Friday assorted links

1. New and interesting Jordan Peterson article: “He speaks in rapid-fire, um-less sentences. He doesn’t smile much.”  In my view Peterson is one of the five most influential public intellectuals today.

2. Paul McCartney talks about the bass.

3. Gender bias in economic texts.  And more from The Economist.

4. The gravity of every state’s most important trading partner.

5. Boston is favored in the betting odds for Amazon HQ2.

Comments

#5)

So given the SF Bay Area is out, we know now that of this HQ2 thing has nothing to do with differentiation, revenue growth, and innovation. It’s purpose is cost control for the management of an inevitability more bureaucratic and stale eCommerce company. It’s all about the tax variances and subsidies, really.

You seem to know that. Many others think it has a lot has to do with differentiation, revenue growth, and innovation. There a lot of talent not accessible to the bay area because not everyone wants to move there.

Nonsense, TMC. All of Amazons hardest technical work (gadgets/devices, AI, cloud IT) gets done in the Bay Area. The issues are, simply, that there is NO truly cutting edge talent outside the Bay Area, and that the issue of residing in the Bay Area means that you're talent and ideas will get poached. One has to have a presence there, in spite of the risks of losing ideas and talent to competitors.

No Bay Area means that you are not a player with regard to what happens in the future, FULL STOP, PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION!!

Israel?

I disagree.

I disagree.

Harumph.

you mean without the Bay Area there would be no Alexa?

Pretty much.

Lab126 in Sunnyvale.

@#5 - Amazon HQ - That's right, it's all about subsidies. Did you not see #4's Twitter stat from the libertine Asian economist (love that byline, though she's probably faking it if she's really an Asian, who are known for modesty) that shows Ireland is the leading importer in Indiana and Oregon? (shows the importance of law in advanced economies, aka tax shelters).

Bonus trivia: my inside sources say DC, not Beantown, will win the AMZN HQ hunt, for the obvious rent-seeking advantages. You heard it, hear first; bet on it.

$20 (to the charity of the winners choice) that Amazon does Not select Washington DC.

@JWatts - what I said. You can donate the $20 to the charity of your choice.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-amazons-hq2-candidates-looks-like-clear-frontrunner-150150989.html

On Thursday, Amazon (AMZN) was the day’s biggest business story after the company released a list of the 20 cities still in play to house its second headquarters, dubbed “HQ2.”

This location is not meant to replace its original Seattle headquarters, but serve as a second headquarters equal in size and scope to the Seattle home base. Amazon has said it will hire 50,000 workers for this location.

And most notably, Amazon’s list included three locations in the greater DC metro area — Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, Maryland, and Northern Virginia.

And that two of these are not cities, but regions, shows that while the retail giant has clearly made this bidding process for its next headquarters an exercise in trying to extract the most generous tax breaks from municipalities, in a perfect world Amazon would plant “HQ2” in the nation’s capital. Washington is where Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wants to be.

Like Boeing's move to Chicago: it's all about politics and hobnobbing.

Boeing didn't really move to Chicago, though. While they did open a HQ office there, it contained a small number of employees (about 400, which was mostly support staff)

Chicago HQ for Boeing was meant to be closer to customers (largest airlines based in Midwest). Boeing also has a significant admin/mktg presence in VA and MD to be near Congress. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, incidentally, are quite serious in this regard (hobnobbing and politiking [sic]), as they have their HQ in MD and VA, respectively.

They aren't 'support staff', its their Corporate Centre, for Christ's sake.

Sorry, carlos, secretaries and such are support staff. the number of people important to the company is considerably lower.

Amazon's 50,000 won't be all engineers and executives and such, but at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than Boeing's Chicago presence.

Indeed, when I saw Ireland my reaction was WTH.

Okay, I got off my lazy butt and spent 10 seconds googling. As of 2016, Ireland was indeed #1, ahead of Canada, which was slightly ahead of China and then Japan in a virtual tie.

However, one of these numbers is not like the others:

Dollar Value of Oregon's Imports from Ireland
2013 2014 2015 2016
17 165 571 2,996

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/imports/or.html

Observers have noticed the uptick. I don't have time to look at the various articles but a commenter on reddit suggests that Oregon imports electronic components from Ireland, but doesn't address what happened in 2016. Maybe a new plant came online?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/62ax1x/where_each_states_most_foreign_goods_come/

Intel has a big presence in Ireland and Oregon.

Yes, Intel is Oregon's largest private employer. Given that it's big in Ireland too, I suppose that might make it less surprising that Oregon's imports from Ireland might increase by more than 400% in a single year: Intel may've swapped its sourcing. Still seems like an extraordinary explosion though so I wonder if there was some accounting legerdemain involved e.g. changing the nominal value of what was pretty much the same stuff.

I think they want their second HQ to be in the eastern US, and close to Washington DC (if not in it or one of the neighboring areas). Lobbying is a lot more important to the tech giants now than it used to be, and Amazon has been angling for some lucrative federal contracts in services (they got a good one with the Department of Defense vis a vis Amazon Cloud Services recently IIRC).

Gotta "listen" to (potential) customers, ya know.

Angus Calder once wrote so and so and in such a parlance that martin sheen in catch-22 was a bit, how do you say, holier than thou. There was a famous leanord lopate piece about Montaigne and the personal essay. Jane Austin and Charles Dickens certainly knew how to write a personal essay. A personal essayist hits a nerve like Ireland and its native American ariebolia.

#1)

Curious to know who the other four would be.

