Jordan Peterson interview on C4

AllForIt

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

They have the best benefits but expect you to give your life to them.

I know people that worked in Google and Facebook and all that nice "Cool" stuff is nice in the beginning, but the trade off is you work 12-14 hour days.

And all the innovative work is taking place in the US anyway.

What we have is predominantly back-office support.

When I was studying Computer Science in UCD we were taken on a grand tour of Google HQ some years back.

I took an immediate dislike to the chap who showed us around. He was decidedly dour and serious. I had understood this was to be fun day out. We were first taken to the recreational areas. First to the pool table, where no one was to seen. Secondly the gym where I said out loud feeling a bit irreverent, 'doesn't look like anyone uses it' in earshot of the host. It didn't actually - spick and span...and empty.

We did a hurried walk through an open plan office area and then to a very large high ceilinged loungy area with trendy sofas and bean bags which I had heard of beforehand that is used as a working area and unique to Google. There was one solitary person with a laptop working away in the corner where everyone else was working at their desk in the open plan office - just like you'd expect to find in any company. Cynical me felt that person was planted for while we were there.

So my point is I didn't buy the whole image they were trying to create. I have heard a millions times ppl say Google are 'supposed' to be a great company to work for but I've never heard anyone say from first hand experience that they actually are.

I just got the impression that when it comes to working in big tech firms, specifically working in the tech development side, that students are being brainwashed to thinking that working for them is a reward in itself, in lieu of a higher salary but long hours and devotion are expected.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Nixonbot wrote: »

Certainly the case for Google. What are you looking for in terms of proof, official documents saying they do it? Come on.

I take the dart at GCD a few tunes a week. A fair chunk of them leave at 6.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AllForIt wrote: »

When I was studying Computer Science in UCD we were taken on a grand tour of Google HQ some years back.

I took an immediate dislike to the chap who showed us around. He was decidedly dour and serious. I had understood this was to be fun day out. We were first taken to the recreational areas. First to the pool table, where no one was to seen. Secondly the gym where I said out loud feeling a bit irreverent, 'doesn't look like anyone uses it' in earshot of the host. It didn't actually - spick and span...and empty.

We did a hurried walk through an open plan office area and then to a very large high ceilinged loungy area with trendy sofas and bean bags which I had heard of beforehand that is used as a working area and unique to Google. There was one solitary person with a laptop working away in the corner where everyone else was working at their desk in the open plan office - just like you'd expect to find in any company. Cynical me felt that person was planted for while we were there.

So my point is I didn't buy the whole image they were trying to create. I have heard a millions times ppl say Google are 'supposed' to be a great company to work for but I've never heard anyone say from first hand experience that they actually are.

I just got the impression that when it comes to working in big tech firms, specifically working in the tech development side, that students are being brainwashed to thinking that working for them is a reward in itself, in lieu of a higher salary but long hours and devotion are expected.

Yes. Most of it is nonsense. The lounge area can sometimes be used.

In the US, if not here, though students can continue their student lifestyle in these “campuses”. Stay around until 10 pm. Play some fuzz ball, go to the gym, but also work.

Many of them live close by too. Here as well. Goggle have bought the apartments at bolands mill in its entirety. So working until 7 means getting home at 7:05. Which is before the average stiff living in Kildare.

Wibbs

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe I have to remake this point, again, but Silicon Valley is in Northern California, in the US of A.... where we are posting in a thread about a Canadian Professor whos claim to fame was standing up for what he believed was freedom of speech, which is a big hot topic in, the US of A, among other places.

So, yea, we can't just dismiss that side of the argument because its inconvenient for some.

It's not inconvenient it's positively retarded to kick off from a standpoint of spouting right(or left) wing American political positions. They do not equate to this country or Europe for that matter.

Look at the top 100 companies to work for in the US, all the top tech firms place highly, with 5 out of the top 10 being tech companies and if you broke down the top 100 by sector, tech would win hands down.

See the bit in bold? Again this is not bloody America. Of course any company offering healthcare and other perks people in the rest of the developed world think of as givens is going to fare well.

