Peterson, Harris, etc....

berbatrick said:
I'm reading a little more about the survey. Firstly, it was purely an internet survey of parents, with children never included. I agree that there are limitations with all studies but if this is the general standard god help us.

Much more alarming:



This doesn't seem like honest research.

FYI: an anti-trans strain of feminism on reddit is called GenderCritical and they call themselves 4th wave feminists IIRC.
Click to expand...

I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. Why do you keep referring to “the study”? The 60-90% figures that she mentions in the interview above have nothing to do with that study (the one that @Silva decided he was an expert on). They’re based on many different pieces of research, apparently mainly carried out in Denmark and Canada. None of which I’ve read and none of which are discussed in any kind of detail in this thread or the article linked to above.

I've no intention of digging out the original peer-reviewed articles but they obviously exist and they're obviously numerous. If you click through the article above the closest I can find to any kind of disagreement with is a blog/video from someone who has "methodological questions" about these data but nonetheless come to the following conclusions:

Conclusions


(1) Evidence from these studies suggests that the majority of gender nonconforming children are not gender dysphoric adolescents or adults.

(2) It does not support the stereotype that most children who are actually gender dysphoric will “desist” in their gender identities before adolescence.

(3) These studies do acknowledge that intense anatomic dysphoria in childhood may be associated with persistent gender dysphoria and persistent gender identity through adolescence.

(4) Speculation that allowing childhood social transition traps cisgender youth in roles that are incongruent with their identities is not supported by evidence.

(5) These studies fail to examine the diagnostic value of Real Life Experience in congruent gender roles for gender dysphoric children.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the number 1 conclusion is 100% in agreement with what Deborah Soh claims in the video above. The majority of gender nonconforming children are not gender dysphoric adolescents or adults (she said 60-90%, I haven't seen the research so have to take her word for this). So it's entirely reasonable to be worried about the relatively recent trend for some gender noncomforming children to end up on puberty blockers inappropriately, before they reach adolescence. And let's not forget these are conclusions from someone that, more than likely, has an ideological agenda that opposes the research findings!
 
Gender noncomforming and gender dysphoria are different things, of course gender noncomforming children won't all grow up to be trans - and they're not being diagnosed with dysphoria as frequently as in the past. That's one of the issues with the research she's quoting pogue. They're counting children who aren't trans and no psychologist will diagnose such. Unless the psychologist is still using outdated questions from the 80s, in which case who let Jordan Peterson near children?

They're also not being given things like puberty blockers unless the psychologists, parents and the child are extremely sure it's the right thing. And by the stage where they might get puberty blockers the chances of a dysphoria diagnoses being correct reach near 100% (adolescents are almost never misdiagnosed as small children are).
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
So it's entirely reasonable to be worried about the relatively recent trend for some gender noncomforming children to end up on puberty blockers inappropriately,
Click to expand...

Aside from all else, I think this is definitely a reasonable worry and something that, until much more in depth scientific studies, should not be allowed without until someone is an adult.
 
Silva said:
Gender noncomforming and gender dysphoria are different things, of course gender noncomforming children won't all grow up to be trans - and they're not being diagnosed with dysphoria as frequently as in the past. That's one of the issues with the research she's quoting pogue. They're counting children who aren't trans and no psychologist will diagnose such. Unless the psychologist is still using outdated questions from the 80s, in which case who let Jordan Peterson near children?

They're also not being given things like puberty blockers unless the psychologists, parents and the child are extremely sure it's the right thing. And by the stage where they might get puberty blockers the chances of a dysphoria diagnoses being correct reach near 100% (adolescents are almost never misdiagnosed as small children are).
Click to expand...
Aren't puberty blockers often used to give kids some extra time to live as their preferred gender, to see if transitioning is what they really want? Since puberty is irreversible and all that?
 
Halftrack said:
Aren't puberty blockers often used to give kids some extra time to live as their preferred gender, to see if transitioning is what they really want? Since puberty is irreversible and all that?
Click to expand...
That's correct.