Moe, Larry, Curly, and Bozo the Clown.

Jordan Peterson is doing really good work. I don't think I've ever seen as one-sided a debate victory as JP had with his channel 4 interviewer:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Perhaps it wasn't very bright of Channel 4 to field such a harridan again him. Or are all medical women harridans?

"medical"? Bah! 'media'

Who cares? Peterson can clearly straddle that divided with the sort of confidence that women are naturally attracted to, women sense his power - due to his undoubted purity of essence, one assumes, if one is male and watches enough youtube videos of Dr. Strangelovve.

Their ideas and political identities are being shaped in safe spaces. How do ideas that were never challenged hold up to rigorous testing? Not very well apparently.

I think the woman is a bit young to be a harridan. Corrupt, incompetent Hillary certainly is old enough and sufficiently abrasive . .

Maybe harpy fits.

Well she's certainly belligerent, but the defining characteristic is that she's monumentally outclassed. She clearly can't logically debate him, so instead she keeps on attempting to put words into his mouth.

Granted, the tactic of putting words into an interviewees mouth has probably worked for her many times. Most people don't calmly defend such behavior as consistently as Peterson did. There's little doubt that he came out ahead in that interview.

You really have to respect a man that goes where Freud feared to tread, when stating he knows what women want in a partner. And to say that with a straight face to a woman.

("The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'" - Freud)

I did a whole series about that.

I may have had some thoughts as well.

Hehe

I did good box office with this.

Don't know Jordan Peterson from Adam, but often a person looks smart because the opposition is so weak. Happens in chess all the time: the budding master, who can slaughter everybody at the local chess club, gets clobbered at the international stage when they meet stiffer competition. Pace myself however: I am super smart both online and in person, at all times.

Shocking - you knew nothing about 'one of the five most influential public intellectuals today.' Actually, neither did I really, but that video was amusing to imagine with him using Gen. Jack D. Ripper's cigar and grain alcohol roughened voice.

The BBC had to hide from that interview. Now it is claiming that Peterson supporters are threatening the life of the person who interviewed him. I wonder how many of the comments are made by annonomous individuals using fake accounts that share the same IP. Kind of like all those black churches being attacked by KKK supporters and fascists where the perpetrators were from the Left.

Strangely, it possible that the view looks different from Canada - 'University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson was in the news this week—and one imagines this makes the university sad. Peterson first made the news and became a belle of the alt-right when, in September 2016, he announced that he would not use a student’s preferred pronoun if he were asked to, except that he might if he felt the request was “genuine,” and no one had asked him that anyway.

What that poor man has been through.

Needless to say, in an economy as desperately short of leadership and ideas as the alt-right’s is, Peterson’s stock went through the roof. He currently has legions of fans hanging on his every YouTubed word; he’s now hauling in around USD $50,000 a month through crowdfunding.' http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

And who knew that Canadians could be so politely snarky - 'As a child, I was always a bit uncomfortable when my parents’ friends asked me to call them “Auntie.” I was pretty sure there was no peer-reviewed literature supporting this familial relationship, but it never occurred to me to attempt to politicize, let alone monetize, my unease. I certainly never accused “Auntie June” of trying to undermine Western civilization in the service of a post-modern neo-Marxist agenda every time she brought over a casserole. I wouldn’t have gotten any pudding.”'

The not very skilled name calling aside (Canadians, eh?), this is pretty funny - 'But woe betide those fields that have abandoned serious inquiry and empirical evidence and have become cult-like: Guru Jordan will vanquish you—just as soon as he’s done prepping his course, Psychology 434: Maps of Meaning.

In this rigorously academic course, students learn how “every experience that you have had contains information. If you have fully processed the information in that experience, (1) its recollection will no longer produce negative emotion and (2) you have learned everything you need to know from it.”

I’m hard-pressed to find a course on Chaucer that comes this close to promising to clear my thetans.'

If a family friend asked me to call him uncle, I would assume he was a child molester.

+5

... and literally the only thing in that deranged post that is worth responding to.

Really? Well, my mother's cousin was called 'uncle' by us, for example (spoke Russian, went to Harvard - 'worked for the government'). Even though, to stick with the point, there actually is peer-reviewed literature that would point out that using this term in this familial relationship would be technically incorrect.

Though oddly, the article used 'auntie' and did not actually reference men at all. Probably because the writer is not in a satisfying relationship with a confident man - see the video above to hear how that works.

Did he have a handle-bar mustache? Cause that[s another unmistakable sign of a child molester.

Nope, though he was also a paratrooper in WWII. Is that equally suspicious?

No, paratroopers are cool. They get all the dates with lonely French women, especially if they are in the Resistance.

It's prior. His version of paratroopers weren't getting dates with members of the Resistance. They were busy rounding up members of the Resistance and sending them to the firing squads.

"there actually is peer-reviewed literature that would point out that using this term in this familial relationship would be technically incorrect"

Whaaat?

Art's extra bitchy today.

Judging by Roy Moore, child molestation was also bog standard behavior for 30 year old men fifty years ago.

Hate to point out what makes Alabama so special, but the age of consent is 16 there - and still is. Roy Moore is an awful human being, and what he did with a 14 year old according to that woman is criminal, of course. Nonetheless, as the voting made clear, just under half of the voters in Alabama had no problem with what you call 'child molestation' when voting for a candidate to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Judging by Roy Moore, child molestation was also bog standard behavior for 30 year old men fifty years ago.

