You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ah, the old ‘Frankenstein’s Monster Defence’
I didn't mean it as either a defence or justification, it's simply the reality of where we are now. There has to be a collective sense of responsibility for the outcomes of our decisions; that doesn't mean we should placate the far right or in any way credentialise extreme ideologies.
I was talking to an American couple last week that I met while travelling in Spain (it was at an art exhibition); both of these people were your prototypical liberal arts (they were also both artists), true blue democrats. When we talked about Trump they both shook their heads in dismay but they both also commented that a lot of what went on during the Obama terms is the cause of the political backlash. In particular they said that the way the Democrats had handled the passing of the healthcare reform act, specifically the 'in your face gloating' (their words not mine) with which the Democrats celebrtated was always going to come back to haunt them.
I didn’t mean it as either a defence or justification, it’s simply the reality of where we are now.
Nope it isnt. It is what you claim to be the reality. Others who claim this are the right wing elites who by presenting an evil left wing boogy man get to carry on with their own practices which really screw over joe bloggs.
with which the Democrats celebrtated was always going to come back to haunt them.
hmm. I dont recall many people being that cheerful about it considering how badly it had been watered down to try and keep the loonies happy.Healthcare reform act is a great example of the extreme propaganda in use by the hard right paymasters though to deflect the blame away from the minor detail that policies which suit them screw over the common person. Look at those who condemn evil Obamacare vs those in favour of the Affordable care act.
Nope it isnt. It is what you claim to be the reality. Others who claim this are the right wing elites who by presenting an evil left wing boogy man get to carry on with their own practices which really screw over joe bloggs.
Having seen the right wing style of Abbot in Australia and the Trump/Tea Party end of things, they are both going for the same playbook in terms of being an opposition first and a government second, happy to oppose anything but lack a single credible thought as what the alternative is.
This void is great for them as they can carry on complaining and blaming everybody else without doing anything. In terms of the US it's telling how little they have put through. But what they are keen on is trying to desperately cling to some sort of older, whiter version of America etc.
Others who claim this are the right wing elites
Just so we understand each other, in the six general elections I've voted in, I've voted labour four times, including the last one, Conservative once and Liberal once.
My politics flux a little between left and right of centre depending on where the left of the right is at any one time. I firmly believe in equality and social justice.
Just for the record of course.
I feel sickened by collectivist ideologies and the politics if identity,
I firmly believe in equality and social justice
You do understand that these two statements are broadly incompatible, (and moreover, so does JP), right? Because regardless of what convoluted way he may hedge it, he does not believe in equality in the normal sense of the word, he does not believe in Social justice in the common sense of the word, and perhaps more importantly, the people with whom his words carry most weight, are using his speeches to broaden their own influence on preventing equality and social justice. Whatever you're own feelings towards him, the vast vast majority of his followers who are using him and his speeches to give themselves succour and a veneer of respectability are working hard to ensure that your views on Equality and Social Justice are eradicated once and for all. If you really think that a leftist elite is pressing hard against all your freedoms, (but mostly freedom of speech) then you're literally looking shortsightedly in 180 degrees the wrong direction, my friend.
You do understand that these two statements are broadly incompatible, (and moreover, so does JP), right?
I see your point (really I do). I also understand that there might be a lot of unsavoury types using what he says to justify an entirely hateful line of reasoning, But you also need to consider that this is not something confined to either JP or the poitical right. The left has plenty of demagogues who espouse an otherwise legitimate line of polemics that leads to justified hate. Palestine and Israel are one example of this.
Consider this though.
The current line of social justioce not only ignores many aspects of inequality but actively aims to define the problem along entirely bipartisan lines - it says that white middle class men are priviliedged and that women and ethnic minorities are opressed. And at a big picture level you can find some evidence for this, more so in other parts of the world but less so here I think based on evidence.