That is one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that evolved cultures won't tax you at 52% of your wage when you earn over €32,000 a year.
How is the health service working out for the 1,000,000 on waiting lists. Oh right, nevermind! There is a big argument there, that we can have all day long about what 'system is best' but glasshouses and stones come to mind.

Yes, like the American model of "healthcare" is a good one. Not. If you get cancer you hear the tills ringing before the X-ray machines have powered up. If you can afford it. America, the only country in the developed world where life expectancy is going down. You realise the US of A has the fourth widest wealth gap in the developed world, only being beaten out by barely functioning kips like Turkey, Chile and Mexico?

Hold on a second, you are saying that Silicon Valley banned Alex Jones from their platforms because it would go down well politically with the 'right on' crowd but then you deny that Silicon Valley are anyway left-leaning.

Christ... No. I am saying that going down well with their most lucrative demographic helps them look good. Yet as I also pointed out the same platforms continue to host views the same as his(and worse views unrelated to him). He got nuked because they saw it as great optics in their pretence of actually giving a crap. Note how one kicked it off, then the rest of the herd followed in a stampede? All eager to try and share the same optics. If there was enough whining from their demographic against a "Left" platformer they'd be nuked too. As 20cent notes they're corporatist, they give two hoots about politics unless it suits. Indeed they donate to both sides of US politics. If these corporations are so "left" how come they "avoid" tax like the plague, seriously look down on even the sniff of unions and are happy to outsource their operations to third world crapholes where labour is much cheaper?

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

Company policy =/= Social Leanings.

In practice they have to be Right leaning or their company would go belly-up.

In relation to the environment that they are cultivating within their company and as a result, throughout their platforms are overwhelmingly Left-leaning.

I'm not entirely sure how anyone could deny this.

Companies don't have "social leanings". They have one motive: making profits to pay their shareholders dividends.

They treat their employees well to make more money. It's that simple.

Retaining staff helps make money. Hiring the best people helps make money.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Companies don't have "social leanings". They have one motive: making profits to pay their shareholders dividends.

It's why I trust companies over governments. At least companies only want your money.

Sand

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ... No. I am saying that going down well with their most lucrative demographic helps them look good. Yet as I also pointed out the same platforms continue to host views the same as his(and worse views unrelated to him). He got nuked because they saw it as great optics in their pretence of actually giving a crap. Note how one kicked it off, then the rest of the herd followed in a stampede? All eager to try and share the same optics. If there was enough whining from their demographic against a "Left" platformer they'd be nuked too. As 20cent notes they're corporatist, they give two hoots about politics unless it suits. Indeed they donate to both sides of US politics. If these corporations are so "left" how come they "avoid" tax like the plague, seriously look down on even the sniff of unions and are happy to outsource their operations to third world crapholes where labour is much cheaper?

I think the most worrying aspect of it is the general approval people have for corporations imposing arbitrary restrictions on wrongthink. Previously if people had an issue, they would lobby elected governments operating under a constitution. Now they lobby corporations operating only under terms of service which the corporations can and do change to suit themselves. People may have cause to regret accepting Google Inc as the final arbitrator of what is or is not acceptable to say. These corporations already donate to political causes. We've seen the effect of apparent Russian meddling in social media. What is to prevent US corporations restricting information that is hostile to their chosen candidate? If people think that Russian social media campaigns secured victories for Trump and Brexit, do they truly believe the power of social media is to be entrusted to Zuckerberg and friends without oversight or accountability?

20Cent

One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated. Break me hole laughing at that argument.

BuyersRemorse

I rather admire the attitude some of the residents of Berlin have taken to Google's plans to open one of their repugnant 'Google Academies' in the creative hub of the city in an attempt to siphon off the talent. Catchy name they've given their campaign too:

https://****offgoogle.de/#g-entrification

EDIT: you'll have to alter the URL as it's blocked the f word

Undividual

20Cent wrote: »

One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated. Break me hole laughing at that argument.

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers?  Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

Undividual

I'm curious to know what others thought of JP's comments regarding Alex Jones being banned from YouTube etc? 

