The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework vs. e.g. Jordan Peterson

[icehorse]

In fact I guarantee you don't have the statistics you're trying to claim here, that health problems more often than not are causative by the obesity than correlative, the cause being ither systemic health problems such as hormones, metabolic issues, mental healthcare issues, or other disability. The metabolic hormone disorder I mentioned is but one of many that cause obesity, and it's one that impacts as much as 10% of women. A *significant* number of people.

As I recall, my first post on this topic made an exception for those people with health issues outside of obesity that could exacerbate obesity.

Let me take a stab at categorizing here:

1 - People who are obese, but fit, and might not be adversely affected by being overweight. (I'm dubious that this category exists, but for this discussion, I'll grant it to you.)
2 - People who are obese because of other health issues.
3 - People who are obese because they consistently consume more calories than they burn.

I'm mostly concerned with category 3. Within this category I would say there are broadly two sub-categories:

3a - Poor people who live in "food deserts"
3b - Financially secure people who choose to eat unhealthily.

I just did a quick internet search on the question "is obesity unhealthy". As you can imagine, I got a zillion hits. Some obvious themes came up:

"obesity increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers"

And that's just a 30 second bit of research.

===

Now I understand that mental health and body image are real issues, I'm not ignoring those. And I would agree that it's crucial to find ways to be kind and compassionate when addressing these issues.

But again, you've got a real uphill battle on your hands if you want to prove your claim that being overweight isn't - statistically - unhealthy.

 

[icehorse]

So to me 'u lost cuz ad hom' is just a cop-out.

You've failed to chase me away, and your weak arguments are on display for the world to see. By all means, carry on

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You've failed to chase me away, and your weak arguments are on display for the world to see. By all means, carry on

I'm not out to chase you away, but I'm also not out to spare feelings. I'm also really not intimidated by what you think is a weak argument.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I recall, my first post on this topic made an exception for those people with health issues outside of obesity that could exacerbate obesity.



Let me take a stab at categorizing here:



1 - People who are obese, but fit, and might not be adversely affected by being overweight. (I'm dubious that this category exists, but for this discussion, I'll grant it to you.)

2 - People who are obese because of other health issues.

3 - People who are obese because they consistently consume more calories than they burn.



I'm mostly concerned with category 3. Within this category I would say there are broadly two sub-categories:



3a - Poor people who live in "food deserts"

3b - Financially secure people who choose to eat unhealthily.



I just did a quick internet search on the question "is obesity unhealthy". As you can imagine, I got a zillion hits. Some obvious themes came up:



"obesity increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers"



And that's just a 30 second bit of research.



===



Now I understand that mental health and body image are real issues, I'm not ignoring those. And I would agree that it's crucial to find ways to be kind and compassionate when addressing these issues.



But again, you've got a real uphill battle on your hands if you want to prove your claim that being overweight isn't - statistically - unhealthy.

I like how you say you make an exception but then one minute later say you really don't. Also your words are absolutely meaningless if you still *treat* obese people as if the obesity is the thing wrong with them.

And shock of shocks a Google search in a late stage capitalist world where the fitness industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and healthcare is severely lacking in holistic approaches, emphasizes fear and reductionism.

But doing a five minute Google search to hold up your case is just cementing to me that you have no room for nuance and will continue to approach the subject from an absurdly reductionist angle.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Incidentally, I have never argued that there aren't health risks associated with obesity in all circumstance. That's *your* pet strawman. I have argued that 1. people who are obese aren't necessarily unhealthy, and you shouldnt ever assume they are without beingtheir doctor with their health history and 2. that, in your line item list, there are more people in category 1 than you're willing to entertain. As well as 3. Body positivity movement does more for those people's heath than social isolation, ostracization, blame, fear tactics.

 

[icehorse]

Also your words are absolutely meaningless if you still *treat* obese people as if the obesity is the thing wrong with them.

Ah grass-hopper.. The 3a category, the poor in food deserts, are victims of the kleptocracy / oligarchy we've become. Perhaps we can largely agree on that? As for the 3b, the overweight who could afford to eat well, I don't think that obesity is THE THING that's wrong with them. But I do think it's damaging their health and our healthcare system. And we might also agree that our healthcare system is quite flawed.

