HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Re: men vs women - he has often claimed for example that women get payed less because they are unwilling to do the better paying jobs (most famously in the Cathy Newman interview [0]). He also claims often that women are more interested in empathy and men in systems, so that men are vastly much more likely to be in fields like engineering, while women are more vastly more likely to be interested in fields like nursing [1], with natural differences as large as 20:1. He himself may not make this value judgement, but given the general social consensus that views engineering as a more prestigious, intellectual job than medical nurses, I think it's mostly fair to characterize this claim as I did.

I disagree with this conclusion any way - I believe that IQ testing quickly loses any kind of predictive power when applied to different backgrounds, and many implicit and even explicit biases quickly show up. I also find it hard to believe that a society where women:men ratios in any profession are 20:1 or 1:20 can be characterized as the free-est in the world on this issue. More likely, there are great social and historical pressures trending in this direction, and the state is simply doing nothing to try to reverse this injustice. Looking at former communist countries, that are generally not even close to having any kind of women in STEM programs that could be considered to bias results, the women:men ratio in STEM fields is something like 30:70.

Re: IQ and "race" - I don't think so. You may accept that IQ has some correlation with what we understand by intelligence in regular usage, but that doesn't mean in any way that you can meaningfully compare people for IQ across arbitrary divides such as "race", especially when "race" is highly correlated with things such as poverty, teacher attitudes, social attitudes etc. And I keep saying "race" and not race because there is no scientific basis for our notions of race - they are arbitrary social constructs based on skin color and culture (for some examples: are Italians and Irish people white? 50 years ago, they were considered a different race; or, what is the race of the child of a mixed black-skin & white-skin couple? Is Kamala Harris black or white? What about her children? Are they white? black? semitic? south-asian? How many studies of IQ vs race on similar populations actually look at any kind of genetic evidence, vs just skin color?)

I will admit that "conman" was a bit rough and an exaggeration. Still, he is definitely using some conman-style tactics to sell his opinions outside his area of expertise. I am not talking about the area of psychology, which includes his self-help work, but about his political discourse.

[0] The Cathy Newman Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

[1] Jordan B Peterson: Why so many Male Engineers and Female Nurses? (3 minute video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7uZOAzVRgU

⬐ 0x737368

But surely the social consensus that engineers are more prestigious than nurses is on the society and not on Peterson.

It might be difficult to predict the success of somebody via IQ if you compare two individuals from radically different socio-economic backgrounds, but you can compare two individuals with different IQs from similar socio-economic backgrounds and statistically IQ is a very good predictor of success.

With regards to men-to-women ratios, Peterson pointed out that countries that have the free-est social expectations(e.g. Scandinavian countries) have the most diverse differences between men and women. From my personal experience going to a university in the UK and studying CS, I could count maybe 3-5 women out of a cohort of 350+ students. I don't think you can accuse the UK of actively discouraging women from joining these fields, quite the opposite. So why don't they choose these high paying fields in such progressive countries such as UK?

I do agree with you that "race" has no strict scientific basis. I'm not sure how those studies qualified races, so that's something I'll need to look up.

I still disagree with him using conman-style tactics per se, but I will admit that I was a bit disappointed in SOME stuff that he was saying outside of his areas of expertise. Not because I thought he was wrong, but because for me his explanations of psychology set such a high standard that anything less would be overshadowed. I find that he has a very "conversational" approach at discovering new ideas - he'll sort of discuss different aspects as he goes and almost arrive at conclusions right in front of the audience. The drawback to this approach is that sometimes he might be wrong about some things - I think that's okay.

Case in point - in his debate with Zizek, iirc he quickly got shotdown by Zizek because he was pretty much out of his depth, and Peterson admitted that he was wrong. A lot of his detractors point this out as a coup de grace for Peterson, but I find it refreshing to see somebody who makes mistakes in the search of answers, but admits they were wrong and perhaps corrects themselves(not sure about the last part, I haven't kept up with his most recent stuff).

⬐ tsimionescu

> countries that have the free-est social expectations(e.g. Scandinavian countries) have the most diverse differences between men and women. From my personal experience going to a university in the UK and studying CS, I could count maybe 3-5 women out of a cohort of 350+ students. I don't think you can accuse the UK of actively discouraging women from joining these fields, quite the opposite. So why don't they choose these high paying fields in such progressive countries such as UK?

