Kathy Newman is a lobster!

[InsaneApache]

Discuss.

[Fragony]

Constantly trying to put words in his mouth, he handless it nicely.

So you say
So you say
So you say

[Husar]

Communism is the only answer.

The interviewer acts like an attack dog and while the interviewee makes a whole lot more sense, it's all in the confines of social darwinism.

The one thing where she almost made a good point was about traits desired by the market. He counters that by saying that women make 80% of consumer decisions on the market, but that seems misleading since the labor market is not a consumer market. The buyer side ("consumers") on the labor market are managers and if those positions are 80-90% men (or women with very typically male traits as she says), then that market is dominated by men or people with typically male traits. The top positions in corporations are often chosen by the shareholders, no? So those are probably not 80% women either, which means the consumer market argument doesn't cut it there either.

So I do see some merit in the argument that women are less likely to rise to the top because those already at the top due to historic circumstances simply do not like the traits the average woman exhibits. The reason competition is such a big factor might just be that male domination, especially of competitive males made them rise to the top in less fair times.
That doesn't mean it's the only recipe for running a society. It is one that people currently at the top market as the ultimate way to do things because that motion is exactly what cements their position at the top...
You have to think a little outside that box to see alternatives (without resorting to communism right away, that's just another box).

[InsaneApache]

I agree it is communism disguised.

It neatly demonstrates though, how forming a political opinion based on feelings rather than empiricism is not just deeply flawed but actually dangerous.

Thomas Sowell has been pointing this out for decades.

[Husar]

I agree it is communism disguised.

It neatly demonstrates though, how forming a political opinion based on feelings rather than empiricism is not just deeply flawed but actually dangerous.

Thomas Sowell has been pointing this out for decades.

Yet at the same time it is obviously one step in human development. Otherwise it wouldn't actually happen.
Questioning the way things are done is a deeply ingrained capitalist principle for innovation, is it not?
The argument about how our nervous system just is that way was interesting, but you could also say our bodies didn't eevolve for over a billion years to sit in front of a computer all day and yet that is what many of the highest earners in our society do nowadays.
At the very least it should be okay to think about and demand change even if you're wrong. Every entrepreneur will tell you that failure is an integral part of the process to innovation. Social systems shouldn't necessarily be excluded or we'd all still live under feudalism because that was the way God wanted it to be for thousands of years. Then again one could argue the more money trumps voting, the more we return to just that...

[InsaneApache]

At the very least it should be okay to think about and demand change even if you're wrong.

That's never going to end up in a good place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Questioning the way things are done is a deeply ingrained capitalist principle for innovation, is it not?...

Sadly, research suggests that the value of such a practice is there, but that such questioning is NOT done to an ideal level. "We've always done it this way" accounts for a shocking percentage of human behavior.

In my department, I've been steadily teaching my 45-year-old-and-up colleagues how to grade online rather than have their students print papers. The biggest obstacle is that they haven't done it that way before. Once they switch, the fact that they can type and not write comments, that the grades can be assigned on a rubric by category, and that the final score is instantly recorded in their gradebook means they are converted thereafter...but inertia is a powerful obstacle to innovation.

[Pannonian]

I agree it is communism disguised.

It neatly demonstrates though, how forming a political opinion based on feelings rather than empiricism is not just deeply flawed but actually dangerous.

Thomas Sowell has been pointing this out for decades.

Brexit in a nutshell.

“People in this country have had enough of experts”
Michael Gove, June 2016.

[Husar]

That's never going to end up in a good place.

Well, business angels invest in 10 projects and expect 9 to fail. They also count on that last one to make them a huge profit over all 10 startups they invested in anyway. This is how innovation works in the startup market and it is often cited as the advantage of the US because there the failures aren't as important as in Yurop, where everyone focuses on the negative.

I will say however, that only focusing on the positives can also be detrimental if it leads people to risk everything and then lose everything, so I guess a good safety net of some sort should always be present. In terms of social change that becomes difficult, but one safety could be that people aren't immediately ridiculed (and/or showered with death threats) for presenting an idea.

Children never learn to walk if they never fall and only crawl instead to play it safe.