And shock of shocks a Google search in a late stage capitalist world where the fitness industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and healthcare is severely lacking in holistic approaches, emphasizes fear and reductionism.

Well you might use google, I use duck duck go

I would agree that the fitness industry might be a minor player, but not a significant one. You might be surprised to hear that I think we'd almost entirely agree on the problems with our healthcare industry. FWIW, for many years MY doc is an integrative MD, very holistic, very preventative, very opposed to after-the-fact, silver bullets.

==

"reductionist". sigh. This is a hammer you've used a lot in this discussion. Let me ask you this, can you describe how to differentiate a valid conclusion from a reductionist one?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ah grass-hopper.. The 3a category, the poor in food deserts, are victims of the kleptocracy / oligarchy we've become. Perhaps we can largely agree on that? As for the 3b, the overweight who could afford to eat well, I don't think that obesity is THE THING that's wrong with them. But I do think it's damaging their health and our healthcare system. And we might also agree that our healthcare system is quite flawed.

Well you might use google, I use duck duck go

I would agree that the fitness industry might be a minor player, but not a significant one. You might be surprised to hear that I think we'd almost entirely agree on the problems with our healthcare industry. FWIW, for many years MY doc is an integrative MD, very holistic, very preventative, very opposed to after-the-fact, silver bullets.
==

"reductionist". sigh. This is a hammer you've used a lot in this discussion. Let me ask you this, can you describe how to differentiate a valid conclusion from a reductionist one?

See aforementioned differentiation between simple and reductive.

"Just lose weight and your health and our healthcare system won't suffer" is *always* a silver bullet approach. Also, if you think the fitness industry's role in damaging people's health is minor then you need to do more research on the prevalence of eating disorders in fitness circles.

 

[icehorse]

See aforementioned differentiation between simple and reductive.

"Just lose weight and your health and our healthcare system won't suffer" is *always* a silver bullet approach. Also, if you think the fitness industry's role in damaging people's health is minor then you need to do more research on the prevalence of eating disorders in fitness circles.

You're guilt of reducing my arguments

As for the healthcare industry - you brought it up when we were talking about obesity. If you want to discuss fitness and eating disorders, that's fine, but it's a different topic

So once again, with jazz hands:

For category 3a and 3b people (and there are 10s of millions of them), losing weight WILL - statistically - improve their health and thus lessen (not solve), the strain on our already poor healthcare system.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You're guilt of reducing my arguments

As for the healthcare industry - you brought it up when we were talking about obesity. If you want to discuss fitness and eating disorders, that's fine, but it's a different topic

So once again, with jazz hands:

For category 3a and 3b people (and there are 10s of millions of them), losing weight WILL - statistically - improve their health and thus lessen (not solve), the strain on our already poor healthcare system.

No the fitness industry got brought up because search engine results were being used to make conclusions when search engine hits is literally a paid service utilized by the fitness industry (its how analytics and seo works.)

You literally have no way of substantiation for your last paragraph. For multiple reasons. It's reductive because:
1. Being in, and effected b,y food deserts is not mutually exclusive with group 1. You have literally no idea how many people fall in group one, so no way to break down the ratio of groups.
2. Similarly group 3b is always an assumption people in group 1 receive from both society and doctors. But again you have no way of knowing how many people are in group 1, certainly not just by looking at them.
3. You have no way of proving that the impact on healthcare services by things like diabetes and heart conditions are a product of being in group 1.
4. You have no one size fits all solution for group 1 because 'just lose weight' is not and has never been the issue with them.
5. Your whole premise of the argument has been against the body positivity movement, which is more positively health impacting than 'just lose weight' for all groups concerned. As is a holistic approach to wellness which the majority of the US healthcare industry does not practice.

 

[icehorse]

@ADigitalArtist -

You're arguing against both common sense AND extremely well documented statistics. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

1. Being in, and effected b,y food deserts is not mutually exclusive with group 1. You have literally no idea how many people fall in group one, so no way to break down the ratio of groups.

I'm not sure how the ratios matter to my argument? Let me put it this way: Many (I'd guess most!), of the people who are genetically predisposed to obesity can still take measures to reduce their weight. I'll grant you that it might be harder for the genetically predisposed, but life's not fair. Some people have addictive personalities that makes life harder for them. There are a host of disadvantages people can inherent, no doubt.

