This is a systemic problem and one whose background is censored in the majority of media, so if you are interested in the full-on explanation, it will require elaborating on a host of things that are not automatically agreed upon based on our common media experience. Since the end of World War II, the most wealthy Americans understood that the biggest danger to their dominance in society will always be the possibility that people will bargain with them collectively. Once social security, medicare and appropriate taxation was forcefully extracted from them, they decided that they better do something to dramatically shut/slow down the inevitable transformation of society into something that is based on a more equal starting point for every child born after. This would, after all, make them lose the gap in standard of living between them and the rest of society. Humans are far more prone to hurt other humans if faced with this possibility, even if they feel the outcome is equitable. That's something we've learned scientifically, and is used against us on a daily basis. Now, an important illustration. America is a country that has built a dark global network of somewhere between 300 and 1,000 military bases on foreign soil in about 75 countries (or over 30% of the world's countries). To understand the significance of that statistic, consider that only 11 other countries have bases in foreign countries (a total of 70 bases altogether). Russia has an estimated 26 to 40 in a total of 9 countries; the UK, France, and Turkey have four to 10 bases each; and an estimated one to three foreign bases are occupied by India, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. That's not really a competition as much as it is what the last few minutes of a game of Risk looks like. Except this is not a game, and the people don't go home afterwards. But it makes for an interesting experiment. If policy is coming from the same place - meaning heavily influenced by those who wield the biggest weapons and the willingness to use them, then do these REAL policy makers actually do this FOR Americans? The answer is no. They do this because that's who they are and what they want. They do the same thing to Americans as they do to foreigners, except on a different scale. Kill the left. Kill it, annihilate its institutions, smear it, link it with terror, assassinate its leaders, glorify them a few decades later. Whatever it takes. Gamal Abdel Nasser and Martin Luther King share this experience. Middle Eastern, East Asian, African and Eastern European leftists of the past share this experience with leftists in American history. This is why the US backs some dictators in the middle east, but not others (Assad, who is as much a monster as US-allied dictators). What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Well, the left of the 60's and 70's doesn't exist in American colonies just like it doesn't exist in America. And these two sides of the coin verify a common pattern. It's not the "illuminati" or "freemasons" mythical groups, it's not the president, it's not congress and it's not the supreme court - all of whom are doing their best in the circumstances. It's just a random collection of powerful people who don't need to conspire to understand what's best for them. And It worked. They succeeded in annihilating everyone's left and they do maintenance to make sure it stays that way. There's no hero to come and save everyone. Lots of people were killed and national/international dialogue wiped out and there is no moral order to correct it. So we are in this state. What it means for the middle east is that there are no liberal institutions allowed to function by American backed militaries of foreign governments. It also means that in the United States of America, the left is a bunch of people always trying to get their **** together and always desperate for funding. Unions are always under attack and infiltrated - which is a documented strategy of the CIA/FBI domestically and internationally. Collective bargaining will not happen properly because the institutions will never be allowed to form. What this did to American national political dialogue is: move everything right. The most extreme American right winger is never portrayed as negatively as the most extreme American left winger. To be an American communist is more shameful than to be a practicing Muslim. Bernie Sanders - who is a centrist in any other developed country - is an extremist. Hillary Clinton - a right wing nut job in any other developed country - is a centrist. The dialogue is artificially forced in a particular direction, and that direction is: less sharing of opportunities, more individualistic actions (i.e. less collective bargaining options) and a threat: if this order is not maintained, the crazy extremist citizens of the "under control" colonies will come and get you. Magnificently played game. I salute them for style. There is one place where this plan has not worked well. That place is university campuses. It's not a coincidence that campuses are also the birthplace of civil rights movements and anti war movements of the 60's and 70's. This is the cave, the cellar. It has been sufficient to date to keep these people in control by saddling them with debt and bombarding them with images of how little starbucks they can buy if there wasn't a war. Further, humongous corporations and foreign dictators began purchasing their way to influence research, faculty and policy on university campuses. This transformed campuses rapidly into factories shooting out obedient employees. People who just wanted what the economy could give and would make their way quietly as long as they could post a high res picture of their shared meal to others, and get a ton of likes. Things were under control. If you had any idea how easy it was for the citizen of a middle eastern oil rich dictatorship to get into an Ivy League school over an American, you would be stunned. That's money. And that's a good seed for them to pollute the campus under the guise of diversity. Remember, those foreign students will be verified as "good kids" by dictatorial ministries so they will prefer order/stability over change any day. So now something has changed, and that thing is robots, AI and automation in general. These guys have succeeded so much at their intended goal of choking everyone out that they have steered the majority of technology investment towards what would be the most efficient way for them to live a life. The answer is: they don't need most people anymore. They don't need the kids being manufactured on these