Equality and STEM

[Que]

Candi?

You practicing your pickup lines?

 

[Que]

Contemporary technology is very much not the friend of the short-sighted. Squinting at a screen and thinking 'looks about right' is a dangerous game. Especially when your word-check thing knows you say 'fuck' a lot and actually mean it.

You know when I first read that I was taking short-sighted to mean someone who does not take the Longview, does not plan ahead or risk of future repercussions and it didn't occur to me until I reread it that you mean near-sighted. In American English what you're talkin about from an optometrist point of view a nearsighted person is someone who needs glasses to read the chalkboard where a far-sighted person needs reading glasses to read your phone.

 

[Hal9000_]

You practicing your pickup lines?

Usually I fall down.



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

 

[beew]

It's a mixed bag.

There was a certain culture in my school, Mathematics were given a higher prestige than the rest, so overall, kids put a lot more effort into it.
(interestingly enough: Statistics and economics weren’t given the prestige that they have now, they were merely considered labor intensive).

Yes, the 0.0x % of the Bell curve, who ended up taking top National prizes in Math were generally boys.
But in terms of averages, in my class and in others, according to others, girls who coped with math outnombered boys.

And there are disproportionately fewer Science jobs than the rest (ie electricians, plumbers that tend to attract men, caregivers that tend to attract women and so on).
So one can’t draw a firm conclusion based on that.

I don’t understand why these men -even Jordan Peterson who’s very bright, but who Clearly isn’t in the 0.0x%- take credit for a category that they don’t fit under.

 

[beew]

Hi,Sean!
*waves.

A bullshit artist embraced by the incels because his bollocks can be read as validating their patheticness.

And I, unlike most in this thread I'm guessing, have actually read a couple of Peterson's books. They're trash dressed up in long words. Not unlike a Drown post.

Jordan Peterson is one of the greatest modern intellectuals , but he has shortcomings like everyone else.

He's also great at picking up what's wrong and is especially a great bullshit detector when it comes to SJWers and the Left.
But he's a tad misogynistic and nihilistic, and isn't great at substituting empowering solutions for the flaws that he detects.

I listened to a podcast in which he cautioned youth (particularly women) against pursuing a ‘career’ to the detriment of their family life, kids and so on. He said that they’ll wake up in their 40’s, realizing that it was all a lie (the ‘career’ that they pursued was just a job).

Naturally, he was asked by someone in the audience: “So what’s your advice for those who realize it in their 40’s?” He started doing ummm's, aah's, umm's and wasn’t able to come up with anything other than “take it easy, one day at a time”.

 

[Hal9000_]

Hi, Candi.

More paragraphs, please.

 

[beew]

Hi, Candi.

More paragraphs, please.

Hei.

This is a complex discussion, you can't just sum things up twitter style.
One needs to add suppportive arguments.

 

[Hal9000_]

Hei.

This is a complex discussion, you can't just sum things up twitter style.
One needs to add suppportive arguments.

Not every discussion.

Double spaced ideas.

Men and women hate each other.

Precisely because they need each other.

Until science makes an artificial uterus. Or sperm.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Jordan Peterson is one of the greatest modern intellectuals

Ahahaha!!!

 

[KimGordon67]

Ahahaha!!!

Yeah, that. Seriously, I could pull apart his 'gender pay gap' argument in about ten minutes.

 

[Hal9000_]

Yeah, that. Seriously, I could pull apart his 'gender pay gap' argument in about ten minutes.

How much would that net you?

 

[KimGordon67]

How much would that net you?

Not an amount that readily calculable.

 

[Hal9000_]

Not an amount that readily calculable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDXHu-JaG8

 

[beew]

Yeah, that. Seriously, I could pull apart his 'gender pay gap' argument in about ten minutes.

As I said, I find him to be nihilistic and misogynistic at times. I don't like that part either.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was on antidepressants either, after listening to certain podcasts for more than two hours you feel like shooting yourself, especially if you're a woman over 40.

But he comes up with great things otherwise - his Steve Paikin talks were rel. apolitical and far less critical, and he made accessible many complex ideas.

