MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Stossel: Jordan Peterson vs. 'Social Justice Warriors'

Peterson: “SJWs” evolved from Marxism.

Many leftists hate Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto.

They began to hate him after Peterson said he'd disobey a proposed Canadian law that would force Canadians to call anyone who doesn't want to be called "he or she" something else, like "ze" or "xe."

When Peterson said he'd refuse to obey, angry students shouted Peterson down, blowing air horns and screaming to make sure others couldn't hear.

Peterson defends his position to John Stossel: "I don't care what people want to be called. That's fine, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled by law to call them that."

It's not just students who slam Peterson. In one TV interview, Peterson stayed calm while the host tried to put words in his mouth.

"You are saying that women aren't intelligent enough to run these top companies....You don't believe in equal pay," Cathy Newman, the reporter at Britain's Channel 4 News, insisted.

"No, I'm not saying that at all," Peterson responded. He hadn't said that. What he had said, is that natural differences explain most of the gender wage gap.

As an example, Peterson cites studies that find, in wealthy countries that focus most on equality, like Sweden, even fewer women major in science and math. Instead they pick fields that deal with people, like teaching, and men tend more toward technical fields.

Peterson says this shows that when men and women have the most freedom to decide what they do, they pick fields that line up with their natural biological interests.

That idea infuriates leftists. "It should infuriate them," Peterson tells Stossel. "Because I'm going right at the heart of the radical leftist doctrine."

That doctrine is social justice, the idea that all groups should have equal outcomes; that there should be just as many female CEOs, scientists, and computer programmers, because men and women are essentially the same. If outcomes differ, it must be sexism.

Peterson says that the focus on group equality is a spinoff of Marxism. That after Marxism failed spectacularly in the economic realm, Marxists applied their way of thinking to issues like the difference between men and women.

"We've got a hundred million corpses stacked up to demonstrate" the failure of Marxism, says Peterson. And the new Marxism-derived focus on group equality won't end any better.

Peterson calls for the opposite of Marxism–a focus on the individual.

He says people should stick with "the principles that govern the West; capitalist principles. The free market principles." With those principles "we do better than any place has ever done."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel, his independent production company, Stossel Productions, and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Libertymike||

    Smoking Joe Frazier, for a time, refused to call the Louisville Lip Muhammad Ali. Instead he referred to him as "Clay." Ali's given name was Cassius Clay.

    Just because A insists that he be referred to A does not mean that B must do so.

  • SQRLSY One||

    OK then, Mr. McLubberty McMike-Face!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Personally, I prefer to be addresses as His Emminently Uber-Dudelish Wankerus, the Biggus Dickus of Rome, Slayer of Intergalactic Zorgons, and Protector and Guardian of All Good Feelz & Righteousness!

  • Libertymike||

    Iif it pleases His Emminently Uber-Dudelish Wankerus, the Biggus Dickus of Rome, Slayer of Intergalactic Zorgons, and Protector and Guardian of All Good Feelz & Righteousness, may we address you with a nickname, preferably one that will not exhaust our lungs?

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Feelz Righteous" will do for short, and maybe get me laid, or at least popular, with the in-crowd among the proggie babes on college campuses today! Now only if I can get rid of this Jagermeister gut of mine...

  • Radioactive||

    how does "Your Mighty Douche Baggerty" work?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Wanks higher than any man in Wome.

  • Nom de Sobriquet||

    Fascist oppressor! Zorgons suffer xenocide at the hands of your ilk! Zorgons have rights, intergalactic and intragalactic. Go build your wall somewhere else.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I, The Emminently Uber-Dudelish Wankerus Maximus, the Biggus Dickus of Wome, Slayer of Intergalactic Zorgons, and Protector and Guardian of All Good Feelz & Righteousness, move for NO MAN!

    I obey ONLY my commanders, the Cruel Galactic Emperor Xenu, and His Companion, Co-Emperor Trump!

  • Ben of Houston||

    It is polite to call people by the name that they wish to be called. That is manners. You would not call a woman who chose to keep her name upon marriage by her husband's name, or call a man "Billy" who prefers "William". That is rude.

    On the flip side, you should not request to be called anything unreasonable, including elaborate titles or difficult to pronounce or remember renames. That would be rude on the part of the requester.

    However, manners should not be a matter of legislation. That is the bigger issue. Excessive regulation for something that should not be in the purview of the state at all.

  • Radioactive||

    yeah, but Canada!!!

  • ||

    What that buffoon Trudeau and his merry and of morons in the Liberal party did was an affront to the concept of the sovereign individual.

    Canada is POORER for Bill C-16 and Canadians should hang their heads in shame. Especially the ones who think they're free.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It doesn't say much for the leftists in Canada that they elected Prime Minister Zoolander.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "yeah, but Canada!!!"

    You mean: Kanukistan

  • Libertymike||

    Ben, agreed that civility and manners should carry the day.

    But, in the case of Ali, one can understand a Joe Frazier refusing to play along with Ali's fraud. IOW, we do not have to be prisoners of another's "religious conversions," including name changes.

    Regarding a woman who has "kept" her father's name after marriage? Why? Is it not presumptively rude to cede any ground to progressive feminism?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There's a player on the New England Patriots named Patrick Chung. He's been with them for about 10 years. About 6 or 7 years ago, he asked that the media call him Pat Chung. I guess he goes by Pat. I have not seen a single article in the past 6 or 7 years where he was called Pat Chung. I imagine it's slightly annoying to him, but I assume he doesn't lose much sleep over it.

    If people started calling Patrick Chung "she" I imagine he'd be more than a little pissed off. "Interception Patrick Chung! She took the ball in for 6!" "What a great tackle, she stopped a sure touchdown!"

    Point is -- names and gender identity in the form of pronouns are two completely different things.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Neither of which elevates to the level of requiring the long dick of the law to get involved.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Of course. But just because we're opposed to the idea of government forcing politeness and civility doesn't mean it's not both polite and civil to respect people's wishes on the matter. But my main point was that we can't compare gender identity with something trivial like preferred names. Two entirely different topics.

  • damikesc||

    I don't see how it is. You can view yourself however you wish. I am under no obligation to play along.

  • rudehost||

    Preferred names are trivial depending on who you ask. I worked with a guy named Nathan who got downright offended if you don't call him Nate. Pronouns are likewise serious or trivial depending on who it is. There is nothing inherently more important or weighty about a freshly minted pronoun.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I xe what you mean.

  • pro bonobo||

    Xe longer I liff here, diverse it gets.

  • Tony||

    Call people what they want to be called or else you're an asshole.

  • Griffin3||

    In America, people have the right to be assholes.
    You know this, already.

  • Tony||

    There's no excuse for rudeness.

  • The original jack burton||

    I am not sure than anyone is looking for you to "excuse" them. Just to stay out of their way, life, and decision-making.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I think it's rude to expect total strangers to know some made up language. And getting offended by it is a sign of an absurd level of self-entitlement.

    How about that?

  • Johnimo||

    I kind of like: "hey, you." Or, if you're addressing more than one: "Hey y'all." "Dude" works pretty well too.

    If they get pissed off, and you're honestly trying to have a convesation: "Fuck off," and walk away, right?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    What's yours, asshole?

  • ||

    Maybe but it still shouldn't be legislated.

    Like you usual, you obfuscate and don't address the core of the issue.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, then how do you justify your existence? You are an affront to humans. And young boys rectums.

  • Johnimo||

    Come on! Be polite. We all know how irritating he is, but you needn't be overly rude. Have fun with Tony.

  • Agammamon||

    said by entitled people everywhere when someone whose attention they ate trying to monopolize tells them to fuck off.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Speaking truth is often considered an assholish thing to do. Yet it has the virtue of being true.

  • MarkLastname||

    So if I insist you call me His Grace, Napoleon VIi, Emperor of the French and Defender of the Faith, it's you who is the asshole if you refuse?

    What if I insist you refer to me as a potato rather than a human being?

    No, even politeness does not give you carte blanche to make up your own genders or titles and insist others call you by them. It's not rude to refuse to learn your own little private language in order to communicate with you.

  • JFDeplorable||

    Not necessarily. A woman who has established a career prior to her marriage AND whose public or professional face is associated with her maiden name may choose to keep that name in order to keep her "branding." It's not really "progressive" in the sense of desiring to diminish the male's role in her life. It's really just a matter of business.