campuses, and the campuses are a nuisance. Then there's the people already employed, whom they can replace very soon. But how do you tell all these people they're essentially pointless if the principles of capitalism are pursued? I mean that in the purest way. We are totally unnecessary as workers if efficiency and profit of shareholders comes first. So this awkward news is being broken in two ways: 1) To those in college or about to get into college: new age religions. They're not called religions, but they are religions. What they say is: A) everything that has happened to you is ONLY your fault. B) You can change it by forgetting what has happened to you, being positive about everything and working HARDER. C) If it doesn't work out for you, then no worries there is some cosmic order which ordained that failure was what you needed to succeed later. This ideology is as ancient as time. In reality, things can be your fault and others fault. Things that are others fault can be fixed by you. If you fail, it could be a mistake and it could be your fault. Events are complex. These ideas are intended to wipe away history and whitewash the future. Only 5-10% of people are going to be able to make money in the post-automation economy. I plan to be one of those people, but it is not looking good for most of the people I know. What is an accountant going to do? 2) To those who are already working, you can't really brainwash them at this age. They've been heavily dosed already. They need to be told that their hard work is not pointless even though their pensions seem flimsy, but that the real thing making things shaky is: the campuses. Those damn students and their ideas. They're going to ruin the world by censoring a few things and giving toilets to transgender people. Get angry. Buy anti-depressants. Have some superfoods in the morning. It will all be fine. TL;DR version: we are at that awkward point in history where employers don't want to tell students and employees that they're totally unnecessary for 90% of the jobs that exist. I do PR for this kind of stuff. We can manufacture personalities, stories and incidents that are indistinguishable from "reality" and drive entire countries in particular directions. Jordan Peterson is a strange one. If you ask me, he looked unhappy with being a clinical psychologist and professor. Someone offered him a lot of money to become a hero of dismantling campus activism (left AND right).
Or maybe he genuinely believes what he says, and he’s using his recent fame to spread that belief (and make some money while he’s at it, as most would). No reason to think that there is some rich, right-wing benefactor behind all of this.
I am confused by your argument - these studies are not defining the optimal % of diversity only speaking on the results of diverse environments. And with exercise, there is only a minimal amount that is defined, there is no "optimal" amount that is suggested. In fact, nearly every training regimen is customized to the needs of the individual
Money drives ivy league universities , it always has. Whether is a rich foreigner or an incompetent local like Jared Kushner, big donations from their parents ensure admission. It's not a new trend. Ideologies aside, the brightest do not have problems rising in America. Less so than any other country, all of which are heavily institutionalized if they are wealthy. Your viewpoint is polarizing because it makes mountains out of molehills, a common propaganda tactic, many of the other 90% feel entitled to things they do not deserve, and capitalism gives them a chance to realistically obtain it. Many cause their own downfall by having too many kids, leading beyond their means, over consumption and glorifying celebrity, but no one puts a gun to their head and asks them to do it. Have you read the latest complaint by Washington post journalists to Bezos? The wealthiest man in the world , liberal as can be , does not pay the journalists of the 2nd most prestigious newspaper in the country enough to retire. But, why should they be entitled to 200k a year salaries- because they went to prestigious universities? They write heavily biased pieces hoping it inspires someone to make a change instead of doing it themselves? It's the free market and its capitalism. The middle class is still better off than the middle class of insulated, socialist economies, and the capable poor have a shot of rising if they make smart decisions. It's not about working hard, its about working smart.
Not the goal of most print journalists at all. Not true about the opportunity in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Some of the other stuff I semi-agree with you.
From the opening of Google’s diversity report: The data in this report shows that despite significant effort, and some pockets of success, we need to do more to achieve our desired diversity and inclusion outcomes. I don’t understand why you have such a problem with the very basic question of what is their desired diversity outcome, in terms of the data they are collecting and presenting in their report.
When you said yes did you mean yes you have watched his full lectures? Like the one I posted earlier about existentialism? I think you might get a lot of value out of it. The ideas need to be listened to no matter what your political orientation is. You don't even need to sit down and listen all at once. Even if you hate it I'd really like you to listen to some of it. I always try to go out of my way to view things from another side even if it annoys the **** out of me. Anyhow, the problem is that the students are starting to call anyone who disagrees with them racist or a white nationalist or whatever term to portray the person they are protests as something that is an existential threat to modern society. Further, any idea that is conservative is framed within that sort of mindset. You seem to be falling into this mindset by assuming that these conservative speakers are white nationalists or one step away from being that when they aren't. Also, you are accepting that simply because someone is labeled as "conservative" or "alt-right" then that means that they are truly that. This was perfectly exemplified earlier in this thread when that Guardian article that was posted about Peterson. This is another great example showing why Peterson feels the way he does. Lastly, the students on the right aren't the ones shutting down talks. You aren't seeing controversial speakers on the left being shutdown by students on the right. It is a very loud and vocal minority of leftist students usually inciting things.