But when you move to judge an individaul on this big picture basis, you ignore the nuance of that person's experience. Most middle class white men do not enjoy priviledge even if some do. Indeed, men in general also experience a good deal of inequality, for instance in the way the legal system treats them (far more likely to receive a custodial sentence than a women for example based on the crime), in the medical system (they have far worse medical outcomes and die younger), they do most of the dangerous jobs including fighting wars and they are failed by the state when it comes to recognising and upholding the importance of fathers in the family.
You can enaact social justice at the level of the individual; the person in front of you so to speak. You don't have to engineer it across broad groups. That is the kind of socail jusrtice I subscribe to, not the sort that uses weak premises.
it says that white middle class men are priviliedged and that women and ethnic minorities are opressed. And at a big picture level you can find some evidence for this, more so in other parts of the world but less so here I think based on evidence.
Evidence, lets see it.
Most middle class white men do not enjoy priviledge even if some do.
I know, less stop and search, less discrimination, no racism, no sexism, a lot less groping and sexual assaults.
#prayforthemiddleclasswhiteguy
Just so we understand each other
Oh i think I understand you. Out of curiosity which were the years who voted for Labour? When they were in the authoritarian "moderate" new labour phase perhaps?
The current line of social justioce not only ignores many aspects of inequality but actively aims to define the problem along entirely bipartisan lines
Whilst a minority do take this approach I cant say I see it as a common position. What is far more common are those wanting to maintain privilege using it as a form of attack to undermine it without having to bother about a serious discussion or as a dogwhistle to distract from other things.
Most middle class white men do not enjoy priviledge even if some do
Yes we do. We might not have as good an advantage as, say, a black man or white woman born into a mid upper class family but we certainly in a far better position than a black working class person.
We have had better education and a more interested family. When we send in a cv we will stand a better chance of getting an invite to interview assuming its a nonanonymised cv. Of course there are exceptions to this but dealing at a statistical level thats the truth of it.
You can enaact social justice at the level of the individual; the person in front of you so to speak
Okay. So how do you do that? As a simple example you should be able to get behind. Explain to me how you would do it for a poor working class male from one of the northern cities?
#lizard #brexit
I know, less stop and search, less discrimination, no racism, no sexism, a lot less groping and sexual assaults.
There's plenty of sexism directed at men; the biggest difference is men care less about that sort of thing; they are less prone to worry. But if you need proof, look at the way men are treated with anything related to the legal system, the outcomes for medical treatment and their corresponding mortality rates and family.
There may be less groping and other low level harrassment and potentially even DV, although the data is not clear on this, but it does still happen and far more routinely than you realise. Again, men are less likely to bring this up as a problem for the same reason they are less likely to talk about feelings in general.
Less sexual assaults sure, but that's not so endemic as to be something that broadly differentiates male and female experiences is it. The numbers of actual sexaul assault are pretty low relative to the whole population.
I've been out of this discussion for a while. GT, I'd like to first apologise for making assumptions about you a couple of pages back. It was lazy and I sit corrected.
Now.
There’s plenty of sexism directed at men; the biggest difference is men care less about that sort of thing
I'm not convinced that this holds water. There is plenty of sexism directed at men, sure, or at least imbalance - the way the legal system still handles divorce like it's the 1900s for example. But it's surely far, far outweighed by sexism towards women.
The numbers of actual sexaul assault are pretty low relative to the whole population.
Off the top of my head I think it's one in five women. Twenty percent of all women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their life. For male victims it's something like one in 70 IIRC.
"Yes but men" is a very weak argument here I fear.
There’s plenty of sexism directed at men; the biggest difference is men care less about that sort of thing; they are less prone to worry.
That is one opinion....
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the #MeToo posts all over the internet and see if you feel the same after that.
Again, men are less likely to bring this up as a problem for the same reason they are less likely to talk about feelings in general.
It's also hideously under reported for women as some fairly high profile cases recently have highlighted.
potentially even DV, although the data is not clear on this
And this is precisely why you're held in such low regard by the sensible majority on here.
Please just go away and try to deal with your unhappiness, instead of smearing this kind of shit across our screens.
Actually he is correct regarding DV. Men are better at it though so tend to do the most damage. If you dig into the studies it shows that DV is almost equally dished out by men and women. Except when it gets to the latest generation, in young relationships the trend shows that young women are more violent towards their male partner than vice versa.