Well, there are two options: either this is right and there is a vast gulf between the workings of the male and female mind, or these countries are not as free of social expectations as they like to think they are. Not sure how the UK and Northern Europe compare, but a (female) friend who left Romania for Germany was shocked at how large the social pressure on women to give up working after having a child are. She has had multiple colleagues directly and indirectly pushing her into feeling like a bad mother for holding a full-time job while having a child at home.

In my own university days in the CS department, there was a marked difference between the number of men and women, but nowhere near what you're saying: it was more like 10 women for every 20 men, maybe a little less. I've had several female professors, including the head of the Polytechnic institute and the head of the CS department. In my job today, I am on a team of 4 men and 3 women (all programmers), working on a project with a female project lead, and probably overall 30 men and 6 women in Dev, and 50 men and 14 women if you include QA (who also do Python-based automated testing). This is on a project deep in the world of computer networking, not some soft field. And the team is about half in Romania, half in India - not exactly countries known for their courageous tearing down of social norms.

So again, I'm very skeptical of claims that a society where a major professions are overwhelmingly dominated by either men or women is "(one of) the most free societies in the world in terms of choice". It's possible, but I think it's far more likely that the studies claiming this were simply wrong, given the outcomes. Especially since I doubt nurses are significantly better viewed in Northern Europe in terms of job prestige and intellectual rigor than in other places.

> But surely the social consensus that engineers are more prestigious than nurses is on the society and not on Peterson.

Well, if he's saying that women are more fit to be nurses and men are more fit to be engineers, than I feel justified in saying that he's implying women are less suited than men for intellectual labor (not necessarily dumber, but at least less likely to enjoy it). That may not be his intention (though I believe it may well be), but he also doesn't go out of his way to disclaim it.

> So why don't they choose these high paying fields in such progressive countries such as UK?

My strong belief is that it's a problem of education and social pressures. Even in Romania (to be clear, I keep bringing it up because it's the country where I have the most experience), where women do choose these fields in much bigger numbers for whatever reasons, there are deep biases against women's ability in this field. Female colleagues were more likely to be a professor's target for ridicule, or simply receive lower grades on exams for the same mistakes. They would be less likely to be given as positive examples, and less likely to be encouraged towards this field.

> I find it refreshing to see somebody who makes mistakes in the search of answers, but admits they were wrong and perhaps corrects themselves

Yes, that is a quality I also appreciate in people and in Jordan Peterson in particular. I have also seen him change his opinion on the right to deny service to gay people during an interview (he was for this right initially on grounds of freedom of religion essentially, but then when presented with the fact that the same arguments were often used to deny black people service 50 years ago, he took a moment, thought about it, and admitted that his previous position was wrong and that people shouldn't be denied service based on their sexuality). I truly appreciate this, and it is quite a rare thing to see.

> but you can compare two individuals with different IQs from similar socio-economic backgrounds and statistically IQ is a very good predictor of success.

Yes, agreed - that's why I'm not necessarily against the idea that IQ is meaningful at least to some extent. I do think however that the moment you start comparing IQ results across populations, biases quickly creep in and it gets much harder to tell if the difference is caused by a difference in the underlying IQ or in the test itself. Even if comparing between two similar-income American (non-recent immigrants) families in the same city in America, one with black skin and the other with white skin, there is some SMALL chance that there are inherent biases, either internal or in the test, that may affect the validity of results. And from what I've read, many such comparisons are far, far from this close. Some famous books on the topic, such as "The Bell Curve", include horribly, obviously biased studies, such as comparing the IQs of white and black kids as measured by apartheid South Africa!

⬐ 0x737368

>Well, there are two options: either this is right and there is a vast gulf between the workings of the male and female mind, or these countries are not as free of social expectations as they like to think they are. Not sure how the UK and Northern Europe compare, but a (female) friend who left Romania for Germany was shocked at how large the social pressure on women to give up working after having a child are. She has had multiple colleagues directly and indirectly pushing her into feeling like a bad mother for holding a full-time job while having a child at home.

Yes, it seems even the most progressive countries haven't eliminated all pressure yet. And that might be for the best, but that's besides the point.