I won't even get into the first part. I'm not exactly sure where you are going with it. Sure he is making money, but he is also concerned with making things better for people. He made money as a clinical psychologist and university professor as well. Does that demean those jobs? He has openly discussed how he wants to turn the university system on its head and he feels it doesn't benefit students anymore with the cost structure and lack of flexibility. His Patreon directly states his plans. He had an excellent discussion with the iconic Prof Pennebaker from UT. Pennebaker is trying to push similar things with UT. Also, I agree he does get pulled off into discussions sometimes that are not his strong suits and he does get rattled sometimes in these debate settings. He does best in one on one intellectual discussions about psychology and in the lecture setting. And what do you mean with that last line? Have you done this? I've watched about 30 hours of his lectures and he certainly doesn't come off as someone trying to be a prophet. That would kind of be the last thing that would pop into my head. He comes off as an intellectual who despises ideologues and views lazy ideological thinking as dangerous. He also comes off as someone who deeply cares about the biological aspects psychology and psychometrics. He also seems pretty concerned with finding truth whatever that truth is. He also has major issues with the direction of the university system. I think that's how I'd summarize some of the key aspects of him, but there are probably others. Maybe you are trying to put him in a box because of people you have dealt with or seen before? Anyhow....enough D&D for me today.
You're the one who used the word "forcibly," I was just wondering what kind of "force" you perceived. Were you "forcibly" removed from an event or gathering or, as you implied above, merely denied invitations and information? It might be good for you to listen to actual liberals rather than the ones that the right wing media make up and put out there are straw men. We are calmly discussing your observations in a "Debate and Discussion" board. You're merely assuming "an enormous issue." You certainly talk like you do. You are repeating the things said by conservative talking heads without appearing to think at all about whether those contentions have any validity. You're correct. The only thing I know about you is what you post on this board, which is the entirety of what I'm commenting on. You're the one ignoring my observations. If you say this about people... "No, they're simply intolerant, petulant, and immature. Truly underdeveloped, emotionally stunted people." ...particularly if you say anything even remotely analogous in person, people will take it as an insult and will likely not invite you to join their social events. You imply that you wouldn't say such things to people's faces, but given the number of times I've heard conservatives say similar things in person, I suspect that such sentiments might slip out of your mouth sometimes. You're correct that it is an assumption, but the situation you've described and the way you talk about people here support that assumption. Again, just proffering explanations that are supported by the attitudes you express and the way you've expressed them here. You're the one who tried to use personality traits to disparage liberals. The opposite side of the coin is that too little empathy (as would be more common with conservatives) leads to different, but equally debilitating personality and behavioral problems. I've only made a couple... 1. That you communicate with people in person using largely the same terminology that you use here. 2. That you express attitudes with people in person similar to the ones you've expressed here. Thanks. Until this discussion, I have never seen you as unreasonable in any way. Agreed, he does bring out the worst in me, as does t_j. I didn't attack your character in any way. That seems to be the major assumption that you are making here. I have made a bunch of observations which are not particularly flattering, to be certain, but you're interpreting these comments as an "attack" rather than the constructive criticism that I've offered. This would be further evidence that you're projecting, seeing liberals as the attackers and the ones who are intolerant of and inflexible with regard to differing opinions. I see the opposite and I see it every single day. I'm open to the possibility that in other environments, the dynamic might be reversed, but I've simply not seen lots of evidence of liberals exhibiting the same levels of "attack," "intolerance," or "inflexibility" as conservatives demonstrate to me on a daily basis. Not "baseless," based entirely on what you've written here. Nothing I've written has to do with anything about the "liberal orthodoxy" in any way. Yes, your projection and inability to take my comments as desiring to be helpful in my criticism are very, very sad. In almost all situations, the energy you give is the energy you get. If you don't like the results of what you're putting out there, make different choices about what or how you put it out there.
What I quoted and responded to was the last paragraph in his post, where he suggests someone is paying him a lot of money for this and it’s not his genuine position.
I don't have time to watch his full lectures but I know him and his viewpoints, and I know how many academic so called "radical left" view him. You have to understand that the vast vast majority on the left support free speech and don't agree with people drowning out viewpoints they disagree with. The problem with Petersen is that he has invented this idea that western civ is under attack and that ethnic studies should be banned as they are just "safe spaces" and lack scientific rigor. He seems also deeply offended by the idea of "white privilege" and his criticisms demonstrate that he doesn't even know what is meant by it. In any case, I disagree with his viewpoints. So why do you want me to watch his lectures when his arguments are terribly flawed as he invents his own reality? What he is pushing out there is propaganda - painting a problem that does not exist. Yes, political correctness and SJW's are problematic. But they aren't a problem for just the right, they are a problem for liberals too. But he isn't doing anything to solve the situation rather he is pouring fuel onto the fire. I don't have a problem with him speaking. But his ideas shouldn't go unchallenged either. He shouldn't be shouted down though.