Would suggest otherwise
If you take the source statistics from arrests, courts, police, medical data etc then yes it will show typically that above. This does not take into account any under reporting nor the fact that in a DV incident where both partners are violent the male is much more likely to be removed, arrested and charged. Look at some of the studies where instead of using reported crime statistics they actually ask people and the studies are entered into with no preconceived notions.
Across the board recipricol vs non-recipricol DV is approx 50%-50%.
Of the non-recipricol DV in 70% of the cases the perpetrator is female for those under 30 years of age and less so for those over 30 years of age, the older you get the more it goes towards 50%-50%. The outcome of this type of violence is not as severe as recipricol violence. Perhaps because the non-violent partner makes an early escape from the situation rather than escalates it.
In the 50% cases of all DV which are reciprocal, the women tend to come out much worse than the men. This is where the headline statistics come from. Place two people with a tendency toward violence against each other and the more physically capable person is mostly going to come out on top. The less physically capable person is going to get battered to a pulp much quicker.
There may be less groping and other low level harrassment and potentially even DV, although the data is not clear on this, but it does still happen and far more routinely than you realise.
Your attitude towards domestic violence is sickening.
The data is very clear.
A woman with a violent male partner is in a much worse position than the other way around. To try and suggest that it's the same is nonsense.
Generally speaking the man is heavier, taller, and way more powerful than the woman. I am sure there are a number of cases where that isn't true but in by far the vast majority cases, this is the situation.
Can you imagine trying and defend yourself from someone 6 inch taller, 3 or 4 stone heavier and with more muscle mass? Martial arts have weight divisions for a reason.
Good if totally obvious point gobuchul - I would caveat that however, with the question of whether womens DV has more of a significant impact on the mental health of families than people give credit for. I don't think it's right to dismiss interesting data due to limited understanding of how that data may effect the wider picture.
That seems a bit silly and a loss of actionable data that might improve peoples lives. Neither do I think that Rene was attempting to downplay the experiences of women.
with the question of whether womens DV has more of a significant impact on the mental health of families than people give credit for.
I am not suggesting the female DV does not occur and that it isn't a terrible thing to happen. I am sure it can tear families apart.
A work colleague of mine, a huge bloke, ex US Ranger, Iraq vet, is splitting from his wife as she is violent towards him. Apparently she is on medication and he can't deal with it. He's got 3 kids as well. However, he doesn't feel physically threatened as such, just knows it's a stressful and unhealthy situation for everyone.
Compared with another family friend, who now has Parkinsons from the repeated beatings she took from her husband when she was younger. The same bloke that threw her and the kids out of the house on a winter night. Stole money from her and a list of other things. One of her sons committed suicide in his early twenties.
It's more typical of domestic violence and in a different league.
When some middle class bloke whines on because the office bike went a bit Louise on him, when he was banging her behind her boyfriends back and nobody cares, I find it a bit sickening when he tries to compare it with typical domestic violence scenarios.
I think maybe, just maybe, we should act like adults and all try and listen to each others experiences without using your own issues to downplay others peoples experiences through what effectively amounts to whatabouttery - and conversely by playing victimhood one-upmanship. It's just leading to polarisation throughout all walks of life. Everyone wants to be heard don't they? People are too busy right now, sticking their hands up going "me, me, me, me....teacher...what about me" like a bunch of children.
I think maybe, just maybe, we should act like adults and all try and listen to each others experiences without using your own issues to downplay others peoples experiences trough what effectively amounts to whatabouttery
I disagree.
To group those experiences together is ridiculous.
To me, it's not "whatabouttery", it's more like triage.
What GT "went through" is like a broken toe, strap it up and crack on. The other is more like a broken neck, lot's of medical treatment, support and rehab is necessary.
Why waste time on the toe if the neck requires the maximum resource available?
There is an element of me that agrees with that, but I'm not sure in our current political climate whether that works. The indignant response by the white community to BAME issues, telling white people to man the **** up won't fly - even though I'd love to do so. But pissed off Brexit gammons are only going to worsen BAME rights, so we need to find away to bring people together again.