>In my own university days in the CS department, there was a marked difference between the number of men and women, but nowhere near what you're saying: it was more like 10 women for every 20 men, maybe a little less. I've had several female professors, including the head of the Polytechnic institute and the head of the CS department. In my job today, I am on a team of 4 men and 3 women (all programmers), working on a project with a female project lead, and probably overall 30 men and 6 women in Dev, and 50 men and 14 women if you include QA (who also do Python-based automated testing). This is on a project deep in the world of computer networking, not some soft field. And the team is about half in Romania, half in India - not exactly countries known for their courageous tearing down of social norms.

Peterson and the study that he referenced specifically did point out that the less pressured men and women are to follow a path the more pronounced the differences become. So far your anecdote, as well as my own from previously living in an ex-USSR country, confirm this. Why this is so - I have no idea but I find it fascinating.

>Well, if he's saying that women are more fit to be nurses and men are more fit to be engineers, than I feel justified in saying that he's implying women are less suited than men for intellectual labor (not necessarily dumber, but at least less likely to enjoy it). That may not be his intention (though I believe it may well be), but he also doesn't go out of his way to disclaim it.

Whilst Peterson never specifically said that men are more fit to be engineers than women, I do agree that what he HAS said is analogous to that. However, I believe his views on that came from evidence and not from a sexist point-of-view that women are inferior. The inverse of that is that women are better at child-rearing and people-facing roles, a statement which I think is on average just as true as the one about men and engineers. Is it then misandrist to say that men are, on average, not as good at raising children? I wouldn't say so personally.

>My strong belief is that it's a problem of education and social pressures. Even in Romania (to be clear, I keep bringing it up because it's the country where I have the most experience), where women do choose these fields in much bigger numbers for whatever reasons, there are deep biases against women's ability in this field. Female colleagues were more likely to be a professor's target for ridicule, or simply receive lower grades on exams for the same mistakes. They would be less likely to be given as positive examples, and less likely to be encouraged towards this field.

I do trust what you say about this 100% when it pertains to Romania, but let me assure you that in the UK even a minor complaint of sexist harassment of any kind will very likely result in a rapid and unexpected vacancy in the company. Sometimes it can be even unfair, but that's besides the point again. In fact, in my experience whenever I see women in engineering fields, I'd see guys pretty much bend over backwards to be nice and supportive of them. So much so that it'd seem saccharine and the women would be either put off by this treatment(perhaps another pressure that dissuades women from the field? I doubt it but it could play a role I suppose, especially if the guys are doing it in the hopes of "surreptitiously" getting in their pants) or have everything so baby-proofed for them that they'd have no challenge because everything would be done for them.

>Even if comparing between two similar-income American (non-recent immigrants) families in the same city in America, one with black skin and the other with white skin, there is some SMALL chance that there are inherent biases, either internal or in the test, that may affect the validity of results. And from what I've read, many such comparisons are far, far from this close. Some famous books on the topic, such as "The Bell Curve", include horribly, obviously biased studies, such as comparing the IQs of white and black kids as measured by apartheid South Africa!

I agree that it can be an apples to oranges comparison. This conversation did make aware of how ignorant I was of the actual methodology of that IQ between races study, so that's something I'll have to look up. That "Bell Curve" thing is shocking! A good reminder how "science" can be manipulated by using a bad methodology to push results to confirm a bias and then touting it as the empirical truth. What I like to call the "I F**ING LOVE SCIENCE" brand of science.

⬐ Bakary

Essentially, the problem with Peterson is that it's a boring rehash. It's a bit frustrating to see the guy defended along the lines of him being a victim of censorship and close-mindedness, when in fact the issue is the lack of content. This is a widespread problem in the YouTube era, where debate confrontations are inherently more popular and financially rewarding for their participants.

His ideas on Christianity and Jungian psychology are not novel. His self-help material is exactly the same fare dressed up differently. The combination of psychology, biology, and myth to redefine masculinity is not novel; Campbell and Evola and probably a wide range of previous writers treaded that ground. He doesn't bring anything insightful to the interpretation of Solzhenitsyn. His interpretation of postmodernism is an incoherent mishmash designed for Patreon support. It goes way beyond a person just making mistakes in the search for answers. His approach is conversational in the same way a Reddit thread is conversational.

If you are interested in those topics, you are better off reading Oakeshott, Nozick, Sowell, Scruton, actual Jungian books, actual theologians, actually delve into the precise ideas of postmodernism and Marxism and what the actual arguments are. After this, Peterson will seem incredibly boring.