  • damikesc||

    And that was his whole point. Jordan has said if you want him to call you something, you can have a discussion. It's when the government says he has to (a fight he lost, mind you), then there is the problem. Compelled speech is always wrong.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Ernie Terrell was the man who famously paid the iron price for calling Ali "Clay".

    https://theundefeated.com/features/whats-my-name/

  • SQRLSY One||

    "... there should be just as many female CEOs, scientists, and computer programmers, because men and women are essentially the same. "

    Oh-Kaaaay... And just how much screaming do we hear about there not being enough women in jails and prisons (7% in the USA; 93 % for men), or not enough female garbage picker-uppers, or honey-dippers (cleaners out of septic tanks), and so on? And WHEN are men going to get a fair crack at being wet-nurses? WHEN are men going to get "equal opportunities" to "better themselves" in fields like naked-titty and naked-dwonky dancing for an opposite-sex audience?

  • lap83||

    Notice how the women who say they believe that are never clamoring to be scientists or CEO's themselves.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Math is hard!

  • Mongo||

    I'm with you on that, playboy.

  • Radioactive||

    so's my Johnson...just call him dick!

  • H. Farnham||

    Glynn Shotwell, president of Spacex, did a Ted Talk a little while back. She actually addresses what got her into engineering/science as a teenager. It really went against the SJW narrative and made for an awkward moment with the interviewer.

    It's worth watching:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA
    around 1:20 - 2:15

  • H. Farnham||

    *Gwynne*, not Glynn

  • ||

    It really went against the SJW narrative and made for an awkward moment with the interviewer.

    Considering that she's extolling her value as an engineer as her ability to build relationships and sell product, I don't think it's quite the conflicted awkward moment you were looking for. The whole thing seemed smarmy and self-serving (like it would with just about any CEO).

  • H. Farnham||

    I was referring specifically to this: "I fell in love with the mechanical engineer... I loved her suit. And that's what a fifteen year old girl connects with." The interviewer gives a nervous laugh and then changes the subject.

    It seems to be a common theme in leftist rhetoric that any mention at all of stereotypes (such as teenage girls love clothes) is harmful for equality and indicative of some kind of patriarchal oppression. However, this anecdotal experience seems to run counter to that.

  • ||

    I was referring specifically to this: "I fell in love with the mechanical engineer... I loved her suit. And that's what a fifteen year old girl connects with." The interviewer gives a nervous laugh and then changes the subject.

    To me the laugh couldn't have been more "I don't really care. next question..." Maybe it's the British culture, lost in translation, but I didn't read any of that into his behavior or mannerisms. Platonic to the point of almost being annoyed or disdainful that he's being, effectively, forced to read off of cue cards.

  • ||

    It seems to be a common theme in leftist rhetoric that any mention at all of stereotypes (such as teenage girls love clothes) is harmful for equality and indicative of some kind of patriarchal oppression. However, this anecdotal experience seems to run counter to that.

    While I freely admit to completely befuddled by it as well, I think your privilege is blinding you to parts of the victim hierarchy and intersectionality. See, Ocean's 8 can be about knocking off a fashion show and Ghostbusters can have women fawning over a hunky secretary because it's woman-affirming. The fact that she's a female CEO of a STEM company trumps everything else. As long as she didn't get up there and say, "I learned science by playing with barbie dolls and so all girls play with barbie dolls." everything else was gonna slide.

    I kinda agree with your statement from both angles though and it's really kind of a sad state of affairs: she sums up the beginning and the end of her career as an engineer without even the slightest inkling of any actual engineering she's done. Most male (and some female) engineers could tell you about the car they first fell in love with. Most male (and plenty of female) engineers could point to a single feat of engineering as the high point of their career. She starts off with an anecdote about a suit and ends selling the SpaceX team and tech. Which, IMO, is *exactly* the sort of narrative SJWs want and are advancing in STEM fields.

  • ||

    'all girls should play with barbie dolls' that is.

  • Robot Centaur||

    I picked her up from the airport once. Pretty stuck up

  • Zeb||

    A lot of the reasons why a majority of high-power, high-pay jobs are held by men speak well of women if you ask me. You'd have to be nuts to want to work as much as you have to to be a top CEO or big time lawyer. If that's really your thing, then good for you whatever your sex. We do need people like that in the world. But there is no good reason to insist that more women should do that.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    For that matter, how about requiring 18 year-old American girls to register for selective service, hmmm?

  • JFDeplorable||

    I actually agree with that!! Womens' rights are protected by the Constitution, so they should be equally responsible for defending it. I also believe that no woman should be exempt from active duty just because she chooses to become pregnant. There was a situation during the 1980s when nearly every active duty female on board a ship deployed to the Persian Gulf got knocked up specifically so they could be shipped home and do soft duty in the states. That is still part of the military protocols, and in the interest of "equality" it should be eliminated. Women do have a choice, and the military hospitals are cool with performing abortions, tubal ligations or issuing long-term birth control.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Speaking of screaming, why on earth aren't those who screamed so loud that Peterson cannot be heard be arrested for disturbing the peace!

  • Mindscape||

    Or 50% child custody, murder victims, say in abortions, etc.

  • Brian||

    These SJWs are just encouraging private enterprises to make business decisions based on their clients' desires.

    And if they ever actually gained political power, there's no way they would actually implement tyranny.

    ...Right?

  • Zeb||

    No, they wouldn't do that. You can trust them.

    If Peterson is to be believed, they already have quite a bit of power in Canada and it's pretty disturbing.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tyranny is the goal, equality is the excuse.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    It really throws me off when you're not sarcastic.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    These SJW's are,just as entotled as incels.

  • BenjaminTheDonkey||

    They may be Marxists, but their focus is on themselves and what might be special about them and their particular appetites. Pigs focus their attention on sex and food, how is that different from gender studies and veganism?

  • Zeb||

    Pigs focus their attention on sex and food, how is that different from gender studies and veganism?

    Or people who love porn and bacon, for that matter.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I majored in vegan porn and bacon studies.

  • Agammamon||

    I thought bacon was vegan porn.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I see what you did there.

  • mtrueman||

    "He says people should stick with "the principles that govern the West; capitalist principles. The free market principles." With those principles "we do better than any place has ever done."

    Why should women stick with free market principles when the market deems their contribution worth only some 70% of that of male counterparts? Taking one for the team? Doesn't sound individualistic to me.

  • Radioactive||

    market forces at work. wymins only worth 70% … just sayin...

  • Zeb||

    Why should women stick with free market principles when the market deems their contribution worth only some 70% of that of male counterparts?

    The premise of that question doesn't hold water. You are talking about the average compensation across all jobs. The market values the contributions of actual people, not statistical averages and there is no across the board woman discount on wages. If that were the case, the smart money would be hiring all women because you can pay them less for the same work.

    Why is it so goddamn difficult for people to understand the difference between averages and how individuals are actually treated?

  • mtrueman||

    "be hiring all women because you can pay them less for the same work."

    But they don't do the same work. That's what Peterson's 'controversial' point is about. The jobs women choose/are chosen to do are paid substantially less than those men do. Pretending that the work is the same is dishonest.

  • Zeb||

    So what's your point then?

    The jobs women choose/are chosen to do are paid substantially less than those men do.

    Some do, some don't.

  • mtrueman||

    "So what's your point then?"

    It should have been clear from the question. Why should people stick with the free market system? It discounts the contribution of women.

  • Zeb||

    As you yourself say "they don't do the same work". So how can you support the claim that women's work is discounted compared to men? You need to show that the market somehow discounts the work of individual women, not that on average women get paid less. That tells you nothing about how the market determines compensation for any individual woman.

  • mtrueman||

    " So how can you support the claim that women's work is discounted compared to men?"

    Easily. 70 is less than 100.

  • Zeb||

    Nevermind. I always forget you are either stupid or deliberately obtuse.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    My female workers are more productive, and thus are paid MORE than the males. Perhaps I'll make their pay equal to the men by reducing it, because that would be fair.

  • mtrueman||

    "because that would be fair"

    We're talking about the free market. What does fairness have to do with it?

  • D-Pizzle||

    The market does not discount the contribution of women. All other things being equal, would you rather work in a climate controlled office with clean restrooms (e.g. bank teller) or work outside, often in inclement weather, and have to use a porta-potty (e.g. construction worker). The preference for workplace "hygenes" plays a substantial role in the gender pay differential.