Some people raise the question whether this can lead to stunting someone's development. Ofcourse with this subject it's always hard to judge whether the concern is genuine, or if said critics have a different agenda. But it's definitely worth examining thoroughly imo.
 
Halftrack said:
Aren't puberty blockers often used to give kids some extra time to live as their preferred gender, to see if transitioning is what they really want? Since puberty is irreversible and all that?
Click to expand...
Uh kinda. They're also given to children who start puberty too early just so they don't have tits or a beard at 9 years old. And used in some other unrelated treatments. For trans adolescents that is one of the uses, they're also great for mental health and they also make it easier to transition because you didn't develop a lot of the sex characteristics you would have during puberty. It has a very high success rate because by the time you get them the chance of misdiagnosis is very low.

In a recent study of 70 participants all the adolescents who had been given puberty blockers went through with sex reassignment.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...improve-mental-health-transgender-adolescents
 
Last edited:
KirkDuyt said:
That's correct.

Some people raise the question whether this can lead to stunting someone's development. Ofcourse with this subject it's always hard to judge whether the concern is genuine, or if said critics have a different agenda. But it's definitely worth examining thoroughly imo.
Click to expand...

Also known as concern trolling or "just asking questions" (JAQing off). There are a lot of genuine challenges here, but many people are decidedly not arguing in good faith.
 
niMic said:
Also known as concern trolling or "just asking questions" (JAQing off). There are a lot of genuine challenges here, but many people are decidedly not arguing in good faith.
Click to expand...
Basically, what Dave Rubin based his career on.
 
jderbyshire said:
Wasn't Alex Jones flogging stuff like this too?
Click to expand...
Alex Jones is the absolute pro at selling stupid shit. He propagated the use of the term "soyboy" (an effeminate male who eats vegetables and soy products and has low testosterone - not a real thing based on reality) to get his fans to buy testosterone boosting pills... which were almost entirely made out of soy. Genius.
 
Silva said:
Alex Jones is the absolute pro at selling stupid shit. He propagated the use of the term "soyboy" (an effeminate male who eats vegetables and soy products and has low testosterone - not a real thing based on reality) to get his fans to buy testosterone boosting pills... which were almost entirely made out of soy. Genius.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone listened to the Coleman Hughes interview on the Sam Harris podcast? He’s a smart cookie. Eerily similar way of thinking/speaking to Harris too.
Click to expand...

Been reading a few of his articles. Hard to believe he's only in his 2nd year at Columbia
 
About the soy stuff: a series of (mostly just talking) videos that get funnier with each step, focusing on Infowars' star in the UK: Paul Joseph Watson


 
berbatrick said:
About the soy stuff: a series of (mostly just talking) videos that get funnier with each step, focusing on Infowars' star in the UK: Paul Joseph Watson


Click to expand...


PJW could be spilling the truth of the universe and I wouldn't believe a word the cnut was saying because:

(1) this is his public avatar
DbARnB-S_400x400.jpg


...I remember when I was 14

and (2) he's from Sheffield, so when he opens his mouth he sounds like a boring, uninteresting twat. Tough luck buddy.

As an aside, Best teeth in the Game Melon Head Fantano did a good rip on him as well for his culture nonsense (if you haven't seen it):

 
Last edited:
Minimalist said:
PJW could be spilling the truth of the universe and I wouldn't believe a word the cnut was saying because:

(1) this is his public avatar
DbARnB-S_400x400.jpg


...I remember when I was 14

and (2) he's from Sheffield, so when he opens his mouth he sounds like a boring, uninteresting twat. Tough luck buddy.

As an aside, Best teeth in the Game Melon Head Fantano did a good rip on him as well for his culture nonsense (if you haven't seen it):

Click to expand...


The best description I’ve heard about him is a teenage Ian Duncan Smith.
 
Doctor Peterson makes a claim based on new research:



In a shocking turn of events, it turns out his take is totally useless.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180816143231.htm

"We noticed that if you have 150 ants in a container, only 10 or 15 of them will actually be digging in the tunnels at any given time," said Daniel Goldman, a professor in the School of Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "We wanted to know why, and to understand how basic laws of physics might be at work. We found a functional, community benefit to this seeming inequality in the work environment. Without it, digging just doesn't get done."

