The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework vs. e.g. Jordan Peterson

[icehorse]

Gibson's work on sensory and visual perception was a step away from Freud and Jungian type of though and is based more on Gestalt principles which was kind of our next step forward in the field of psychology.;

Eleanor and James was far broader than what you mention. They did ground-breaking work on ideas like perceptual learning, which is a key foundation for most of today's AI.

Their work also has a big impact on how we gain motor skills, a key goal of ecological dynamics.

 

[icehorse]

You must have an interesting definition of fascism.

"fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

For fascism to take hold, it must start with the suppression of criticism. The idea that there is only one correct answer on some topics. We see this "only one correct answer" approach frequently coming from the extreme left.

 

[Secret Chief]

All valid points, but does that mean his license should be revoked?

I'm not certain, but I'd err on the side of yes; he's gone seriously off piste for a psychologist, possibly bringing the profession into disrepute by putting an academic gloss on his misogyny and bigotry.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not certain, but I'd err on the side of yes; he's gone seriously off piste for a psychologist, possibly bringing the profession into disrepute by putting an academic gloss on his misogyny and bigotry.

Again, I sometimes strongly disagree with him. That said, it doesn't appear that he's in trouble for his curriculum, it appears he's in trouble for his more politically oriented "tweets".

I'm not aware of him being particularly bigoted, but I can guess why you'd label him a misogynist. And while I'd mostly agree with you there, his opponents are often off the rails in the other direction. But that seems to fit into the extreme left's dogma, so that's deemed acceptable.

 

[Secret Chief]

his opponents are often off the rails in the other direction.

Maybe, but that doesn't change anything about Peterson himself.

Yes, I didn't mean disrepute because of his curriculum, I meant his public persona may be viewed as casting the profession in a bad light, especially when he infers psychological backing for his views. (This is what I have read on more than one occasion. As I say I've no great amount of "material" to quote).

PS just seen on youtube : Jordan Peterson: climate change may be good.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you even skim the article linked to in the OP, you'll see that that's not why his license is under fire.

Second, let's say that Jungian is "outdated". Would that be a reason to suspend his license? If so, that could be another form of dogma, no?

Okay, I've read the article.

So he' resigned from his tenured psychology professorship at U of T. stating, "“The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business.”

Not off to a great start ... especially given that "diversity, inclusion and equity" are usually the types of principles that universities tend to embrace. That was certainly the case when I attended about 20 years ago. And especially coming from a psychologist, those are some pretty strange comments, as are many others I've heard from him.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario want to revoke his psychology license over complaints about his Tweets, some of which I am aware of, like his comments about the Sports Illustrated model. The ones he made (and continues to make) about Elliot Page's breasts I find pretty disturbing and obsessive, to be honest. And they want him to be "re-educated." Okay, so I'm not sure I agree with this bit of it, as it's a bit murky. It's one thing if you're not upholding and representing the values held by your place of employment, but to revoke one's license to practice psychology altogether, I don't know. On the other hand, the College of Psychologists of Ontario does have a code of ethics that they expect practicing members to adhere to and it's not a secret or anything. There are entire courses devoted to discussions and details of this stuff, in most Psychology Programs that I'm aware of.

Such comments sound pretty bizarre coming out of the mouth of somebody who is supposed to be trained in psychology and should be aware of the negative impact those kinds of comments would have on the people he's talking about. And given that people trained in psychology are meant to be helping people, going out of one's way to cause people harm instead, is pretty antithetical to the point of his profession.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, I sometimes strongly disagree with him. That said, it doesn't appear that he's in trouble for his curriculum, it appears he's in trouble for his more politically oriented "tweets".

I'm not aware of him being particularly bigoted, but I can guess why you'd label him a misogynist. And while I'd mostly agree with you there, his opponents are often off the rails in the other direction. But that seems to fit into the extreme left's dogma, so that's deemed acceptable.

But are they political? I mean, what's political about harping on about Elliot Page's breasts?
What's political about going on about how he doesn't find a Sports Illustrated model attractive?

 

[icehorse]

But are they political? I mean, what's political about harping on about Elliot Page's breasts?
What's political about going on about how he doesn't find a Sports Illustrated model attractive?

I first heard of him when he was railing against the enforced use of pronouns. He felt that a combination of laws in Canada could end up amounting to legally "compelled speech". I thought he made a good argument in this case.

He seems to be add odds with the more extreme end of the LGBTQ+ community, and that's where it gets political.