⬐ 0x737368

Whilst I am willing to concede that his approach and ideas might not be novel, it is his fantastic delivery of lectures and connecting different phenomena in a network to explain/support a concept is what draws me to his stuff. As a counterpoint, I really like Campbell's a Hero with a Thousand Faces, but darn if his book isn't hard to read.

I think it's a fair argument against him, but it is not Campbell or Evola who managed to get into the spotlight and spread those ideas to millions, but Peterson. Perhaps it could be argued that it's his captivating presentational style or ability to package things well are his USP?

Thank you for the reading list, I do want to delve deeper into this stuff.

⬐ Bakary

He is captivating to a certain audience, but so are televangelists. That's the whole crux of the problem. If you recognize it as being entertainment and an aesthetic/subculture, that's fine. But Peterson is presented as a leading thinker to people, which is a problem. Despite what I've written, Peterson isn't even someone I'm specifically interested in, it's more about the underlying issue of which he is a prominent example.

Consider the following: during the Žižek debate, it became clear that not only was the Communist Manifesto the only Marxist text he had read, but he could not accurately recall some of its main points. And it's a really short pamphlet! That means that Peterson had expounded at length on Marxism, made it a central point of his critique and philosophical brand, while having almost no knowledge or understanding of it. Even with the most charitable interpretation, that goes way beyond just occasionally making mistakes due to a discursive style.

Imagine a charismatic professor with a large audience and who has talked at length about the worth of various programming concepts. Now imagine that it turns out the professor can't pass Fizz Buzz. Following that, his fans defend him by saying that he's a captivating explainer who is only sometimes wrong, and that the size of his audience and fantastic delivery is proof of his worth as a leading expert on computer science and programming. Wouldn't that set off alarm bells in your mind?

⬐ 0x737368

>He is captivating to a certain audience, but so are televangelists. That's the whole crux of the problem. If you recognize it as being entertainment and an aesthetic/subculture, that's fine. But Peterson is presented as a leading thinker to people, which is a problem. Despite what I've written, Peterson isn't even someone I'm specifically interested in, it's more about the underlying issue of which he is a prominent example.

I think that's a reasonable point. I'd still maintain that his message is useful and his ideas are, imo, interesting and illuminating. I haven't thought of JP-televangelists comparison before so I'd need some time to mull it over. But in my personal experience I listened to Peterson for a while, internalised what I thought was useful and moved on. Whether televangelists have the same effect - I don't know.

>Consider the following: during the Žižek debate, it became clear that not only was the Communist Manifesto the only Marxist text he had read, but he could not accurately recall some of its main points. And it's a really short pamphlet! That means that Peterson had expounded at length on Marxism, made it a central point of his critique and philosophical brand, while having almost no knowledge or understanding of it. Even with the most charitable interpretation, that goes way beyond just occasionally making mistakes due to a discursive style.

I wish I had more knowledge on Marxism/leftists school of thoughts right now to have a more interesting discussion on this, but I don't. It does look bad on Peterson that he was so ill prepared for that debate.

Having said that, we cannot not say that there isn't a cultural shift happening in the academia and in our societies at large. Traditional cultural norms are being thrown out and in some extreme cases even shamed(not saying that's a 100% bad thing, but imo such things must not be done rashly), instead of bringing equality there are some attempts of inversing the inequality, and people are getting cancelled/silenced/fired/deplatformed in some cases simply for having a different opinion. Whether this is Marxism or not is really irrelevant, what's important is that we note these changes and act to mitigate them, and I believe this is what Peterson was referring to as "cultural Marxists". It might be embarrassing if he got the name wrong, but it doesn't change WHAT he's talking about.

⬐ Bakary

It is a bit counter-intuitive, but the cultural shift you describe is a mirror image of Peterson's popularity, in the sense that both are the result of sloppy, black-and-white, and adversarial thinking and ideological repackaging.

If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse.

The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways.

⬐ 0x737368

I'm sorry but I don't follow you here.

>If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse.

Peterson DOES encourage informed discourse. Unlike some public figures that are wont to use strawman arguments and/or voice their opinions in an echo chamber, I've seen Peterson go on almost hostile interviews, keeping calm and giving accurate and measured answers to their questions whilst ignoring their jabs(see Cathy Newman or Vice interviews for example). And as was mentioned before, he's also known to change his opinion if he's convinced that he was wrong - now you show me another public figure that's willing to do that, not too many of those from what I've seen.

>The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results.