It wasn't. The worst of the nation's youth commonly got the belt taken to them, though. People can listen to you and discover the downside of gentler disciplinary methods.

Jeez. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean that aren't interesting or that you can't learn from them.

Having watched maybe a third of the above posted video, what I have learned is quite enough. Sort of like the idea that a value can be placed on mass murderer media exposure.

As usual clockwork misses the point. There was legislation forwarded that would make it illegal to call someone by a pronoun that they didn't want used, broadening the definition of hate speech in that way.

Anyone in Canada that takes a stand against the 'human rights' intrusions into people's lives are branded extreme right.

"Now, now Billy, you know you must always call Morgan, Tracy, and Finley, 'we'".

Well, prior has made it clear that he hates free speech, because that's what the Nazis used to... wait a minute, uh, no, he hates it because Germany doesn't have it and doesn't need it, thank you very much! Outlawing offensive speech and sending people to jail for using the wrong pronouns is what we need to avoid another Nazi Germany.

This is, of course, false, but it doesn't keep conservatives from repeating it over and over.

I’m not sure what makes him “alt right” (assuming you are interested in slotting him in on a political spectrum) rather than old fashioned, or simply conservative, or a maverick who is critical of the postmodern left? Or some blend of the above.

You, Prior, who are so scrupulous about facts and accuracy, wouldn’t want to use an ill defined but trendy catch all term (alt right) to slander a professor, would you?

#5. I'm rooting for Pittsburgh, it's a small livable city with plenty of old housing stock in desperate need of renovation.

Agreed. Any of the larger rust belt cities would work fine. They all have pretty good institutions and cheap housing. Talent fill follow wherever HQ2 goes anyways.

How much talent is actually required to take orders over the internet and arrange shipping to the customers? It's not like they're inventing anything revolutionary. People have been, and still are, doing the same thing by telephone.

{facepalm emoji}

Without knowing the real purpose of HQ2 and what corporate functions it will house, its hard to say which city holds the advantage...access to talent, rent seeking, innovation, cost cutting?

Also curious why is there such a big spread between Montgomery County and NOVA?

I'm ultimately rooting for Pittsburgh (and would be happy to see Philly get it too). From a rehabilitation perspective, HQ2 would do wonders for Pittsburgh and Newark; all other places will do just fine without HQ2. Of course that is definitely not a factor for HQ2.

I'm seeing it as beneficial to potential employees. They could buy a home cheaply, renovate it, and end up with some nice equity. It's good for social mobility. Gives employees the hope of someday not having to pay rent and being able to pay for their kids college tuition.

The dense settlement in Allegheny, Beaver, and Westmoreland Counties has a population over 1.2 million, so, not small.

Compared with most of the rest of the list? small

Here they are ranked by population. None of these are small cities. Every one could readily hold a university hospital complex and research university. Pittsburgh in size is closer to greater Washington than Washington is to New York. So, Washington (where over 4 million people live packed together) is a 'semi-small' city? There are 3 Canadian cities larger than Pittsburgh, a half-dozen in Germany, four in Italy, 4 or 5 in Britain, 3 in France, 3 or 4 in Spain.

New York / Newark
LA
Chicago
Toronto
Dallas
Miami
Philadelphia
Montgomery County / DC / Northern Virginia
Atlanta
Boston
Denver
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Austin
Columbus
Raleigh
Nashville

Well, yes, 6 million is over 4 million. It's also 5 times 1.2 million. It's also stuck up against another major metropolitan area that is also multiple times the size of the Pittsburgh MSA.

You're normally not nearly this inept.

Calling DC and Pittsburgh similar sizes is like calling, I don't know, Naperville and Pittsburgh similar. Really, really stupid

Pontiac died April 20, 1769

Same. I'm from that area and while it has a lot going for it, it could use the lift.

5) Don't the summed odds of the three DC MSA bids equal that of Boston, so it seems hard to call Boston a "favorite," exactly, even according to Paddy Power. (I'm also interested in why the Irish view the Virginia side as by far the least likely of the three.)

Good observation. From Amazon's point of view, those are presumably three separate proposals. For us outsiders, we'd say it's DC area vs Boston.

1) I (a Californian independent, to name my perspective) cannot really wrap my head around a country having pronoun laws. Did they go wrong with their odd solution to bilingualism? Was that the beginning of "make everybody happy?"

(I think in the US, the belief in the power of a "liberal academia" is limited to those few who live their lives in academia, or students who are still just a few years out.)

Didn't California pass a pronoun law?

Not really, no.

http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/

And of course it could not, in a first amendment country. All it can do is give aid agencies receiving funding to care for transgenders guidence on nondiscrimination.

"And of course it could not, in a first amendment country. All it can do is give aid agencies receiving funding to care for transgenders guidence on nondiscrimination."

Anonymous, your very own source contradicts this statement.

"But we also found an element of truth: Violations of the bill could, under limited circumstances, be treated as a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

"The bill is very, very clear that what is prohibited is the willful engagement and repeated engagement in discriminatory conduct against LGBT seniors. So, if someone makes a mistake or doesn’t know what a person’s gender identity is and uses the incorrect pronoun that is not a violation of the statute," Joslin said."

So basically, if an orderly insists on calling a person correctly according to their sex, then that person can be charged with a misdemeanor.

"So basically, if an orderly insists on calling a person correctly according to their sex, then that person can be charged with a misdemeanor."
That criminal charge as applied in that situation would never survive a constitutional challenge. The basic moral is that legislatures pass unconstitutional laws all the time.