I must admit that I also sometimes find myself at odds with the extreme end of the LGBTQ+ community. I mostly support their goals, but I find many of their tactics concerning. As I said in the OP, one tactic that seems bad to me is to try to enforce dogma and shut down discussion.

So - for example - I'm also concerned with the trend towards pretending that unnecessary obesity is okay. AFAIK, obesity tends to be unhealthy, and I don't think it should be celebrated. I understand that a few people have metabolism issues, I'm not talking about them.

So, accepted, of course, celebrated, not so much.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So - for example - I'm also concerned with the trend towards pretending that unnecessary obesity is okay.

See, this framing bothers me.

Firstly, what does that actually mean? How do you determine "unnecessary" vs. "necessary" obesity? You want everyone to divulge their medical records?

Secondly, what does this mean practically? Because, according to Jordan Peterson, it means depicting larger women on the covers of sports magazines. You don't have to be a medical expert to work out that this standard has nothing to do with actual health and well-being; there are people who are, by many standards, overweight or obese who are - believe it or not - actually healthy. This is a thing. There are overweight people in sports. This actually happens.

What it means in reality is MARGINALIZING people for their appearance, and nothing else. It's about making value judgements about people based on a strict set of physical criteria that are entirely socially crafted, and marginalizing people who don't fit that standard. The way this manifests in reality is JUST harmful.

The distinction between "accepting" and "celebrating" something is arbitrary.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I first heard of him when he was railing against the enforced use of pronouns. He felt that a combination of laws in Canada could end up amounting to legally "compelled speech". I thought he made a good argument in this case.

He misrepresented Bill C-16 to the point where legal experts had to respond to his distortions. I made a post about this before (linking instead of quoting because the post itself contains quotes that wouldn't appear if I quoted it):

Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

The bill passed years ago, but nobody in Canada has been prosecuted for not using a specific pronoun. Peterson was tilting at windmills, and legal experts clarified as much back then.

He seems to be add odds with the more extreme end of the LGBTQ+ community, and that's where it gets political.

Not really; he's at odds with more than just the "extreme end." Opposing a bill protecting trans rights after repeatedly misrepresenting it was a good example. So was his dodging of a direct question about whether he supported same-sex marriage:

That's the kind of question where a lack of a clear "yes" is almost invariably a major red flag for someone who criticizes LGBT activism but implies he's only against extremism rather than LGBT rights. Replace same-sex marriage with interracial marriage in that exact same context and it should be another clear example of why so many people see Peterson's rhetoric as both prejudiced and harmful.

I must admit that I also sometimes find myself at odds with the extreme end of the LGBTQ+ community. I mostly support their goals, but I find many of their tactics concerning.

I have seen this wording used to dismiss BLM, LGBT movements, and feminism, but it's rarely the case that critics offer tactics that are evidenced to be more effective or plausible than what they're criticizing.

LGBT movements have managed to get same-sex marriage legalized in multiple countries, in addition to advancing various protections (e.g., in the workplace) for LGBT people. Feminism has helped women gain suffrage, more legal equality, and legal autonomy in multiple countries. BLM has helped bring Derek Chauvin to justice and place greater scrutiny on police misconduct.

What have people like Peterson done legally and socially? Have his suggestions resulted in less legal discrimination? Have they created less division among polarized groups? Has he managed to advance human rights with his own ideas that he implies are superior to those of his ideological opponents?

The man's Twitter, which contains just a subset of his views, is laced with climate-change denial, opposition to preventive measures against COVID-19, and a variety of mean-spirited, thoughtless Tweets about people he seemingly doesn't like or disagrees with—including Greta Thunberg, a girl his grandkid's age. I fail to see why any reasonable person should take him more seriously than the groups he likes to criticize.

As I said in the OP, one tactic that seems bad to me is to try to enforce dogma and shut down discussion.

So - for example - I'm also concerned with the trend towards pretending that unnecessary obesity is okay. AFAIK, obesity tends to be unhealthy, and I don't think it should be celebrated. I understand that a few people have metabolism issues, I'm not talking about them.

So, accepted, of course, celebrated, not so much.

I don't see how this is related to LGBT movements in particular considering that it has also come up in fashion, cinema, and advertising. It's also a drop in the ocean of the other issues that DEI initiatives usually aim to tackle.

 

[wellwisher]

I think the moral panic of those opposed to DEI is really just a conservative reaction to social change. They want things to go back to where we were in the 1950s, and see any efforts for ameliorating historical disparities as antithetical to their desires, while they use "free speech" as an excuse to be bigoted. IMO.

