cubicle47b
Member
Are you sure you couldn't circumvent it by using they or their name? (Peterson doesn't use they.)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'
- Thread starter wandering
- Start date
oneils
Member
No one really knows.
Are these really the type of questions that cause you to wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night?
oneils
Member
Peterson has received two letters from his employer stating that they believe he may be contravening Ontario human rights law by refusing to use these pronouns. I'd like clarity, I work in Ontario.
That's naive as hell and how is that any different from coddling bigots? Where's your empathy for the oppressed? Why aren't the oppressors reaching out or trying to understand why the oppressed are pissed or how just maybe, they shouldn't be bigots???
Are people more than their politics? Of course they are and I'm sure that even Hitler loved his mother. He even had a girlfriend! The fact that people can have strong personal relationships with different ideologies doesn't dismiss the fact that a bigot is a bigot. Just because my white neighbors are nice to my face doesn't mean that they wouldn't vote to put people that look like me in an internment camp or deport my friends.
You're putting the onus on victims to do all the leg work.
There's no such thing as taking the high ground when you're already drowning in shit.
excelsiorlef
Member
Lol holy shit @ Frozen being fucking propaganda and thus not art.
Actually holy shit lol at it all.
cubicle47b
Member
Yeah, he's definitely a bit crazy. Really interesting, but crazy.
Clerical Error
Member
Well, he says that he doesn't, but he's incorrect--he uses singular they quite regularly and somehow only remembers that he "doesn't" when the opportunity to be shitty to a non-binary person presents itself. Funny, that.
excelsiorlef
Member
cubicle47b
Member
What is "more than crazy"?
excelsiorlef
Member
Someone who classfies a movie that happens to have a female character not needing a man as propaganda and explicitly not art.
From what I can extrapolate is that what made B&B art and Frozen propaganda to him is that Belle got a man (art) and Elsa didn't need one (propaganda)
Nothing sadder then a hurt dude lashing out
he is interesting in the sense that he used to be a normal if unexceptional professor but is now a widely mocked idiot whose only skill is scamming money out of impressionable chuds
although he's not the only one trying to cash in on this one
cubicle47b
Member
That just seems like crazy to me, not more than, but we're just arguing semantics.
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean it's sexist as fuck but I'm trying to be coy.
He isn't crazy, he is intentionally an asshole.
He is a grown man and an academic who knows full well that "marxist postmodernists" aren't a thing (and kind of can't be a thing by definition) and yet still makes youtube videos about how they're infiltrating universities and spreading cultural marxist values or whatever the fuck
he got called out for the pronouns thing and like so many people who get called out for being assholes he ran straight into the arms of the one group who loved him for being a dick - the alt right
now he makes videos full of rightwing anti-sjw conspiracy theories which he knows are bullshit in order to rake in the Patreon cash and the internet adulation. His ego and bank account are more important to him than any sense of morality or even reality.
Fuck Jordan Peterson. I can't fucking wait until he gets fired. Every faculty member I've interacted with this year thinks he's a joke, as do like 90% of the students.
He is a grown man and an academic who knows full well that "marxist postmodernists" aren't a thing (and kind of can't be a thing by definition) and yet still makes youtube videos about how they're infiltrating universities and spreading cultural marxist values or whatever the fuck
he got called out for the pronouns thing and like so many people who get called out for being assholes he ran straight into the arms of the one group who loved him for being a dick - the alt right
now he makes videos full of rightwing anti-sjw conspiracy theories which he knows are bullshit in order to rake in the Patreon cash and the internet adulation. His ego and bank account are more important to him than any sense of morality or even reality.
Fuck Jordan Peterson. I can't fucking wait until he gets fired. Every faculty member I've interacted with this year thinks he's a joke, as do like 90% of the students.
cubicle47b
Member
I think he's completely genuine. Look at the rate my professor reviews from before the pro-nouns controversy. I think he's been talking about Gulag Archipelago for 20 years.
excelsiorlef
Member
That's worse then.