  • mtrueman||

    "The preference for workplace "hygenes" plays a substantial role in the gender pay differential."

    Not sure it does. The woman who spends a good part of her working day wiping the snot off the faces of the kids she's caring for is probably paid less than the man in the Italian suit who trades stocks and bonds in a pristine modern office environment.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Nevermind. I always forget you are either stupid or deliberately obtuse.

  • BYODB||


    Pretending that the work is the same is dishonest.

    Of course, if you measure by the actual work done the gap vanishes. Fancy that.

    Needless to say, though, that mtrueman is a self-avowed shit poster so really there's no point in addressing anything they say.

  • mtrueman||

    "Of course, if you measure by the actual work done the gap vanishes. Fancy that."

    Why not just use the dollars to measure? It's wages we're talking about. What's with all the fancy jumping through hoops to make this hideous gap disappear?

  • Agammamon||

    except, as you just pointed out - when you said men and women in the same jobs don't produce the same amount of work - that it doesn't. That is prices it exactly where it should be - according to you.

  • mtrueman||

    "according to you."

    Rest assured, if I said it, it must be correct.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    "Pretending that the work is the same is dishonest."

    If the work is the same is not the same, then what is wrong with the compensation being different?

  • mtrueman||

    "If the work is the same is not the same, then what is wrong with the compensation being different?"

    If you are a women, you are getting less.

  • Zeb||

    That's just not true as a general statement. The fact that average pay is less tells us absolutely nothing about how an individual woman is compensated.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm referring to women as a whole. Not any particular individual, who may well be actually better paid than a particular man. Women on average are paid some 70% of what a man gets. I don't understand why this result rankles you so much.

  • ||

    If you are a women, you are getting less.

    I can't tell if this is a parody or not, Poe's Law and all. I did not realize that female teachers made 70 cents on the dollar to male teachers.

  • mtrueman||

    "I can't tell if this is a parody or not, "

    I'm happy with that. Keep reading in any case.

  • VOTE MILES||

    I'm happy with that.

    Your happiness is entirely consistent with your apparent idiocy. So, you have that at least.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    What he's saying is that "women's work" is things like teaching K-12, nursing, and the like. Those jobs aren't compensated as highly as "men's jobs" like engineer, CEO, or crab fisherman, which proves that women are less valued than men. Therefore, women should overthrow the current system and replace it with one that benefits them more. It's all insane, sexist, Marxist bullshit, but from the perspective of an insane, sexist, Marxist bullshitter it makes perfect sense.

  • mtrueman||

    Peterson says we should stick with the free market system, even though it discounts women's pay.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    You and I have very different definitions of the word discount. Tell me, how do you determine what someone's labor is worth? How do you determine whether someone's pay is being discounted? Because the market determines that labor is worth whatever someone will willingly pay for it. I think that's a fine way of doing things, and if women on average end up earning less than men on average, that's not even remotely a problem.

  • mtrueman||

    "that's not even remotely a problem."

    Then why all the tergiversations about the gap being a myth or non existent?

    As for the value of a person's work, less is more. Go Green! Che Lives!

  • Procyon Rotor||

    The reason for saying that the gap is a myth is because most feminists lie about it. They say that women earn unequal pay for equal work, and that needs to be debunked. You at least admit that women do unequal work, but you then spin off into a very different idiotic argument about how they should expect perfectly equal pay for doing vastly different jobs, and I can't even begin to wrap my head around why you think that makes sense.

  • mtrueman||

    "The reason for saying that the gap is a myth is because most feminists lie about it. "

    Most feminists lie about their age. Doesn't make them a myth. The women, their age, and their slender pay packages are real and unmythical.

    I'm not making an argument. I'm asking a question. Why should women prefer the free market when it discounts their contribution? If it were the other way around and we lived under an economic regime that discounted men's contribution, would you prefer it, or look to something else?

  • Procyon Rotor||

    The feminist claim, "Women earn 70 cents on the dollar for the same work as men," is a myth.

    Again, I'm going to ask how you determine whether someone's pay is being discounted. Discounted from what? What is a person's labor worth?

    To answer your questions, women should prefer the free market for the same reason men do. Because it is free. People are free (at least in theory) to make whatever consensual transactions they prefer. If they prefer not to make a transaction, they can refuse it. Freedom is a more important value than personal monetary benefit. If another system would result in more personal benefit for me, I would still reject it in favor of the free market.

  • mtrueman||

    "Again, I'm going to ask how you determine whether someone's pay is being discounted."

    Measure the wages of women, take the average, do the same with men, and compare the two.

    "Because it is free."

    Maybe, but it incentivizes women to behave as though they were men, the free market system, I mean. That's neither necessary or desirable. The free market punishes women in the form of lower wages when they bear children. Men face no such punishment. I don't think Peterson has thought this through.

    " I would still reject it in favor of the free market."

    You are a bastion of intellectual courage.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "Measure the wages of women, take the average, do the same with men, and compare the two."

    This is part of the source of our disagreement. If women are not doing the same work as men, they should not be making the same wages as men. The fact that there is an inequality means that everything is as it should be. Nobody's wages are being discounted. They are being matched to the work being done.

    "Maybe, but it incentivizes women to behave as though they were men, the free market system, I mean. That's neither necessary or desirable. The free market punishes women in the form of lower wages when they bear children. Men face no such punishment. I don't think Peterson has thought this through."

    Nobody is incentivized to behave in any way except the way that lets them meet their goals. Everyone gets to decide what their priorities are, whether that's high wages, more free time, job satisfaction, raising a family, etc. Everything is a trade-off. Not getting paid to have children is not a punishment, it's fair. It's a decision that benefits no one but yourself, so who exactly do you think should be paying for it? Peterson believes children should be born in wedlock, so the father will presumably be making up the difference in lost wages for the mother. It's not that he (or I) don't understand your objections. It's that we disagree with your moral calculus.

  • mtrueman||

    "This is part of the source of our disagreement. If women are not doing the same work as men, they should not be making the same wages as men."

    It's the market place that determines that a bond trader gets a higher wage than a day care worker. There's no 'should' about it. If a day care worker can find work in her field paying as much as the bond trader, she should take it.

    Women are incentivized by money, the measure of all things. If we pay them more for not raising a family, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't raise a family.

  • Agammamon||

    except, as you've pointed out, it doesn't.

  • Agammamon||

    to say that women should throw out the free market because work that most women choose is not valued as highly as the work men choose is like saying that janitors should throw out the free market because their work is not as valued as a lawyers.

    different products, different prices.

  • ||

    Why should women stick with free market principles when the market deems their contribution worth only some 70% of that of male counterparts?

    Mind showing me where the authoritative free market principles deem this? It sounds more like a trope trotted out by people who don't want women to demand their equal share in an equal market and to be cowed into whatever other command economics are being peddled along with the 70% figure.

    Here: "Why should Audi-owners listen to mtrueman when, on principle, he's only 70% as intelligent as your average Audi-drivers?" Now, did I convince you that Audi-owners are, on average, 30% smarter than you or that I'm just a shill for a Audi?

  • mtrueman||

    "Mind showing me where the authoritative free market principles deem this?"

    In the job market. Women are paid some 70% of what men are paid.

  • ||

    In the job market. Women are paid some 70% of what men are paid.

    No they aren't. My wife and I make equal money on an hourly basis and she makes more than any of her peers, male or female. Some women are paid less. Some are paid a lot less. In any event, I asked for authoritative and principled and you give me "A portion of the time women get paid less." which is neither authoritative nor principled. So you're evading the truth or lying.

  • mtrueman||

    The 70% figure is an average. Doesn't mean that every woman is paid 70% of every man. Your wife is almost certainly not the only one to make more than 70% of a man. Some make even less. That's how averages work. I'm not sure why you think I'm evading the truth or lying. What more do you want from me, or how have my comments disconcerted you?

  • ||

    I'm not sure why you think I'm evading the truth or lying.

    Because 'free market principles deem' is an oxymoron. Either there is no authority and, as such, no principle and the average woman just accepts 70% or there is an authority, obviating the free market, and paying women less on principle. The fact that you don't care to out the authority means either they don't exist and your seeking to undermine women making their own choices yourself or they do exist and you're concealing or protecting their scheme to pay women 70%.

    I freely admit there are a number of other explanations such as the 70% figure being completely wrong or you having no concept of what you're saying. However, in the name of civility and frankness, I feel it's more polite to suggest you're morally wrong (as in, by your own standards) rather than just stupid.