Even if you assume that is true, the Left is always the most likely to use neurotic over sensitivity as an excuse to shut down the discussion. That tactic is used, over and over, since many of their ideas and its implementation cannot hold up in a rational discussion. The twitter files showed how far t hey will go to shut down the discussion. The irrational have this need to shut down the discussion, less their belief systems fall apart in front of them. All fascist behave that way, since their ego is faux inflated, while they stand on intellectual shaky ground. This is not a healthy combination.

In this web site, the Religious community gets dumped on all the time, by Lefties attempting to infiltrate and control the narrative. If you notice the Religious do not get as whiny as the Leftists. They are more stable minded to their beliefs and do not use censorship tactics, to avoid anything that will shake them off their faux tree. Many Left wing ideas are psychologically damaging, and instead of dealing with the symptoms; overly whiny, the leaders reinforce the damage; punishment for lack of conformity.

It reminds me of a child with an over protective mother, who tells her child he is the best. She may be doing that to build up his lack of confidence However, her child is not rational enough to see the exaggerated cause and effect, so his ego get inflated, thinking all this is true.

His mistake is showing off and telling his friends, who will rag on him, since they can see the reality that he is nothing but a big mouth. He will get upset and his mother may need to fight his battles to maintain what she has created; censorship. His friend really wish he would snap out of the balloon head.

Healthy behavior is always open to better ideas, but will not just accept change for the sake of change, especially if comes from mama boys, who are too insecure to laugh at themselves. The latter is a tell that shows there is loose nerve that is semi-repressed; flawed. The Lefty should take their over reaction as a sign for needed internal change. But the ego reinforcement, will not let them grow into rational self knowledge.

Someone mentioned Jungian Psychology as taboo to Lefties. This orientation of psychology is connected to our natural collective human nature common to all humans. It is what unites us as human. The more common orientations are more ego-centric. This separated us. The ego has will and choice to be unnatural, which appeal more to the Left; throw out the past. Collective human nature is about natural human behavior which is taboo to the Left. This explains the systemic over sensitivity. The ego will power cannot always overcome the natural unconscious doubt from the natural parts of the brain. We do not help them by shutting up, but rather they need to learn from the ego triggers within free speech.

In the USA, the new Speaker of the House has reassigned Rep Schiff from his former role in House Intel Committee, since he was/is a pathological liar. It makes no rational sense to have such a person involved with national secrets. All Democrats are upset, that their best pathological liar is being expelled from a sensitive position. This speaks volumes in terms of the why so many of the base are so whiny; good soldiers with bad information means inner doubt and whiny behavior. The rest of us will try to deprogram you by making you become more self aware that whiny is a symptom of a problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even if you assume that is true, the Left is always the most likely to use neurotic over sensitivity as an excuse to shut down the discussion. That tactic is used, over and over, since many of their ideas and its implementation cannot hold up in a rational discussion. The twitter files showed how far t hey will go to shut down the discussion. The irrational have this need to shut down the discussion, less their belief systems fall apart in front of them. All fascist behave that way, since their ego is faux inflated, while they stand on intellectual shaky ground. This is not a healthy combination.

In this web site, the Religious community gets dumped on all the time, by Lefties attempting to infiltrate and control the narrative. If you notice the Religious do not get as whiny as the Leftists. They are more stable minded to their beliefs and do not use censorship tactics, to avoid anything that will shake them off their faux tree. Many Left wing ideas are psychologically damaging, and instead of dealing with the symptoms; overly whiny, the leaders reinforce the damage; punishment for lack of conformity.

It reminds me of a child with an over protective mother, who tells her child he is the best. She may be doing that to build up his lack of confidence However, her child is not rational enough to see the exaggerated cause and effect, so his ego get inflated, thinking all this is true.

His mistake is showing off and telling his friends, who will rag on him, since they can see the reality that he is nothing but a big mouth. He will get upset and his mother may need to fight his battles to maintain what she has created; censorship. His friend really wish he would snap out of the balloon head.

Healthy behavior is always open to better ideas, but will not just accept change for the sake of change, especially if comes from mama boys, who are too insecure to laugh at themselves. The latter is a tell that shows there is loose nerve that is semi-repressed; flawed. The Lefty should take their over reaction as a sign for needed internal change. But the ego reinforcement, will not let them grow into rational self knowledge.