Just to clarify, my use of "interesting" was sarcastic.
cubicle47b
Member
I meant interesting. I watched some of his 2015 maps of meaning lectures last year and they were rambling messes, but fascinating at the same time.
I'm new be nice
Member
As a gay male:
A man needs a woman as a woman needs a man.
Is that really such an outlandish claim?
excelsiorlef
Member
Are you seriously defending this nonsense as not outlandish.
Do you seriously read Frozen is propaganda and but Beauty and the Beast is art because Belle sought a man and Elsa didn't... do you seriously read that and think sounds reasonable.
Do you think the advice that men shouldn't treat women as sex objects not because it's wrong but because women will make men slaves of the state is not outlandish?
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
What does this mean?
"To demonstrate that a woman does not need a man is propaganda." Do you agree with this statement?
Also the statement that same-sex parents have a quote "fatal problem because the state must be involved in the process of adoption and procreation". What is the fatal problem here?
Or are you talking about parenthood?
(Yes I find that claim to be outlandish. A woman does not need a man nor does a man need a woman especially to find happiness. Why do you think the divorce rate is so damn high?)
I'm new be nice
Member
Going through his lectures and following the reasoning you bet:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h
excelsiorlef
Member
A playlist is not actually an argument.
I'm new be nice
Member
By that logic, asking others in this thread for quotes that indicate their claims and getting nothing is not an argument either, but in my case I've actually cited where my claims are coming from and why I think the way I do.
excelsiorlef
Member
Sure.
That's why I actually responded and gave some on the previous page.
And in fact the thing you are responding to are also quotes.
Your argument thus far is yes I agree abd here's a playlist. I'd say when you want to defend a guy from being called right-wing, MRA, whatever and you respond to incredibly out there comments, that back up that argument, with that's nothing outlandish I'd say you've done a poor job defending if all you do is say here watch all his lectures.
Though admittedly that's straight out of the Sam Harris defense playbook so it's nothing I haven't seen before.
I'm new be nice
Member
What's in the playlist? The man himself.
Adding on to what others have said, Peterson's opinion is that heterosexual people need to adhere to long term monogamous relationships in order to be happy, as you can see in his claim that being sex positive leads to sexual predation. There are two issues with this:
1) There are many people who remain single or engage in poly relationships and are quite happy. "A man needs a woman as a woman needs a man" really only applies to conceiving a child. And we live in a world where a parent doesn't actually require a long term partner to have a child, with options like adoption and in vitro fertilization existing.
2) Peterson's opinions on sexual freedom are clearly informed by his Christian beliefs, with many sects of Christianity advocating for the same things Peterson advocates for. It's not wrong to be a Christian, but it's clear his opinion on sexuality is rather regressive not because it's rational but because sexual freedom clashes with his religious beliefs. This also applies to his opinion of trans people.
excelsiorlef
Member
What's in those quotes?
The same man himself.
You linked to 28 hours of video... come on.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Do you mind outlaying his arguments or summarizing them or giving your own opinions based on his research or something? Please?
Also I thought we were arguing the articles/comments that you quoted from another poster?
(I also don't want to watch alt-right video recommendations on my phone thanks, lol)
I'm new be nice
Member
Hah, fair enough!
Honstlely in part i haven't the energy to further along the dialogue, i'm sorry if i've failed you in that regard.
I do think people need to understand the full context of where he is coming from. The ideas Peterson struggles with are long-winded, granted, but there is a rather blunt no bullshit approach to how he describes things, and I really do think a lot of people need to give his lectures a chance.
excelsiorlef
Member
You didn't fail me. I'm comfortable. You failed your own arguments.
I'm new be nice
Member
Honestly dude my life's such a mess right now as it is, I was skirting along this dialogue because it's really engaging to me, but I shouldn't and really don't have the capacity to do it service. I think you're doing yourself a disservice by calling it alt-right by a massive margin, and i'd recommend you check it out at least just to say that you did, but i'm sorry i'm just going to have to admit I can't live up to what you guys want or need me to be in that regard.
