Thanks for sharing, Andrew! Keep'em coming.

I don’t personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.

Have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is there’s a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

So the lens with which the ideas are treated through is filtered by the messenger, and not the message.  

Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. It’s irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but it’s all good. Everyone sees something different, and that’s fine.

The reason I posted that clip wasn’t to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and it’s cringeworthy to watch.

Peterson’s position here is simple:

- There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as ‘men get paid more than women’ doesn’t factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc.

So if you’re not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, it’s a bogus statistic. That’s not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, it’s a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isn’t the issue. That’s a crude breakdown of his point.

Now if you’re comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and there’s a discrepancy, that’s a fair point of debate. Peterson’s point is the debate and statement doesn’t go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesn’t exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.

" women’s tendency for neuroticism – their likelihood to experience stress, depression and unpredictability – and their high level of agreeableness, to be cooperative and compassionate.

Took me awhile to read through all the comments here. Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.  

Anyway, IMHO, media has become a scary thing. Doesn't really matter which side they lean to. In the days before the internet and social media, the media was more unbiased. People delivered the news without making faces or hyping anything. There were also fewer news outlets. With the internet came an explosion of new news sources. People could pick and chose which news they wanted. Enter social media and now everyone on this planet can chime in on said news. The waters get muddy and sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Everyone fighting for viewers and clicks. Not saying things were better in the old days because who knows if we were getting skewed news back then as well. All I know is that I trust absolutely no one these days. At least not as far as information goes.

Now I'm going to catch up on the Jan Project thread. Hopefully it's not as long as this one or it's going to take me all evening to respond.  

You're wrong as there is no single messenger.

On one hand, the largest cable company (FOX), largest local TV conglomerate (Sinclair) almost every AM radio station, a plethora of websites and internet news outlets are oftentimes the messenger and they vilify AOC and provide sainthood status to right-wing loons. Your "default" doesn't exist with these outlets.

Conversely, MSNBC, CNN a whole host of left-leaning websites saint AOC and others on the left and vilify even the most reasonable voices on the right.

i.e., There is no one messenger and there is no such entity as "the media".  And you must know that at some level, Andrew. You don't think it is an accident that we are so split down the middle do you???? We are split down the middle because the media forces on the left and the right both suck in terms of truth and both have significant influence and power. It's obvious isn't it?

Like we watched two different videos.

Yes - the oft-quoted 77% pay gap is a horribly inaccurate number and anyone is right in pointing that out.  At the same time, the fact is that there is a pay gap even when all these variables are accounted for.

Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this:



Without scientific proof. Pure conjecture and smack dab against common sense to boot. How would Peterson explain women's progress if indeed these things were true? We have made strides every decade and we are headed toward parity. When we reach parity - will his argument be - well, I guess that women no longer have a tendency towards neuroticism of that women must have become less agreeable???? PS - he won't of course as he believes these traits are innate. Which again, undermines his own theory on causality - if they are innate - how does one explain the progress that has been made?

BTW - you do know that in the very recent past - non-agreeable were more likely to be categorized as bitch and shrill by their male peers than they were to be complimented for their strong leadership - dude, I lived that for decades.

So, still, a fail for me for this guy. Because as I said before - I believe he is smarter than that.

Here is where I would respect Peterson. If he said:

- The actual pay gap is XX% when controlled for blah, blah -

Where I lose respect for him is when he inserts a totally unsubstantiated thesis for the gap.

Because he knows better. He doesn't say that because it won't yield clicks on his video and he won't sell books.

It starts to become sticky when we enter the territory of, “you’re wrong”.

You’re entitled to disagree, but that sounds a little angry.

I do think you’re being disagreeable on this one. So it’s an easy agree to disagree.

It’s fine to disagree with Peterson, but quite honestly, I do think you’re misrepresenting his argument.

And the notion he is selling junk to bigots is exactly the point I was making earlier about Ocasio-Cortez. This belief that if a message is considered right wing, it’s profit driven, or catering to bigotry, whereas messaging on the left is genuinely held.

On the substance, again, it’s an agree to disagree.

The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written.

It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.

Oh c'mon, Andrew - that's being just a little tender.  I really don't see too much distance between agree to disagree and you're wrong. AND - virtually no distance from calling someone disagreeable. As you just did. The ground ain't any higher there, mate.

Ya see, what you did there is escalate between what is a difference of opinion to asserting that my difference of opinion must be rooted in my emotional state (disagreeable) vs. an honest difference of opinion.

Tsk. Tsk. See kettle......

I don�t personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.