Thats funny! By your summary women have poor representation in tech fields because the working conditions are bad, so people should stop trying to get women into the sector because the will get crappy jobs. Let me suggest that a sane person would argue in support of improving working conditions instead of perpetuating suffering, but I guess thats a point of contention in these contexts....

Perception vs. reality

The general perception is that programming is a socially isolating, boring, monotonous job where you stare at a screen all day.

People making career choices don't know about the lax environment.

So tech completely aligns with what he/she wrote.

edit: and your sarcasm is hostile

This will be an unpopular opinion here but it's true in my experience.

It's time to leave your employer and do something that makes you happy

I was recently reading that there are estimated to be 6 billion people in the world who want jobs, and estimated to be 2 billion jobs. So advice to "leave your employer" reflects a very narrow world view - a view from those having privilege, and without empathy for those with different choices.

The op speaks about the choices of people based on thier lived experience of working these jobs, and the grand parent is also arguing inside that context. You present arguments that clearly seek to support of the GP, but talk about the outsiders erroneous perception of these jobs when their harshness is an agreed premise. And its not even my premise you argue againts, I merely inherited it from the the user you try to defend!

Men are disposable and get no sympathy from anyone in the society.

No one attaches any "inherent" value to a man. It's all about their power and status.

Women also contribute to this by rewarding the high status men.

From a feminist point of view, this is how patriarchy negatively affects men, too.

I found this longer video of his on the same subject to be better at explaining the nuances of his viewpoint: https://youtu.be/NV2yvI4Id9Q

By that line of reasoning, wouldn't you expect a better total outcome with saner people in positions of power?

But sane people, generally, do not attain positions of power. If they did, our system would usurp them in favor of someone "insane". Its something that is fundamental to how some humans operate.

If I'm President and I don't wake up at 4am to handle a crisis in Syria, I am showcasing a pattern that will probably mean I won't be re-elected. What I've described is horribly unhealthy, if done consistently. Yet, we need people like that if we want to scale and grow as a species. We need crazy Presidents, crazy CEOs, crazy engineers, crazy doctors, crazy lawyers, etc.

The point I wish were more widely accepted is that its alright to not be in these positions. I've heard people say "Its unacceptable that we haven't had a female President because I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she could be President." Two things: First, yeah! If that's what your daughter wants, then she should have that option, and having precedence and a role model helps. But, more importantly: You as a parent don't understand what it takes to be President. You should want your daughter to be happy, not powerful.

Sure, but you have to challenge the "insane" focused competition to attain that power, and you'll likely lose to their ambition and drive.

>when social science has already proven that money beyond a certain number doesn't make you happier

I've read that's a media misinterpretation of the results. From what I understand a certain salary satisfies your basic needs, as in Maslow's Triangle, but further income improves happiness. Of course, if you work in a shithole, you're going to be miserable no matter how much you make.

That might be. I'm not up to date on the research. That being said, very few people just "get money" without working an incredibly demanding job.

There have been plenty of stories into lottery winners, who after winning become completely miserable, many of which end up killing themselves. Of course, you don't hear about the success stories, and there's also a certain type of person who plays the lottery which might attract insanity when they win. [1]

The "rest and vest" story from a day or so ago was also interesting. It might be that these people were happy just sitting around collecting a paycheck and vesting. But the story talked about how many of these people say they want to leave and start their own thing, but can't/don't because the position they are in is too good. Is that happiness? Or is it complacency and "good enough"?

Another angle is "trust fund babies"; people who receive large inheritances and don't generally have to work. I'm not sure if I'm aware of any studies into their happiness.

I'd love to see more research and stories on this. The traditional saying is "money can't buy happiness"; maybe that's absolutely true, or maybe it should be tweaked to say "the average work it takes to have a lot of money will leave you unhappy."

[1] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/

Yes, I think a lot of that is attributed to not having a sense of purpose. Philanthropy is a good cure in that situation.

I believe the media's interpretation is that over $70,000 people cease to become happier, which is obviously false. Of course managers are trying to use that as a reason to stop paying people more.

Anyway, if you make more than $70K now, and you suddenly were reverted to making $70K, you wouldn't retain the same level of happiness (obviously), unless you were already wealthy. It makes for an juicy headline though.

In book 1 of the republic, socrates discusses (with cephalus) inherited vs earned wealth, and concludes that those who earn it tend to become obsessed with it.

I believe there's some truth to that, but I also believe that there's a fear/weakness in those with inherited wealth that if they became destitute, they do not have the ability to rebuild the wealth.

Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." [1] Someone who has no idea what a dowry is has no business trying to teach anthropology. Peterson gets attention for being an obnoxious know-it-all but he just repeats well known ideas in psychology and ethology; when it comes to anthropology Peterson does not have a clue.

