a video some time ago, I think from Prager U, on the subject. Their analysis concerned primarily that different jobs was the most important reason for the pay gap.
Not only the difference between the sexes in participation of engineering vs school teacher kind of thing but even further down the line. It was pointed out that male nurses make more than female nurses...AND that male nurses tended to gravitate to the ER rooms rather than a doctor's office. That male nurses tend to move to big city hospitals rather than the small towns females tend to prefer. Both result in higher pay; it isn't the difference in sex, it is the difference in jobs!
The actual difference in pay for the same job was on the order of 1 or two percent, not the 20% some claim.
Business management is the classic example, but there's also been discussion about the gender make-up in STEM fields and government positions. The latter is why Trudeau sought to make his cabinet 50:50 male:female. I do find it amusing that the discussion only ever revolves around what are typically considered desirable jobs - has it ever been brought up that the most dangerous and unsanitary jobs are usually done by men? There's no need for 50:50 representation there!
The Damore incident is worth investigating. Peterson actually has a talk with Damore in his YouTube channel (it's harder to listen to because Damore is socially awkward, but is still highly informative).
Hi mrpopo, I did look at the Damore issue, and I read the text of his suit. My response can only be a shrug. He was employed in an "at-will" state, so I think it will be an uphill climb to find grounds for wrongful termination. I do think it was an unjust termination, but I don't think it was illegal.
Another reason for my shrug would be a "Well, what did you expect?" perspective concerning Google's HR practices, goals, and workplace environment. In the over-the-top PC world that is Google, it would almost be worth getting fired just to broadcast a "Girls Gone Wild" video over a couple of their employee-only forums.
As a serious consideration, I think this is a good example of the dangers of the over-zealousness of many in the PC world. The suit reads like a bizarro-world of affirmative action gone wild.. I also think that there may be enough substance in his, (Damore), charges for the EEOC to take a look. And given the current administration's anti-PC perspective... who knows, stranger things have happened.
Regarding STEM, that is a topic I will check-out,. My first thought is that those fields are so quality-of-skills oriented that I wouldn't have suspected them to be a target. But the government part doesn't surprise me.
Now be nice mrpopo, of course "Dirty Jobs" aren't going to be on the radar. Just as burger flippers aren't. It is easy to understand that the issue is primarily one related to non-hourly wage-type work. Work where qualification standards are often more subjective than objective. And I say that type of qualification determination is exactly right for the majority of positions that would be in this conversation. What those "other" gender-gap variables are is on the top of my Peterson search list.
Now I am off to find that Peterson/Damore interview.
"It is easy to understand that the issue is primarily one related to non-hourly wage-type work"
That's one issue inside the broader issue of gender equality. And if gender equality is a simple measure of 50-50 gender representation, there's no reason it should be limited to non-hourly wage-type jobs. Or that equality should be limited to measures of wages only - danger and discomfort should have a say as well. Also, consider the fact that the numbers used to make claims about the wage gap include hourly wage jobs such as truck drivers. If the issue is primarily regarding salary jobs, it's at least being presented in an unfair way.
You may be right about the legality of Damore's firing, but the circumstances behind the firing are still alarming. I see the event as a canary in a coalmine type of deal.
I think it's a healthy practice to have watchdogs even for your most respected heroes. I am curious though - what was it about the second video that led you to greater skepticism? It's not fresh in memory so I don't remember all the details.
I agree with your point about the inclusion of all types of work in the gender-gap discussion, but to do so would seem to validate the claim that there is a single force that defines that gender-gap; the sex of the gender. I haven't yet determined what other non-sex factors contribute to the "gender-gap," or even if "the sex" of the gender is the most appropriate moniker for the issue.
That was one of the Peterson comments that first impressed me; "That depends on what you mean by gender-gap." And that comment is what raised my interest to discover what other aspects of difference he thinks contribute to the gap.
Your canary analogy is a good one. I would add that if we look around we will see a whole flock of canaries falling to the bottom of their cages in too many areas of our public life. However, this Google canary might be an especially important one. Just consider the power and influence Google, (and social media like facebook), has in our personal and public lives.
I will even toss out a piece of generational red meat; I think we are at, or approaching, a point where folks like Damore's detractors could not survive - emotionally, economically, and maybe even securely, in a non-Google-type PC world.