By monitoring the activities of 30 ants that had been painted to identify each individual, Goldman and colleagues, including former postdoctoral fellow Daria Monaenkova and Ph.D. student Bahnisikha Dutta, discovered that just 30 percent of the ants were doing 70 percent of the work -- an inequality that seems to keep the work humming right along. However, that is apparently not because the busiest ants are the most qualified. When the researchers removed the five hardest working ants from the nest container, they saw no productivity decline as the remaining 25 continued to dig.
...
For digging nest tunnels, this less busy approach gets the job done without ant traffic jams -- ensuring smooth excavation flow. Researchers found that applying the ant optimization strategy to autonomous robots avoids mechanized clogs and gets the work done with the least amount of energy.
Click to expand...

So, he is using an example of optimised digging by ants to talk about economic inequality.
Ignore that the reason for fewer ants doing work is because the tunnels are *physically crowded*, that the ants seem to be equally qualified to do this work, and are probably genetically very similar if they are from the same colony. Apparently this ant behaviour is a biological truth that underpins capitalism...
(Also a 30-70 distribution of wealth would be much more equitable than anything in the world currently: the bottom 70% actually owns 3% of global wealth.)

More detailed takedown here:


and a one-liner


Evolpsych, at least the pop version he does, is a dark hole of #shareable junk.

Edit - quoting directly from the paper summary:
A narrow passageway can easily become clogged or jammed if too much traffic tries to enter at once or there is competition between the flow of traffic in each direction. Aguilar et al.studied the collective excavation observed when ants build their nests. Because of the unequal workload distribution, the optimal excavation rate is achieved when a part of the ant collective is inactive.
Click to expand...
it's literally all about how to dig quickly in a narrow space
 
berbatrick said:
Doctor Peterson makes a claim based on new research:



In a shocking turn of events, it turns out his take is totally useless.


So, he is using an example of optimised digging by ants to talk about economic inequality.
Ignore that the reason for fewer ants doing work is because the tunnels are *physically crowded*, that the ants seem to be equally qualified to do this work, and are probably genetically very similar if they are from the same colony. Apparently this ant behaviour is a biological truth that underpins capitalism...
(Also a 30-70 distribution of wealth would be much more equitable than anything in the world currently: the bottom 70% actually owns 3% of global wealth.)

More detailed takedown here:


and a one-liner


Evolpsych, at least the pop version he does, is a dark hole of #shareable junk.

Edit - quoting directly from the paper summary:

it's literally all about how to dig quickly in a narrow space
Click to expand...

You need to look at what he said in context!

Nah, but it's good to see that Jordan continues to be eminently qualified to completely misrepresent studies.
 
Minimalist said:
this is his public avatar
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Simon Amstell mocking Donny Tourette on Buzzcocks:

"Hang on a minute...Donny is smoking now!?!?! What is he going to do next!?!?! A cigarette! That you can legally buy in shops! I'll try to carry on but I am shocked and appalled!!"
 
2cents said:
Reminds me of Simon Amstell mocking Donny Tourette on Buzzcocks:

"Hang on a minute...Donny is smoking now!?!?! What is he going to do next!?!?! A cigarette! That you can legally buy in shops! I'll try to carry on but I am shocked and appalled!!"
Click to expand...


Not sure if you did this consciously or not, but... (and sorry in advance)
 
berbatrick said:
Evolpsych, at least the pop version he does, is a dark hole of #shareable junk.
Click to expand...
How much is there to its non-pop versions in your eyes? Is there perhaps a comprehensive introduction for non-scientists beyond wikipedia that you find acceptable?

I find it especially hard to imagine how the variety and quite rapid changes in human behaviour, ideas & social structure over history can be aligned with the basic premises of e.p. I know of. But I probably have come across more popularized versions mostly.
 