[1] This quote is in one of Peterson's many digressive rants somewhere in the first seven lectures of the 2017 Maps of Meaning course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-O... I gave up on it after realizing he was just basically making shit up as he went along when it came to his ideas about anthropology.

Maybe you should perform even a rudimentary google search before dismissing others:

Marriage is for rich people

https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriag...

"A new report, by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Hamilton Project, looked at the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years and found a strong connection to income. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income."

"Whatever the case, the concentration of marriage among the richest Americans is amplifying the increase in income inequality."

Yes, Peterson must have read that exact article because the wording he used was almost verbatim. The problem is that he is convinced that this is somehow a new phenomenon in the context of European society going back to Roman times, which is what his lecture was about. The study is about the United States going back to 1970. It is extremely ignorant of Peterson to make that generalization.

"Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married."

I couldn't decide from your comment, if you think the fact is wrong, or you disagree on ideological grounds, or he is a nutcase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry is an extremely common practice across the world going back a very long time. The fact that Peterson asserts that "only rich women get married" was not the case in the past shows an atrocious lack of knowledge about anthropology.

When Peterson makes authoritative claims, it's important to recognize that he's only talking about Western countries. That's where his expertise is focused. Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common.

Take a gander at his Biblical series. It's 100% about Western civilization.

>That's where his expertise is focused.

Out of interest, what expertise? He seems to be a psychologist who has multiple times talked about Marxism and postmodernism with the utmost ignorance of current research and philosophy. He also makes "authoritative claims" completely outside his "focus of expertise"[0] and is very wrong about them. Why should he be trusted outside his actual field of expertise?

[0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...

I hadn't seen that Twitter post. Then again, I don't read Twitter. Pretty embarrassing misread of Gödel, though. I don't know why he would say that. It can't be easy being in the spotlight with such intense scrutiny over every word you say.

As for why he should be trusted? He has achieved heroic status for putting his job on the line to stand up against political correctness overreach. He has riveted tons of young men with his demonstration of the archetypal parallels between various pieces of Western mythology, Christianity, mainstream fiction, and psychology.

Sometimes he has me nodding my head, other times I'm shaking it in disbelief. I know very little about Jung or Nietzsche. Sometimes I worry I may be suffering from the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. [0]

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

I would hardly call it "heroic" to be standing up against political correctness overreach. Everyone is against this, in fact aside from gaming it's the biggest subset of Youtube, even roping in figures as unrelated such as Pewdiepie. Some of the world's largest internet forums are dedicated to being against it. It's just not that impressive any more, and to me he comes across as just another "hey does anyone else think SJWs are bad?" type of person. He acheived fame only by a single incident in which he was recorded dissing some university students, and the typical "I identify as an attack helicopter" jokers are presumably the "young men" you're talking about.

I've seen his polemic rants on Youtube and they appear to be so mean-spirited and ignorant. He can't talk seriously about Marxism without bringing up Solzhenitsyn and confusing Communism with specifically Marxism-Leninism.

It would be better I think if he sticked to something I have heard he is good at doing - helping people out, rather than diverting into a strange strawman of someone extremely ignorant about political philosophy, though I suspect he must continue to do that in order to keep the little bit of fame he has managed to cling to since he was recorded "schooling" some (also ignorant) university students.

People aren't interested in his psychology, because the same people interested in him who weren't before are the people who'd be listening to Ben Shapiro and the philosophically ignorant, scientism-adhering side of Christoper Hitchens (poor Peter is too "normie" for them). He's not the first to so desparately cling to and place empiricism on a pedestal.

People are totally interested in his psychology. They watch his lectures. He is earning an extremely respectable amount on Patreon (>$57000 / month). He is planning to build an online university to give a classical humanities education, whatever that means. His advice to "clean your room" has become a meme among his fans.

>Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture.

I would say it still exists. It just changed its name to alimony. In India, women don't pay dowry. It's the parents, usually the dad. The alimony system just changed it so that now the ex (usually husband) has to pay. I would call alimony/maintenance as divorce dowry.

> Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture.

Do you not understand that being able to provide a dowry in the past is being "rich" today? Peterson's whole approach to evolutionary psych can be summarized as "this is what people have done in the past, therefore it is a big problem that people are now doing something different." The problem is that Peterson does not seem to actually know what people have done in the past, and how similar it is to what happens today. The result is a lot of ignorant ranting about problems that do not exist.

> Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common.

This was actually the start of Peterson's rant that I mentioned. When in the history of "Western civilization" was this not the case? Lower class women were always treated as slaves, serfs and/or prostitutes and constituted the majority of the population in Europe. Out-of-wedlock births and maternal material deprivation is the historic norm. Forget even having a single mother, many more children than today were raised in orphanages because their single mothers were too poor to provide for them. The only discernible reason Peterson finds this novel or "alarming" is because of his misogynist views on women now having the choice of marriage and divorce.