  • The original jack burton||

    Nope... with the truth out there that he is willingly rejecting that makes him both morally wrong AND stupid.

  • mtrueman||

    I thought free markets determine prices and wages. I appreciate your civility and frankness. I am often morally wrong and stupid, so take your pick and go with your feelings.

  • VOTE MILES||

    If women (in aggregate) are paid only 70%, it is because they choose jobs that pay only 70%. That's their right. But maybe you don't want to give women the right to choose. Or maybe you think they should have their cake and eat it, too.

  • mtrueman||

    "That's their right. "

    And it's men's right to get 100%. Women just have to take one for the team.

  • Brian||

    Because the wage gap is a myth.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm not talking about a mythical wage gap. Economists agree: Average pay for women is some 70% of that of males.

  • Brian||

    And if you google factoring in choice of employment, choice of education, etc., the wage gap vanishes. You can google it; it's been debunked many times.

  • mtrueman||

    "And if you google factoring in choice of employment"

    The choice of employment between men and women is not the same, as Peterson points out. If you massage the data enough, sure the gap disappears, but that doesn't change reality.

  • Brian||

    Yes, men and women choose things differently, and if you account for their individual choices, the wage gap vanishes.

    And that's much more consideration of individualism than ignoring it.

  • mtrueman||

    Individualism is fine. But men and men and women are women. There's no getting around that, Even Peterson is willing to admit it.

  • damikesc||

    Individualism is fine. But men and men and women are women. There's no getting around that, Even Peterson is willing to admit it.

    True.

    It is also as thoroughly immaterial to your argument as any words you could hope to write.

  • mtrueman||

    "It is also as thoroughly immaterial to your argument as any words you could hope to write."

    You may not understand my question. You haven't answered it in any case.

  • damikesc||

    Your question boils down to "WHY DON'T WOMEN DO WHAT MEN DO!?!?!?"

    It's a retarded question that even feminists aren't idiotic enough to ask.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    It's a brilliant question, actually. Is it because women CANNOT do the job? Or do they choose other work—and if they do, why?

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is no getting around that men are men and women are women. They, on average, have different goals and different priorities and different physical capabilities Therefore they get different results on average. Yet you keep touting the wage gap as if women were doing the exact same things as men at eork and are therefore getting shafted.

  • mtrueman||

    "Yet you keep touting the wage gap as if women were doing the exact same things as men at eork and are therefore getting shafted."

    I never meant to give the impression that women and men did the exact same things at work. They do different work and work that women do earns them only70% of what men's work brings them. According to damiesk, the commenter here, the market place goes so far as to punish a woman who bears a child. Face it, it's a raw deal and you wouldn't like it if the tables were turned.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    And the average pay for doctors is higher than for pizza deliverers. What's your point again?

  • mtrueman||

    That doctors are men and pizza deliveryboys are women. That was not my point.

  • The original jack burton||

    average height of the average man is at least eight inches shorter than the average height of a pro basketball player, who makes at least five times the amount of income than the average man.

    SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO ADDRESS THIS HEIGHT AND INCOME IMBALANCE!!!!!

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    If you mean pro NBA player, I think the average one makes a bit more than five times the amount of income than the average man.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I'm not talking about a mythical wage gap

    Yes, you are.

    You're talking about the 'gap' that appears when you add up the money earned by all the working women and then divide by the number of working women, and the money earned by all the working men and then divide by the number of working men, and then noting that one number is 30% higher than the other.

    You only get the 'gap' when you do statistics like a 7 year old who's just learned how.

    But then, "Math is hard'

  • mtrueman||

    "You're talking about the 'gap' that appears when you add up the money earned by all the working women and then divide by the number of working women, and the money earned by all the working men and then divide by the number of working men, and then noting that one number is 30% higher than the other."

    You seem to have a sound grasp of the concept of average.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And they all do the same work, right?

  • damikesc||

    I'm not talking about a mythical wage gap. Economists agree: Average pay for women is some 70% of that of males.

    You're aware you are SPECIFICALLY discussing a mythical pay gap, right?

    No, you don't. Because on this topic, you're a fucking moron.

    Why is it that when women are given more and more equality --- see Scandinavia --- they STILL choose lower-paying jobs? Even more than in other locations where they have less equality?

  • mtrueman||

    "Why is it that when women are given more and more equality --- see Scandinavia --- they STILL choose lower-paying jobs?"

    More to the point, why prefer the free market when your wages are discounted?

  • damikesc||

    Were you born a moron or did you have to work at it?

    Their wages AREN'T. Before they have kids, on average, they are paid MORE than men.

    Jesus, you do not know what the hell oyu are talking about.

  • mtrueman||

    So, the market penalizes women when they have children. Another reason why women should not be so enthusiastic about the free market so precious to Peterson.

  • Finrod||

    The "market" does no such thing, shithead. Quit spewing bullshit about subjects you have less than zero knowledge about.

  • miketol||

    "More to the point, why prefer the free market when your wages are discounted?"

    Because while the free market isn't perfect, it is a better choice than the alternatives.

    Let me ask you this: What is your solution to the gender wage gap?

    Proposal 1:
    It seems that most of the gender wage gap is about the fact that men and women make different career choices. Maybe women lack agency to make the proper career choices and the government should mandate a certain number of women each year to pump septic tanks and drive dynamite trucks until the gender wage gap is eliminated.

    Proposal 2:
    Proposal 1 is likely to elicit howls of "muh patriarchy". The other option seems to be mandating equal pay across occupations. That would mean that Sally the school teacher, Nancy the nurse, Ivan the ironworker and Larry the linesman all get paid the same. The problem with that is that after Ivan works a few days 20 stories up, in a windstorm, he is going to want Sally's job as a school teacher. And Larry, after working on the lines for 30 hours straight in an ice storm, is going to want Nancy's job as a nurse. The government could mandate that Ivan and Larry remain on their jobs. Ivan and Larry could suck it up, they could emigrate, they could take the second amendment solution, but most likely they will do their same jobs passive-aggressively.

  • mtrueman||

    " it is a better choice than the alternatives"

    Better for men, of course, but my point is that it is not better for women.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Maybe those women should start identifying as men.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Let me ask you this: What is your solution to the gender wage gap?


    Public full disclosure.

    We've all heard the stories about how woman X is happy enough at job Y, and then gets told by busy-body Z that they're being paid less then all their male peers, whereupon woman X either finds a new job or negotiates a raise.

    Get rid of the secrecy and the "within profession" wage gap will shrink a huge amount.

    If you're really worried about "privacy"†, then reducing the released data to "Person A, Position B, $XX,XXX, Y years of experience, Z years with company" would probably be sufficient to still have the same effect.
    ________
    †Which is always funny. Boomers killed privacy dead, they just like to parade around it's ghost so they can feel less guilty about it.

  • Mindscape||

    Economists do NOT agree. The 70% myth has been disproved hundreds of times. The fact that you still site that statistic just proves your willing ignorance. You've argued up and down this thread based on that number even though every argument against it has been valid. You're either a troll or profoundly ignorant. Probably both.

  • damikesc||

    Why should women stick with free market principles when the market deems their contribution worth only some 70% of that of male counterparts?

    Oh. So we can discount anything you have to say on this topic. Thanks for clarifying.

  • mtrueman||

    Still happy to answer any questions you have.

  • damikesc||

    Well, as I asked a moment ago, were you born a moron or did you just work really hard at being one?

  • mtrueman||

    More reading less writing is my advice.

  • MarkLastname||

    Maybe you should be taking that advice rather than giving it.

  • mtrueman||

    You jerk! I think it's simply polite to respond to my respondents, however rudely.

  • MarkLastname||

    How much did your mother drink while pregnant with you?

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Damn crack babies

  • JFDeplorable||

    That 70% statistic needs a little more clarification. First, women are very poor at negotiating their salary, so they often accept a lower pay than a man does. Second, women often choose careers that are low paying - customer service, social work, teaching, etc. Third, more women take time off from a career in order to stay home / raise / caretake a child than do men. This decision can derail upward mobility.

    If you look at the pay and career trajectory of a woman who is 100% dedicated to her career, you will find that in many cases, the woman is paid MORE than her male counterpart for the work she puts in. And that is because the free market rewards employees with business and technical savvy and who have excellent soft skills. Women, more than men, fill that niche quite well.