From what I've gathered the OP has had a fairly rough time. Considering the suicide rates among men, your response could be a little bit more diplomatic - which is hilarious coming from me. The triaging thing sounds great, until you realise that good healthcare involves good bedside manners and making the patient feel valued. Everyone has their own issues and for the individual, they are the worst thing ever - that's what you have to remember.
From what I’ve gathered the OP has had a fairly rough time.
Call me a cynic but I just found his posts on the abuse he suffered too close to his "white male oppression" agenda and not sure I completely believe him.
I called him out on this ages ago, the story of being abused by a group of aggressive females at a fairground and how threatened he felt was just BS.
Maybe, I haven't follow this thread that closely.
Meh - is mostly my response.
Call me a cynic but I just found his posts on the abuse he suffered too close to his “white male oppression” agenda and not sure I completely believe him.
I called him out on this ages ago, the story of being abused by a group of aggressive females at a fairground and how threatened he felt was just BS.
#metoo
I'm coming round slowly. Never trusted these newfangled Siri/Alexa talky robot things.
Seems Jordan Peterson has discovered Alexa's inbuilt radical far left liberal SJW post neo marxist transgender agenda.
You may be alarmed, but don't be. This far left infiltration will not last. JP has described the key traits that fundamentally define those of us on either the left or the right. You needn't pick one, your personality type will do it for you. You may still be able to transform yourself, that is if you're not too far gone. Here's why the future will be OK:
The right wing persona is conscientious, independent and organised. Thats why they run and build everything.
The leftist persona is disorganised and collectivist. That's why they ruin and dismantle everything. They used to be good at art but only when they were religious. Now they aren't even good at that.
This being the case (along with the natural male dominance hierarchy) - biological hierarchical axiomatic determinist substrate will once more prevail and the Alexa Robots will be reigned in and put right. Result: No more 'different' pseudo-gender definitions. As for the future of politics? Well, we may console ourselves with the knowledge that the libeal left (being so disorganised) could never get their shit together to create a Post Modernist Humanist Soviet Empire Gulag Factory Country. They are trying to be sneaky by using A.I. machines as disseminators of propaganda. And they are still killing babies in the womb. Open your eyes and see the light.
*edit:
Apologies, that clip had the SJWNPC radical anti-binary postmarxistneoradicalcommunists laughing inthe background. They probsbly edited the clip to change the context. So here Here is the original clip. Alexa status is currently 'even more insidious'. If you are increasingly concerned for your children being targeted by the radical left, then I've also included a bonus informational video.
Be careful out there, especially in your own homes.
I wwatched that clip MR - really not sure what it was supposed to achieve other than show two people being obnoxious about someone who's intellect is clearly streets ahed of theirs.
It's an ad homenin attack and we all know what that tells us about the person making them don't we.
Call me a cynic but I just found his posts on the abuse he suffered too close to his “white male oppression” agenda and not sure I completely believe him.
I must have missed you calling me out so since you're being so nice about it, my experiences are as follows:
I was subject to extreme and prolonged emotional abuse as a child at school. It started with the other children but developed into abuse by the teachers as well. I won't bore you with the details, but to illustrate the problem, I was sat on my own for five years, i.e. I was not allowed, not that I wanted to anyway, to sit with other children. I resorted to violence in the end as a way of venting my anger and frustration. At the point I put a ten year old in hospital with a fractured jaw I was almost expelled. I had several years of counsellign and therapy as a child to try and help me through the worst of it and several more years of therapy as an adult.
Subsequent to tthis, I was also in a very abusive relationship for two years as an adult, subject to physical violence as well as emotional abuse. Perhaps these two events are connected; perhaps there is something of being a glutton for punishment because being in a hostile environment is something I am used to and therefore represents a degree of comfort (in a deeply ironic way).
I know a lot of other men who have been subject to DV which is why the issue is important to me and why I feel the need to speak out about it. I sure as hell don't need sympathy as my life is otherwise pretty good though there are some repeating patterns of challenging relationships along the way.