Someone mentioned Jungian Psychology as taboo to Lefties. This orientation of psychology is connected to our natural collective human nature common to all humans. It is what unites us as human. The more common orientations are more ego-centric. This separated us. The ego has will and choice to be unnatural, which appeal more to the Left; throw out the past. Collective human nature is about natural human behavior which is taboo to the Left. This explains the systemic over sensitivity. The ego will power cannot always overcome the natural unconscious doubt from the natural parts of the brain. We do not help them by shutting up, but rather they need to learn from the ego triggers within free speech.

In the USA, the new Speaker of the House has reassigned Rep Schiff from his former role in House Intel Committee, since he was/is a pathological liar. It makes no rational sense to have such a person involved with national secrets. All Democrats are upset, that their best pathological liar is being expelled from a sensitive position. This speaks volumes in terms of the why so many of the base are so whiny; good soldiers with bad information means inner doubt and whiny behavior. The rest of us will try to deprogram you by making you become more self aware that whiny is a symptom of a problem.

Some of this appears to be directed toward me. Though I didn't say anything like "Jungian Psychology is taboo to the Lefties." This has absolutely nothing to do with politics whatsoever. I have no idea what "Lefties" think about it. I do know what educated psychologists know about it though. Quit trying to make every single thing into something political, where you put everyone into your little judgy boxes so you can just write them off.

I'd advise you to do the same thing I'd advise Jordan Peterson to do - extensively study the last 100 years of research in psychology and psychiatry, and then get back to me. Demonstrate to me that psychoanalysis is more useful than say, cognitive behavioral therapy - which has actual evidence backing up its efficacy.

 

[icehorse]

The bill passed years ago, but nobody in Canada has been prosecuted for not using a specific pronoun.

You know that's not how the legal system works. It could well take years before a given law is put into use.

He misrepresented Bill C-16 to the point where legal experts had to respond to his distortions.

I read the law and the related definitions (although it's been a while). My "common sense" reading of the collection of related laws was that an enterprising lawyer could very well win a case using them. Again, that's how the legal system works. Lawyers are constantly chipping away at edges to see what's possible. "Legal experts" can never perfectly predict what courts in the future will decide.

Opposing a bill protecting trans rights after repeatedly misrepresenting it was a good example.

Do you know which bill this is? A lot of crazy bills get passed - as you know.

And again, I am by no means apologizing for this guy. As I said at the get go, I'm often strongly opposed to his views.

I have seen this wording used to dismiss BLM, LGBT movements, and feminism, but it's rarely the case that critics offer tactics that are evidenced to be more effective or plausible than what they're criticizing.

LGBT movements have managed to get same-sex marriage legalized in multiple countries, in addition to advancing various protections (e.g., in the workplace) for LGBT people. Feminism has helped women gain suffrage, more legal equality, and legal autonomy in multiple countries. BLM has helped bring Derek Chauvin to justice and place greater scrutiny on police misconduct.

And I have seen working like yours used to attempt to discredit critics of BLM and LGBTQ+ movements. OF course I'm not saying these movements don't do good. Of course they do, doh! But they MUST be open to criticism.

I don't see how this is related to LGBT movements in particular considering that it has also come up in fashion, cinema, and advertising. It's also a bucket in the ocean of the other issues that DEI initiatives usually aim to tackle.

As I said, my obesity example was just that - an example!

But let me ask you, are you claiming that there isn't a large movement afoot trying to normalize obesity?

 

[icehorse]

Secondly, what does this mean practically? Because, according to Jordan Peterson, it means depicting larger women on the covers of sports magazines. You don't have to be a medical expert to work out that this standard has nothing to do with actual health and well-being; there are people who are, by many standards, overweight or obese who are - believe it or not - actually healthy. This is a thing. There are overweight people in sports. This actually happens.

You know better than that! The claims I made were clearly statistical claims, doh!

What it means in reality is MARGINALIZING people for their appearance, and nothing else. It's about making value judgements about people based on a strict set of physical criteria that are entirely socially crafted, and marginalizing people who don't fit that standard. The way this manifests in reality is JUST harmful.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that being overweight doesn't bring with it a long list of health risks?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that being overweight doesn't bring with it a long list of health risks?

That depends entirely on the metric you are using and myriad other medical factors. Healthy weights for people vary, and people's physical appearance - even when living healthily - can vary too. There are people who LOOK overweight, but are actually a healthy weight. There are people who are technically overweight but are actually very physically healthy. You simply cannot determine these metrics by simple appearances, but that's the judgement Jordan Peterson wants to make. He can't make assessments about health, he can only make assessments about appearance, so in order to justify his bias he claims it's about health when really it's just about what he personally thinks is physically appealing to him.

