Not sure its that straight forward. There seems to be a strong desire to paint it black, describe him as a villain and then move on. Take a look at this video: Peterson is a Clinical psychologist lecturing at University of Toronto and has researched the points raised in the Manifesto prior to it being written. There is supporting research for Petersons claims but they are not politically correct message, hence the reaction. It would be my guess that the author took a lot of ideas from Peterson when writing the document but may have strayed in places. There is a huge amount of anger over all of this and that is not helping the dialogue at all.
...why the fuck would you link me a 50 minute youtube video to refute a 1-paragraph assertion? He's not a villain, he's an archetypal alt-right spoilboy that lacks empathy for anyone not within his immediate socioeconomic class. The reaction is due to a dude with no stake in the game deciding to throw himself into the middle of the discussion by throwing everyone else under the bus. I'm related to clinical psychologists. They have about as much relevance in the discussion of workplace fairness as process chemists do. "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" doesn't make you any more authoritative on aspirin as the next guy.
Sometimes it takes a little time to unpack an assertion (or a number of assertions) and show why it may be inaccurate. It seems like a snap judgement to call him a "archetypal alt-right spoilboy that lacks empathy" without at least examining what he is saying first to see if it is correct in anyway. What did he say that led you to the conclusion that he is wrong? Clinical psychologists in general may not be an authority on this topic except perhaps ones who carried out funded research on this very topic. Do we just dismiss that? Also I didn't get the sense that he is alt-right but it is VERY easy to label him as such based on the content and just dismiss it. It seems like most people looked at this, thought "well that doesn't match my ideology" and promptly started screaming and hand wringing.
It does not take a fucking hour to unpack archetypal gamergate bullshit. I read the fuckin' manifesto. The dude's a tool. The dude's statements are toolish. Bjorn Lomborg has done "research" that disproves global warming; that his "research" flies in the face of the rest of the world is a factor in most thinking people dismissing his bullshit out-of-hand. Dude, I quoted him in the comment you responded to. He flagrantly misrepresents research on equality without so much as a cursory overview. And then he proceeds to do it for another ten pages. Rather than address the conditions on the ground, he addresses the conditions in his head and then expects a billion dollar company to thoughtfully stroke their chins. This shit needs to be dismissed. Completely. With prejudice. Discussions of workplace diversity and equality do not begin with some brocoder deciding he knows more about gender dynamics and equality than everybody else. It would never occur to me that I have any standing to argue for Ruby over Python; yet for some reason some coders figure their opinions about fuckin' transgender issues are important and insightful.What did he say that led you to the conclusion that he is wrong?
Also I didn't get the sense that he is alt-right but it is VERY easy to label him as such based on the content and just dismiss it.
I don't think its some brocoder deciding he know more than everyone else, I think its a case of a smart person taking the time to lay out what years of research shows over and over again; there are biological differences between men and women that over a large population average out to a statistically significant preference for occupations. Look at all this shit and also take heed of the fact that rather than Google explaining why he was wrong based on evidence they simply fired his ass. You can be certain that was a carefully calculated PR move. Now the danger is that alt-right scumbags will use this as a tool to defend their shitty ideas but thats an outcome of how facts are used, the fact is still true... The biggest mistake this guy made was to put forward a reasonable assertion backed by science and expect a reasoned discussion, that was never going to happen and his own naivety has pretty much screwed him. He should have seen it coming but that doesn't mean he deserved to be fired. Also its pretty interesting that there is a huge desire for biological diversity under the premise that companies will benefit from new ideas, but then when an actual new idea is put forward they immediately hit they throw you out of the room.