Basically you have to apply a pretty high paranoia level to an anti-discrimination law for seniors, and make it "oh no I am going to jail for the wrong pronoun."

As that article in full pretty adequately explains.

A "pretty high paranoia level" to believe that the law will be applied as written and intended.

> That criminal charge as applied in that situation would never survive a constitutional challenge. The basic moral is that legislatures pass unconstitutional laws all the time.

That is great comfort for those who can't afford 5 figure legal bills. And that is exactly what the intent of these laws are.

Come on Careless. Do you think this law was "intended" to snare innocent pronoun users?

You might be a paranoid conservative?

derek, has either the US or Canadian law EVER been brought as charge against a pronoun user?

Anonymous, your entire line of argumentation is specious. Essentially, you are arguing that the law as written will never be enforced.

No, I can read the article I linked.

It says that it would be used, if any nursing home etc. was out there repeatedly and with intent was discriminating against seniors.

Are you, JWatts, going to claim that the way a bad nursing home was going to discriminate the way they'd do it was with pronouns?

lol, conservative floppy think is a thing to behold.

Your question is wrong.

Careless, the whole game here is to look at a law about discrimination against seniors, would really be about denying them health, safety, protection, and instead lighting hair and fire and saying "oh my god! they are regulating my pronouns!"

lol

This is a quote directly from the article linked above:

"“The bill is very, very clear that what is prohibited is the willful engagement and repeated engagement in discriminatory conduct against LGBT seniors. So, if someone makes a mistake or doesn’t know what a person’s gender identity is and uses the incorrect pronoun that is not a violation of the statute,” Joslin said.”"

One would rationally assume that an employee who knew the "gender identity" of a patient, but consistently used the medically correct "gender" correct pronoun to refer to that patient would be violating the statue.

Does anyone here dispute that such an employee would be subject to "punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine."?

Come on JWatts, do you know anything about how the world works?

First of all, nurses and caregivers do not have to use pronouns. They can just call everyone "honey" or "sweetie" and this is fine, especially with seniors.

But if there was a biologically male patient Smith who wished to be called Miss Smith at age 80 for whatever reason, and a nurse insisted on calling Smith(*) Mr, even after a complaint was filed, what do you think management should do?

* - it is easy to avoid pronouns, just call Smith, Smith.

Just to be clear, I think this hypothetical nurse, who can't just call Smith "Smith" but insists on "Mr" is a jerk, and management should reassign to a non patient facing role. Bedpan cleaning.

"Does anyone here dispute that such an employee would be subject to “punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.”?"

So, you don't dispute the actual point. Instead your attempting to move the goal posts from the actual law to what management should do for good customer service.

JWatts, I'm asking you to be smarter than that.

It would never get to a court case against an employee for more than one reason. You should know that.

There are plenty of people who would like to criminalize it if they could, so the fact that this particular law only levies fines in certain very specific circumstances is cold comfort to most of us.

Anonymous's argument : "Since I can see the future I can tell you that placing a law that I like into the books won't have any bad effects"

Go kill yourself. Thanks.

Presumably it is aimed at driving the Churches, especially the Catholic Church, out of medical care altogether. The Church has already had to shut down some of its adoption agencies because they will not let Gay couples adopt. There is a push to get them to close down their maternity units for not providing or at least referring people to abortion. Now they will not be allowed to run senior care facilities in California.

I also think hypothetical nurse, who can’t just call Smith “Smith” but fucking asshow also should be removed but we don't need to have a criminal law to enforce that.

Anonymous doesn't need to predict the future. He's applying the law as written, not some conservative fever dream about it. Are Canadian prisons bursting with people imprisoned for saying the n-word? If the conservative argument about these laws were accurate, that would have to be true.

The Conservative/classic Liberal argument is that threats of fines, loss of job and jail are being used to suppress speech.

But +1 for being true to yourself and having the Breitbart spin in your head.

It was reported pretty widely, and from your link:
"But we also found an element of truth: Violations of the bill could, under limited circumstances, be treated as a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine."

The rest of it is how it really won't be enforced unless the treatment of the senior is bad. I wouldn't rest easy on non promises from lawmakers trying to get bills passed though.

tldr - It is the law, but they won't enforce it too hard.

No, the law is concerned with discrimination against seniors. Do *that* repeatedly and with intent, and you might end up on the wrong side of this law.

It seems to me the compassion runs in a narrow channel here, as is often the case when liberals train their sights on the people providing services for them. If you were willing to do the unpleasant job of taking care of Grandma at home, you wouldn't need to fear that low-IQ strangers might mistreat them, or fail to speak exactly like recent college graduates. But of course, you were going to complain with the same frequency about those people no matter what they did, from the bad to the exceedingly trivial, so now you'll have a new avenue of attack.

This reminds me of a plainly mentally- (and slightly-physically-) disabled volunteer I used to supervise in a public setting. She occasionally announced political opinions in the hearing of the public. Parents especially seemed troubled when she did this near their oblivious children (the topics were on the order of support for state funding of the enterprise we were engaged in, or perhaps in favor of this or that candidate).

I was amazed when time after time, they blew right past the salient thing, her disability (not to mention the free labor she provided!), to formally complain about her. Their prim disapproval of her mild utterances (because we don't say "political" things in a quasi-government setting! gotcha!) trumped other qualities they no doubt considered themselves to be in firm possession of, like kindness and mercy.