3. You have no way of proving that the impact on healthcare services by things like diabetes and heart conditions are a product of being in group 1.

I disagree. I don't currently know the numbers, but the numbers ARE known and are find-out-able.

4. You have no one size fits all solution for group 1 because 'just lose weight' is not and has never been the issue with them.

Your point is?

5. Your whole premise of the argument has been against the body positivity movement, which is more positively health impacting than 'just lose weight' for all groups concerned. As is a holistic approach to wellness which the majority of the US healthcare industry does not practice.

No, that's not my premise, care to take another guess?

As for the holistic approach, why can't you take "yes, I agree" as an answer?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@ADigitalArtist -

You're arguing against both common sense AND extremely well documented statistics. I'm not going to do your homework for you.



I'm not sure how the ratios matter to my argument? Let me put it this way: Many (I'd guess most!), of the people who are genetically predisposed to obesity can still take measures to reduce their weight. I'll grant you that it might be harder for the genetically predisposed, but life's not fair. Some people have addictive personalities that makes life harder for them. There are a host of disadvantages people can inherent, no doubt.



I disagree. I don't currently know the numbers, but the numbers ARE known and are find-out-able.



Your point is?



No, that's not my premise, care to take another guess?

As for the holistic approach, why can't you take "yes, I agree" as an answer?

You at the same time say that you don't know the statistics, but are well known and easy to find, but you won't because you think it's my job to inform myself on something you clearly haven't. Mmkay.

 

[icehorse]

You at the same time say that you don't know the statistics, but are well known and easy to find, but you won't because you think it's my job to inform myself on something you clearly haven't. Mmkay.

You're a master of spin!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You're a master of spin!

Which is about as useful as me informing you that you're the master of reductive thinking and cop outs.

My mobile browser software is glitchy as heck and keeps inserting page breaks. So I'm going to reiterate The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework vs. e.g. Jordan Peterson and stop there.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

To me, Jordan Peterson is a great example of a flawed messenger. I often strongly disagree with his ideas. But sometimes I think he's correct on a topic, and when he's correct, he can voice his ideas quite strongly. Recently, he's been told that he has to get "re-educated", or they'll take his license away. Wow! If you disagree with him, sure, debate him, write well reasoned criticisms with his ideas. But to take away his license? Again, this seems like a big step towards "state enabled dogma" and yes, fascism.

I'm ignorant on how certain things work in that field, but isn't there, or shouldn't there be a way to qualify his title as being a 'conservative leaning psychologist? I end up listening to a lot of peterson podcasts, and though I do disagree with ideas, I don't think the guy is dumb. I also listen to long streams of vaush, who is very far to the left, and to be honest, I wonder if he kinda scares me a bit more. I dislike both the mainstream right and left, but neither the mainstream media, or alternative media, give you that many options

I don't care if people are trans, or if they are homosexual, and I just leave it at that.

All I know is that Peterson has seemed to keep me from thinking too negatively at times, and I don't know if there are really mainstream figures on the left who did that for me. I can slip into light nihilistic thinking kind of easily. I could flip on all kinds of news talkers, and find little hope. "Another video on how we are headed for world war 3, and live in a corporate economic zone, destined to be homeless and eat bugs," uh no thanks. At least someone like peterson doesn't talk like that all the time. You know what I mean? No political influencer on the left seems to talk with hope in mind

 

[YmirGF]

Okay, I've read the article.

So he' resigned from his tenured psychology professorship at U of T. stating, "“The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business.”

Not off to a great start ... especially given that "diversity, inclusion and equity" are usually the types of principles that universities tend to embrace. That was certainly the case when I attended about 20 years ago. And especially coming from a psychologist, those are some pretty strange comments, as are many others I've heard from him.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario want to revoke his psychology license over complaints about his Tweets, some of which I am aware of, like his comments about the Sports Illustrated model. The ones he made (and continues to make) about Elliot Page's breasts I find pretty disturbing and obsessive, to be honest. And they want him to be "re-educated." Okay, so I'm not sure I agree with this bit of it, as it's a bit murky. It's one thing if you're not upholding and representing the values held by your place of employment, but to revoke one's license to practice psychology altogether, I don't know. On the other hand, the College of Psychologists of Ontario does have a code of ethics that they expect practicing members to adhere to and it's not a secret or anything. There are entire courses devoted to discussions and details of this stuff, in most Psychology Programs that I'm aware of.