I can't speak about Shapiro since I haven't watched him or his stuff, but I have no problem with Peterson getting money or attention from his lectures, interviews, or books. I cannot find what harm his material can cause either.

>You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways.

I think it's healthy to be at least A LITTLE bit sceptical of new norms. Our society was pretty much the same for at least thousands of years and in a few decades we're changing things up very drastically. Are you that sure that it's not going to cause issues that can have dire consequences in the future? I'm not.

I'd like to reiterate again that I don't think Peterson is as conservative as you seem to be implying, he doesn't want everybody being under Sharia-like social rules of Christian propriety. He does seem to lean towards traditional family values, which I don't think is a bad thing. Otherwise he seems to champion personal freedom, especially against any form of tyranny.

With regards to him not understanding traditional norms I'd like to disagree. If you can show me some examples of where he does that please do.

⬐ Bakary

To avoid confusion around semantics, I'll try to draw up a more stripped down version of the argument.

Cultural shifts linked to specific left-wing ideas underway in various parts of society → concern based on the idea of the foundations of society being weakened or changed too quickly as a result → public figure comments against the former shift in an accessible and engaging way → fanbase forms around public figure, who is then held in high esteem for their work → criticism of the figure is primarily interpreted as censorship and deplatforming

The above would be the simplified and idealized description of Peterson or another such figure from one of their supporters. The following is what I believe is happening instead:

breakdown in discourse over time for various factors → ideologies spring up based on their online marketability and accessibility instead of their depth → the change oriented/left-wing version turns into intensified identity politics that moves away from economic concerns → the conservative oriented version turns into a decaf, pretend version of what it used to be → media personalities from each camp do battle online with debates that are essentially entertainment only but are interpreted as discourse by fans on either side

From this we can see that a supporter of Peterson would see the Newman interview as an example of bravery and intellectual strength, whereas from the second framework it would look like another addition to the huge frothing pile of low-quality infotainment. This is what I meant by using a flamethrower on a flaming house. Peterson himself and others like him contribute to the alteration of traditional norms instead of defending them. Or to be more precise, the fact that they are the figures being listened to is the mechanism that accelerates this decline. This is what I meant with the Fizz Buzz analogy: Peterson and co. would have been laughed out of the room by earlier generations of conservatives for not having basic knowledge of the issues they argue about, and these would in turn have been horrified by the idea that a speaker's accessibility and popularity would be seen as a justification of their worth.

In the end, you have people who nod in appreciation when Peterson "destroys" a reporter/student/heckler in a meme-worthy contest, but don't actually know much at all about the Western canon or the traditional values they claim allegiance to or even the ideas that they claim to oppose. They repeat the words but don't actually live these values, and this is a direct consequence of decaf intellectualism taking up all of that mental space. The conservatism is then ironically no longer conservative, in the sense that it no longer conserves the norms it references.

⬐ 0x737368

Thank you, I understand your point of view now. I would need to get a bigger grip on the underlying issues to fully agree or disagree with it(your previously mentioned reading list), but your argument seems reasonable and plausible to me.

> Invited on The Arsenio Hall Show, Ice walked blithely into the lion’s den... It remains a brutal interview to watch. You can practically see Ice’s career leave his body....

Way to exaggerate! The interview was very cordial, considering how much hate the guy was getting at the time.

Completely unrelated, but want to watch a brutal interview? Check Cathey Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson (who still managed to come out relatively unscathed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ peter_d_sherman

Disclaimer: While I do not agree with Jordan Peterson on all points, I believe that in this interview he comes across as highly intellectual, well-spoken, and thought-provoking, if not interesting in general...

That being said, your proverbial mileage (and opinions) with respect to this interview probably can and will vary...

⬐ boltzmannbrain

Comments section is on point...

- The most outrageously patient human being alive.

- "1+1 = 2". So you're saying 3 is not a number?

- This is the most impressive display of dealing with a hostile interviewer I have seen in my life

- Jordan Peterson: Hi

Cathy Newman: So you are saying "Heil Hitler"?

There's a famous Channel 4 interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson that illustrates not just the flaws of being uncharitable but also how it can backfire spectacularly. Regardless of how one feels about Peterson, the nearly 15 million views are evidence that excessive straw-manning ends up helping the person and argument you're against.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Well they occasionally debate with each others but aren't supporting the same ideas. They do have in common that they disagree with identity politics, and as you can tell from the name calling on this HN page, this is a topic on which for many there is zero tolerance for any disagreement.