Or else they were stupid. I didn't then believe the moderately successful, well-off people I live among, could possibly be stupid, but I've since joined NextDoor and the scales have fallen from my eyes.

My wife previously worked at a state mental facility. She was aghast at how partisan the state workers who assisted the residents were. They would help the residents fill out their absentee ballots (which was how it was handled). The workers would openly tell the residents that if the Republicans won they would cut out the money to the facility.

"My wife previously worked at a state mental facility. She was aghast at how partisan the state workers who assisted the residents were. They would help the residents fill out their absentee ballots (which was how it was handled). The workers would openly tell the residents that if the Republicans won they would cut out the money to the facility."'

Which is entirely possible! Pretty rare to find Republicans calling for more funding for state mental facilities. Why is this so strange to hear? I guess you could argue that a private solution is out there that would theoretically put more money into such facilities but that's a bit pie in the sky.

"Why is this so strange to hear?"

Maybe because it's hugely unethical for a health care professional to influence the vote of a mentally retarded patient? Or maybe because it's illegal for a state worker to actively promote a party at a state facility?

No, you're right it's not really too surprising to see government workers illegally shilling for Democrats. So, nothing to see here, just move along. It's Principals over principles for the Left.

Who cares? One assumes it would not survive a 1st Amendment challenge, in all but the most restricted cases (a police officer does not have full 1st Amendment protected freedom of speech while on duty - they are not allowed to campaign for a political candidate, for example).

Forcing someone to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees doesn't matter?

We don't have "pronoun laws", he's referring to a bill that simply adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination, along with the already protected classes of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability.

Gender identity and expression probably trivially already would be found to be illegal grounds for discrimination under Canadian law if the issue ever came up before the courts, this bill just makes it explicit.

Hmm. This was the claim from the article:

"In the first video, he argues against a proposed law in Canada that would make so-called misgendering — that is, using pronouns other than the ones a person prefers — a potential human-rights violation, punishable with a fine (that specific statute, which later passed, does not apply to university employees like Peterson, though a similar provision, passed years earlier in Ontario, does). "

That's the claim from the article, yes, and it's inaccurate. The law prohibits discrimination, and directs judges to take evidence that a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred into account when sentencing.

The full text of the law is here: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

The provincial bill in Ontario (passed in 2012) has similar wording, and has applied to Peterson as he has made a name for himself by insisting on misgendering trans students in the classroom. He has, thus far, evaded the gender police and remains at large.

And, one assumes from that linked video, still at large to tell women what they want in a partner.

Really.

So "one of the five most influential public intellectuals today" was doing a Breitbart style spin to misrepresent what was in the law?

And I guess I fell for it.

I don't read Breitbart, but may start. You seem to equate it with 'accurate'.

"I don’t read Breitbart, but may start. You seem to equate it with ‘accurate’."

+1

So you're saying that his warnings are as unrealistic as the inaccurate parade of horribles offered against state RFRA laws?

Possibly, John. Though it seems that the RFRA laws do delegate to the individual. "Feel free to object, based on your religious beliefs."

That might be akin to giving the libs freedom to deny service whenever triggered.

Anonymous and clockwork again talk about what they don't have a clue about.

A 'human rights' complaint before one of the Provincial Human Rights commission is a process that will take up three years of your life and likely your retirement savings. Administrative law as it is called. No one in their right mind would take on these people unless they have extraordinary courage and stamina. They could decree that Mr Peterson not be able to teach, publish or disseminate his ideas, and him disobeying would be contempt of court. His recourse is to call into question the constitutionality of this whole regime before the Supreme Court of Canada. Hopefully he has access to very deep pockets.

Well, I am not a Canadian and I don't know. So I'll ask?

How many ‘human rights’ complaints have ever been brought against academics? Is that a thing Canadians really do?

A ‘human rights’ complaint before one of the Provincial Human Rights commission is a process that will take up three years of your life and likely your retirement savings. Administrative law as it is called. No one in their right mind would take on these people unless they have extraordinary courage and stamina. They could decree that Mr Peterson not be able to teach, publish or disseminate his ideas, and him disobeying would be contempt of court. His recourse is to call into question the constitutionality of this whole regime before the Supreme Court of Canada. Hopefully he has access to very deep pockets.

What's grossly amusing is that Freedom House, Amnesty International, et al. have little or no interest in these travesties. Freedom House gives scores to all countries on 'civil liberties' and 'political rights'. A Belgian Court dissolved the country's second-largest political party in 2005 (a non-violent, constitutionalist organization) and Belgium's score was completely unaffected Meanwhile, V. Putin's regime gets scores as bad as those awarded to the Brezhnev era Soviet Union and Freedom House is making noises to the effect that the United States will be receiving a downgrade because Donald Trump trolls the media.

Do not send your contribution dollars to these humbugs.

Is Peterson telling women what they really want, or — as I heard him say in a clip from a video — is he listing the most popular searches online by women, and inferring what (some) women are looking for in a mate?

The goofballs at Wilfried Laurier were gearing up to drum out Lindsay Shepard as a hate crimer. Good thing she recorded the meeting.

Sound like the setup for Inspector Morse, but faculty intrigues go way back, and rarely lead to murder.

Seriously, I'd be all for a more agnostic (in a few senses of the word) management and policies at universities. Perhaps I'm lazy in asking because I know they aren't listening.

I don't grok your comment or buy your interest in an honest conversation on the subject.