Such comments sound pretty bizarre coming out of the mouth of somebody who is supposed to be trained in psychology and should be aware of the negative impact those kinds of comments would have on the people he's talking about. And given that people trained in psychology are meant to be helping people, going out of one's way to cause people harm instead, is pretty antithetical to the point of his profession.

OK, so you at least can see how incredibly petty the College is being here. They simply did not have to pursue these frivolous complaints. I take a different slant. I think the college is annoyed that their most famous alumni is getting so much attention, and they hate the fact that their most famous member, by far, is not one of "the boys" or "one of them".

Now, the courts have weighed in and actually said this was not a disciplinary action where, in reality, it fits the very definition of disciplinary. For the courts to pretend that away is nothing short of stunning. They are literally going after him over two particular tweets about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Let that sink in.

Hilariously, Peterson has announced he is going to publish everything in his interaction with the College going forward. My guess is that this whole thing is going to blow up in the College's face in a manner that may be reminiscent of the Lindsay Shepard debacle.

Frankly, folks can say what they like about Peterson, but I don't see this ending well for the College.... or the courts, for that matter, with ludicrous rulings like this. Their credibility is on the line, and they have already blown it by taking things this far. (You would think a bunch of psychologists would be able to calm things down. LOL.)

 

[wellwisher]

I'm offended

To me, this is a great example of separating goals from tactics. I mostly agree with the goals of DEI, I just think that too often their tactics are bad.

The goal of DEI is diversity, equity and inclusion which is fair. However, the tactic is to take away a merit based system, and replace it with a quota system.

This is no different than the son of the owner, get the sales manager's job, not because he is the best at the job, but because he has political pull. Merit does not come down to who you know, but is based on objective performance. Nepotism is about political pull.

A more healthier way to approach DEI is to do like they do in sports. Everyone gets to try out, so nobody is restricted and discriminated against; DEI at the tryouts. The son of the owner is not a sure thing. You let merit run its course. What you end up with are the best people for the job, who are natural born leaders, based on their drive and the objectivity of merit. Being the son of the owner of DEI, places people, who can be over their head, who will also be resented by those who are excluded from the tryouts or standing on the podium, because of the nepotism of the quota system.

Nepotism is the practice of showing favoritism toward one's family members or friends in economic or employment terms, for example, granting jobs to friends and relatives, without regard to merit. Such practices can and do have damaging effects on businesses.

The analogy is say you have a large sales staff and Julie is your best salesperson. Because of her merit, she is respected by her peers, and so you make her the sale manager. She is the true leader, both in terms of her drive and objective merit; team captain.

The alternative of Nepotism is, you give Joe the sales manager position even though he is in the middle of the sales pack. The problem is, he has no objective way to feel like he is the natural born leader, as did Julie, not does his staff respectfully admit Joe is the man. The result is company politics which can hurt the team.

You can see DEI cause college staff to become too sensitive and political, and less about open opinion and hard sprit based on merit. Because of nepotism, Joe is over his head, relative to some of his workers, so he may not listen but simply will pull rank. It happened to Bud Light DEI would not listen because good business practice is based on merit. Nepotism never is the answer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

extreme left

Boogeymen, you mean? Where are their armed militias kidnapping politicians and attempting to overthrow the US government?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

College of Psychologists of Ontario to Jordan Peterson: Undergo reeducation or lose your license

Gaffaw snort. If you don't practice evidence based methods that's what happens when you are are supposed to be an evidence based clinician.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You've failed to chase me away, and your weak arguments are on display for the world to see. By all means, carry on

You calling someone elses argument weak?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hilariously, Peterson has announced he is going to publish everything in his interaction with the College going forward. My guess is that this whole thing is going to blow up in the College's face in a manner that may be reminiscent of the Lindsay Shepard debacle.

No doubt. He's probably making way more money from his political limelight than he's ever made being a shrink and teaching.
But like the rest of his political obsurdities it will be preaching to the choir and the university won't be harmed.