Peterson mostly discusses religion (from a philosophical point of view), self-improvement, identity politics. He tends to be more on the conservative side but outside of identity politics doesn't discuss politics that much. His videos are all on his youtube channel [1]. A good way to make your own opinion is to watch the channel 4 interview, which I think is the way many people discovered him [2]

Harris is a Democrat, furiously anti-religious and anti-Trump, talks about quite a variety of topics. You can browse through his podcasts [3]. He also doesn't like identity politics and islamist extremism. To get a good idea of his position on a touchy topic, you can try his interview of Charles Murray [4], which is very interesting and I think is a good example of how a relatively balanced point of view can get unfairly attacked.

I am less familiar with Rubin [5]. My understanding is that he is more of a libertarian.

Also less familiar with Eric Weinstein (and his brother Bret Weinstein). But you can listen to his discussion on the Intellectual Dark Web with Sam Harris [6]. Harris also has some interesting discussions with Bret Weinstein.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL_f53ZEJxp8TtlOkHwMV9Q

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

[3] https://samharris.org/podcast/

[4] https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/

[5] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng

[6] https://samharris.org/podcasts/112-intellectual-dark-web/

Jordan Peterson talked about this in his infamous Cathy Newman interview. I think it's worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ totalZero

I can't bear to watch this...she's horrible at her job.

Sigh. As the sibling comment points out, what you are saying is not true. It is contradicted by the text of the memo itself. Moreover he wasn't "very vocal about it", he wrote a memo that was then deliberately leaked by his ideological opponents in order to destroy his career: successfully so.

Five years ago I felt my political views were pretty mainstream for the tech industry, for the Valley (although I did not live there). I'd have described myself as a centrist or maybe centre-left.

These days my views have shifted, I can feel myself getting more conservative with time. It's not an age thing. It's more that I've started to notice the sort of tactic you used above - faced with someone making conservative arguments you disagree with you didn't bother debating the points he made. Instead you just lied about what he said and then attacked a straw man.

This is consistently how Damore is treated. There are liberal arguments that can be made about what he wrote - people could point out methodological errors in his studies, or logic errors in his arguments. But they never seem to do that. Whether it's in the media (who love calling what he wrote an "anti diversity memo" even though it praises diversity and has ideas for how to increase the number of women in tech), or on Hacker News, the tactic is always the same - pretend he claimed women are worse than men and then viciously attack him on a personal level. And it's just totally false.

The same tactic crops up in other similar contexts. Jordan Peterson being interviewed on Channel 4 is a recent notorious example. The guy made debatable but essentially conservative arguments about how men and women are not the same, the gender pay gap has multiple causes and so on. And Cathy Newman (the interviewer), who clearly isn't really interviewing him at all but rather sees her job as destroying the ideological enemy, just constantly twists his words. The entire interview consists of her exclaiming, "So what you're saying is ..." followed by some absurd straw man that bore no resemblance to what the guy just said.

It got so insane that by the end of the interview, after Peterson made a long and complicated point about the biological roots of social hierarchies using the nervous system of lobsters as an example, she replied "So what you're saying is, we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters" and the guy doesn't even blink or miss his stride. He just gets right on with correcting her, because by that point the lying and distorting of what he just said has become so predictable:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=26m55s

It's one of the most astonishing TV interviews I've ever seen and that sort of debating "tactic" is everywhere.

⬐ utopcell

It is not a political view to support that women are inferior, wrt tech, at Google.

Whether he may be a conservative or liberal is irrelevant to me and to the discussion.

⬐ peoplewindow

But he didn't argue that, did he? Can you give a quote from the memo that makes you think Damore argued or believes that?

⬐ salvar

I keep seeing this argument, and wonder if we read the same memo. And to mirror your view, I'm getting pretty tired of people just brushing off criticism of the memo as "Strawman! Fake news!" when it's anything but. I guess it's a successful tactic though.

⬐ Veelox

I think part of the problem with the memo is that it was written for an audience that was unbiased, not for a hostile audience. This means that when you read it after here how bad it was, you brain is primed to pick up on the phrases that are directly or indirectly offensive to women and you skip over all the qualifiers. If you pretty much agree with the basic premise you miss the offensive stuff and notice all of the qualifiers.

It reminds me of all of the issues in the Ferguson shooting. Instantly we had "Hands up, Don't shoot" and "Criminal" being called by both sides. The stuff that is divisive goes viral and people on both sides shout about it.

