4 ms·

Speaking of bandying words, when Peterson refers to himself as a classical British liberal, he means free market and not progressive. The NYTimes rates him as c

Speaking of bandying words, when Peterson refers to himself as a classical British liberal, he means free market and not progressive. The NYTimes rates him as conservative leaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Political_view...

eloff 5y ago
I'm not going by what he calls himself, I judge him to be left of center for the US (that might put him right of center in Canada). The NYT are entitled to their opinion as well.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Yeah, no. Peterson is conservative in literally any country in the world. Advocating for traditional gender roles, saying women might not be suited for the workplace, advocating for strict hierarchies and so on is deeply conservative. His belief in genetic predeterninism of societal structures and of thought patterns - masqueraded as Jungian archetypes - is indicative of a worldview just one logical step from the far right. I don't know if any country in the world where he would left of center religion notwithstanding. I say this as someone who watched at least 150 hours of Peterson and who used to follow much of his views.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > Advocating for traditional gender roles, saying women might not be suited for the workplace, advocating for strict hierarchies and so on is deeply conservative. Those are strawman arguments. That's not what he advocates at all. He definitely does argue there are fundamental differences between men and women and what the ramifications of those differences are - that's obvious to anyone, even children. We can argue about those ramifications, but not that there are differences. I don't see how you go from there to your argument, logically. > His belief in genetic predeterninism of societal structures and of thought patterns - masqueraded as Jungian archetypes - is indicative of a worldview just one logical step from the far right. Again strawnan, he definitely argues it's part of the picture, but not the whole picture. Anyone who takes just one side in the nature vs nuture debate is out to lunch. It's obviously both. I don't think your characterizations are balanced or correct.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      He believes the differences between men and women necessitates different social roles for men and women in the whole of society, and literally gave the example of women in the workplace. He argued that the structure of DNA is encoded into the human brain. You can say nature vs nurture, but saying that the human brain is literally encoded with what is necessary for scientific discovery is going a step beyond. Saying that you need an IQ over a certain number to do a job is also wayyyy over anything reasonable. Nature vs nurture is a core determinant of conservatism. Being far in the scale of nature and hierarchy is only consistent with right-wing ideologies.
      - eloff 5y ago
        > He believes the differences between men and women necessitates different social roles for men and women in the whole of society, and literally gave the example of women in the workplace. He definitely talks about the differences between men and women. Nowhere does he say women shouldn't be in the workplace. That's an extremely conservative, even radically conservative view. Source? > He argued that the structure of DNA is encoded into the human brain. You can say nature vs nurture, but saying that the human brain is literally encoded with what is necessary for scientific discovery. Source? I'm just not sure what to make of it without context. The way you present it, it sounds crazy. But I could also interpret in several non crazy ways. > Saying that you need an IQ over a certain number to do a job is also wayyyy over anything reasonable. It's an over generalization. But it's also largely true. You won't be successful as a software engineer, a quant, a mathematician, a physicist, etc with lower than average iq. People in those industries skew way above the average for good reason. > Nature vs nurture is a core determinant of conservatism. Being far in the scale of nature and hierarchy is only consistent with right-wing ideologies. That's seems true. It's also interesting because there is an empirical answer to how much is nature vs nurture. Unlike political views which are largely value tradeoffs as opposed to right or wrong - up to a point anyway.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Please don't misquote me. He said that he is not sure that women can coexist in the workplace. Yes, this is very conservative. He did not limit himself to quants, SotfEng, Physicists, etc..., he cited minimum IQs for jobs in many sectors, for example saying that you can't be a machinist if you have under average IQs. The figure he quoted for software engineers IIRC was around 118, meaning that 80% of people can't be productive software engineers, which is completely bullshit. He went as far as to say that people under 80IQ are simply not productive in society, which is what insane. But more to your point, IQ strongly correlates with academic performance. Actually, the SAT is basically an IQ test. They correspond to academic performance much more strongly than actual job performance in almost every field. Knowing this, is the observation that fields which require high grades to get into have higher IQs as descriptive as it seems on the first take? Not really. How about the fact that IQ is actually very variable on the individual level across time? That's not to say that anyone can become one of those occupations. I don't think everyone can become a good programmer. But I know enough high-IQ people that could never grok how to program clean code to know as much. Perhaps the third factor is correlated to IQ in some way, I don't know. But it's really stupid to say someone of average intelligence can't become a good programmer or even a good physicist.

