Wait a minute... 71.5 degrees is considered freezing for women?? To me, that's about as mild as the temperature can be.... over 73 degrees and I can start sweating, but I guess it's all relative if the AC is blowing directly on your or not. Oh, also Jordan Peterson seems decent. Agree with him for the most part on the gender stuff, just not nearly as sternly as he seems to care about it. Most of his views are pretty solid, but he does seem to have some right-wingish shtick in him as well.
Forcibly? Seriously? How, exactly, is one "forcibly" removed from a social circle? That is certainly the prevailing narrative among conservatives. Really? What "intolerance" has been shown in this thread towards "independent thought?" I think you're mistaking the attitude expressed by the right wing media bubble as the "national attitude." You claim to have been "forcibly" removed from social circles. I suspect that your removal was directly related to your behavior and being unwilling to accept facts as factual, relying instead on discredited narratives that you've chosen to believe. I don't doubt that you've heard rumors (in the right wing media bubble) about employment consequences due to conservative attitudes, but I just don't see that happening even though I work in an environment where if it were, I would see it. And you wonder why they don't want you in their social circles. With name calling like this, you wouldn't get invited to social events that I hosted, but that is directly due to your behavior and has little to do with your ideology. And you aren't? Seem to me that you're projecting in some pretty major ways. You do realize that "empathy" is about feeling for another person, which is the opposite of intolerance, right? You are repeating the narrative you've been fed even though it doesn't logically fit with the facts in evidence. Maybe you should look at that, it could be the reason that you've found yourself left out of certain social events.
Well I don't want to get dragged down into the weeds to where the US needs to go with regulations and social programs and whatnot. However, I'd still encourage you to listen to that lecture on existentialism I posted. It doesn't necessarily touch on capitalist v socialist (it's certainly anti-Marxist/anti-communist thought), but it touches on ideology and how we have to be cognizant of it's control on us. These lectures from Peterson take me hours to get through because I've been truly trying to grasp the intellectual foundations from where he bases his thoughts. As I said earlier in the thread I don't like that short video he made because he completely minimizes the vast depth of knowledge from where he has arrived at his thoughts and the great deal of nuance he has within his thoughts (which often gets lost by some of the people on the right who have started to listen to him). He does have other lectures where he talks about capitalism v socialism and how the Pareto principle and our inherent personality traits (based on our biological systems) govern a large majority of our world. He used to be a socialist and he has become pro-capitalist as he has got older and discovered different things. I think his main issue with socialist systems is he feels that they don't fix the natural inequality (the Pareto principle) built into life and any creative system in existence. He doesn't know what the answer is and he is open about that. He feels people sticking their head in the sand and thinking redistribution of wealth magically fixes things is a shallow way of thinking because it simply ignores the reality of life around us. Further, he feels that people have to recognize how powerful of a predictor of success and happiness that psychometric traits like IQ (he also goes in depth about what IQ truly is) and the big 5 personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience) play in our modern world. I think that's a decent and very brief summary of his position and I honestly think the guy needs to take a vacation. I don't think the constant exposure is healthy for him and he has been open about his struggles with deep depression in the past.
That's not his point and he never said that. His issue is with leftist ideology and he feels many people (especially at the university level) have adopted those buzz words as a way to coerce people into following their ideology.
What he says is filled with untruths and half-truths. He is building strawmans and painting a reality that does not exist. There is a problem with closed-minded thinking on college campuses - but to think that is the domain of the left is ludicrous - it's a problem with both sides of the spectrum. But he is blowing it up to a much greater problem than it really is. Diversity isn't about just race and gender, race and gender are merely one form of diversity that is severely lacking and that's a problem that needs to be solved. The solution to it isn't about forcing unqualified minorities into positions and most of the left isn't arguing for that (and I haven't seen any that are to be honest), but rather eliminating the factors that result in minorities getting a substandard opportunity in life and eliminate the bias against minorities and women. What people like him do is twist that into not about fighting against bias, but as some sort of quota system to force equality. That's not at all what diversity is about fundamentally.