The whole premise of applying evolutionary psychology to push back against progressive paradigms is so fecking silly. I mean, I’m sure it’s not particularly ‘natural’ for us to be monogamous or to not constantly shit on the little guy, just because we can. Likewise making laws against rape and murder.

There’s loads of dark shit humans do that fits with theories of evolutionary psychology. So what? The fact we’re evolved enough to think about and discuss these things confirms that we’re also evolved enough to develop an ethical framework to try and do the right thing. So even if monkeys, ants and lobsters are proven to be power hungry, misogynist assholes this has diddly squat to do with any discussion about contemporary human morality.
 
I don't take it as him using evolutionary psychology as an excuse for humans to do bad shit, not least because he doesn't believe there's anything necessarily bad about hierarchies. Evolutionary psychology is okay as a partial explanation as to why humans might need their lives structured in a certain way to foster aspiration, keep productive and feel like life is worth it. Just like those lobsters.

Well, some of it is silly granted, but no less silly than a lot of the ideas he's so antsy about.
 
Rubin moaning because YouTube demonitized his Deborah Soh interview

 
Honestly don’t know why advertisers would get anything from the typical Rubin viewer. Gets pathetic views in contrast to how important he thinks he is and it’s the same boring, pointless shite he always puts out.

Ballbag.
 
Minimalist said:
Honestly don’t know why advertisers would get anything from the typical Rubin viewer. Gets pathetic views in contrast to how important he thinks he is and it’s the same boring, pointless shite he always puts out.

Ballbag.
Click to expand...
Advertisers don't necessarily know which channels and videos their ads are running on. They'll pay Google (YouTube) and Google will serve adverts on categories of content, under which Rubin and co would fall. The channels get a small percentage of advertising dollars. But that's why YouTube "stars" with lots of subscribers and views do well financially.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Advertisers don't necessarily know which channels and videos their ads are running on. They'll pay Google (YouTube) and Google will serve adverts on categories of content, under which Rubin and co would fall. The channels get a small percentage of advertising dollars. But that's why YouTube "stars" with lots of subscribers and views do well financially.
Click to expand...
I kind of know of all that but isn’t it up to YouTube to decide what videos are worth running adverts on? Advertiser friendly, is that the term they use? Hence what Rubin is spitting his dummy out over.

I get the likes of Zoella or PewDiePie or whoever having adverts plastered over their videos (not my type of content admittedly). Don’t know why they’d bother monetising videos of some moron interviewing right wingers moaning about the “regressive left”.

He probably does have a case on paper but in common sense terms, he’s just being a moany cnut because he thinks he’s important.
 
Minimalist said:
I kind of know of all that but isn’t it up to YouTube to decide what videos are worth running adverts on? Advertiser friendly, is that the term they use? Hence what Rubin is spitting his dummy out over.

I get the likes of Zoella or PewDiePie or whoever having adverts plastered over their videos (not my type of content admittedly). Don’t know why they’d bother monetising videos of some moron interviewing right wingers moaning about the “regressive left”.

He probably does have a case on paper but in common sense terms, he’s just being a moany cnut because he thinks he’s important.
Click to expand...

They get millions of views, why wouldn't advertisers want a piece?
 
Minimalist said:
I kind of know of all that but isn’t it up to YouTube to decide what videos are worth running adverts on? Advertiser friendly, is that the term they use? Hence what Rubin is spitting his dummy out over.

I get the likes of Zoella or PewDiePie or whoever having adverts plastered over their videos (not my type of content admittedly). Don’t know why they’d bother monetising videos of some moron interviewing right wingers moaning about the “regressive left”.

He probably does have a case on paper but in common sense terms, he’s just being a moany cnut because he thinks he’s important.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to Rubin because I don't know much about him and haven't watched any of his videos (unless they were posted on this thread and I watched awhile ago, but I can't even picture what he looks like...) but I will speak to the bolded: why wouldn't advertisers advertise to that group of people, especially if they are an impressionable group? Is there any indication that such a group is less profitable to advertise to? Perhaps you might not advertise Bernie t-shirts but I imagine Smith and Wesson (as an example) could have a reasonable return from advertising on those channels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.