eloff 5y ago

I'm not going by what he calls himself, I judge him to be left of center for the US (that might put him right of center in Canada). The NYT are entitled to their opinion as well.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Yeah, no. Peterson is conservative in literally any country in the world. Advocating for traditional gender roles, saying women might not be suited for the workplace, advocating for strict hierarchies and so on is deeply conservative. His belief in genetic predeterninism of societal structures and of thought patterns - masqueraded as Jungian archetypes - is indicative of a worldview just one logical step from the far right. I don't know if any country in the world where he would left of center religion notwithstanding. I say this as someone who watched at least 150 hours of Peterson and who used to follow much of his views.
- eloff 5y ago
  > Advocating for traditional gender roles, saying women might not be suited for the workplace, advocating for strict hierarchies and so on is deeply conservative. Those are strawman arguments. That's not what he advocates at all. He definitely does argue there are fundamental differences between men and women and what the ramifications of those differences are - that's obvious to anyone, even children. We can argue about those ramifications, but not that there are differences. I don't see how you go from there to your argument, logically. > His belief in genetic predeterninism of societal structures and of thought patterns - masqueraded as Jungian archetypes - is indicative of a worldview just one logical step from the far right. Again strawnan, he definitely argues it's part of the picture, but not the whole picture. Anyone who takes just one side in the nature vs nuture debate is out to lunch. It's obviously both. I don't think your characterizations are balanced or correct.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    He believes the differences between men and women necessitates different social roles for men and women in the whole of society, and literally gave the example of women in the workplace. He argued that the structure of DNA is encoded into the human brain. You can say nature vs nurture, but saying that the human brain is literally encoded with what is necessary for scientific discovery is going a step beyond. Saying that you need an IQ over a certain number to do a job is also wayyyy over anything reasonable. Nature vs nurture is a core determinant of conservatism. Being far in the scale of nature and hierarchy is only consistent with right-wing ideologies.
    - eloff 5y ago
      > He believes the differences between men and women necessitates different social roles for men and women in the whole of society, and literally gave the example of women in the workplace. He definitely talks about the differences between men and women. Nowhere does he say women shouldn't be in the workplace. That's an extremely conservative, even radically conservative view. Source? > He argued that the structure of DNA is encoded into the human brain. You can say nature vs nurture, but saying that the human brain is literally encoded with what is necessary for scientific discovery. Source? I'm just not sure what to make of it without context. The way you present it, it sounds crazy. But I could also interpret in several non crazy ways. > Saying that you need an IQ over a certain number to do a job is also wayyyy over anything reasonable. It's an over generalization. But it's also largely true. You won't be successful as a software engineer, a quant, a mathematician, a physicist, etc with lower than average iq. People in those industries skew way above the average for good reason. > Nature vs nurture is a core determinant of conservatism. Being far in the scale of nature and hierarchy is only consistent with right-wing ideologies. That's seems true. It's also interesting because there is an empirical answer to how much is nature vs nurture. Unlike political views which are largely value tradeoffs as opposed to right or wrong - up to a point anyway.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Please don't misquote me. He said that he is not sure that women can coexist in the workplace. Yes, this is very conservative. He did not limit himself to quants, SotfEng, Physicists, etc..., he cited minimum IQs for jobs in many sectors, for example saying that you can't be a machinist if you have under average IQs. The figure he quoted for software engineers IIRC was around 118, meaning that 80% of people can't be productive software engineers, which is completely bullshit. He went as far as to say that people under 80IQ are simply not productive in society, which is what insane. But more to your point, IQ strongly correlates with academic performance. Actually, the SAT is basically an IQ test. They correspond to academic performance much more strongly than actual job performance in almost every field. Knowing this, is the observation that fields which require high grades to get into have higher IQs as descriptive as it seems on the first take? Not really. How about the fact that IQ is actually very variable on the individual level across time? That's not to say that anyone can become one of those occupations. I don't think everyone can become a good programmer. But I know enough high-IQ people that could never grok how to program clean code to know as much. Perhaps the third factor is correlated to IQ in some way, I don't know. But it's really stupid to say someone of average intelligence can't become a good programmer or even a good physicist.