see the Peterson and science section for a number of pretty devastating refutations of Peterson's understanding of lobster biology, the gender pay gap, and personality testing.https://www.patreon.com/posts/jordan-peterson-17972181 …
-
-
uh, it's pretty well-established in the literature.
-
Adding 'uh' to the front of claims doesn't make them stronger. If you just mean it is established that women earn less than men, it is. If you mean it is established that this is caused by paying women less than men for the same job or by cultural conditioning, it is not.
-
Time and time again, it is shown that the gap all but disappears when hours worked, roles worked and time out are taken into account. Time and time again, it is shown that men & women choose differently and that this gap increases where women have most freedom to choose.
-
Ah, so it sounds like you haven't read the economics papers. The simple insight you're missing is that those choices are after gender on the causal pathway, so you can't include them as controls to get your estimates. There still is a gap after you account for them, by the way.
-
Do explain? Why aren't the choices people make significant to the income they earn?
-
Helen, you and Peterson are making a mathematical error here. See page 74 of
@causalinf's textbook: http://scunning.com/cunningham_mixtape.pdf … -
What you are doing is called "controlling for a collider". Doing it means your regression has no causal implications. You are *assuming* no discrimination, not proving it.
-
I'm not assuming anything. Just saying that the fact that men and women earn different amounts of money doesn't tell us anything about the cause if the only variable considered is gender and we don't account for different jobs chosen and different hours worked.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This isn't true.
@PikaGoldin doesn't debunk the wage gap - she's one of the people who has found the best evidence for it. See Golsina and Rouse: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715 … -
I keep being sent the musicians thing. I send the one showing blind applications benefit women in STEM in response.
-
The linked paper you did is hypothetical. It doesn't match the findings with actual hires. It's important to look at the overall field, not cherry pick studies that agree with youn
-
We could both say that to each other. Let's not. If you can show men and women getting paid different amounts for the same jobs for the same hours, I'll believe that is happening.
-
Helen, again that wouldn't actually prove anything. Women and men make *choices* about how much they work.
-
Well, that's what I want to know. Whether the pay gap is being caused by women being paid less for the same work as men. If they're being paid less because because of their own choices, I don't care. They have the right to choose that.
-
Men are not the default humans. We really don't need to worry if women don't make exactly the same choices as they do.
-
No one is claiming they are.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
so this isn't my field but i could dump a pile of cites from labor economists and the argument I've seen from Peterson himself is one I'm able to evaluate in my own field of expertise as not appropriately accounting for causality - what do you have?
-
Please do dump them! I'd be very interested to see an analysis which still finds a significant gap once different choices made are accounted for. I think Claudia Goldin is the most cited on the problem with analyses which don't account for this.https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap …
-
Note of course Goldin is saying there is a gap. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21913 Here's a recent overview.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.