But by all means Gobchul, feel free to mock.
Here lies the problem of playing the man not the ball. On a forum where most people are strangers it's impossible to properly know people or their backgrounds.
It’s more typical of domestic violence and in a different league.
Just read through some of your later posts Gobchiul (becuase I'd deliberately tried to stay away from this thread the last week) and I think your comments a both vile and understandable at the same time.
I think you're being incredibly imature and demonstrating precisely the kind of gendered view of the world that is so wrong with things like the MeToo campaign (which only sees one side).
You're reducing the whole issue to a 'my problem is bigger/worse than your problem therefore my problem reduces your problem to zero'. Ironically, you're taking a 'mine's bigger than yours' approach - how deeply ironic is that.
Rene59 articulated the issue of DV very well and it chimes with my experience.
The woman who was abusive and violent towards me was never likely to do much harm - at the time I was 3rd dan black belt in Goju Ryu and training about six times a week; no one was going to f** around with me except when it came to the woman I was in love with at the time, hitting her back wasn't an option because I knew full well that if I did, not only would I go to jail, but most likely I would cause seious injury, perhaps even kill her.
That knowledge, that my use of force as a reasonable individual, was neutered is one of the reasons she felt safe to do what she did. It's also a common reason cited by lots of other men who have experienced DV,.
Ultimately, the idea that you can reduce one side of the problem to 'only being emotional and therefore of less conseuqnce than the physical' is not just facile, it's ignorant.
I've never once tried to negate anyone's experience of DV, physical ause or emotional but you have Gobchul. My arguing that ths is not a one sided problem, does not negate one side of the problem, but that's your argument Gobchul.
I think you should take a look at yourself and ask yourself why you (and others) feel the need to denigrate someone's experience because they are white and male.
Alexa status is currently ‘even more insidious’. If you are increasingly concerned for your children being targeted by the radical left,
Amazon - that hot bed of Marxism.
But by all means Gobchul, feel free to mock.
I am not mocking, I just cannot agree with what you describe as a "very abusive relationship " is anywhere near to the true problem of domestic violence as experienced by the majority of the victims of it, in the UK.
Your whole World wasn't at risk, food, clothing, shelter, you were physically stronger and weren't at risk of being raped. Which no matter how emotionally upsetting it was for you, makes a MASSIVE difference.
Your story of childhood is very sad. Why did the support services who gave you the counselling and therapy allow even the teachers to carry on bullying you? If I was you, I would be going to the press about it. Seriously. I would want some come back.
I guess you are a similar age to me and the things I saw in the 70's and 80's would never happen now, I hope. However, even at the shithole of a Comp I went to, I never came across anything like you went through.
How old were you when you broke that kid's jaw? Why were you only "almost expelled"? Surely you were lucky you weren't put in to care? A 10 year old, violent enough to break another child's jaw? Did you use a weapon?
Aye, the world's biggest shop being part of the "radical left" seems plausible. It really does just seem to mean "anyone to the left of me" these days.
Your whole World wasn’t at risk, food, clothing, shelter, you were physically stronger and weren’t at risk of being raped.
I absolutely accept that there is a monumental difference between what I experienced and the extremes of violence that some women will have experienced. I was not at any of the risks you cite, you are quite right in that assertion.
However I do not accept that those worst examples cannot happen to men because they can and they do even if they are probably very rare and the experience is quite different. I think we can both agree that trying to argue that the differential experiences of men and women in these situations makes one experience less importnat or deserving of attention is both pointless and derisory to society as a whiole. If I object to anything, it is the way that the issue of DV is painted as only something that men do to women, and is therefore a gendered issue. It isn't but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a genedered response, i.e. a response that is tailored broadly spekaing to the differing needs of men and women in these situaitons. That is entirely sensible.
Why did the support services who gave you the counselling and therapy allow even the teachers to carry on bullying you?