Alas, because it was imperfectly said by Damore, it is no longer safe to openly discuss if the gender gap in tech might be influenced by biology.

⬐ peoplewindow

Perhaps you posted elsewhere in the thread, but do you have any substantial criticism? I mean, beyond "that's a cartoonish view", which isn't really helpful to informed debate?

⬐ salvar

I'm very sorry for not being helpful enough for you when I quoted the argument of another comment.

⬐ peoplewindow

Right - that's a no, then.

I described the argument as a straw man because it is one. Damore verifiably did not say he thought women at Google were inferior. I'm not surprised you're tired of people saying "straw man!" in discussions about Damore: as I note, nobody seems to be able to argue that he's wrong, so they just attack things he didn't say, and then other people have to point that out. If you dislike that, then point out strawmen yourself. Perhaps eventually people who dislike Damore's perspective will then stop strawmanning him.

I've recently encounter Jordan Peterson. He speaks very eloquently about topics such as gender differences from (IMO) a rational and scientific point of view. I'm linking an interview with him which I find fascinating: Both for the information he conveys and for the manner in which he manages to remain cool and clear-headed against a very aggressive interviewer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=4m55s

Channel 4 interview with Peterson that's popular atm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ skrebbel

Thanks. I watched it, and I love it. I really like how the interviewer did, she presented the feminist view pretty well, while keeping her cool.

Sure, she used her position as the one controlling the agenda well, quickly switching topics when pressed into a corner, but that's her job.

⬐ markdog12

Not sure if sarcastic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkcXRC4HZqc

BTW, that Spectator article basically just embeds the original interview on Channel 4 uploaded to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

And, wow, I just watched this and it is horrendously cringeworthy. Seems like the presenter was expecting someone soft in the head (like an MP/politician), and approached the interview in that modern British fashion, which didn't work out well at all. It's really awkward to see somebody be that badly intellectually outclassed, but then it was Channel 4...

On the other hand, coming back to OP, there's something encouraging about a critical thinker having "star appeal". I think that's the best way to describe Dr Peterson, as you don't have to agree with him, but it is easy to follow his lucid trains-of-thought, and he is at least consistent.

I think "watch X destroy Y" is just youtube's version of clickbait. I suspect you'll find videos like that tailored to most groups on youtube. I sometimes use them as trailers for longer talks that I might enjoy - although I always feel a little guilty for encouraging this sort of thing.

In this case I found their interview to be excellent viewing. She was harsh and honest with him, and hurled most of the standard criticism at Peterson that people talk about. And while doing that she gave him the time and opportunity to respond. And he stayed calm, considered, articulate and entertaining throughout. I don't agree with everything either of them said, but I enjoyed watching that interview immensely - its exactly the sort of thing I want to see more of on youtube and in the public sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ Radim

"Let me get this straight… you're saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the LOBSTERS?!"

Harsh, perhaps. Honest, not so much. I found most of her ripostes a dishonest caricature of Peterson's position, or downright lies.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1331

⬐ dfraser992

He didn't explain that point so well, but I grokked what he was getting at (I think). I don't think she was smart enough to understand it, or see beyond it, so thus the gross simplification. That's my impression of her - less conscious dishonestly as opposed to just not smart enough. Then again, most people have an IQ under 120, and 120 is not that impressive either

I would have said that humans are little more than talking primates, and so our societies (West and East) are organized according to how primates organize themselves - e.g. hierarchies. We're more sophisticated than chimpanzees, but not by much. Once you understand this idea, then all the stupidity humans get up to is understandable.

Jordan Peterson is on record saying he would use preferred pronouns. He is opposed to the law and regulation of these pronouns:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s

23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.

⬐ beat

I'm not surprised, because Jordan Peterson is thoughtful.

And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

⬐ 1123581321

I notice you have used the insult “asshole” twice when no one else is, and you are using the mention of the word as proof someone is wrong.

Would you consider writing what someone has specifically done wrong, rather than the insult? It’d be more clear, and we wouldn’t need to guess whether your overall assessment of people is reliable.

Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his "Nazi followers" and gender pronouns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA

Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ js8

> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago

God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.

⬐ rocmcd

It really was. It was two people on entirely different planes of conversation talking right past each other.