I believe he said that this moved these companies into a position where they were now taking responsibility for the content of their users, rather than just facilitating communication.  He said that this represented the undertaking of an impossible task, as the sheer amount of oversight required for this would mean an even decreasing number of content providers.  He outlined how specific legislation had been passed in the US in the early 2000s so that social media sites were not held responsible for the content posted by their users.  

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Dyr

Undividual wrote: »

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Seems unlikely. As a response to the policies of Youtube et al numerous websites sprung up that placed an emphasis on not policing content. Recently many of these sites had their accounts shutdown by their payment processors: Stripe, Patreon and such.

If you were a cynic you'd wonder about the timing what with those looming mid term elections in the US

Undividual

Bambi wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Seems unlikely. As a response to the policies of Youtube et al numerous websites sprung up that placed an emphasis on not policing content. Recently  many of these sites had their accounts shutdown by their payment processors: Stripe, Patreon and such.

If you were a cynic you'd wonder about the timing what with those looming mid term elections in the US

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor.  Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable. 

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

20Cent

Undividual wrote: »

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers?  Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

I'm refering to those who complain about government red tape halting progress when "the markets" can solve all problems. Now they want government to regulate these social media companies. Dunno what your point about child labour is about.

20Cent

Undividual wrote: »

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor.  Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable. 

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

There is a twitter alternative that advertises itself as having no censorship and being for conservatives who find twitter has too many rules. It's called gab and it promptly turned into a hotbed of racism. They have had trouble finding servers to host it.

El_Duderino 09

20Cent wrote: »

There is a twitter alternative that advertises itself as having no censorship and being for conservatives who find twitter has too many rules. It's called gab and it promptly turned into a hotbed of racism. They have had trouble finding servers to host it.

I hadn't heard that. I think it's sometimes sensible to sensor the racism etc, but it gives the impression that fewer people enjoy racism than is actually the case because we don't see so much of it . You'd think that a US presidential candidate would be finished for being racists, but in fact a lot of people like t hear someone voice the racism they hold. Same with Borris Johnson, same with Jordan Peterson.

I'm sure it played very well with his base to say 'isnt it terrible how they're treating poor Tommy Robinson'. And he also gets to say he never explicitly endorsed Robinson's views.

Sand

Undividual wrote: »

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor.  Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable. 

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

Its catch 22. Content providers need an audience. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has the audience. There are in a way natural monopolies. People are of course free to move, but inertia means they rarely do. New platforms can arise, they can be objectively superior to existing platforms but its irrelevant if they don't have an audience.

And lets face it, the vast majority of content providers and their audiences don't care about censorship. They're highly unlikely to make a moralistic stand on it. Look at Facebook: its blatantly obvious they are selling users data for dubious purposes, and yet users still go up and up.

20Cent

Latest super genius finding:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1031174952408559617

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Its catch 22. Content providers need an audience. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has the audience. There are in a way natural monopolies. People are of course free to move, but inertia means they rarely do. New platforms can arise, they can be objectively superior to existing platforms but its irrelevant if they don't have an audience.

And lets face it, the vast majority of content providers and their audiences don't care about censorship. They're highly unlikely to make a moralistic stand on it. Look at Facebook: its blatantly obvious they are selling users data for dubious purposes, and yet users still go up and up.

The problem with the tech giants is that it isn't the platforms or services at all that gives them the edge. It's the data they collect on users. Any would be challengers to incumbents would start from scratch and have no way to mount any sort of meaningful challenge. Once they reach a certain size, they can simply buy up said challengers and startups and incorporate their ideas into their own platforms which protects them from change.

Undividual

20Cent wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers?  Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

I'm refering to those who complain about government red tape halting progress when "the markets" can solve all problems. Now they want government to regulate these social media companies. Dunno what your point about child labour is about.