[Pannonian]

Well, business angels invest in 10 projects and expect 9 to fail. They also count on that last one to make them a huge profit over all 10 startups they invested in anyway. This is how innovation works in the startup market and it is often cited as the advantage of the US because there the failures aren't as important as in Yurop, where everyone focuses on the negative.

I will say however, that only focusing on the positives can also be detrimental if it leads people to risk everything and then lose everything, so I guess a good safety net of some sort should always be present. In terms of social change that becomes difficult, but one safety could be that people aren't immediately ridiculed (and/or showered with death threats) for presenting an idea.

Children never learn to walk if they never fall and only crawl instead to play it safe.

It hurts less to lean on supports whilst learning to walk, and you still learn to walk. Reduce risks whilst aiming for an eventual goal. To do otherwise is unnecessary and stupid.

[CrossLOPER]

Neither person is doing any favors for their side. Peterson is trying to argue that "women are just a certain way", rather than asking why they are a certain way. He is ignoring the effect of subtle indoctrination both men and women face in their lifetimes, and how strong that effect is. Newman, for whatever reason isn't able to articulate these points.

I haven't read Peterson's book, nor do I have any desire to do so, but it sounds like it is full of really bombastic language. I have encountered this attempt to make science and science-like fields "trendy", and I think it's misguided. It's ironic that this is the case, given that Peterson wants men to grow up, but apparently writes like a sixteen year old girl.

It's upsetting, because gender inequality is a massive problem. It would be nice to see arguments discussing possible solutions, rather than this whateverthisis.

[InsaneApache]

I suggest that you take a look at some of his videos on YT. You might learn a bit more.

[Husar]

I suggest that you take a look at some of his videos on YT. You might learn a bit more.

I see titles like "Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege" and I wonder whether I somehow got back onto https://www.youtube.com/user/Aurini/videos...

It's not that identity politics is necessarily a good thing, it's that he mentions Marxist lies...

[InsaneApache]

LOL

I remember now why I stopped posting here, the level of debate is dire.

I shall bid you all adieu.

[CrossLOPER]

I see titles like "Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege" and I wonder whether I somehow got back onto https://www.youtube.com/user/Aurini/videos...

It's not that identity politics is necessarily a good thing, it's that he mentions Marxist lies...

Thanks for reminding me about Kane; he totally got buried among a bunch of other channels I just forgot about. His facial hair looks euphoric as always.

LOL

I remember now why I stopped posting here, the level of debate is dire.

I shall bid you all adieu.

*tips fedora*

[Fragony]

He explains hmself pretty well. Interviewer is out for blood and not willing to talk. Maybe that's the problem.

[Furunculus]

Brexit in a nutshell.

“People in this country have had enough of experts”
Michael Gove, June 2016.

"the field [of politics] is not based on real expertise. Fields dominated by real expertise are distinguished by two features: 1) there is enough informational structure in the environment such that reliable predictions are possible despite complexity and 2) there is effective feedback so learning is possible.

Neither condition applies generally to politics or the political media. In the most rigorous studies done, it has been shown that in general political experts are little better than the proverbial dart throwing chimp and that those most confident in their big picture views and are most often on TV – people like Robert Peston, Jon Snow, and Evan Davis – are the least accurate political ‘experts’"

Dominic Cummings

------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic - because i don't want to derail the thread:

I watched that video yesterday, and was thoroughly amused.
Cath got her behind handed to her.

[Husar]

LOL

I remember now why I stopped posting here, the level of debate is dire.

I shall bid you all adieu.

I can think of three potential reasons for this:

1. A high level of debate requires comparisons with aristotle and at least 1/3rd of the post content to be in latin. Real debates can only be had by people who understand that earth, wind and fire are the elements Odin used to create the world. People who didn't study law and/or classical philosophy in depth are inherently unworthy.

2. One does not comment on some guy's youtube videos without watching at least 200 hours of those videos. Also, according to this guy we live in a competitive society and men are childish and underdeveloped because they'd rather watch 200 hours of youtube videos than do real work on their competitive edge to get ahead in life working 80 hours a week and gain a trophy golddigger wife as evolution intended.

