Kathy Newman is a lobster!

[Viking]

Good luck backing up statements like "women are more sensible" or something similar that has a non-arbitrary gradient.

I don't know what he said in the video, but it sounds a bit like he may have been thinking about Big Five and e.g. the agreeableness trait:

Most research looking into the links between gender and personality have found small to moderately-sized gender differences. In terms of the personality traits known as the Big Five, men tend to score lower than women in neuroticism and agreeableness, and to a lesser degree, certain facets of extraversion (e.g., warmth) and openness to experience (e.g., feelings; see Chapman, Duberstein, Sörensen, & Lyness, 2007; De Bolle et al., 2015; Feingold, 1994; Weisberg, DeYoung, & Hirsh, 2011). As noted earlier, social role theory posits gender differences in personality will be smaller in nations with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Investigations of Big Five traits evaluating this prediction have found, in almost every instance, the observed cross-cultural patterns of gender differences in personality strongly disconfirm social role theory (see also Schmitt, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2016).1

Or dark triad traits:

Most studies measuring people's Dark Triad personality traits have found significant gender differences (Grijalva et al., 2014; Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009), with men typically scoring higher in Machiavellianism (d = 0.27), Narcissism (d = 0.16), and psychopathy (d = 0.67; see Schmitt et al., 2016).

[...] larger gender differences in Machiavellianism were found in relatively high gender egalitarian cultures of Iceland (d = 0.61), New Zealand (d = 0.60), Denmark (d = 0.55) and the Netherlands (d = 0.53). Smaller gender differences in Machiavellianism were found in less gender egalitarian cultures such as Malaysia (d = −0.10), Ethiopia (d = −0.09), South Korea (d = −0.07) and Tanzania (d = −0.01).

From a 2016 review in the International Journal of Psychology, where more traits are discussed.

[Strike For The South]

Can we please expunge the term "dark triad" from the lexicon?

[Husar]

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

That's funny because what you say contradicts the calm eloquent guy who tells the woman that it's her job to ask him these questions.
You obviously didn't get the point of my question though because you revert right back to the anecdote...
You cannot extrapolate the behavior of the entire feminist movement from one or even a few women you saw on TV. You can claim they're exemplary but that's no proof either way.

If you were right though, let me tell you Viking just showed proof that men are psychopaths.

[Fragony]

Who says I agree with him

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can we please expunge the term "dark triad" from the lexicon?

Really should be left to RPG fantasy stuff, I agree.

[Husar]

Who says I agree with him

Why do you ask?

[Fragony]

Why do you ask?

So you are saying that I'm secretly gay and torture small animals?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you are saying that I'm secretly gay and torture small animals?

[CrossLOPER]

Trying to generalize from an anecdote?

It's easier than digesting a large amount of information or acknowledging ambiguity or variation.

[Fragony]

Hey if Kathy can do that why can't I, is it because of my gender? Discrimination!

[Beskar]

Does seem oddly specific to point out, Frags...

I would have thought you would have gone down the Merkle loving route, and how you lash out because she spurns your advances and impressive African artefact weapon display.

[Husar]

So you are saying that I'm secretly gay and torture small animals?

It's February 23rd 2018 and you're still wrong.

[Fragony]

It's February 23rd 2018 and you're still wrong.

About what, okok I am really gender-neutral, pick a gender type, should be easy there are more gender types than e-types in your microwave-meal. And the animals are actually pretty big. I should be more nuanced

[Gilrandir]

It's February 23rd 2018 and you're still wrong.

You are wrong as well. Or else you have become clairvoyant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hey if Kathy can do that why can't I, is it because of my gender? Discrimination!

That's the "inquisitive" smiley, not the "shocked" or "disgusted." I do wonder about you at times. Does the added air pressure of living below sea level cause issues among you and your fellow countryfolk?

[Husar]

You are wrong as well. Or else you have become clairvoyant.

Indeed, and Fragony obviously didn't notice.
As much as it was an actual mistake on my part, he obviously doesn't read posts thoroughly.

[Fragony]

That's the "inquisitive" smiley, not the "shocked" or "disgusted." I do wonder about you at times. Does the added air pressure of living below sea level cause issues among you and your fellow countryfolk?

How dare you, it just makes us different, Living under sealevel has nothing to do with it that's really low

#et-tu??

[Husar]

How dare you, it just makes us different, Living under sealevel has nothing to do with it that's really low

So something does make you different, but the sea level is not the reason? And what does he dare? To guess the reason?
You're being cryptic again, what makes you different? In what way does it make you different? Different from whom? And what did Seamus dare to do that he apparently shouldn't have?

Your posts raise more questions than they answer and then you wonder that people misinterpret them...