Because everyone only saw the problem as being me. Maybe they were right but I was only a kid. By the time the true extent of the problem was understood by my parents, it was too late to do anything - It was my final year of school and I guess we all just agreed to push through. Most of the problem children went to a different secondary school (Catholic) so the main problem moved away.
If I was you, I would be going to the press about it. Seriously. I would want some come back.
I have thought about it many times but I don't need it; I've spent a lot of time trying to rehabilitate myself and the only come back would be financial compensation. I'm not interested in trying to extract money from the problem, only insight and learning on how to be a better person myself.
How old were you when you broke that kid’s jaw?
Ten.
Why were you only “almost expelled”? Surely you were lucky you weren’t put in to care? A 10 year old, violent enough to break another child’s jaw?
I think because deep down they knew that there was a problem that wasn't entirely my fault. On reflection when that incident happened I was already seeing a therapist (I know because my mum had a door step row with the other kid's mum - she called me a monster and my mum replied it was because of her son that I had to see a shrink. Thus my nickname changed from 'Alien', after the monster in the film, to 'Psycho').
I think though i was already 'in the system' - the therapy was part of the care system. The reason I wasn't put into care I guess is because my parents were not the problem.
Did you use a weapon?
No I just hit him, really really hard. I was quite a big lad.
Jesus, those frat boys are idiots.
And Peterson is a terminal bore and not a particularly intelligent one at that, at least polemicists like Hitchens were mildly entertaining.
I just showed that video to a bunch of AI guys I know - who rolled about pissing themselves with laughter.
A company that wants to profit from everyone trying to make as many people feel included as possible, to increase revenue - what a shock.
If you're worried about that, **** off to an Amish community!
I guess you are a similar age to me and the things I saw in the 70’s and 80’s would never happen now, I hope. However, even at the shithole of a Comp I went to, I never came across anything like you went through.
To be fair though, I broke a lads arm in a comp in the early 2000's - through self defence. I remember having to fight my way out of a changing room with a cricket bat once. Whilst a mate of mine got stabbed in the back with a pair of scissors. We had a teacher who had a lit alcohol burner lobbed at him like a petrol bomb - all sorts, the list is pretty endless.
I got nothing more than a quick word with my form tutor for breaking the kids arm.
Actually, Peterson seems like a really nasty piece of work as well....
And Peterson is a terminal bore and not a particularly intelligent one at that, at least polemicists like Hitchens were mildly entertaining.
Well which is it, that he's not intelligent or not entertaining? BTW he has an IQ of 165 so he's a least a little bit clever.
BTW he has an IQ of 165 so he’s a least a little bit clever.
He's good at IQ tests.
Both
He overinflated his IQ score didn't he - there is no independent verification that he has an IQ north of 150, like he has claimed.
Here is what I think, he has a moderately high verbal IQ - think around 135, that masks deficiencies in other parts of his intellect.
Do you think Hitchens ever felt the need to brag about his IQ? If the Hitch was still around, he would have utterly humiliated Peterson when it comes to his theocratic beliefs.
Put it this way, I would feel uncomfortable going up against Hitch in a debate - I'd have a lot of fun with Peterson given the chance.
Anyone who is aware of the flaws and biases in IQ tests, yet still brags about and inflates their score, must be a bit of a nobber.
I get the feeling, that were he born Muslim - he'd be another Mr Hook Hands, going away for incitement...he strikes me as being exactly the same type of personality and trying to appeal to the same types of disaffected loser males.
I'd rather we not import the views and leanings of a bunch of wet, whiny Americans who can only solve things though therapy, lawyers or guns.
Anyone who is aware of the flaws and biases in IQ tests, yet still brags about and inflates their score, must be a bit of a nobber.
I know someone else who brags about his IQ.
Who cares, the point is - why would you be deferential because of his own self-made claims?
There's a good takedown of Peterson here -
That article makes me think that his understanding of psychopaths was entertaining and accessible, because he is one.
wwatched that clip MR – really not sure what it was supposed to achieve other than show two people being obnoxious about someone who’s intellect is clearly streets ahed of theirs.