The best I can do for you all is lazily throw out his lecture, which I really do think will answer your questions, and hope that my pathetic attempt will perhaps show ya'll something a little more moderate to what you are seeing.
I'm drinking now as well so my faculties are swiftly leaving me.
Dude Abides
Banned
The best was when Peterson went on Sam Harris's podcast and the got hopelessly detailed by the most tedious and pointless stoned-sophomore level debate about the meaning of truth. It was the Immovable Wanker meets the Unstoppable Bore.
I'm new be nice
Member
Maybe so. Hah, was it 28 hours? It went by so fast when I watched it...
Anyways, thank you for your civility!
I'm new be nice
Member
It's brilliant!
Psychoward
Banned
what the hell? did you even read what he wrote?
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
I was being cheeky with that comment but I don't understand what you are linking me. A deconstruction of how the evils of society are made? I'm not sure which parts or specific videos explain how a man needs a woman or a woman needs a man. (To be not evil I guess?) Or how that makes Frozen propaganda. If you still want discussion, I could be linked the specific video which makes such claims.
Edit: I see that he talks about the Bible on his website so I'm assuming that's where the claim comes from?
Thank you for this. I look forward to reading it in my spare time. Hate that there are only time codes and not names though, ha.
theignoramus
Member
So the alt right and White supremacists are now championing this memo and the subsequent firing as an example of White mans rights being trampled on?
Now that I'm not being forced to sit through a fifty minute long video, I can actually respond to this in context in a reasonable fashion! Let's see if they actually talk about any specific examples of these gender differences, or just hand wave about how it's important that someone talks about this without actually talking about it in any real capacity.
Alright, let's see if they actually get to presenting some of that relevant psychological science, or am I going to have to dive into the methodology at a later date and help further the Replication Crisis?
A valid point, but I'd advise for the future that you consult people privately before posting a flawed manifesto that you've written with the intent that other people tear it apart. Or just clarify somewhere that you're steelmanning.
Remember when the author of the manifesto complained multiple times about the inflexibility of the male gender role? I guess Google listened to his complaint.
Can't wait until the part where we actually talk about nature versus nurture arguments instead of referencing them.
Perhaps if you feel the topic is not being discussed enough, you could try discussing it. During this fifty minute video that came highly recommended.
Testosterone! That's a science word! I would have appreciated a description a bit more detailed than "tilt toward" - is he referencing something along the Langlois study on infant facial preference? Is that why there's a correlation there with neonatal testosterone?
Also, Trump invocation. For some reason?
Okay, now we're talking about the press. Calling people hateful epithets is indeed rude.
Yes, we get that these ideas aren't being talked about enough. It's been twenty-five minutes, are you going to start talking about them in any detail yet?
What is the difference in distribution of traits? Are we just citing the Big Five personality traits, a rather old - if still useful for more localized discussions of individual personalities - paradigm that has since its inception been heavily criticized for its limited scope, confounding effects due to connotational differences of the semantic handles for different traits, and methodological shortcomings. I already wrote posts about that, imagine if I spent twenty-six minutes waiting for that.
Woah, it's schema theory! One of my personal favorite topics. And also a topic about social construction. Referencing this is actually undermining the manifesto, the sentence "I would think is kind of just grouping a bunch of disparate but semi related people or things together and then projecting an idea that may or may not pertain to that" is heavily applicable to the way schematic representations of binary genders are constructed.
Please give me some details. It's been almost a half an hour according to these nice timestamps.
Can you please actually HOW men and women experience bias differently? And what all these highly heritable traits ARE?
At least he mentioned testosterone again. Wait a second, if babies born and raised female don't embody the prescribed feminine gender role because of hormonal differences, isn't that an argument in favor of the existence and validity of transgender people? "Acting like males" is a vague phrase and could just be a result of an inability to see except through the lenses of pre-existing schema that the author developed through social learning.
I'm not one to argue that humanity is 100% nurture 0% nature. I just think that conforming to gender roles is better explained as adhering to social pressures and that the biology underlying a person can express itself in far more nuanced ways than a simple binary choice.