One thing I think Peterson could do better (though I imagine he wouldn't do this purely on principle, if he was even capable) is adapting his speech and rhetoric to meet his target audience. He was answering her questions in a calm and well-meaning manner, but just the tone and vocabulary of his explanations was going completely over her head, making her draw the wrong conclusions from what he was saying. That is, assuming that she wasn't trying to be combative on purpose.

⬐ HardDaysKnight

I've watched the interview a couple of times. I did not see that his tone or vocabulary were over her head. However, I would like to know what you're referring to. Could you give one or two examples please?

⬐ api

I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.

⬐ Chaebixi

> but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

> Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.

Seems like he has no love for the alt-right:

> But when [Peterson has] been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride."

⬐ weberc2

> I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

I forget if it was this article or the interview (the two of which constitute my entire familiarity with the man, so I'm not strongly for or against him), but he makes the point that he has had many letters from left and right extremists who have reported that Peterson's teachings have moved them to the center. So my inner optimist would like to believe that his far right (and left) fans are in flux, mwaning it's socially ideal for these people to be in the ranks of his "followers". Although the notion of a philosopher with followers does sort of creep me out, rightly or wrongly.

⬐ jnbiche

> I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

Well, given that Peterson has repeatedly pissed them off by saying that ethnic nationalism is an idiotic ideology (I'm paraphrasing), I'm not sure how many of those followers he now has left.

He definitely has a very vocal cult-like following among a certain type of young adult. While they can be annoying, they're not typically the fascist/racist type. Far from it.

⬐ ravenstine

That's the thing... I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, though I am often mistaken for one; I enjoy listening to people like Jordan Peterson and even Ben Shapiro because they are excellent debaters and can make solid arguments. I can't think of anyone on the other side of the political spectrum who can even come close in that regard, although I would love for someone to give me some examples.

⬐ js8

What about Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, Yanis Varoufakis? They are all excellent debaters on the left. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYlXb6kBA0

It's interesting to note that Chomsky was at a point also targeted by the postmodern "left", when he defended free speech.

⬐ ndr

For the record, Hitchens died in 2011.

No. This is the "so you're saying" interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Direct link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ hyperdunc

The interviewer is either extremely confused about her own ideology or being deliberately standoffish by invoking strawman after strawman.

She seems to think certain groups of people are entitled to success they haven't earned, because there is some nefarious and ill-defined force oppressing them.

Peterson handled it well and made some great points about the roles of competence, sacrifice and disagreeableness in work success.

⬐ xiphias

Actually what would have been interesting to talk about is whether a company would be run better if agreeableness would be handled as a bias for the managers/salaries and thought about consciously. But this shouldn't be a male vs female thing.

⬐ Turing_Machine

She wasn't confused about anything. She was intentionally misrepresenting what he said.

⬐ throwaway1748

This interview really demonstrates the style of argumentation you see around these topics, just dialed up to 11.

Practitioners of this form of argument intentionally mis-represent the other side to form a strawman argument. This works exceptionally well on Twitter, where someone quote-tweets their adversary, intentionally warping their words with the intention to shame. Some people have called this tactic "dunking on" their opponent.

Those tactics work very poorly in this 1-to-1 format, in part because of the longform nature, but mostly because one can't instantly appeal to an outside audience for likes/retweets.

⬐ jules

I don't think that tactic works poorly in that format at all, it's just that this person is incredibly good at defending against it. Very few people could withstand such an interview.

⬐ su30mki117

Jordan Peterson might have defended well compared to an average person, but I was still surprised too see him uncomfortable and expending extra energy to answer the questions than what I expected. Those were hard questions, but he would have surely expected those kind of questions before going to the interview. He did not look well prepared, and some of his answers lacked the clarity and punch which we can usually see in his youtube lectures.

⬐ mal808

How could anyone not expend extra energy when faced with that sort of interview "technique". I thought he handled it very well. How did he not look prepared? Some of here questions were so off the point of what they were discussing it'd be hard not to react aggressively. I think that's what you're seeing, him holding back. I mean, we should organise our society like "the lobsters"?? WTF?

⬐ throwaway1748

good point.

⬐ quantumofmalice

Exactly. This tactic breaks all but maybe a thousand people in the world. I wouldn't have lasted two minutes, I would have just blown up at her and embarrassed myself.

We are very lucky to have Jordan Peterson, one of those very few people, to speak for free speech.

Link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

⬐ RhysU

Anyone have a transcript?