  • Brandybuck||

    Progressivism: We can have utopia if only we through enough people in jail for hurting feelings.

  • Eidde||

    "The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason."

    I hate to ask - does Reason make claims and offer opinions on these subjects, and if so, what claims and opinions?

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Freedom is being able to say, "I won't."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    As an example, Peterson cites studies that find, in wealthy countries that focus most on equality, like Sweden, even fewer women major in science and math. Instead they pick fields that deal with people, like teaching, and men tend more toward technical fields. Peterson says this shows that when men and women have the most freedom to decide what they do, they pick fields that line up with their natural biological interests.

    Better studies, please. Neither of the ones linked to by Reason demonstrate a "natural biological interest". They demonstrate that sex differences transcend cultures, but they don't discount cultural influence.

  • ||

    They demonstrate that sex differences transcend cultures, but they don't discount cultural influence.

    This advocates a theory of sex as different from biology that isn't necessarily factual or held as being distinct or relevant. That is to say, "natural biological interest" needn't mean "fits their breasts most comfortably" or "their mothers told them it was their job" and can include both. Whether the women chose not to plow fields because their lower, wider hips and lower muscle and body mass make it harder for them to drive the plow or whether they didn't see many women out plowing the fields and opted not to do it doesn't change the fact that they were given empirically free rein to choose as they saw fit and chose not to plow.

    The only way culture really matters is if you plan on changing that culture, at which point, you aren't doing science and, moreover, the notion that culture itself compelled these women to accept lower wages contains/validates some pretty wicked violations of self and agency that would otherwise claimed to be advanced. These women accepted easier, lower-paying jobs because their mothers told them so?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I thought it was a given that society and culture have a significant influence on development. It appears you're rejecting that (beginning with your "The only way culture really matters..." line).

    My point was that you need to demonstrate it's an innate quality and not a learned one. You know, the whole nature vs. nurture thing. The studies that Reason linked to fail to do so. They merely demonstrated that the model did not predict outcomes. That points to an incorrect/incomplete model, and does NOT point to "nature" in the nature/nurture argument.

  • ||

    My point was that you need to demonstrate it's an innate quality and not a learned one. You know, the whole nature vs. nurture thing. The studies that Reason linked to fail to do so. They merely demonstrated that the model did not predict outcomes. That points to an incorrect/incomplete model, and does NOT point to "nature" in the nature/nurture argument.

    By this standard, no one could reject a null hypothesis without having an answer to 'Why?' for any arbitrary construct (no matter how wrong and antiquated) and this 'the model is wrong' stance on this data makes it seem distinctly like you didn't even read the paper.

    Even when nature vs. nurture was originally advanced, no one advanced it as 'all nature or all nurture' except in the most narrow of genetic conditions or advanced of learned behaviors and the people who usually do are peddling naive and antiquated notions akin to the 'noble savage' narrative. So the idea that innate vs. learned is distinct (especially across cultures) is a false one and, even if it were true, only speaks to the motive of the facts, not the facts themselves.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I used "nature vs. nurture" because most people are familiar with the concept, not because I was presenting a false dichotomy. It's a colloquialism.

    I disagree with your idea that "no one could reject a null hypothesis without having an answer to 'Why?'" The "model is wrong" is a perfectly valid conclusion to be drawn from the study. They expected to find a particular answer based on a preconceived notion, and the fact that they observed the opposite trend raises the possibility that their preconceived notion (i.e. their model) was wrong.

  • Zeb||

    What would a better study look like? How are you going to remove culture from the equation? Pretty hard to find people who haven't been raised in a culture. So how do you control for culture other than showing that interests are consistent across cultures? I think those findings are pretty good as far as social science goes.

  • ||

    What would a better study look like? ... So how do you control for culture other than showing that interests are consistent across cultures?

    It's a tautology. Once he finds a culture where women take jobs they don't like and get paid more than men he'll be able to compare it to our flawed cultures where we heave money and legal favor at them only to take jobs they like more but pay less. Then we'll finally come to know the true value of heaving money and legal favor at half the population in order to not change their minds/behaviors.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't know how to conduct this study in a "better" way. All I'm saying is that if the hypothesis was that there is a "natural biological interest", then the study failed to reject the null hypothesis. It's an interesting study, no doubt. But it doesn't say what Peterson thinks it says.

    By analogy -- and maybe this answers your question -- the idea that "gay isn't a choice" has been validated by studies that have demonstrated functional networks in the brain that are correlated with gay-ness, and then have shown developmental (i.e. in the womb) factors that give rise to these brain circuits. The work of Simon LeVay, for example, has been pretty influential on this topic. This has been one approach to try to disentangle the nature vs. nurture thing. I'm not saying that's the only approach here, but understanding brain circuits and developmental principles and distinguishing them from external influences is a common theme in biology and the social sciences.

  • ||

    By analogy -- and maybe this answers your question -- the idea that "gay isn't a choice" has been validated by studies that have demonstrated functional networks in the brain that are correlated with gay-ness, and then have shown developmental (i.e. in the womb) factors that give rise to these brain circuits.

    This shows a gross misunderstanding of both biology and genetics at several pretty fundamental levels.

    The work of Simon LeVay, for example, has been pretty influential on this topic.

    Which is still largely angels on the head of a pin because more severe known neurological pathologies can't be detected and predicted into behavioral outcomes with any sort of reliability. LeVay can't look at a brain scan and know if someone's homo, hetero, or bi-sexual, or even if it's determinable by the brain scan, any more than he can whether they're manic/depressive, autistic, obsessive-compulsive, or violently aggressive. Let alone to the point of saying, "This is a female brain with the extra assertiveness required to overcome cultural norms."

  • ||

    I'm not saying that's the only approach here, but understanding brain circuits and developmental principles and distinguishing them from external influences is a common theme in biology and the social sciences.

    This is largely a recent phenomenon and is largely the direct result of people (hyper-reductionists) looking to advance their careers, political beliefs, or both. Prior to this advent of separating nature from nurture people defined terms like 'heritability' with the explicit notion that genetic traits couldn't necessarily be displayed in all environments and that, as a cornerstone of evolution, some traits could survive in spite of their environment. You're looking at LeVay's work on morphology and deeming it conclusive without any associated genetic data or explanation as to why his genetic models failed. To be clear, I'm not suggesting his work on morphology and circuits be avoided or deemed 100% worthless, just pointing out that you're holding Reason and Peterson to a disparate standard than your pet researcher.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    First of all, it was only an example, and I didn't intend to go down the road of debating the validity of his research. Studies that correlate morphology and behavior obviously lack conclusive and causal support, so I'm not going to argue that his findings represent a bulletproof argument in favor of the idea. I was asked directly what kind of evidence I'd like to see to support the idea of innate gender differences re: behavior... I gave an example of another approach that could provide more meaningful information. It's not the only one. It's one that came to mind when shooting the shit on a message board.

    Secondly, how have neurophysiologists broached the subject of causality in brain circuits in the past? They've relied on manipulations (stimulation, inactivation, and more recently, optogenetics) to directly probe these circuits. Other groups have conducted these studies into a shit ton of behavioral questions.

    Point is -- it's not an impossible task, unless you're the dualism type. Observational studies that demonstrate that a phenomenon is cross-cultural don't cut it.

  • Zeb||

    You are right that it doesn't demonstrate a mechanism for the difference. Or prove beyond any doubt that the differences are purely biological. But it does provide s pretty strong suggestion that the differences are innate. Especially when the results are the opposite of what people were expecting/hoping for.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But it does provide s pretty strong suggestion that the differences are innate. Especially when the results are the opposite of what people were expecting/hoping for.

    But this is my entire point -- does it suggest that the differences are innate, or does it suggest that your expectations/hopes were incorrect?

  • PaulTheBeav||

    I particularly recommend the audiobook version of 12 Rules since Peterson narrates it himself.

  • The original jack burton||

    Whenever I get into one of those conversations where the other person starts with "You're saying then..." and completely distorts my message or intent I just come back with, "Bless your heart, but you must have me confused with another person. I never said, hinted, or implied XXXXXX. Keep looking and perhaps you'll find the person you meant to reply to."

    It gobsmacks them and they don't know where to go from there.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Peterson offered repackaged superstition and the kind of self-help advice ('get off your parents' couch') that seems insightful to half-educated, intolerant, stale-thinking, unaccomplished, disaffected losers.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It works for you then? When are you going to get off your couch?