OK, so I'll be patient and explain it. I am kind of loopy post exercise and should hit the shower, but..

The "Inspector Morse" line was just a joke, because in that series (and "Lewis") some little faculty row often leads to murder.

The next line is more serious. I don't think universities should have politics, or religions, or allegiances to beliefs (fresh water vs salt water economics?) but should provide an environment for free pursuit of knowledge.

The last bit of that line was rooted in cynicism though, that academics themselves might have different concerns, including perhaps using politics, or religions, or allegiances to beliefs to improve their position.

Had she not recorded the meeting, the outcome would have been very different. I know of a student who was kicked from a doctoral program for NOT referring to Palestinian terror attackers as “militants”, which is the preferred term among those who don’t wish to use the term terror. He was a lowly doctoral student and the professor was a very politicized full prof.

Thor, that does sound bad, and if that's all there was to it, completely unacceptable.

That video reminded me of classic McCarthyism. I could just imagine a bunch of College administrator's grilling a professor in the 50's for daring to show a movie of Lenin speaking without denouncing it to the students before showing it.

(I think in the US, the belief in the power of a “liberal academia” is limited to those few who live their lives in academia, or students who are still just a few years out.)

Apportioning the overhead, north of $150 bn a year in this country is devoted to maintaining the arts and sciences faculty, the teacher-training faculty, and the social work faculty on public payrolls. The privileged members of same are awarded lifetime employment and only compelled to retire when they feel like it. They're private sector counterparts benefit from wealthy men's bequests, research grants, and subsidized loans granted their aspirant clientele. Pretty sweet deal considering what they trade in aren't productive inputs to any other sector. As for those who do, isn't it cute how anything contrary to the law faculty's social and cultural prejudices is 'unconstitutional'.

My favorite video clip of Peterson's lectures is when he implores his students to find a partner and get married and have kids by 35 because by 40 its "all over if you are still single and without kids." (a close quote) He emphasized single, childless people past 39 are without souls. It wasn't just an off the cuff statement as he hammered the point home for several minutes. Jordan has strong points but nuance is not one of them.

"He emphasized single, childless people past 39 are without souls."
Then where do Catholic priests go when they die? What about George Washington?

I think I'd like Hazel better if I were secure in the knowledge she was without a soul.

I have two babies, so I wouldn't qualify for his criterion. I am, however, a ginger.

Then you're right, you have no soul.

I have two babies,

They weren't yours to steal.

Is that why you have no kids, Art? Someone stole 'em?

I'm never sure if this is actually Art Deco or just a troll trying to make him look like an ass. However, to address the comment made:

"I think I’d like Hazel better if I were secure in the knowledge she was without a soul."

That's a heinous and uncalled for comment.

"They weren’t yours to steal."

And so it that!

I’m guessing troll. Art’s posts are typically thorough and factual, and, if cutting, not vicious.

Could be the annoying Cuck guy, who apparently never got over being corrected by Art.

I haven't seen that but I have certainly had the (too-belated) thought that just at the moment in human history when our lives stretch out so long before us, was a funny time to stop having families.

I don't know anything about souls - I'm guessing I don't have one. I'm just talking about company. Friends are nice, no doubt about it, and I have preferred them to the family I was born into, but there's just a finite amount of time friends are ever going to spend together.

"thought that just at the moment in human history when our lives stretch out so long before us, was a funny time to stop having families."
Quite the opposite. It (and religious impulse weakening) is expected, which is not to say it is unavoidable. One can for a change can live many decades instead of facing death a few years after achieving sexual maturity. Leving a legacy, a replacement, keeping the family name alive, etc. seem to be smaller issues when an entire life lies before oneself.

"Leaving a legacy, a replacement, keeping the family name alive, etc. seem to be smaller issues when an entire life lies before oneself."

That hadn't entered into my thoughts at all. Possibly we are different ages, and genders.

#2 Disappointing. He's talking about some musical instrument, not the best places to fish

You know I'm all about the bass, 'bout the bass, no treble. I'm all about the bass, 'bout the bass, no treble.

5. Boston would be an expensive choice, although not so much for Amazon. If they don't do that, I'm betting it's one of the DC suburbs/counties - that would give them a second HQ within convenient location of the eastern US, and close to the capital.

I'm a little surprised they aren't leaning more towards southern cities. They'd get cheaper land, a more favorable local government (and state government), and general sunbelt amenities.

The best candidate cities in the South are represented - TX, NC, ALT. Amazon has deep pockets and the fact that these are all 100K+ salary jobs (contrast to Apple's campus for tech support jobs) tells you that cost is not the only driver.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if one of those did not win.

It's possible southern cities could be a hassle if the states pass any contentious conservative legislation. Liberals may get outraged and demand Bezos speaks out against the legislation, then if he does the conservative politicians get outraged and demand the state cut Amazon's tax breaks, etc.

5. Not surprising; reason #1 for this exercise is extracting as large an incentive package from Boston as possible while having a good backup plan in case they don't get as much as they want.

#5. They will go to whatever city gives them the most net cash through tax giveaways and other bribes, uh I mean incentives.

Here are Ariel Rubinstein and Martin J Osborne on gender pronouns, in their book "A Course in Game Theory."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
We disagree about how to handle English third-person singular pronouns.

AR argues that we should use a ''neutral" pronoun and agrees to the use of "he", with the understanding that this refers to both men and women. Continuous reminders of the he/she issue simply divert the reader's attention from the main issues. Language is extremely important in shaping our thinking, but in academic material it is not useful to wave it as a flag, as is common in some circles.