Here's a cute, and recent anecdote; I was watching a Steve Harvey-hosted showing of Family Feud , and the question was; We asked 100 people, "What would you do if someone insulted you?" The first contestant, (a woman), said; "Insult them back." The second contestant, (a thirty-something male), could be one of our "canaries." He said, "Call the authorities!"
But there is still hope. The third contestant answer, (a woman's), was, "Slap them!"
My changed perspective regarding Peterson, due to the second video, was his now-obvious bias, (not necessarily bad, we all have biases - and mine coincide with his). In the instances of questions interjected by the "anonymous" Google employee on the line in the interview - Peterson danced around the questions to remain on the track of his points. Again, not that he shouldn't remain on track, but I think he could have addressed the questions more honestly and still held his course. This was the "dog whistle," (I know, "cute"), that brought those watch dogs to the gate.
Some might be tempted to jump to that conclusion, but I'd argue that if they think gender discrimination is the only factor that makes up the wage-gap, they are probably ill-equipped to understand the various nuances of the discussion, with or without the inclusion of all types of work. I'm not sure what you mean by non-sex factors - Peterson might have given an example, but I can't remember. All of the factors I can think of are still partially related to average sex differences.
I agree, there are many canaries that we should be paying attention to. Google's exceedingly large influence coupled with their questionable practices is a particularly dangerous combination.
I vaguely remember something specifically about the anonymous Google employee - I think some of the comments on the video called Peterson out about that, but I don't remember the details. I'll have to re-watch the conversation sometime and pay attention to those questions. From what I've seen of Peterson he's usually pretty good at owning up to his mistakes and limitations though.
Haha! I like the third woman's answer! Although I personally would not choose such a solution :-)
We are on the same page mrpopo. I didn't mean to infer any negativity in regard to Mr. Peterson, only that because he speaks to what I also believe, it is important that I think about what I am accepting from him, rather than just soaking it in with a "Hell yeah!"
I did think about my use of the "non-sex" term. Because I also think it is all about the gender sex. What I meant to convey was points and considerations that are more than, "Just because she's a woman," as a shallow surface consideration.
I was thinking of the real and documented biological and sociological factors that Dr. Peterson spoke of. Like the psychological-field "fact" that women are inherently less aggressive than men. Or the inherent "instinctive" traits that are different in women and men. Or even to the "fact" that men and women's brains function differently. I was speaking of possibilities, that although they are definitely linked to the gender sex, they are not the differences that are generally alluded to in wage-gap and gender-gap conversations.
Well, I did struggle through that Peterson/Damore interview/video. I didn't see anything to change my original perspective that the firing was unjust, but legal.
However, although I do like how the man, (Peterson), talks, and the perspective's he follows, this second video has convinced me that my viewing will need the same watchdogs that I attached to my PragerU viewings. There is no doubt about Peterson's leanings. That doesn't mean I think he is wrong, but it does mean I will be giving more thought to what I take from what he says.
A most fascinating video. I generally don't watch vids, and signed into that one to watch a couple of minutes to see what it was all about. Then ended watching the whole thing. I agree with GA that the care in what words were used was enormous between the two "debaters" - he was intensely interesting to watch as his words were turned, spun and changed time after time and he had to keep insisting that he said what he said, not what she wanted to hear.
I'm glad you enjoyed it wilderness. I had a feeling you and GA would like the interview
The interviewer's ability to spin things was quite good on its own right, but the more Peterson maintained his position and composure the more she started to lose out and become desperate. I think the nail in the coffin was the bit about organizing our societies like lobsters, which is so ridiculous that I'm shocked she was able to say that with a straight face.
by Sophia Angelique 4 years ago
Some at HubPages will state that I hate America. That is not so. I am disappointed in this country and, for cultural reasons, I don't fit in. As a writer, it has been stressed to me that I have a responsibility to bring information to other people. That said, here is an American speaking to other...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Do YOU contend that transpeople are becoming a bit extreme regarding their rights?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
There are people who strongly contend that the witch hunt against Hillary Clinton regarding past scandals & e-mail escapades are because she is a woman. They maintain that Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be President of the United States. They maintain that Hillary Clinton...
by ga anderson 3 months ago
Hey Jake, this one is for you.I recently received an email notice from the Ron Paul forums that I joined a couple years ago - but forgot about.Geez louise, talk about vitriolic choir rooms ... Jake you would have a field day on this one. You recently compared this HP forum to Breitbart and...
by Credence2 14 months ago
Just wondering, why is the Trump Administration so tight lipped on the question?
by How? 19 months ago
What is the difference between presentation and seminar?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|