5 ms·

Jordan is a hack. he just makes up explanations to fit what we observe. “women don’t go into tech careers”. jordan: “oh that could be because women are interest

Jordan is a hack. he just makes up explanations to fit what we observe. “women don’t go into tech careers”. jordan: “oh that could be because women are interested in people and men are interested in objects”. what bs. spoiler: if that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> f that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created Why? Why can't there just be innate biological differences in what people are interested in, between the genders, as a lot of data suggests. Also if that is your hypothesis, how do you explain the data point that shows that the more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists, and is being done by a lot of other scientists. Isn't that the exact opposite of being "a hack"?
- bildung 6y ago
  > Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists He isn't, that is the main criticism. He usually uses actual research, yes, but then extrapolates widely and without empirical support. For example he uses observed gender differences in the Big Five traits (which are actually there, though keep in mind the Big Five traits by themselves are already about 50% society, not genes), but then postulates differences in e.g. natural sciences, which cannot reasonably derived from this base. His postulations often also actually stand in contrast to empirical evidence. For example in eastern Germany, the area of the former GDR, where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany, girls had on average better math grades than boys in the 90s and early 2000s (see the national TIMSS data for these periods. This effect only disappeared in generations born after German reunification. All this isn't surprising as Peterson is a Jungian (which is quack psychology), and to my knowledge has no empirical background.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    > where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany How do you build that argument? If it was equality of outcome that was officially mandated, that is exact opposite of true freedom of opportunity. Also I'm not sure why you are talking about math grades, when the discussion was specifically about interests, - ie, how many of those girls then proceed into careers in mathematical disciplines. Just because someone gets good grades in school in a subject, doesn't mean that the person is going to choose (ie, is intereste in) pursuing that subject as a life career path.
    - bildung 6y ago
      > If it was equality of outcome that was officially mandated, that is exact opposite of true freedom of opportunity. I have said nothing about equality of outcome. There is no freedom of opportunity without societal context. I am, as a man, legally free to wear a skirt in my country, yet I've never done and I've also met almost none who did - because of the socials costs this would incur. And skirt wearing is obviously 100% culture, 0% genes. The surrounding society frames what opportunities are actually free to embrace. Interests, BTW, are by their nature not really empirically measurable (you can give people questionnaires, but that's about it). You can't infer girl's interest in math from their chosen profession, that's why I gave an example of actual ability. This is also why serious psychologists usually research other concepts - and I suspect this is also why Peterson likes to talk about interests: they are essentially an unfalsifiable topic.
      - zajio1am 6y ago
        > legally free to wear a skirt in my country, yet I've never done and I've also met almost none who did - because of the socials costs this would incur. I also have never weared skirt, but reasons are entirely personal - have no internal motivation to do so, have opinion that trousers are more practical and have no skirt in wardrobe. But i assume that if i ever wear a skirt, nobody would give a damn. You can say that lack of my personal interest to wear a skirt is an effect of societal indoctrination and it may be true, but there is a clear difference between accepting/integrating that position and being forced to it by fear of societal costs. The second is oppression, the first is not.
- supergirl 6y ago
  > more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? this by itself is a contradiction. what makes a country egalitarian? how can you say a country is egalitarian and then say that some interests are not equally shared by men and women. in these countries women barely had voting rights 100 years ago but now they are called "egalitarian". maybe let's wait a generation or 2 more before concluding women biologically don't like math. it's not even worth debating this pseudoscience. jordan is a quack. I imagine only sexists follow him because his idiotic but articulated explanations fit their view.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    > this by itself is a contradiction. what makes a country egalitarian? No it's not. What makes a country egalitarian is set of laws and practices that give people most possible choice and regulate on a legal level the amount of prejudice the people have to face. In other words, the amount of freedoms to choose that people get. In the western developed countries, the more freedoms a country gives to people, the farther apart genders become in their self-expressed (self-chosen) occupations and intersts. Explain that. > maybe let's wait a generation or 2 more before concluding women biologically don't like math. Well it's been exactly more than two generations and all the data is moving in the wrong direction from your hypothesis. A lot of people feel like they have waited enough to make these conclusions. Just calling someone a quack is just not a good argument, you need to show your reasoning instead.
    - supergirl 6y ago
      you can't reason with a quack
_0ffh 6y ago
No, he's basing his suggestion on the results of actual scientific research as for example that of clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen.
tasogare 6y ago
> “oh that could be because women are interested in people and men are interested in objects” In a free societies with free education like most West-Europeans are, this is indeed the best explanation up to date. At least way more convincing than conspiracy theories in which a sexual minority is purposely oppressing the majority.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