[Fragony]

So something does make you different, but the sea level is not the reason? And what does he dare? To guess the reason?
You're being cryptic again, what makes you different? In what way does it make you different? Different from whom? And what did Seamus dare to do that he apparently shouldn't have?

Your posts raise more questions than they answer and then you wonder that people misinterpret them...

A German who doesn't understand sarcasm tell me it isn't true, another gap here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....Your posts raise more questions than they answer and then you wonder that people misinterpret them...

People pay good money to get a philosophy degree that does just the same.

At least Frags is less expensive.

[Furunculus]

a restatement - but perhaps a useful one in light of the persistance in imputing meaning into words never intended:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...utm_source=twb

[Strike For The South]

Robert Bly did Jordan Peterson better.

[Fragony]

People pay good money to get a philosophy degree that does just the same.

At least Frags is less expensive.

So you are saying that I am cheap? It's the philosophy-degree gap

[Beskar]

a restatement - but perhaps a useful one in light of the persistance in imputing meaning into words never intended:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...utm_source=twb

This reply is not in reference to Jordan Peterson incident, but more a generic one in the "inputting meaning into words never intended" as Jordan made this point himself when the interviewing style came up. Some people, politicians especially use Weasel Words to try to skate around questions and answer in a manner which sounds better than what the reality is. A lot of interviewers like Paxman challenged them, and this enabled the interviewers to get some "real answers" to the questions they are asking. The BNP especially employed tactics to frame language in a way to try to pass by what they were explicitly wanting or believed it, this was raised by a Mark Collett who said it is something they do in "Young, Nazi and Proud" documentary. Whilst Kathy Newman went too far in the above interview, being challenged on your stances is very important to make sure the message coming out is the right/accurate one.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you are saying that I am cheap? It's the philosophy-degree gap

I did not say cheap. How about "good value for the amount being spent?"

[Fragony]

So you say I'm for free??

(roleplaying a professional victim is fun)

[Beskar]

So you say I'm for free??

(roleplaying a professional victim is fun)

I wouldn't say free. It is more of a few drinks first kind of guy, I imagine.

[Husar]

I need to re-open this, because developments happened!

Basically his whole lobster theories and other biological sciency-claims were hibernating in my memory because I could never quite tell whether they were actually true or not, simply because my high school biology knowledge is not enough to confidently determine that. Now he was on Bill Maher, talking about how being offensive can be necessary to tewll the truth etc. Something I agree with to an extent, but that's not the point here.

The point is that someone linked to an interesting video by an actual scientist and it turns out many of his biological claims are complete fabrications full of logical holes:



It's appaling that he presents his bullshit with such confidence... This goes right back to all the knowledge about how being confident convinces people even if what you say makes no sense...
And, I have not watched it yet, but there's also a reply video about some of the replies from his followers, so I'll just put that here, too:

[Montmorency]

From what I've read, Peterson is kind of a fraud, monetizing dollar-store self-help malarkey off vulnerable people to financially support the weaker sort of pseudo-scientific psychological speculation.

Also, if you read some of his writing (or just listen to him speak), he's one of the less precise writers and speakers out there.

In the titular interview, he claimed

See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.

I consider this to be a pretty gross lie.

Elsewhere, the case is made that Peterson represents a failure on the part of academia because they failed to try to bring their work into the "real world" and left an opening for intellectually-weak but confident BS artists to fill the meaning gap the modern world has created.

But here the left and academia actually bear a decent share of blame. Why is Jordan Peterson’s combination of drivel and cliché attracting millions of followers? Some of it is probably because alt-right guys like that he gives a seemingly scientific justification for their dislike of “social justice warriors.” Some of it is just that self-help always sells. Another part of it, though, is that academics have been cloistered and unhelpful, and the left has failed to offer people a coherent political alternative. Jordan Peterson is right that people are adrift and in need of meaning. Many of them lap up his lectures because he offers something resembling insight, and promises the secrets to a good life. It’s not actually insight, of course; it’s stuff everybody already knows, dressed up in gobbledegook. But it feels like something. Tabatha Southey was cruel to call Jordan Peterson “the stupid man’s smart person.” He is the desperate man’s smart person, he feeds on angst and confusion. Who else has a serious alternative? Where are the other professors with accessible and compelling YouTube channels, with books of helpful advice and long Q&A sessions with the public? No wonder Peterson is so popular: he comes along and offers rules and guidance in a world of, well, chaos. Just leave it to Dad, everything will be alright.

This much should be obvious from even a cursory reading of him: If Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world, the Western world has lost its damn mind. And since Jordan Peterson does indeed have a good claim to being the most influential intellectual in the Western world, we need to think seriously about what has gone wrong. What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point. He is a symptom. He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle. Jordan Peterson may not be the intellectual we want. But he is probably the intellectual we deserve.

[Sarmatian]

If he was "very, very, very careful with his words", he wouldn't have used "very" three times.