So men and women are more alike than they are different. That seems reasonable, we are of the same species after all. And yeah, many of these differences are irrelevant to the workplace or could just be codified as "ideological diversity" in terms of preferred communication style - which is also in a large part, but not entirely, socially constructed.
Oh no, now we're talking about hysteria. I already wrote about this too, where I said "women are more neurotic, therefore the stress of computer science turns them off" is a poor argument because of counterarguments such as "But not off of the medical field, where they have 60% of biology degrees? And have to experience the horrifying routine of hospital life, working among the scent of decaying flesh as the sense of helplessness bubbles up within you like bile?".
Women are diagnosed with more depressive disorders, but men commit suicide at a much higher rate and are tragically underdiagnosed. The strictness of the male gender role has stigmatized men suffering from mental health illnesses. On an important side note, let's read about how this is a significant systemic problem.
Wait, so we're arguing that men have a high drive to select for status... but then also arguing that women also have a high drive to select for status? I thought this was supposed to be about how men and women were different, and I'm not sure what mate selection behavior has to do with performance in the field of computer science.
You're on a podcast. You can talk about it. Give specifics besides complaining women aren't dating enough bricklayers.
Is the point trying to be made here that the reputation of computer science for having a poor work-life balance is why women don't go into the field? Maybe we can sell people on the idea of promoting more women in computer science because that apparently means less soul-crushing crunch time. Maybe women's apparently superior coordination skills can help enable that too. Sounds good to me.
He doesn't know the scientific literature, but is confused as to why there are so many women in law firms, because those also have a poor work-life balance. That, uh, suggests that women do work jobs with a poor work life balance - the medical field is another example, because working as a nurse sounds like hell in terms of shifts.
This is why nursing is a male-dominated career. Yep, only men want to be nurses because the workweek is too long and women can't handle those 12 hour marches to the grave. (Nursing is not a male-dominated career, this argument seems remarkably flawed to me)
Stay tuned for part 2.
Part 2 of 2.
Why are we talking about mating habits here, why does it always go back to mating habits? Is this going to get tied to computer science in any meaningful way?
Sexism exists, yes.
The problem isn't that women are failing interviews, it's that mysteriously in the 1980s, corresponding with the push for computers as "boy toys" and a domain for men, the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees dropped. The proportion of female engineers at Google is actually slightly greater than the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees per year, suggesting that women perform up to standards.
The issue is that the toxic climate is pushing women out of the field. The ones who weather the toxicity and claims they are biologically more neurotic and predisposed to be unable to handle long work weeks are up to the standards. It's just that many others also up to the standards tire of putting up with such an unhealthy environment, or don't want to venture into it in the first place.
You know, if you actually talked about some of these ideas supposedly not talked about enough it would be infinitely more interesting than reading about how we're not talking about these ideas enough. It's been forty goddamn minutes, imagine if I actually sat through this!
It is true that unconscious bias seminars don't work very well, in a large part due to the fact that you have to be open minded about them and consciously attempt to combat the bias themselves - which people who aren't fond of minorities probably won't be motivated to do.
It would be more effective to more holistically affect the unintended consequences of schematic learning and how people can become mired in stereotypes they did not consciously assimilate. Shift the framing to address the concerns made so it doesn't have this negative connotation as punishment for racists.
Here's an article that mentions prospective solutions! it contains content!
"Yes this is the same thing". Advocating for more women to pursue careers in a subject is the same as chasing men out of the field, apparently.
No one is saying to chase anyone out of nursing and medicine - the field where people work long hours under often psychologically toiling circumstances. And as a matter fact, the deficit of male teachers is a huge problem in primary school education and something that should be fixed. We can even identify the social conditioning that has led to men not wanting to be primary school teachers, because they don't want to be labelled as pedophiles and a strong stereotype has been developed against male primary school teachers.
Fun fact: white people become more supportive of affirmative action when reminded that Asians on average outscore them on standardized tests.
This part is a bit difficult to parse, but it also doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic either.
Current state of the art = mostly focus on popular theory created during the 1970s. Notably, a time before the reversal in the trend of an increasing number of women earning computer science degrees.