  • TGoodchild||

    Kirk is a special kind of masochist.; the Reason board(s) would be insufficiently sufferable without him.

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Notice the name. Only a lily white college progtard kid would come up with something like that

  • The original jack burton||

    It's always difficult to tell the real AK from one of the many funny folk on here who pretend to be him. Their over-the-top responses never seem to quite equal the original no matter how extreme they post.

    It must be tough being a living example of Poe's Law the way Artie is.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    You prefer your adult children to be layabouts and sit in the couch all day? That isn't exactly doing them any favors.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My children have advanced degrees. They have professional careers. They own homes.

    They didn't -- and don't -- need any reconfigured superstition, downscale self-help pep talks, or nationalistic nostalgia from the likes of Jordan Peterson.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Are men and women different? Beyond physiology? If so, then why can they not differ in their career choices? Sure some women are engineers, and some men are nurses. It is not an absolute prescription, but on average more women become nurses and teachers [as a result of a inherent aptitudes] than do men. But, on average, engineers make more than nurses, or teachers; a male surgeon and a female surgeon make the same money; a male nurse and a female nurse make the same money, But if a male surgeon makes more money than a female nurse, that is not wage discrimination. If there is a "gap," not for different pay for the same work, but because more men go into surgery or engineering than do women, that is reflective of what Peterson and others call inherent differences in aptitude.

    If this riles you, then you simply do not want to believe in such differences and want to pretend we are all blanks at birth and are corrupted by the patriarchy. If so, you have a lot of proving to do.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But, on average, engineers make more than nurses, or teachers; a male surgeon and a female surgeon make the same money; a male nurse and a female nurse make the same money, But if a male surgeon makes more money than a female nurse, that is not wage discrimination. If there is a "gap," not for different pay for the same work, but because more men go into surgery or engineering than do women, that is reflective of what Peterson and others call inherent differences in aptitude.

    I was with you until you said that. There HAVE been numerous studies on this topic, examining the medical field and wages. There was a very nice recent study (I thought it was in my Endnote but it's not -- I'll look for it if you're interested) that showed that there is a gender wage gap in medicine, even after controlling for age + background + skill. The conclusion was essentially that there are essentially two possibilities: 1) women are less likely to be aggressive seeking promotion and raises; 2) discrimination. I'll try to find a link.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    "In medicine" is pretty broad. Does it account for differences across fields? Because professionals in those fields are also compensated differently, and may be disproportionately male or female.

    I wish I knew how to post links here, but one study looking at the class of 2014 found that 85% of OB/GYNs and 75% of pediatricians were women, whereas 73% of radiologists and 59% of surgeons were men.

    If surgeons (male and female) are compensated more highly than pediatricians (male and female), is it gender discrimination?

  • ||

    "In medicine" is pretty broad.

    Nevermind that the medical field, around the world, is one of if not the most highly-regulated, highly-litigious, most-culturally aware fields. JunkScienceIsJunk is pretty sure there's a doctor out there grabbing nurses asses and making sure their checks are docked commensurate to their vaginas and that all the nurses are too scared, poor, or dimwitted to talk to HR, an attorney, or another employer. A female cardiologist can pretty much write her ticket but can't get paid as well as a male cardiologist because sexism.

    Come to think of it, IIRC, JunkScienceIsJunk is a troll who bemoaned that OB/GYNs don't offer abortion services when, even in TX, there's nothing preventing them from doing so as OB/GYNs usually (are required to) hold admitting privileges for deliveries.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    JunkScienceIsJunk is pretty sure there's a doctor out there grabbing nurses asses and making sure their checks are docked commensurate to their vaginas and that all the nurses are too scared, poor, or dimwitted to talk to HR, an attorney, or another employer. A female cardiologist can pretty much write her ticket but can't get paid as well as a male cardiologist because sexism.

    I actually offered an alternative explanation, but go ahead and focus on just the one if you want.

    [Actually I didn't offer any explanations, I'm just relaying what was in the Discussion section of somebody else's paper. But go ahead on the attack with some nonsense about OB/GYNs. No idea what you're referring to...]

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Yeah. I can't post the link here, but if you Google "Sex Differences in Physician Salary in US Public Medical Schools" it is the first link (JAMA Internal Medicine).

    From the conclusions section of the abstract:

    "Among physicians with faculty appointments at 24 US public medical schools, significant sex differences in salary exist even after accounting for age, experience, specialty, faculty rank, and measures of research productivity and clinical revenue."

  • The original jack burton||

    You mean our public universities which have been largely controlled by the liberal community over the past 50 years are hotbeds of rank discrimination against women? Who would have thunk it...

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Of lot of female physicians choose to go into pediatrics, because it allows for a lot more time and flexibility than marrying yourself to a surgical career.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    No; surgeons and radiologists, be they male or female, make a lot more than pediatricians, or psychiatrists, be they male or female.

  • Dysphoria||

    Haha, laconic men don't have to talk to the patient who's under anesthesia.......pediatrics is all about talking to worried parents, especially mothers.

    Different gifts.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Or 3) Women tend to pursue fields of medicine that are less demanding of their time than men do.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That was also controlled for in the study I cited.

  • vek||

    Well that may be a new study, but I have seen one in the past, can't be assed to look for it, that specifically looked at doctors and came to the opposite conclusion.

    In short when properly controlling for all the things one should expect it came out the same. The biggest factors were YEARS on the job, many women take time off to have kids. Which is great! But it still leaves you behind in a career.

    The other MASSIVE one was that men tend to work almost 50% more hours than female doctors on average! IIRC male doctors worked around 60 hours a week on average, and females only around 40.

    Now maybe this new one is correct and there is a difference. I don't friggin' know. But if there is there is already a known reason for it, women tend to not ask for/demand raises. One of the many reasons men are more successful in a lot of fields is that we are naturally more aggressive and driven. Like it or not being aggressive is one of the most important traits for being a winner in ANY field. Period.

    So is it sexism to give a male doctor who says "Hey, I want a $25K a year raise, or I'm going to the hospital across town." a raise, but not giving a female doctor who doesn't demand one a raise? Methinks not. If women REALLY want to play with the big boys they need to grow some more balls. Otherwise STFU and quit trying to blame THEIR personal failings on men.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Well that may be a new study, but I have seen one in the past, can't be assed to look for it, that specifically looked at doctors and came to the opposite conclusion.

    You're absolutely right. But it's not the only factor. The study I cited stripped away the influence of less demanding/rigorous specialties and career paths, and still found a gender wage gap. Basically, they started out with a wage gap of 38% and found that the majority of this wage gap can be explained by the stuff you're talking about. But even after you strip away that stuff, an 8% wage gap remained.

  • vek||

    1. Individual studies can come to varying conclusions, even if their methodology is sound. It happens all the time.

    2. There are things that are virtually impossible to account for. For instance are male doctors BETTER at their jobs on aggregate, even with the same theoretical degrees under their belt? Are they smarter? More diligent? Better results? Men tend to have more people that skew towards the high end of the IQ distribution than women, this is a matter of known statistics. So what if the men who choose to become doctors tend to be a little smarter/better than the women that do? Same degree, but one person does a better job. There could be a ton of other random things too, this is just an example of something that's hard to quantify.

    3. If it is true, so what? I already mentioned that the drive/aggression aspect is a KNOWN factor according to studies that explains probably the entire rest of that 8% away.

    So again, if women want to piss with the big boys, maybe they should grow some balls and stop being so passive. If they don't want to "man up" when working in demanding careers, they should at least stop bitching about it being sexism, when it's really just their own passive/unassertive nature showing itself. I'm tired of hearing lefties use the top line 38% figures, or similar, when it's clear BS. If any gap exists it is small, and most likely due to men and women being different in traits.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Read the study I posted. It's well worth your time. It directly addresses your point #2. Both in terms of the research methodology as well as their pontificating in the Discussion section. Interesting stuff.

    I'm not arguing with you about this. I'm telling you that the studies you guys are yearning for have been conducted and published in a freely available format. I'm not saying what we should do with this information, I'm merely telling you that there is information out there and it's no longer down to guesswork. In a sense, that paper I cited agrees with your final paragraph as a possible explanation for the 8% remaining wage gap.

    If any gap exists it is small, and most likely due to men and women being different in traits.