You said "One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated", so that apparent generalization is what I was challenging.  [/color]

I don't know how I feel about social media companies censoring some and not others and whether the government should intervene.  If these companies are getting involved in politics by preferentially favoring one side (which they seem to be) perhaps there is a case for government intervention

alaimacerc

There's no getting away from JP and his nonsense. I groaned to find out that "Start the Week"'s slot on R4 has been replaced by conservative harumpher Jonathan Sacks. And his first interviewee? A quarter of an hour of Peterson squealing indignantly about there being not enough collective responsibility, too much collective responsibility, and generally there being the wrong sort of collective responsibility. (EVIL LEFTISTS!)

I'm sure we'll shortly learn from his many superfans what JP UTTERLY DEMOLISHED in this particular piece. Other than my radio-listening enjoyment.

alaimacerc

Undividual wrote: »

I don't know how I feel about social media companies censoring some and not others and whether the government should intervene.  If these companies are getting involved in politics by preferentially favoring one side (which they seem to be) perhaps there is a case for government intervention

Are you familiar with the Citizens United SCOTUS judgement? (By your US spelling, I'd hope so. Certainly we appear to be discussing US companies, in the main, in any event.) That makes it not merely legal, but unconstitutional to make illegal, corporations explicitly campaigning for or against political candidates.

Your thought is to start banning Teh Ebil Librul Lamestream Social Meedya merely because of your subjective perception of its "preference" (i.e., they don't sufficiently accord with your own) is quite a few steps beyond that.

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's no getting away from JP and his nonsense. I groaned to find out that "Start the Week"'s slot on R4 has been replaced by conservative harumpher Jonathan Sacks. And his first interviewee? A quarter of an hour of Peterson squealing indignantly about there being not enough collective responsibility, too much collective responsibility, and generally there being the wrong sort of collective responsibility. (EVIL LEFTISTS!)

I'm sure we'll shortly learn from his many superfans what JP UTTERLY DEMOLISHED in this particular piece. Other than my radio-listening enjoyment.

If you offered a rebuttal to any of his points maybe that would encourage some discussion.

alaimacerc

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

If you offered a rebuttal to any of his points maybe that would encourage some discussion.

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

So you can't discern any points from what he's saying, but you understand enough to know that it's all nonsensical and worthy of ridicule?

Hande hoche!

Amazing how much he winds some people up.

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

Latest super genius finding:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1031174952408559617

Except for his editorialising what’s wrong about the statistics that 30% of ants do 70% of the work?

That’s either true. Or it isn’t true.

Franz Von Peppercorn

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are you familiar with the Citizens United SCOTUS judgement? (By your US spelling, I'd hope so. Certainly we appear to be discussing US companies, in the main, in any event.) That makes it not merely legal, but unconstitutional to make illegal, corporations explicitly campaigning for or against political candidates.

Your thought is to start banning Teh Ebil Librul Lamestream Social Meedya merely because of your subjective perception of its "preference" (i.e., they don't sufficiently accord with your own) is quite a few steps beyond that.

I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty of evidence on the preferences of the main stream media. The preferences tend to be liberal/neo liberal and pro corporate.

I’m old enough to remember when the idea that the media was hegemonic was a left wing one.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

alaimacerc wrote: »

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

So you can't discern any points from what he's saying, but you understand enough to know that it's all nonsensical and worthy of ridicule?

I’d challenge Peterson’s apologists to say they understood all of that word salad.

But sone parts were in plain English. Like how, as an old conservative, he thinks young people are doing it all wrong and young people were better back in the old days. If you’re old you can blame the left for creating today’s problems so no need to worry if you’re conservative, you’re definitely not at fault.

Identity politics is bad and it’s all the leftist’s fault. Identifying with your race or gender is bad. And identifying with religion is bad ( presumably he’s not talking about conservative evangelical Christian voters in the US) had doesn’t mention those people. Nor does he mention gun rights or abortion ‘single issue voters’.

That doesn’t seem to be worth a mention but LEFTIST identity politics is dreadful.

It could be summed us as ‘ Peterson says things conservatives would enjoy hearing. Including the classic tracks ‘it’s all the left’s fault’, and ‘young people nowadays do it wrong’’

Giraffe Box

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Amazing how much he winds some people up.

It's not so much the man himself, it's more his devoted fanboys.