Well that’s beyond disappointing to hear you say you don’t have time to listen to a lecture (or even a small part of a lecture) from him about some of the most important aspects of humanity and in the next breath say you know him and his viewpoints. You clearly don’t know what he has to say based on what you wrote. The sad part is I’m guessing you view yourself as open minded when you’ve clearly shut your mind off to anything other than what you want to see. Your bias has overcome your ability to even look at something that might be a different viewpoint from what you think is reality. You are the person on the "right" that you despise even though you don't want to see it. I’ll share it again just and it's embedded at a time specifically for you. I know your time is far too valuable to spend even a minute looking at something that doesn't agree with your self, but maybe you will and maybe you will think about it. I hope one day you change your point of view. I hate to come off as a preachy douche, but your reply was truly disappointing to read since it represented every single aspect of what is wrong with political tribalism.
I did watch his lectures a bit by the way and found them filled with straw men. Should I be open to someone who uses gross generalizations as a foundation of his argument? Sorry, doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum, that should be a clear reason not to have to listen further.
Maybe. I don't see him as right ing btw. The notion that he is a right winger of sorts only made it to me after reading this thread, and I have watched dozens of hours of him speaking in class rooms, interviews and speeches. IMO his ideas are formed through his background. It's really only in the US that those ideas are necessarily placed that way.
I understand your view but it is based in a mythology: that free markets and capitalism select winners better than others. In reality it is as inefficient as doing so as socialism. The fact that we don't have a better solution than either of those ideologies does not logically imply that one of them must be better than the other. IMO any of those systems function equally well/poorly depending on the power structure, but capitalism provides an accelerated means of destroying the necessary constant: a whole democracy not influenced by unearned wealth handed to you by society or your parents. A piece of advice I learned from religions: don't use the unestablished occurrences within the system to justify the system. Jeff Bezos is not liberal in a human sense - he is only liberal within the context of capitalistic US politics. Just like Bernie Sanders is practically a commie within that same context. Similarly, to say that improvement can be measured by the US today vs the US in the past is also ridiculous. The US is being outpaced in that improvement by far less capitalistic and far less democratic countries today. That's the correct measure. Even the worst governments in the world, if not harassed by major powers, will improve over time. Any idea pursued in a committed way without resistance will result in improvement. This is why Middle Eastern dictators fool their people into thinking that since the Western democracies needed hundreds of years after their establishment to reach democracy, that it should also take hundreds of years in the Middle East. This is a silly idea. It's like saying it should take as long and cost as much for a new tech company to build a smartphone as it took Steve Jobs or whoever to build the first one decades ago. What you do here by citing examples in that way is what Muslims stupidly do: try to justify the Quran by quoting the Quran itself. The question is outside the system, so the answer must be too. Fact of the matter is: what anyone deserves is totally subjective and will leave you fighting for something in a hamster wheel. The result of sharing power more evenly has propelled countries like Germany and Canada and China to faster growth in societal well being than the US has been able to achieve - and those countries are not really all-out socialists. There is no chance that ideas like capitalism and free markets from ancient times are the best way to proceed. The best idea must be new, even if all new ideas are not necessarily good.
You should email him and ask him: don't you fall exactly into the definition of a prophet in your religious beliefs? He is certainly a religious man, not sure if you know that. Lazy ideological thinking on campuses is not as dangerous as he makes it seem, although it bothers me too. I think his ideas about society are equally ill-informed and somewhat dangerous. Bombs are being dropped on whole countries, that's what's dangerous. Hoards of well-off people are addicted to pills, that's dangerous. Climate change is dangerous. Wealth concentration in the hands of people who don't want to live with others is dangerous. Torture and bombings are dangerous. His definition of "danger" smells like the product of a first worlder. I don't need to be black/white on someone. I'm glad he's doing something good for university/school structure. It's not the only problem with academia. There are other problems like: specialization has created more efficient workers who are far less knowledgeable about anything outside of their job. People can do good things, be geniuses at some things and have stupid ideas. I'm sure most of what he does/says is well-intentioned from the perspective of his belief system.
CS professor known for mentoring women in CS gets some backlash for writing his honest take on diversity: But it looks like his University is not giving in to calls that he should be fired, despite disagreeing with his perspective. Hopefully that continues to be the case.
