Whaleoil Transcript: Sean Plunket & Dr Jordan B Peterson on diversity, Julie-Anne Genter & equality

Magic Talk starts at 7:48

Sean

All right. I want to talk about a few things going on in New Zealand which is, you know, part of the culture war, we are part of the global community and we?re connected online. First up, we have a cabinet, um? the Labour Party, the largest member, or part of our coalition government, it has a quota, a male/female quota, for cabinet posts.

Jordan

Now, Canada too?

Sean

Yeah, what do you think of that?

Jordan

I think there is absolutely no excuse for it. I think that it?s a? it?s a? you know the radical leftists are always yammering on about biological essentialism which they associate with something akin to fascism. You know, the idea that there are mutable biological characteristics that define people and yet they are the first people to insist that if you are going to have a cabinet that is, let?s say more competent than representative, that you have to divide it according to identity categories. And first and foremost, perhaps the ones of sex. And to pick your cabinet by genitalia is not an acceptable technical move.

And exactly the same thing happened in Canada where 25% of our major parties elected officials who were female but 50% of the cabinet members ending up being female. All that means, what that certainly means, is that the most qualified people were not selected because it is statistically impossible for them to have been selected.

It was cheap virtue signalling. And? and it?s also technically impossible, even from the perspective of the leftists themselves, with their intersectionality, because they insist that people have to be judged in relationship to their oppression on multiple dimensions simultaneously. And I?ve done some back of the envelope mathematical calculations. If you have 10 dimensions that mark you out, let?s say in terms of the group affiliations that characterize you, then you are the only person like that in the world.

Sean

(Chuckles).

Jordan

Yes, so as you multiply? all you have to do is do the math? as you multiply the number of groups that have to be given favoured status because of their hypothetically oppressed situation, then you make it increasingly impossible for equality of outcome to even be? to be something that can be practically implemented without a bureaucracy of terrifying proportions.

Sean

We also have a ministry of women?s affairs in New Zealand and the minister of women?s affairs, or the minister for women, as she is known, suggested recently that there were too many white old men on boards in New Zealand, of private and public companies, and just suggested that they need to move aside so there could be more diversity. Your response to that suggestion?

Jordan

Well, um, what?s her racial and ethnic background, just out of curiosity?

Sean

I think, she?s born in America, Julie-Anne Genter, she?s a member of our Green Party here.

Jordan

Is she white?

Sean

Yes.

Jordan

Well maybe it?s time for her to bloody well move aside and let someone who isn?t white have her position.

Sean

All right. So, I?m taking it that you don?t agree with Julie-Anne Genter?

Jordan

Well? look? they?ve tried this in Scandinavia where they put? they put quotas for females on boards and part of the idea was that if you did that you would increase the rate at which women would move through managerial and administrative status rankings. And that has had zero success.

Sean

The suggestion is also that, Jordan, actually women can somehow? um? up the financial performance of companies.

Jordan

Sure.

Sean

So, you don?t believe those stats? That research.

Jordan

There?s no evidence for that. What? what?. What elevates the financial ah? ah? productivity of a company is quote clear: trade conscientiousness.

Which is a marker for integrity and trustworthiness and diligence and dutifulness? is a very good predictor of long-term economic productivity and so is general cognitive ability. And that holds across sexes and races. And the reason for that is that the non-racist and non-sexist way of looking at the world, by the way, is that there is far more difference between individuals within groups than there are between groups. Because, look, the fundamental racist, sexist, ah? ah? ethnocentric proposition is that there are more differences between groups of people than there are within groups of people.

Sean

Yeah.

Jordan

That?s essentially the racist doctrine.  And so, we need some black people. Because you know, all those black people are the same and unless we have a voice or two from a black person then we don?t have that set of identity issues represented. Well, it?s just simply not the case. Because most of the diversity comes at the level of individual personality and temperament. And the literature on that is crystal clear. You know, these? these? are pseudo-intellectual claims made by people from the radical left and they are very dangerous because they are easily shifted into the sorts of things that the radical right likes to enjoy, which is, ?Oh, I see, there are immutable differences between gender, sexes and the races, they are of substantial import and that we? we? we need to take them into account when we? we? are formulating such things as immigration policy.? So, no, there is no evidence that those claims are correct.

And there?s counter evidence for much of it. For example, in Scandinavia, and this is? this is as close to psychological fact as any facts that exist, is that as you increase equality of opportunity, which means you open the doors for more and more people, especially let?s say, with regards to sex, and that?s had a big effect because there?s far more women in the work force than there once was, you increase the degree to which outcomes differ, on multiple dimensions. And that?s partly? there?s a variety of reasons for that. At least a dozen and they?re all important. One of which is that women, especially once they hit their thirties, prefer to work part-time. And that?s not bad or wrong. And it?s certainly not an indication of systemic sexism. So, the radical types like to have one explanation.

Everyone isn?t exactly the same with regards to outcome therefore the system is a corrupt patriarchy. It?s like you could learn that in one minute in a propaganda course in University. And then you have an answer for every problem that ever besets you politically for the rest of your life. And there?s no excuse for it. It?s appalling scholarship.

10%
×