> f that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created Why? Why can't there just be innate biological differences in what people are interested in, between the genders, as a lot of data suggests. Also if that is your hypothesis, how do you explain the data point that shows that the more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists, and is being done by a lot of other scientists. Isn't that the exact opposite of being "a hack"?

bildung 6y ago
> Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists He isn't, that is the main criticism. He usually uses actual research, yes, but then extrapolates widely and without empirical support. For example he uses observed gender differences in the Big Five traits (which are actually there, though keep in mind the Big Five traits by themselves are already about 50% society, not genes), but then postulates differences in e.g. natural sciences, which cannot reasonably derived from this base. His postulations often also actually stand in contrast to empirical evidence. For example in eastern Germany, the area of the former GDR, where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany, girls had on average better math grades than boys in the 90s and early 2000s (see the national TIMSS data for these periods. This effect only disappeared in generations born after German reunification. All this isn't surprising as Peterson is a Jungian (which is quack psychology), and to my knowledge has no empirical background.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany How do you build that argument? If it was equality of outcome that was officially mandated, that is exact opposite of true freedom of opportunity. Also I'm not sure why you are talking about math grades, when the discussion was specifically about interests, - ie, how many of those girls then proceed into careers in mathematical disciplines. Just because someone gets good grades in school in a subject, doesn't mean that the person is going to choose (ie, is intereste in) pursuing that subject as a life career path.
  - bildung 6y ago
    > If it was equality of outcome that was officially mandated, that is exact opposite of true freedom of opportunity. I have said nothing about equality of outcome. There is no freedom of opportunity without societal context. I am, as a man, legally free to wear a skirt in my country, yet I've never done and I've also met almost none who did - because of the socials costs this would incur. And skirt wearing is obviously 100% culture, 0% genes. The surrounding society frames what opportunities are actually free to embrace. Interests, BTW, are by their nature not really empirically measurable (you can give people questionnaires, but that's about it). You can't infer girl's interest in math from their chosen profession, that's why I gave an example of actual ability. This is also why serious psychologists usually research other concepts - and I suspect this is also why Peterson likes to talk about interests: they are essentially an unfalsifiable topic.
    - zajio1am 6y ago
      > legally free to wear a skirt in my country, yet I've never done and I've also met almost none who did - because of the socials costs this would incur. I also have never weared skirt, but reasons are entirely personal - have no internal motivation to do so, have opinion that trousers are more practical and have no skirt in wardrobe. But i assume that if i ever wear a skirt, nobody would give a damn. You can say that lack of my personal interest to wear a skirt is an effect of societal indoctrination and it may be true, but there is a clear difference between accepting/integrating that position and being forced to it by fear of societal costs. The second is oppression, the first is not.
supergirl 6y ago
> more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? this by itself is a contradiction. what makes a country egalitarian? how can you say a country is egalitarian and then say that some interests are not equally shared by men and women. in these countries women barely had voting rights 100 years ago but now they are called "egalitarian". maybe let's wait a generation or 2 more before concluding women biologically don't like math. it's not even worth debating this pseudoscience. jordan is a quack. I imagine only sexists follow him because his idiotic but articulated explanations fit their view.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > this by itself is a contradiction. what makes a country egalitarian? No it's not. What makes a country egalitarian is set of laws and practices that give people most possible choice and regulate on a legal level the amount of prejudice the people have to face. In other words, the amount of freedoms to choose that people get. In the western developed countries, the more freedoms a country gives to people, the farther apart genders become in their self-expressed (self-chosen) occupations and intersts. Explain that. > maybe let's wait a generation or 2 more before concluding women biologically don't like math. Well it's been exactly more than two generations and all the data is moving in the wrong direction from your hypothesis. A lot of people feel like they have waited enough to make these conclusions. Just calling someone a quack is just not a good argument, you need to show your reasoning instead.
  - supergirl 6y ago
    you can't reason with a quack

_0ffh 6y ago

No, he's basing his suggestion on the results of actual scientific research as for example that of clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen.

tasogare 6y ago

> “oh that could be because women are interested in people and men are interested in objects” In a free societies with free education like most West-Europeans are, this is indeed the best explanation up to date. At least way more convincing than conspiracy theories in which a sexual minority is purposely oppressing the majority.