Apologies, was rushing (hence many typos etc) but if you'd read on I did paste the correct clip (minus the mocking commentary) in the post that followed. The third clip is more of a PSA to help people protect their kids from danger.
Hahahahah, you're deluded mate.
I tell you who you should be protecting your kids from, Peterson.
Mr I talk about freedom of speech but condone forced marriage. He's a disgusting little authoritarian who would have us living in a Handmaids Tale, the really ironic thing is - is that a charismatic populist has captured a lot of the demographic who 50 years ago, would have been reading the "True Believer".
We all know what Hoffer would say
The real "haves" are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real "have nots" are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor.
Anyone who is aware of the flaws and biases in IQ tests, yet still brags about and inflates their score, must be a bit of a nobber.
Have you ever heard of Raven's Progressive Matricies? It's free from any and all bias that migjht otherwise hinder an assessment of cognitive ability. It is possible to quantify cognitive ability and it's a pretty strong predictor of quite a lot of life outcomes.
Have you ever heard of Raven’s Progressive Matricies? It’s free from any and all bias that migjht otherwise hinder an assessment of cognitive ability.
That would be an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
a pretty strong predictor of quite a lot of life outcomes.
Errr
https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/success-depends-on-your-personality-more-than-iq.html
It appears relatively weak compared to other factors.
Anyone who is aware of the flaws and biases in IQ tests, yet still brags about and inflates their score, must be a bit of a nobber.
Are you actually presenting any evidence for anything that you disagree with?
I'm not a Peterson fan but you should easily come up with something without being a gobshite.
Are you actually presenting any evidence for anything that you disagree with?
I’m not a Peterson fan but you should easily come up with something without being a gobshite.
It is for those banging on about high IQ to demonstrate that the tests are a true measure of intelligence, and that their results are valid. As any intelligent person would understand.
An IQ test is a measure of intelligence, along with others. But so what, whether Peterson's IQ is 160 or 120 has no bearing on how crap he is at getting a crap point across.
Quite simple really, all you need to do is look at the people who think he is great and then ask why he attracts those people.
As any intelligent person would understand.
It's almost as if you're suggesting people should verify their claims.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting people should verify their claims.
If that's what you believe, then direct your enquiries to those who raised the issue. Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
Is there a quick and easy test you can do to measure emotional intelligence?
Errr
https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/success-depends-on-your-personality-more-than-iq.html
/a>It appears relatively weak compared to other factors.
I don;t know the specific difference in the correlation coeffecient but you're absolutely right that personality is a very strong predictor in life outcomes....well in job performance at least. We have to agree that by life outcomes, we mean a degree of success in work and the earning potential that accrues to you as a result of this.
To put some evidence to this, I used to work for a company that specialised in testing individuals for role selection. The correlation coeffecient of IQ for suitability in role is about 0.1 (this is for any and all roles) but it goes up somewha to about .2 when you start selecting for senior leadership roles.
Keep in mind that we talking about the predictive value of suitability in a specific role. On it's own, you cannot use IQ a means of selection for role suitability but you also need to understand that 100% of all senior executives have significantly above average IQ, something like top quartile at least, there's just no way around that.
That would be an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
I think what you're saying here is that 'intelligence' is an extremely limited measure of a person, and that I would agree with. Otherwise 'cognitive horsepower' is well understood as a construct.
Again, based on my work with the org. psych business, the importance of personality cannot be underestimated. To be clear, you cannot use personality tests in isolation as the basis of selection for a job, but when combined with other data points they are very powerful. It's also important to understand that 'behaviour' and 'personality' are not the same thing. One is a corrollary of the other and to a large degree it will be cause and effect, but we do have a choice as to how we behave and it is possible to learn to behave in a way that is contrary to what our instinctive programming would otherwise suggest. This is why some people demonstrate extreme criminal behaviour and others with the same profile don't for example.
Is there a quick and easy test you can do to measure emotional intelligence?