    Maybe. Or maybe not. We literally have no way of knowing at present. That's why I originally (several posts up) brought up the fact that Peterson and Reason have no evidence to back their assertion, because the evidence they think they have doesn't say what they think it says.

  • vek||

    I've pulled it up and will take a peek later! It's complicated to figure out the true differences in the real world. That said in every case of wage gaps I've ever seen if you take care of the obvious variables the gaps become very small, or in some cases literally zero.

    As far as the aggressiveness thing, other studies done showed this can account for as much as double digit percentages in wage differences between men and women when negotiating salary when starting a job, and also in raises.

    Either way it is not the HUGE problem leftists make it out to be. It's a minor side issue if anything. It will be interesting to see what variables they controlled for in the study you suggest, and whether or not they left out any obvious big ones.

  • ||

    We keep hearing Stalin, Mao and Pot as the trifecta of evil. There was also Che and Castro but the granddaddy of them all is Lenin.

    The Sinister Six.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    One name seems to be conspicuously absent from your list of evil, Rufus.

    You know who else...

  • ||

    No, I do......

    OOOOOHHHHHHH.

  • ||

    I would love to hear Peterson start tackling the mythology of multiculturalism in Canada.

    Nefarious pseudo-thinkers like Will Kymlicka have pulled a fast one on Canadians sleeping at the switch.

    I love how they scream for more multiculturalism on side of their Marxists mouths but then seek to smash the white male patriarchy. Apparently, there's no room in their multicultural hell for whites.

    Multiculturalism via forced policy is NOT the same as pluralism.

  • mtrueman||

    " the mythology of multiculturalism in Canada."

    Canadians have Ukrainians to thank for that. Biculturalism of francophones and anglophones wasn't good enough for them.

  • ||

    John Stossel, the Todd Starnes of Reason.com.

  • TGoodchild||

    John Stossel?

  • wreckinball||

    Both of these guys are great.

  • WorseThanNormal||

    Lol. Jeep is such a flat out liar its surprising anyone eve listens to him. For example, in 12 Reasons he asserts: "But if a dominant lobster is badly defeated, its brain basically dissolves. It grows a new subordinate brain, one more appropriate to its new lowly position." His citation for this is a paper titled "The effect of social experience on serotonergic modulation of the escape circuit of crayfish" which surprisingly is not about Lobsters, but crayfish. It also says nothing about brains "basically dissolving and a new one regrowing". He is completely misrepresenting (lying about) what the actual science says. He should take his own advice and speak precisely.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I'm quite impressed that a Stossel piece managed to receive a marine biology #thatguy comment. Reason welcomes that guys in all fields.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    which surprisingly is not about Lobsters, but crayfish

    Crayfish, also known as crawfish, crawdads, crawldads, freshwater lobsters, mountain lobsters, mudbugs or yabbies, are freshwater crustaceans resembling small lobsters, to which they are related

    (from Wiki)

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Whatever you call them, get yourself a bag full, heat oup the propane and boil a cooker of water, add Zatarans and corn, potatoes, sausage, whatever flips your switch, add some beer and french bread and dump it on a newspaper covered picnic table. Sa c'est bon!

  • Zeb||

    Yes, possibly misinterpreting a study on crayfish is a great reason to dismiss an entire career of work in psychology.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Especially when know that the former Harvard professor of psychology meant the brains were literally dissolving and then growing back again.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Y'all regularly use "it's psychology" as a sufficient reason to dismiss all work in the field of psychology, so I'm not sure this call-out hits as hard as you want.

  • ||

    lol

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck the SJW - Fuck every last one of the fucking commie rat turds...

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Boy the way Glenn Miller played.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In America, the SJW fuck you . . . by shoving even more of all this damned progress, decency, reason, tolerance, and science down the figurative throats of our society's right-wing losers.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Dysphoria||

    Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberties of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. (Attributed to Samuel Adams.)

    These are the people who will seize all the force and coercion afforded by government and its laws, to force someone to observe the "good manners" of using their projoun-du-jour, while shouting down Professor Peterson.

    I have not heard Dr. Peterson more than about 5 times, but I could never find anything he said that I couldn't agree with.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    I've likewise only seen the guy in short interviews, nothing he says is particularly groundbreaking or controversial, it's simple common sense. That it drives SJW feministas, so insufferably awful and humorless they can't get laid, up a wall is just gravy.

  • vek||

    Basically all he's done is, as you say, stick to his guns and used common sense. Everything he's ever said is a nothing burger that anyone who isn't a brainwashed moron should just know by instinct... But there are so many brainwashed idiots in the world now that it has created a shit storm. It's mind boggling.

  • vek||

    I only skimmed a few previous posts, but in my humble opinion one of the inevitable "major happenings" that is to come in the 21st century will be the re-acceptance of reality with respect to the fact that there ARE innate/genetic differences between men and women and different ethnic groups.

    I don't hate anybody mind you, and as a libertarian everybody should be taken as an individual... But aggregate statistics are incredibly valuable too. The brainwashing by the leftists ultra-egalitarians has been SO SUCCESSFUL that even conservatives and libertarians have bought into their lies for the most part.

    Many Ls and Cs will accept that men and women are clearly different. It's so blatant that they only accept the lie around the edges. Never mind that IQ distributions (not to mention other behavioral traits) are VASTLY different between the sexes, which explains basically 100% of the difference in super high achievers. For the record men and women have similar average IQs, but women tend to cluster around the mean average of 100, whereas there are VASTLY more men at the extremely high and low ends of the IQ spectrum.

    Likewise with ethnicity... Thing is that more than 100,000 years of divergent evolution between some modern humans and others (some, but not all, Africans are this divergent from Asians/Caucasians/Etc) did not see fit to distribute all traits exactly equally as the SJWs would have wanted it.

  • vek||

    This one almost all libertarians find impossible to swallow because of the brainwashing, no matter how much statistics, science, consistent ethnic outcomes globally, and their own lying eyes illustrate the point. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

    There's a reason starving children growing up in Asia in huts, who have never had a decent diet in their entire life, do better at math/science/etc than certain ethnic groups in America who have all the advantages one would typically ascribe for the environmental hypothesis. Environment matters, science shows this... Science also shows that 50-80% of intelligence is heritable in individuals (with 60-70% being the most common results), and what exactly are ethnic groups if not simply an amalgamation of individuals? It is impossible for intelligence to be strongly individually heritable without it also being group heritable to large degree.

    Again, these differences perfectly line up with outcomes the entire world over. Crime rates, average education, average income, somehow all line up perfectly behind the genetic differences hypothesis, but it is seen as heresy. Again, I wish it weren't so... But it is. As the genetics of intelligence is finally being deciphered (they have found the first several hundred genes) it will become impossible to ignore. Frankly it already is if anybody actually looks through the data thoroughly enough.

    Better late than never I guess, so 3 cheers for science!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    We just need to do a good job between discriminating the differences in genders/ethnicities that can be attributed to innate biological factors and those that can be attributed to environment. As noted above, Reason (and Peterson) do a poor job of this in this particular article. But as you say, we need to rely on science to draw responsible conclusions. Genetics is only one small piece of the puzzle. Neurobiology, psychology, and studies in social systems hold just as prominent a role.

  • vek||

    For sure. It's a complicated subject, which is one reason why the left has been able to dupe everybody so easily. All the things you mention are important factors for many things, but the genetic component is likely 50%+++ of the issue in many cases.

    Everybody knows a chick who is stronger than a bunch of the dudes they know! Everybody knows an Asian who is one of the stupidest people they know! These are correct statements for any individual to make, I have examples in my head of these people right now. However it is also true that the statistical average tells a very different story, and when one is talking about aggregate societal level stuff like employment in XYZ fields or whatever, that average is what really tells the tale.

    As a libertarian I'm loathe to WANT to make policies based on some of the information that I accept as true... But the problem is that if you don't the real world outcomes will still bite you in the ass. With the left specifically intentionally ignoring reality for what it is, and being more than happy to draft laws based upon these flawed assumptions, those too create REAL problems in the actual world.

