3 minutes

With this interview Jordan Peterson asks why be surprised that evidenced-based objective judgements are maligned as merely power plays of the strong in dominace hierarchical structures.

He points out that since the 1970's, politically correct academics, liberals, SJWs, postmodernists, have promoted the notion that there are no evidentiary facts, no known facts.

Those that claim objective facts and build disciplines that teach them are imposing unjust standards on those who do not acknowledge, accept or are not good with reality.

Thus mathematics is shamed as "whiteness" because it imposes an arbitrary dominance structure on non-white persons, who, apparently, are not generally good at math.

This is one reason why conservative thinkers poke fun at liberal thinkers as being "At War with Reality".

Cheers!

I wonder if Jordan has connected the dots?

It's difficult to comment on the two main quotes ("objectivity as found through rational thought is a western and masculine concept" and the mathematics is whiteness quote) as there is a lack of context. There's no point denigrating something without trying to understand what the authors mean.

I think I struggle also with understanding the context of the discussion.

The argument that math or science is inherently biased or or that disciplines built around objective facts are simply tools for inflicting hierarchal structures is silly.

Its also silly to deny that social and political power structures that dominate certain fields of study have historically favored people of certain races or genders. For example: That we have more men in chemistry has less to do with the ability of women to understand chemistry and more to do with the fact that women have not traditionally been encouraged to join STEM fields and those who do are often not seen as equally capable or given equal opportunities. This is a symptom of the political power structures around the field of study and not an inherent characteristic of the discipline of chemistry.

Its not totally clear to me what JP thinks the 'postmodern' position is and what he thinks he is refuting.

Keep telling yourself that Kurt, that male dominace structures are to blame for fewer women in math fields. Blame the men, that's got to be the problem.

Frontiersin.org

"The results confirm what previous research has suggested, that girls tended to exhibit less positive attitudes about mathematics than their male classmates, in particular lower motivation, worse perception of competence, and higher rates of anxiety, although in all cases the effect sizes were small. Even though there no significant gender differences in academic performance, as expected, the explanatory power of attitudes toward mathematics was clearly more significant in boys than in girls (R2 = 0.194 and R2 = 0.103, respectively). The results of the regression analysis for each sample reinforce the well-known positive impact of perceived self-efficacy on mathematics performance and introduce the effect of achievement emotions of academic performance. Test anxiety in mathematics seems to only have a negative effect on boys' grades, as this variable does not appear in the regression equation when explaining girls' performance. In the light of control-value theory, we discuss the contingency of perceived competence and its involvement in anxiety and academic performance. Boys' results could be affected by the levels of anxiety inasmuch as they tend to be confident in their abilities, motivated to stand out, and interested in mathematics. Whereas despite girls reporting high rates of anxiety, what may have a negative impact on their results might have more to do with a higher value placed on mathematics, as their perception of control may be low."

OLD MAN, INTERRUPTED said:

---

Keep telling yourself that Kurt, that male dominace structures are to blame for fewer women in math fields. Blame the men, that's got to be the problem.

Frontierself.org

"The results confirm what previous research has suggested, that girls tended to exhibit less positive attitudes about mathematics than their male classmates, in particular lower motivation, worse perception of competence, and higher rates of anxiety, although in all cases the effect sizes were small. Even though there no significant gender differences in academic performance, as expected, the explanatory power of attitudes toward mathematics was clearly more significant in boys than in girls (R2 = 0.194 and R2 = 0.103, respectively). The results of the regression analysis for each sample reinforce the well-known positive impact of perceived self-efficacy on mathematics performance and introduce the effect of achievement emotions of academic performance. Test anxiety in mathematics seems to only have a negative effect on boys' grades, as this variable does not appear in the regression equation when explaining girls' performance. In the light of control-value theory, we discuss the contingency of perceived competence and its involvement in anxiety and academic performance. Boys' results could be affected by the levels of anxiety inasmuch as they tend to be confident in their abilities, motivated to stand out, and interested in mathematics. Whereas despite girls reporting high rates of anxiety, what may have a negative impact on their results might have more to do with a higher value placed on mathematics, as their perception of control may be low."

---

My post was not intended to vilify men. My post was intended to suggest an explanation of why certain fields of study are dominated by certain demographics. Again, this was in response to Peterson's comments which may have been out of context. Does Peterson believe that the liberal SJW academic position is that chemistry is inherently racist and sexist? Or does Peterson believe that the liberal SJW academic position is that some of the political and social power structures that are influential in the field of chemistry are racist and sexist? You and Peterson have taken a strong stance against some position. . . I'm asking you to clarify the stance that you are against.

You have posted a video of Peterson and then you have made broad statements about how liberal SJW academics object to the existence of facts and believe that math is racist. If there are some liberal professors that believe that numbers are racist. . . . then I'm with you. Those professors are nuts. However, you would have some work cut out if you wished to convince me that it is a common belief among these groups that the disciplines of science and math are inherently racist and sexist. What I was suggesting in my last post is that perhaps the liberal SJW position could be more accurately described as a belief that the power structures that dominate these fields have favored certain demographics over others.

-------

I could not find that website or a link to the study.

I would not argue that there are zero differences between boys and girls. Nor would I argue that one sex can't be more inclined, generally, toward a specific discipline. I fear you may be attacking a strawman with your quote.

I would say that women have traditionally not been encouraged in the same way men have been to join academic pursuits, especially STEM fields. I hardly think this is a controversial comment. Perhaps it is, and you can let me know.

Peterson identifies and exposes the reasoning behind the incredibly far left thought pervasive in intelligentsia that has seized the minds of vindictive young SJWs on matters of race, gender and class. They believe they are oppressed and act violently, seizing Portland away from democratic civil authority. This is why.

Objectivity found through rational thought is a Western and masculine concept.

Logic, coherence, and empirical data are ideas that marginalize those not predisposed for success in an arbitrary dominace hierarchy, namely the Western Patriarchy.

Since all hierarchies are predicated on power, the notion of submitting evidence is not to bring to the fore an attesting to fact, but is rather a manipulative act to dignify arbitrary claims that justify a position of power.

Postmodernists have dispensed with the idea that there are claims of evidence outside of arbitrary power. -Derrida

To disagree with this assertion demonstrates the degree you are entrenched in the reigning patriarchal ideology.

The Western Patriarchal definition of evidence supports the power structures of empirical scientific disciplines like Chemistry, which by no accident is dominated by white men.

Biologists are under attack by the SJWs for adhering to empirical analysis that support two biological sexes. SJWs believe that biologists marginalize LGBTQX etc. by way of an arbitrary power structure to crown favorites and subject the weak.

There is nothing irrational about these claims once you accept the central axioms 1) the world is a battleground of dominance hierarchies 2) each power hierarchy generates it's own internal narrative including rules for what constitutes evidence that support the structure of that hierarchy 3) Since hierarchies exclude and marginalize people, then it is in the best interest of the marginalized to attack and invert the hierarchy. This is considered "Justice" which is the definition of Social Justice Warriorism also known as Cultural Marxism. Altogether, this is a representation of Postmodernism.