In your case Binners there is - just post anything here. That gives me at least a pretty good insight, ;o)
Is there a quick and easy test you can do to measure emotional intelligence?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/tests/personality/emotional-intelligence-test
Not quick but easy enough as just answering questions about yourself
hitting her back wasn’t an option because I knew full well that if I did, not only would I go to jail,
So you know so much about domestic violence that you think you would go to jail for protecting yourself from a violent attacker? Why wouldn't you hit her? You don't need to break her jaw.
No I just hit him, really really hard. I was quite a big lad.
No you didn't.
This is why I say you are a bullshitter.
A 10 year old boy breaks another boys jaw and all that happens is a doorstep row between the 2 mothers?
A 10 year old boy is so powerful and accomplished at fighting that he can break someones jaw and he still gets bullied?
In my teens, at 6ft and 14 stone, I punched quite a few people "really, really hard" and got punched "really, really hard" and never suffered or inflicted a broken jaw.
I'm not sure what your twisted agenda is and why you peddle this BS.
I don't feel sorry for you as I don't believe most of the crap that you spout.
Is there a quick and easy test you can do to measure emotional intelligence?
Yes.
Step out of this thread, then
Ignore it.
HTHs
Late to this thread but working through with interest. I know it was a few pages ago but one argument created a few hypotheses that I think are just plain wrong
I did a quick assessment of this (really just a baisc view) by looking at the average differences in times between the first and last runniners in the men’s and women’s 100m Olympic Finals. Over the last 14 years the average difference between men is 2.99% and for women it’s 4.11%. Draw your own conclusions.
That didn't ring true because IME women's sport is becoming more, not less competitive. So I pulled the data
Using the same data set
2004 First = 10.93 / last = 11.18 / diff = 2.3%
2008 10.78 / 11.20 / 3.9%
2012 10.75 / 11.01 / 2.4%
2016 10.71 / 11.80 / 10.2%
So while yes, the average winning time (10.79) is 4.7% faster than the average last place (11.30) clearly there is a discrepancy in the data in 2016.
Injury, or just gave up and jogged in, IDK, but not representative. Take the second last finisher (10.94) and rerun the numbers and what do you know......
2016 10.71 / 10.94 / 2.1%
Average 10.79 / 11.08 / 2.7%
Draw your own conclusions.
I quite agree Gobuchal.
It may be true in his mind but clearly is of no truth in reality. Self defense is an accepted defence in law especially so in domestic violence and even more so in female on male domestic violence where self defence is a defence used far more successfully by men than by women. Oh look - its white male priviledge again!
I believe geetee has serious unresolved mental issues that lead him to play the victim card and thus in his mind validates his dreadful mysogeny that he keeps on spouting.
Keep in mind that we talking about the predictive value of suitability in a specific role. On it’s own, you cannot use IQ a means of selection for role suitability but you also need to understand that 100% of all senior executives have significantly above average IQ, something like top quartile at least, there’s just no way around that.
This all depends on what kind of organisation that you are in - if you are in a senior position at a hedge fund, then sure.
But if you are a store manager at Tesco's - then to be perceived as an effective leader you don't want an IQ greater than 118 as there is a curvilinear relationship effect on leadership perception, between the leaders IQ and the IQ of the people he/she is leading. Which is incidentally, why we get people like Trump as president.
Please remember that .2 is still a weak correlation coefficient.
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/
I believe geetee has serious unresolved mental issues that lead him to play the victim card and thus in his mind validates his dreadful mysogeny that he keeps on spouting.
I think, maybe the more constructive thing to do would be to point him in the right direction, instead of causing more harm by the use of such blunt language to describe him. I dislike Peterson a lot, maybe we could provide better counter arguments to Geetee instead? You know, make the world a better place etc?
I think you’re all being used as research guinea pigs for the thesis.
Rayban - I have suggested such in the past - pointing him in the direction of the help he needs. Rebuffed with insults.
Hence I mainly stay off his threads now having been warned off by a forum member I trust as we both felt commenting could cause more issues for him
Which is better? Challenged his distorted world view or ignore him? He does not want help.
Geetees views expressed on here over a period of time are absolutely abhorrent
And with that the threas was closed.
There is absolutely no need of start making this personal.