3. I forgot, but you left anyway, so...

[Pannonian]

"the field [of politics] is not based on real expertise. Fields dominated by real expertise are distinguished by two features: 1) there is enough informational structure in the environment such that reliable predictions are possible despite complexity and 2) there is effective feedback so learning is possible.

Neither condition applies generally to politics or the political media. In the most rigorous studies done, it has been shown that in general political experts are little better than the proverbial dart throwing chimp and that those most confident in their big picture views and are most often on TV – people like Robert Peston, Jon Snow, and Evan Davis – are the least accurate political ‘experts’"

Dominic Cummings

------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic - because i don't want to derail the thread:

I watched that video yesterday, and was thoroughly amused.
Cath got her behind handed to her.

You're quoting a political strategist when I was talking about economics experts. Those same economics experts whom the government turned to last year in the wake of the referendum result, whose advice they followed, and thus cushioned the economic blow for a while as they said would happen. IA said that following feelings rather than empiricism is dangerous. Politics, especially on the evidence of the Leave campaign, is based on feelings (eg. how the whitest areas of London were the most pro-Leave on the basis of immigration). Empiricism is based on evidence, and where the arguments are too complex for the ordinary punter to follow, experts should be trusted over non-experts. Economics experts are overwhelmingly against Brexit on economic grounds.

[Furunculus]

You're quoting a political strategist when I was talking about economics experts. Those same economics experts whom the government turned to last year in the wake of the referendum result, whose advice they followed, and thus cushioned the economic blow for a while as they said would happen. IA said that following feelings rather than empiricism is dangerous. Politics, especially on the evidence of the Leave campaign, is based on feelings (eg. how the whitest areas of London were the most pro-Leave on the basis of immigration). Empiricism is based on evidence, and where the arguments are too complex for the ordinary punter to follow, experts should be trusted over non-experts. Economics experts are overwhelmingly against Brexit on economic grounds.

You were talking about economics experts, who believed their specialism gave them licence to opine on the relative merits of political choices:
"This creates economic uncertainty (lowering investment, and thus future growth) and is likely to have a negative economic consequence (in the short-medium term), therfore <I> believe that leaving the EU is a foolish act to pursue."

That speaks very little to the political, social and cultural motivations for why people might want to leave.
All that expert has done is weigh an economic calculation unconsiously against [their own] political, social and cultural motivations, and they have concluded against.
Fine, I'm happy to have the economic calculation (for my use), and I have no objection to them reaching their own conclusion.

But that isn't the way the debate has been conducted (for the last thirty years at least), for the dominant side not only chose to present the calculation, they also assumed the acceptance of [their own] political, social and cultural motivations, and so pushed the resulting POLITICAL conclusion in as part of their expertise.

Brexit is a POLITICAL act. And politics is not subject to expertise, as a discipline in its own right, or by extrapolation from some arcane technical discipline.

------------------------

I am always amused by outrage against brexiter rejection of experts. The outraged are busy creating a straw-man for their own angry rejection, serving only to build a tempest of fury that takes them further away from the real motivations of those they despise.

What happened is simply this: In a normal representative democracy an institution can appeal to your identity as a powerful representation of your beneficial-collective, or, appeal as an institution intended to create a public good on behalf of that collective. Beyond this point you leave political policy making and move into dry civil-service implementation. But the EU is a hybrid that crosses policy and implementation. What was sold as a very technocratic body designed to do quite apolitical things – such as facilitate the convergence of technical standards – has now morphed into an arbiter of public policy. Indeed, key areas of political policy making such as a justice, social, and economic policy.Should prisoners vote? What is the maximum number of hours that can be worked? Should we discourage high-frequency trading?

These areas of policy could not be questioned, because, well, that is the nature of the aquis! As an EU competence they could not be amended or scrapped by national lawmaking. This sits rather poorly with the notion of a Sovereign Parliament, able to lawfully enact anything that a simple majority of its lawmakers agree to. Sorry, out of bounds. This sits equally poorly with a public culture that accepts a majoritarian electoral system, and expects the same lack of impediments to direct plebiscites. Hold on there, that’s not for you to decide. So what is to be done? Simples; pretend the EU isn’t making political choices upon which success or failure can be pronounced. No, it is all simply technocratic implementation of common standards. It is not subject to preference, the appropriate committee has deemed this outcome to be optimal.