What's more, if the issue really were about promoting "healthy" looks, then why has the standard for the past several decades been to depict and favour women are are extremely skinny? Being skinny can also potentially come with health risks.

It's also worth noting that what Jordan Peterson actually said wasn't some nuanced "we should promote healthy lifestyles" position; he literally claimed that putting an image of a larger than average woman on the cover of a sports magazine was "authoritarian". The man is mentally unglued.

 

[icehorse]

That depends entirely on the metric you are using and myriad other medical factors. Healthy weights for people vary, and people's physical appearance - even when living healthily - can vary too. There are people who LOOK overweight, but are actually a healthy weight. There are people who are technically overweight but are actually very physically healthy. You simply cannot determine these metrics by simple appearances, but that's the judgement Jordan Peterson wants to make. He can't make assessments about health, he can only make assessments about appearance, so in order to justify his bias he claims it's about health when really it's just about what he personally thinks is physically appealing to him.

Concerning weight: Yes of course things vary from individual to individual, but that does NOT some how mean that being obese isn't - statistically - unhealthy. Does it?

Being physically appealing / attractive IS a part of biology. It might not be PC to talk about it, but it's true. And it goes in both directions. Women ARE attracted to so-called "alpha males".

 

[icehorse]

It's also worth noting that what Jordan Peterson actually said wasn't some nuanced "we should promote healthy lifestyles" position; he literally claimed that putting an image of a larger than average woman on the cover of a sports magazine was "authoritarian". The man is mentally unglued.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that extremists decided that it was okay after all to smoke cigarettes. And that anyone who publicly criticized cigarettes should face character assassination. And that ads for cigarettes starting appearing in mainstream media again. Would that start to look like authoritarianism to you? Because it would to me.

Again, it gets back to the idea of dogma. And I would say that there are people who are attempting to normalize obesity, and they are viewing their opinion as dogma that others must follow.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Women ARE attracted to so-called "alpha males".

It's always funny when men say this despite the prolific writing as well as both romance entertainment and romance counseling done for women by women see them putting far more stock in men with emotional availability, vulnerability, sensitivity and other things other men decry as weak, gay or feminine.

The joke is 'alpha males' are really just beta males who haven't gone through any social testing and are riddles with bugs and performance issues.

You know who *are* attracted to so called alpha males? Other dudes. Who use people like Andrew Tate to feel better about themselves when they get rejected because Tate offers the 'workaround' or trying to circumnavigate consent. 'Tricking' women into relationships.

 

[icehorse]

It's always funny when men say this despite the prolific writing as well as both romance entertainment and romance counseling done for women by women see them putting far more stock in men with emotional availability, vulnerability, sensitivity and other things other men decry as weak, gay or feminine.

Can you say more about romance counseling? Because on the surface it would appear to make my argument for me, no?

Look, I'm not saying this is always, 100% true, all of the time. But I think that we often attempt to deny our own biology in an attempt to be PC.

We see examples of this in the animal kingdom all the time. The males duel each other, and the strongest male gets the females.

As for the Andrew Tate argument. Of course there are some men who like Andrew Tate. But for you to bring this up seems like a sort of smoke screen to - once again - deny biology.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that extremists decided that it was okay after all to smoke cigarettes. And that anyone who publicly criticized cigarettes should face character assassination. And that ads for cigarettes starting appearing in mainstream media again. Would that start to look like authoritarianism to you? Because it would to me.

Again, it gets back to the idea of dogma. And I would say that there are people who are attempting to normalize obesity, and they are viewing their opinion as dogma that others must follow.

The obesity 'debate' comes from such a superficial place. People who are worried about 'normalized obesity' don't actually give a **** about people's health. They're doing it to push a socially enforced beauty standard they believe is being watered down by not being jerks to people who are obese. If there's dogma anywhere it's the idea that someone who is obese shouldn't be considered happy, healthy or attractive to anyone. Shouldn't have clothes marketed towards them. Including, gasp, sexy clothes.

The reality is trying to shame obese people, whether they got there through injury, metabolic disorder, mental health problem, or simply diet and exercise reasons (the rarest of all), doesn't make them get healthy. In fact it usually does the opposite. When obese people feel like they're not allowed to be involved in *normal society* without derision and expectation to become then, they grow more reserved, less active, and more likely to developed further issues with depression if not already present.

Incidentally this 'lambasting people doesn't actually instill discipline' is why we got rid of traditional drill sargents. It wasn't working and having a deleterious effect.