Google’s just released “Diversity” Report: https://diversity.google/annual-report/ This is how it sums up diversity: Endeavor to attract, develop, progress, and retain more underrepresented talent at all levels of Google’s workforce, reaching or exceeding the available talent pool. You say what is fundamental to this is fighting against bias. That is an admirable objective. It’s interesting how little Google’s own self analysis says about actual bias that exists in its company. It claims there is necessarily unconscious bias from everyone, fair enough, but what measurable effect that bias actually has is not seriously dealt with in the report. Instead, the report mostly presents demographic statistics, which you say is not what diversity is fundamentally about.
Because Google's argument is that the lack of Diversity is a result of bias therefore they seek to overcome that bias through their hiring practices. Studies show that a diverse workforce much like a diverse army outperforms a homogenous force. So Google is taking actions not to create a status quo but rather a stronger workforce. A company of all white men will have trouble attracting top minority and women talent. One of the first questions a talented female interviewer asks me at companies I have worked for that are heavy in men is around diversity. Having a diversity of cultures represented will help ensure a diversity of ideas as perspectives are often tied to background.
Regarding the studies, diverse in what sense, and for what type of work? And if lack of diversity is being used as a proxy measure for bias, then how much diversity should we expect from an environment with minimal bias? It seems like they’re aiming for a particular level of diversity — along racial and gender categories. So what should that target be?
I know the answer to this but I'll ask...have you listened to his lectures? Yes or no? All pain is relative. However, I posted a lecture on existentialism dealing with human suffering much greater than anything anyone in modern America has been subject to. You should listen to it. After you listen to it with an open mind let's talk. It isn't straw man based. It is history and humanity that needs to be recognized and dealt with.
These are first world problems. They are not impacting the direction of your society or democracy. Virtually all of the failings of colleges can be attributed to the warned-about invasion of corporate/HNWI money on and under the table. It won't be long before the people on the left and right of this get outed as employees of something or someone other than the campus. There is not too much left-ism on campuses - it's just the last place left-wing values have any group support, therefore it has to be torn down and people like Peterson have to be called the new left. Everything and everyone must march right, it's the only way to break the news that 90% of students will be net negative humans soon. Here's the non-first world problem: college campuses are just manufacturing obedient potential employees that are already less effective than today's clunky robots/AI/automation standards. And at a huge cost to people who will not be able to get a job, even if they work harder than they currently work. Employers need to shed these people somehow and make those people blame themselves and their friends. Simple idea: it can be your fault and someone else's fault. And finding out the exact proportion won't solve the problem.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters https://www.cloverpop.com/hacking-d...m_medium=Forbes Hacking Diversity White Paper For military: https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0015452.A2.pdf ALL type of work benefits from diversity. There is no "target". That's not the point of diversity is to say hey - you need x% of this or that. It is to say that integrated teams outperform homogenous teams on an age, cultural, racial, gender, etc level. People should not be threatened by diversity they should see it as making the whole stronger because that is the truth. Yes, I don't think that's the debate here. Ideas should be exchanged in a university setting. But where is the line between expressing an idea and an effort to simple provoke and intimidate? What limit does a University have in controlling hate speech on its campus? That is what needs to be discussed. Conservative speakers who are controversial should be allowed to have a voice if invited by a student body. Should a white nationalist be? And if so should not students be allowed to protest? And if so, who is responsible for the additional cost of security? Apply his own logic and the right isn't having that debate, instead they are only attacking the "radical left" and labeling students part of "antifa" and conflating antifa with students overall. How is that in line with his lectures. Do agree that it's not and you're making a hypocritical argument here?
If that’s not the point, then I don’t understand why these diversity reports focus so much on those percentages and using that as evidence of a problem. If there is no target number, the number is meaningless as a gauge for how well the company is doing in eliminating bias.