    I guess to me it comes down to accepting reality for what it is, all of its pimples included.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Development is obviously vitally reliant on genes, but early development is also dependent on experience. An influence at either stage will have potentially lifelong impact, even on basic brain mechanisms. The best example of this is in the development of the visual system. Hubel and Wiesel received the Nobel prize in the 70s for basically discovering that they can disrupt basic brain development through visual deprivation. Obviously the genes set a program in place, but exposure to normal environments is a requirement for the formation of the structures necessary for eyesight. Since then, this type of experiment has been repeated a zillion times to describe the development of other systems, extending beyond sensation and into the realm of personality, addiction, mood, disorders of all these systems, etc. It's hard to say the genetic component is X% and the environment component is Y% since they're both necessary requirements for development of certain stuff. For the same reason, when we talk about innate biological differences between the sexes, it makes it REALLY difficult to distinguish between genetically programmed factors, environmental factors, or combined factors without conducting experiments directly to distinguish those things.

    Moral of the story: we have to be careful when it comes to assigning differences that we observe in populations to innate biological differences or to cultural differences because it's really hard to do this. Not impossible. Just hard.

  • vek||

    Junk, all true. And I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. That said they've been discovering through testing in recent years than many traits are more heavily influenced by genetics than anybody would have ever thought. Things as random as being a happy person or a grumpy person are mostly genetic after controlling for variables. Environment will sway you a bit one way or another, but you always have a natural inclination so to speak.

    Next, while saying in the real world genes are X% and environment is Y% might be tough, since the genes ENABLE the environment to express things, we can somewhat determine maximal limits for some traits. Better diet may make people taller, but only as far as their genes allow them to go. Thus improved diet in Europe and Asia has made both grow taller, but Europeans have grown far taller overall because their genetics allowed it.

    Likewise I suspect superior diet will improve intelligence in some low IQ parts of the world, as it has been estimated to do in the west already... But only to the maximum point that their genetics enables. Another way of thinking of this is that bad environment largely only serves to kind of knee cap our genetic potential, whereas the real potential is always in the genes where the hard limits ultimately lie.

    Finally, there is a question of how much the "academic" approach really matters in practice. It's nice to know the REAL scoop of course, but is it of any practical use IRL? In many instances I think not.

  • vek||

    If a scientist got permission to raise 100 girls and 100 boys on an island in secret as the ultimate experiment, they could remove all the cultural/societal barriers by treating them exactly the same to get to the TRUE genetic basis in differences. This would academically speaking resolve some issues.

    Using made up numbers here, but maybe in the uncontrolled world men can bench press 100% more weight than girls, but on the island where girls are forced to do the EXACT same exercises as men, and have the same expectations placed on them, men only bench press 50% more... Hence genes alone don't give women 1/2 the strength of men at bench pressing, it's really 2/3.

    Okay, maybe so technically speaking... But for all practical intents and purposes men in a non forced, real world environment can still bench press double what women can on average. The lab results are largely meaningless because such conditions don't really exist. If men and women are left to their own devices we get XYZ results, so the fact that you can get ABC results in an unnatural lab environment are largely meaningless in the real world. Get what I mean?

    I'm all for figuring out the nuts and bolts, but the value of such academic information is still limited. The real world is kind of the ultimate lab, ya know? If women always tend to be far weaker than men IRL it doesn't matter if they COULD be slightly less weak in theory, because in practice they're not.

  • vek||

    So for all practical intents and purposes there's nothing wrong with using real world outcomes as at least rough guide posts for a lot of things, because it is HIGHLY unlikely we're going to reshape human nature and the world so drastically as to significantly alter some of these outcomes. Barring genetic engineering of course!

    Saying women are weaker, women have fewer geniuses in their population, tend to be more empathetic, less aggressive, etc are all correct statements by the numbers in the real world. Whether or not you could get different results by raising women in indoctrination camps on secret islands is irrelevant to a large degree. I suspect that you could change their behavior A LOT by raising them on the isolated island... But if left to their own devices they would immediately slide back towards their genetically predisposed leanings. IMO the traditional roles men and women in almost every society in human history have had seem to obviously be the natural roles. Some societies have tweaked them for various reasons, yet we always return to states approaching the stereotype. There's a reason for that, and it's our genes.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So for all practical intents and purposes there's nothing wrong with using real world outcomes as at least rough guide posts for a lot of things, because it is HIGHLY unlikely we're going to reshape human nature and the world so drastically as to significantly alter some of these outcomes. Barring genetic engineering of course!

    I was with you until this part. I think we CAN do something about it. Not overnight, and not with genetic engineering. But acknowledging something is shaped by culture is an important first step, and culture will gradually change for the better. We've seen this happen in other countries. But if we're stuck in a holding pattern and reject any suggestion that differences are shaped by culture, then nothing will change. Basically, if we take the stance that it's innate, as Peterson is doing, then there's nothing to try to improve.

  • vek||

    So I agree with you, to a point.

    For instance many societal changes we have made are good. I think it's good that we don't discourage women from even attempting to become doctors. That is a positive change. This allows women who have interest to take that path. Also same thing with becoming a computer programmer.

    What I have a problem with is in instances where there are clear gaps in ability to perform jobs, or simply interest in doing them... I don't agree with us trying to reshape culture in an unnatural way to poke and prod women into doing things they clearly don't choose on their own. I CERTAINLY don't approve of blaming it on sexism when women can't hack it in certain fields, or when they simply aren't equally 50/50 represented.

    So I draw my line at allowing free choice... But I'm not really for radically pushing and attempting to ignore/reshape human nature to achieve an arbitrary end (equal outcomes) because a small subset of people think that is a worthy end goal for whatever reason.

    The fact is left to our own devices men and women will NEVER have equal outcomes, and both sexes will always be better/worse at some things. Trying to force a result other than that will fail, and will probably make a lot of people unhappy, as female happiness studies seem to be showing for women trying to pretend to be men nowadays.

  • vek||

    In other words, I think it's fine to have girls softball in high school, maybe even girls football if they want! Let them choose to do that if they want! BUT I'm not in favor of forcing girls in high school to play football when they really would rather be cheerleaders. And when girls choose of their own free will to be cheerleaders instead of football players, we should not freak out about it and consider it a problem. It is simply everybody choosing what they prefer.

    This seems like a rather sane, sensible, opinion to have IMO.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    With the left specifically intentionally ignoring reality for what it is

    Which side flatters childish superstition to bolt the evangelical hillbillies onto its electoral coalition?

  • vek||

    You know there are lots of Democrats that believe in The Jesus too right??? Like the fact that more blacks are religious than whites? ALSO until the last few election cycles when they threw them under the bus expecting the Hispanic vote to carry them, the Democrats were the ones who pandered to the white working class A LOT MORE than the Rs.

    I myself am not religious, so I don't care what those people think/say. I believe in science, even when it says things I would prefer not to be true. Like that all people are not interchangeable widgets. All people deserve to be treated with basic levels of respect, and have certain rights respected, but beyond that there are many ways one can reasonably "grade" people in terms of various abilities.

    Women are better than men at some things... But men are also better than women at a lot of things. Some people are smart at math, others are dumb. Some people are great musicians, others can't carry a tune. Some people are strong, others are weak. How we value these things varies (we value math smarts more than being super buff in our current society, but this wasn't always the case), but the fact that people differ in abilities is NOT open for discussion. It is a fact, like it or not.

  • vek||

    Reality is not nice, and it is not fair... But assessing it correctly and making decisions based off of facts is the only rational way to do things, even if you don't like it. Obviously keeping bias to a minimum, and individual treatment to a maximum, is the way to go.

    But doing that means tossing out silly notions like that we should try to have equal numbers of women/XYZ minority group in STEM fields as white/Asian/Jewish men. It may also mean accepting that in some cases there are legitimate reasons to "discriminate" against certain groups in certain instances. This is of course what everybody is afraid of, but it is a logical conclusion if one accepts the facts...

    That said, I don't think we need to be especially mean about anything. We don't have to kill or enslave anybody. IMO a sort of soft acceptance of the fact, combined with being polite about the differences, and going out of our way to be fair and reasonable, but not pandering, is the way forward.

    We'll see how it all goes I guess... But I am quite sure the notion that everybody is EXACTLY the same will not last long. No society in history ever believed this, because it is clearly not true. This couple decade period is the SOLE exception historically to accepting differences. Once everybody comes around again I just hope everyone is nice about it all...

  • EscherEnigma||

    So has this guy actually been sued and shut down yet? He's been claiming that it's about to happen for something like two years now, but when I google his name and "lawsuit", the only threatened lawsuits I find is him threatening to sue other people.

    Sooner or later he needs to either find someone to sue him or admit that the legal experts were right and his reading of the law is wrong.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online