MJO argues that no language is "neutral". In particular, there is a wealth of evidence, both from experiments and from analyses of language use, that "he" is not generally perceived to encompass both females and males. To quote the American Heritage Dictionary (third edition, page 831), "Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought." Further, the use of "he" to refer to an individual of unspecified sex did not even arise naturally, but was imposed as a rule by (male) prescriptive grammarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who were upset by the widespread use of "they" as a singular pronoun and decided that, since in their opinion men were more important than women, "he" should be used. The use of "he" to refer to a generic individual thus both has its origins in sexist attitudes and promotes such attitudes. There is no neat solution to the problem, especially in a book such as this in which there are so many references generic individuals. "They" has many merits as a singular pronoun, although its use can lead to ambiguities (and complaints from editors). My preference is to use "she" for all individuals. Obviously this usage is not gender- neutral, but its use for a few decades, after a couple of centuries in which "he" has dominated, seems likely only to help to eliminate sexist ways of thought. If such usage diverts some readers' attentions from the subjects discussed in this book and leads them to contemplate sexism in the use of language, which is surely an issue at least as significant as the minutiae of sequential equilibrium, then an increase in social welfare will have been achieved. (Whether or not this book qualifies as "academic material", I see no reason why its readers should be treated differently from those of any other material.)

To conclude, we both feel strongly on this issue; we both regard the compromise that we have reached as highly unsatisfactory. When referring to specific individuals, we sometimes use "he" and sometimes "she". For example, in two-player games we treat player 1 as female and player 2 as male. We use "he" for generic individuals.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hah! I remember reading that a few years ago when taking a course in game theory. It was so annoying, since the use of she/he would sometimes make me think he was referring to a specific player, as opposed to a general individual player.

That was around the time I started becoming increasingly agitated at the overly political correct stuff.

The point is that him is offensive. Her is a term of respect.

#1. Good article- kudos to The Chronicle for measured reporting. Peterson continues to describe a fascinating arc.

Must be weird to go viral in your mid-fifties.

I follow a set of "right wing" folks to challenge my own biases and I find Jordan Peterson the most irritating of them. I'm almost a closeted fan of Victor Davis Hanson and even Katie Hopkins. But Jordan Peterson gets my hackles up. And now to atone for this confession I'll point to this interesting (and currently hyped) book from the left: http://www.zero-books.net/books/kill-all-normies

Katie Hopkins is aggressively weird. You should read Heather MacDonald. Or Melanie Phillips.

I went for a bike ride and thought about it. I worry that Peterson's gig (literally $) might be to troll out the silliest youth, and rather than guide them, bash them with a lifetime of learned rhetorical tricks.

As Ray Lopez correctly spotted, if you can troll someone into saying they own their own pronoun, you can have YouTube fame. It's more like a cinnamon challenge than philosophy.

Youth and Talent are No Match for Age and Treachery (or whatever variation of that old t-shirt you prefer)

As far as I can tell, Peterson has been wrestling with the idea of what we are to do with our lives for at least 30 years well outside of any kind of spotlight rather than playing a decades-long game with a pot of gold at the end based on pulling the wool over a bunch of young people's eyes as you seem to suggest.

Pronouns catapulted him to the spotlight; that specific issue is monumentally unimportant, but the pushback it inspired is telling.

Perhaps, and perhaps I was too mean. But the pronoun thing still might be more windmills than giants.

Peterson continues to describe a fascinating arc.

Key word there when thinking about Peterson is arc. I feel his original insights have been milked for all their worth and now the milk has gone sour. Collecting $60K+ a month from YouTube and Paetron clicks guarantees IMO the act is doomed to get old and there won't be a second run.

The Patreon page is meant to fund major new endeavors, like an online university. Really making his ideas manifest requires a lot more than just having his lectures go viral on YouTube.

I predict you will never see an online university nor will you ever see an accounting for where all the funds meant for that ever went.

How is Tyler able to make his 'ideas manifest' without pushing his readers to give him $60K per month? The man has full tenure and enough fan to make any book he publishes automatically sell not to mention a more or less open door to mass media. If he has ideas to 'manifest' all he has to do is communicate them.

Boonton calling a top in the Peterson bubble. Noted.

You sound bitter and resentful and envious.

I'm simply saying he is essentially doing a male version of Oprah. What is your obsession with people's emotions? You should try to be a bit more rational in your discourse.

5. What's worse than companies lobbying politicians? Politicians lobbying companies.

#4 That map has to be shown with the accompany export map, https://www.businessinsider.com/us-state-import-export-international-trade-partner-map-2017-11?r=UK&IR=T

Looking at the second one, one might think that Mexico might want to fund the building of the wall themselves. Trump does not seem to know how to sell an idea or how the wall will impact USA

They're going to stop buying our corn?

Awhile ago watched some Peterson videos to see what all the hype is about. Saw one where he was fielding questions from fans apparently in his home. The question was his IQ. He claimed to not be able to remember precisely but that it was above 150. Knew then that I didn't need to watch anymore Peterson videos.

Why? Did you expect him to pretend some kind of false modesty and claim he didn't know? I

You must value your time very low or must seriously under-estimate how much worthwhile stuff there is out there.

Because you will not comprehend what he said ?? The IQ communication gap??