Certain publications regularly come up with lists of the top 100-200 public intellectuals of the year - that's what I had in mind.

 

[KimGordon67]

As I said, I find him to be nihilistic and misogynistic at times. I don't like that part either.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was on antidepressants either, after listening to certain podcasts for more than two hours you feel like shooting yourself, especially if you're a woman over 40.

But he comes up with great things otherwise - his Steve Paikin talks were rel. apolitical and far less critical, and he made accessible many complex ideas.

Certain publications regularly come up with lists of the top 100-200 public intellectuals of the year - that's what I had in mind.

Nothing to do with him being nihilistic or misogynist (although I'd seldom put 'misgonyist' and 'great intellectual' into the same body) - his argumentation just lacked depth.

 

[beew]

Nothing to do with him being nihilistic or misogynist (although I'd seldom put 'misgonyist' and 'great intellectual' into the same body) - his argumentation just lacked depth.

I'm sure that they lack the depth that yours and Candicame's regularly demonstrate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, that. Seriously, I could pull apart his 'gender pay gap' argument in about ten minutes.

But I bet you fuckin' wont...... and NEVER will.

 

[KimGordon67]

But I bet you fuckin' wont...... and NEVER will.

I pretty much already did.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm sure that they lack the depth that yours and Candicame's regularly demonstrate.

Most of my debating on here does lack real depth, because it's just not worth putting in the requisite time and effort ... no one really reads anything you write properly, nor follows up on evidence provided, they just grab one sentence out of context and run with it, or alternatively completely ignore whatever you say and move onto the next over-simplified talking point.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I pretty much already did.

Yes I thought you wouldn't.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes I thought you wouldn't.

Quibble about semantics regarding whether I 'did' or not - I really don't care. I've given his overly simplistic argument (or at least overly simplistic as it was presented in the video that was linked earlier) about the extent of attention it warrants.

As a socialisation-denier and believer that everyone is able to exercise 'free will' without fetters, what I said probably won't make a great deal of sense of you, and I've got no interest getting drawn into a debate that uses those two ideological systems as it's basis.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I actually read up on him extensively a while back. As I explained in a post further up, that's been subsequently over-written by stuff that I actually need to be thinking about at the moment, because his 'man up' crap isn't useful 'information' to retain.

You suggested I was making uninformed assessments of his work - actually, they are totally informed.
You suggested I was making ad hominem attacks - actually, my comments were totally based on his work and ideas, not him as a person (although he clearly is a twat).

But carry on thinking I'm 'not qualified' to comment on this stuff. I'm not entirely sure why you are - because you have a penis or because you're old?

And yet, you asked who is Peterson in the context of the discussion.
This is all you ever do.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Most of my debating on here does lack real depth, because it's just not worth putting in the requisite time and effort ... no one really reads anything you write properly, nor follows up on evidence provided, they just grab one sentence out of context and run with it, or alternatively completely ignore whatever you say and move onto the next over-simplified talking point.

*chuckle*

WHO? does that???

 

[about_average]

Reminds me of something Dr. Dae Shik Kim wrote [paraphrasing].

If you are a Christian and are weak, then turning the other cheek is the only thing you can do, but if you know the way of the true warrior and you turn the other cheek, it is because you chose to, and that is a noble and moral act.

Hmmm, looks like neither he nor you know the true meaning behind the ancient saying of "turn the other cheek". It's certainly not about being weak.

 

[bellisarius]

Yeah, that. Seriously, I could pull apart his 'gender pay gap' argument in about ten minutes.

As I said, I find him to be nihilistic and misogynistic at times. I don't like that part either.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was on antidepressants either, after listening to certain podcasts for more than two hours you feel like shooting yourself, especially if you're a woman over 40.

But he comes up with great things otherwise - his Steve Paikin talks were rel. apolitical and far less critical, and he made accessible many complex ideas.

Certain publications regularly come up with lists of the top 100-200 public intellectuals of the year - that's what I had in mind.

Actually you can't "pull it apart" in 10 min. The issue is far too complex for some simplistic 'wave a magic wand' solution. Go back and look at the line graph in the linked story in the OP. Think about the implications for a while.