We're nearing the end of the video.
The end.
Why was I told to watch this, again? There wasn't anything in here that I didn't already address previously in the thread. Was this an attempt to win the debate by default because no one would respond to a fifty minute video just rehashing the manifesto? (That's kind of uncharitable of me to say, sometimes I quote long posts because I feel they express the direction of what I'm trying to say well. But I've also seen the Gish Gallop happen plenty too.)
They never even said what the gender differences that would negatively impact women are outside of neuroticism and an inability to handle stress! The former of which is just rehashing the concept of hysteria and the latter is contradicted within the same talk by referring to more stressful fields that are female dominated!
You'd think in fifty minutes, fifty long minutes, they could actually present some information in the studies instead of talking circles around it.
Why are we talking about mating habits here, why does it always go back to mating habits? Is this going to get tied to computer science in any meaningful way?
Sexism exists, yes.
The problem isn't that women are failing interviews, it's that mysteriously in the 1980s, corresponding with the push for computers as "boy toys" and a domain for men, the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees dropped. The proportion of female engineers at Google is actually slightly greater than the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees per year, suggesting that women perform up to standards.
The issue is that the toxic climate is pushing women out of the field. The ones who weather the toxicity and claims they are biologically more neurotic and predisposed to be unable to handle long work weeks are up to the standards. It's just that many others also up to the standards tire of putting up with such an unhealthy environment, or don't want to venture into it in the first place.
You know, if you actually talked about some of these ideas supposedly not talked about enough it would be infinitely more interesting than reading about how we're not talking about these ideas enough. It's been forty goddamn minutes, imagine if I actually sat through this!
It is true that unconscious bias seminars don't work very well, in a large part due to the fact that you have to be open minded about them and consciously attempt to combat the bias themselves - which people who aren't fond of minorities probably won't be motivated to do.
It would be more effective to more holistically affect the unintended consequences of schematic learning and how people can become mired in stereotypes they did not consciously assimilate. Shift the framing to address the concerns made so it doesn't have this negative connotation as punishment for racists.
Here's an article that mentions prospective solutions! it contains content!
"Yes this is the same thing". Advocating for more women to pursue careers in a subject is the same as chasing men out of the field, apparently.
No one is saying to chase anyone out of nursing and medicine - the field where people work long hours under often psychologically toiling circumstances. And as a matter fact, the deficit of male teachers is a huge problem in primary school education and something that should be fixed. We can even identify the social conditioning that has led to men not wanting to be primary school teachers, because they don't want to be labelled as pedophiles and a strong stereotype has been developed against male primary school teachers.
Fun fact: white people become more supportive of affirmative action when reminded that Asians on average outscore them on standardized tests.
This part is a bit difficult to parse, but it also doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic either.
Current state of the art = mostly focus on popular theory created during the 1970s. Notably, a time before the reversal in the trend of an increasing number of women earning computer science degrees.
We're nearing the end of the video.
The end.
Why was I told to watch this, again? There wasn't anything in here that I didn't already address previously in the thread. Was this an attempt to win the debate by default because no one would respond to a fifty minute video just rehashing the manifesto? (That's kind of uncharitable of me to say, sometimes I quote long posts because I feel they express the direction of what I'm trying to say well. But I've also seen the Gish Gallop happen plenty too.)
They never even said what the gender differences that would negatively impact women are outside of neuroticism and an inability to handle stress! The former of which is just rehashing the concept of hysteria and the latter is contradicted within the same talk by referring to more stressful fields that are female dominated!
You'd think in fifty minutes, fifty long minutes, they could actually present some information in the studies instead of talking circles around it.
I think this is what I needed to become more confident in my own writing ability.
Because I certainly do ramble, but at least when I go on tangents I'm conveying detailed information. Even I don't speak for fifty minutes managing to barely broach the topic of discussion.
I appreciate your thanks too! This took a lot longer than expected and now I'll probably be sleep deprived tomorrow. It feels good to know people are reading and appreciating your writing. <3