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 …
-
-
His claim, as I read it, is women are choosing lower paying fields or roles because they're avoiding ones that discriminate against them. Discriminating in what metric, I don't know. Software engineering pays high for all genders.
-
No, the claim is that controlling for occupational choice underestimates the wage gap - and there are other independent measures of discrimination against women in the workplace, but we were discussing wages specifically. There are a lot of things Peterson gets wrong here.
-
Well, the wage gap is commonly defined as "for the same job". Presumably you can't measure that without controlling for occupational choice. Unless you're redefining the wage gap to mean the difference in the absolute earnings for men and women.
-
He is. Nobody disputes this differs. Feminists claims its evidence of discrimination against women. MRAs claim its evidence of the financial exploitation of men. Sane people look at the fact that men & women differ psychologically and at social influences.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here is the basic idea of a causal chain: which happened first, being a woman or choosing one's job? For most people, the chain of influence can only go one direction, which dictates the form the analysis must take.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.