Because we are old enough to see through the formula. You take a group of people who are very insecure and unsure of themselves, present them with arrogant blowhardedness. Toss in some high minded things to do to be entitled to be in the club (read some big old books by Great authors) but all of these things are within the reach of just about everyone in the audience (clean your room, if 40% of your day features video games, reduce that) that will make them feel better....and tada you have a modern day self-help guru. The only difference between him and Oprah is the arrogance appeals more to young men.

For example, despite all the thousands of hours of posted video lectures and millions of impassioned defenders fighting to the death in comment sections and the bloody twitter fields every day, can anyone tell me what actual insightful ideas this man has really presented? I mean aside from the idea that no one should be thrown in jail for a year for calling Caitlyn Jenner 'he' rather than 'she'?

"can anyone tell me what actual insightful ideas this man has really presented?"

Boys are called 'him' and girls are called 'her'. Seems simple and not insightful, but the whole point to this guy is that it's crazy that this needs defending.

If you think that's worth paying him $60K a month feel free. A fool and HIS money...

And there are no ideas here. See my above point. It's a way for him to make waves and create 'drama' for publicity. He doesn't really engage with ideas about gender either to refute them or present a traditional view. Quick: does he think someone who undergoes full gender reassignment surgery should be called by the opposite pronoun? Why not? Is it just a 'free speech' thing (if I want to call Michele Obama 'he' because I like being a naughty asshole, hey free speech) or is there some structure of ideas he has about this?

Now an idea he does actually have, we evolved in trees where snakes are a major danger hence around the world dragons appear in our mythology. Behold the amazing idea.

His collision with Sam Harris on truth. It's actually annoying dialogue, but it highlights in my mind the ultimate sterility of Harris' scientific rationalist worldview, a view I've more or less held for 3 decades.

All of Peterson's background lectures on Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, the phenomenologists, the early psychological clinicians, the existentialists, the pragmatists, Solzhenitsyn, Frankl inform his view in the argument. I had a lot of this stuff rattling around in my own head thanks to my common core undergraduate experience, but it was all a jumbled mess. And a lot of this stuff (e.g. Jung, Rogers) was pretty new to me. Peterson has helped me clean up my mind.

All of Peterson’s background lectures on Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, the phenomenologists, the early psychological clinicians, the existentialists, the pragmatists, Solzhenitsyn

In other words, look at who they published a Cliff Notes booklet on, Toss references to them into your talks, and tada, you're an intellectual. Come to think of it, Oprah's Book Club did something very similar. From The Spectator:

"On Sunday night, one young woman asked what advice Peterson would give to a student like her. He told her to ignore those professors who aimed to wither the souls of their students. Instead he urged her to use her student years to cultivate the greatest possible friendships."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-curious-star-appeal-of-jordan-peterson/

Indeed, if this helps you in your life I have no objection. Such advice, though, could just as easily have come from a Harry Potter book (and probably someone could find a quote that's almost the same thing as that). I'm sure you could find an Oprah monologue with such advice as well. This is what happens when an intellectual gets a cult of hero worshipers. The demand for output drives the quality down to the bottom. I'm not saying that makes him bad, telling people to read great works, clean their room, and have pride and responsibility in their lives is mundane advice but useful to all of us at some points in our lives. But it's useful advice up until the point the person gets it, after that it becomes trite, annoying and empty.

"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

This line from Rowling is worth more than the sum total of hundreds of MR comments composed of the most banal and anodyne regurgitation of Keynes imaginable that I have read of yours over the years.

This line from Rowling is worth more than the sum total of hundreds of MR comments composed of the most banal and anodyne regurgitation of Keynes imaginable that I have read of yours over the years.

Does this make Rowling a 'public intellectual'? I think there should be a bit of difference between a public intellectual and simply a public figure....or is the rule anyone who makes celebrity status for any reason now a public intellectual?

What's wrong with Oprah? Suppose she had command of a vast swath of scholarly study and a keen mind able to synthesize and weave a semi-coherent story around what the hell is going on here anyway.

That would be an even better Oprah.

Oprah has done quite well for Oprah. She has worked hard and has cultivated a loyal following of individuals who want to believe that they are victims. That following has provided her with power and great wealth.

Why? Do you learn more from stupid people? Or do you prefer people who tell you what you want to hear and not interested in learning something that is based on facts and can be supported with logic?

After watching the interview with Mr. Peterson, I had a few thoughts. Despite the combative and confusing format, he handled it well.

1. "Women want partners who are competent and reciprocal." Yes. Women, for the most part, only want to mother their children

2. "Why wouldn't you have to battle for your position?" Is this a level playing field based on merit? Could it be the rules of the game are skewed to benefit the most ostentatious over the most qualified? (e.g. POTUS)

3. The lobster is a crutch. A rhetorical feint. Consider bonobos or elephants. Humans, unlike any other species, have the capacity to drastically alter their environment. If we can't find a balance between the masculine and feminine, then we fail to engage our "capacity to improve the world". Challenge your audience to embrace the feminine.

4. Beware those who tout that thousands claim I "brought them back from the brink of destruction." Influential, most definitely. Whether that is for the greater good remains to be seen.

Did you watch the same interview that I did? While he did handle it extremely well I do not think that you understood what he said. He pointed out that merit was far more responsible for what people got paid than factors like gender. It is not for the greater good to tell me to become women or to misrepresent that the animal data shows us about hierarchy. The next thing that we will be told that all those nature films that show that in all species the males and females exhibit different behaviours cannot possibly be true because postmodernists tell us that all differences are social constructions.

What's your stance on CBD oil.

Comments for this post are closed