This is the context into which Gove dropped his bombshell on experts. He called time on the conspiracy that hid political governance behind a façade of dry technocratic implementation.

And a lot of people seemed to revel in the new found opportunity criticise what was exposed as nothing more or less than a political institution to be weighed, judged, and pronounced upon. For politics is not subject to factual interpretation alone, it is explicitly a value based activity subject to personal preference and collective priority.

Why does it infuriate some people so? Because it forced those for whom the EU is an identity as well as an institution to confront the fact that very few people feel the same way. Their preferences were rational, the experts agreed!

[CrossLOPER]

He explains hmself pretty well. Interviewer is out for blood and not willing to talk. Maybe that's the problem.

Neither one has any clue.

[Fragony]

Neither one has any clue.

Disagree, he's not making a point he's just explaining, no clue is needed. I have very little respect for academics but I love a little political uncorrectness, that's rare

[CrossLOPER]

Disagree, he's not making a point he's just explaining, no clue is needed.

So you don't need any knowledge or background or evidence to support what you are saying, but just having something to say?

I have very little respect for academics

Ah, well there we go. Evidence-based knowledge tends to knock horse dung over pretty easily.

but I love a little political uncorrectness, that's rare

Remember, when facts get in the way, employ feelings. Not other people's feelings, you can stomp on those as much as you want. However, the moment someone hurts your feelings by pointing out that you may or may not be part of a problem, make sure to let them know it. Because your feelings are important.

[Fragony]

What facts would that be

[Beskar]

I agree with the pay gap, it is a multi-factor issue which is not as simple as men simply getting paid more. There are many reasons behind this, including that different jobs are paid different to many reasons. Fixing isn't simply a sledgehammer as that would not repair anything, as all nurses being paid the same (which they pretty much are) compared against all engineers paid the same (more variance in this field, but lets say they are) would not solve the issue if Engineers are simply paid higher than Nurses.

There are systems which can be used to correct this. Such as a broad universal approach to adoption of 'Agenda for Pay'-like scales for everyone. I believe it is Norway(?) where they are introducing a new system similar and more finely tuned to that which looks at the work load and responsibilities within the civil service and pays people according to that. Quite a few job positions benefited a lot out of this, as one of the senior civil service women got paid to a similar level as to the service's legal representation, massive pay increase, due to how much responsibility and work she had which was undervalued. This fixes a lot of pay inequalities between different roles, and this would decrease gender gap more than a sledgehammer approach, and ultimately it is simply more fair because you are paid for the work you do regardless of gender. Also Nurses should be paid a lot more compared to other jobs, teachers too, a host of different disciplines.

I also disagree with him how he says there are no evidence of female led systems. If he included things such as health, there are many places where the hierarchy is simply women almost straight to the top (till Jeremy Hunt, but his boss is Theresa May..), with males in the in-between too.

[Fragony]

Thing is, does the pay-gab even exist. Feminists squel that there are less women than men in top-positions, but couldn't it just be that women don't do very well in such a competive space? I'm not fit for that either I lack the harshness that gets you there. If you can't recognise that woman and men think differently you probably know neither, or not very well. The pay-gab is a myth that has been debunked many times, it isn't there

[CrossLOPER]

What facts would that be

You're agreeing with what is said in the video, so you get to provide the proof. Good luck backing up statements like "women are more sensible" or something similar that has a non-arbitrary gradient.

Thing is, does the pay-gab even exist. Feminists squel that there are less women than men in top-positions, but couldn't it just be that women don't do very well in such a competive space? I'm not fit for that either I lack the harshness that gets you there. If you can't recognise that woman and men think differently you probably know neither, or not very well. The pay-gab is a myth that has been debunked many times, it isn't there

Again, feelings.

[Fragony]

Who was the one with feelings in that interview?

[Husar]

Who was the one with feelings in that interview?

Trying to generalize from an anecdote?

[Fragony]

Trying to generalize from an anecdote?

Not trying anything, I see a calm eloquent guy and a rabid woman who can't listen. Her filters don't work she only hears what she wants to hear. There is obviously a gap here between reason and emotion