I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse here, but being removed from a social circle (disinvitations, withholding information, lack of communication, etc) is not a very difficult concept to grasp. It might be good to start listening to the feedback of disaffected liberals. You guys seem to have taken quite an enormous issue with me, so, that's a start. I don't really participate in such a media bubble, but OK. I suspect that you don't know a single thing about me or my personal experiences and relationships, so you should probably stop making these assumptions. First of all, that isn't name-calling. It's as close as I can get to matter-of-fact statement in terms of describing something without getting into specifics. Secondly, if I described you as such to your face, I would not expect any invite anywhere. Once again, you're making massive assumptions about something you have absolutely zero clue of (my personal life and relationships). You should probably stop. Once again, since you know absolutely nothing about me or my life, it probably isn't wise of you to attempt to explain how you think I've been unable to disagree peaceably or maintain relationships with folks whom I disagree with politically or religiously or otherwise. Empathy is not a pure virtue. Too much of it can lead to these personality and behavioral problems. Same goes for something like conscientiousness. Too much of it and you end up with oppression. And so on. The amount of assumptions you have made about me and my life here is truly staggering and disheartening. You've always struck me as a person of somewhat high character (except when you get into pissing matches with Bobby, then you end up dropping down to his level) but watching you immediately attack my character and start making these broad, baseless assumptions the moment I stepped out of line with liberal orthodoxy is super sad to see. Hoping for better in the future.
Right, so your logic is that since you can't define the optimal amount of diversity, diversity is BS and garbage???? Basically, since you don't know how much should should exercise, exercise is meaningless. I have noticed that you argued against diversity in the Google thread - it seems to me that you have something against it and feel that white people are under attack from it or something along those lines. Do you feel you were robbed in life because of it?
You said diversity is not about percentages and measurements. I am merely questioning how that can be, when these reports are using those percentages/measurements as a proxy for how much diversity progress they are making as a company. Except there are guidelines for how much exercise a person should be getting. That’s what I’m asking for here. It need not be an exact number, but it’s quite sensible to ask about how much is ideal. You don’t think there are quantifiable diversity goals set up by these organizations? Not at all. I never argued against diversity, and in fact earlier in this thread I made an argument for diversity.
"Some people just have higher iq's than others. They are able to generate ideas and accomplish tasks more efficiently than others." That is what a former google employee told me when they were badgered over their diversity rankings, which is something like 90% white + Asian and 10% others. I kind of scoffed at it, but after working with a diverse group of individuals across the country over the past year, I have to agree. Companies shouldn't be guilted into hiring less capable people because of the complaints of people who cant thrive outside of campus, were all equal because of no revenue generation and real competition settings. America has brain drained the rest of the world over the past century because of the incentives for the brightest to thrive. I feel like many who identify as liberal do not want to admit their own limitations yet feel overly entitled due to media propaganda.
First off, the video is very poorly done and is a really bad example of Peterson’s views. It isn’t that he doesn’t believe what the video claims, but it is entirely over simplistic and lacks context. Second, I find it hilarious that Trumpers and the far right try to stick to him like a fly on ****. The reality is that he is not in agreement with the Trumpers on a great many things. He is a strong believer in science and study and the scientific method. If you read enough of his writings, it becomes clear he does have compassion and he is concerned with poverty and marginalized groups. I don’t agree with him on probably 40% of what he says. I do not agree with him on some basic points but he is genuine, open minded and willing to modify or change his opinions if facts back it up. If I ever get an opportunity to meet him and have a discussion with him, I would ask him if it bothers him that he has attracted a lot of groups he would find unsavory. Before someone passes judgment they should listen to quite a bit of what he says. He isn’t a hack like Shapiro or even as shallow as others.
Really? Is that why he's a religious person? Or why he eats animal meat ONLY? Do these two things strike you as someone who believes in science and the scientific method? I think Jordan Peterson is great at what he's an expert at. Just like Sam Harris is great at what he's an expert at. But both of these guys have nosedived into something they don't understand any better than experts of other disciplines, and they have done it to make extra money. If you ever get a chance to meet Peterson, ask him if he's a prophet. Then watch his face. You'll quickly understand who he is.
