well, i can't say a lot about scandinavia, since i do not know the general opinion of the people there. but what if there aren't that many complains because the problems really aren't that big? or the majoirity of people agrees with it? i also think the situations in denmark norway and sweden are all different anyways. in the interview you posted i can not see a lot of "wokeness" either.
In the interview with those scandinavians,Peterson makes the claim that the more egalitarian a society is the more unequal are men and women. and that this is mostly because of biology. when the women talked it was mostly because of this claim. and i see no real denial of science here. Peterson imo failed to explain his point understandable.
the causality is not clear between egalitarism and those differences. let's assume more egalitarian societies are more wealthy thus in theory people probably have more freedom of choice. but does this mean that the choices made are entirely or mostly biologically explainable? because egalitarian societies today might still have a different understanding of what women or men have to be despite giving them more freedom of choice. this would mean when Jordan says that by reducing cultural influence you increase biological influence it is not really this clear. it could also be, that by reducing influence of one cultural aspect you increase the influence of simply another cultural aspect.
the study in Science which Peterson mentions several times for example did not make the claim that that the observed differences between men and women in egalitarian societies are mostly biological. in fact, if the study is indeed the one, then the authors even say that there must be a cultural factor, because of the observed variation within genders and that the observed differences are not that big.
Peterson might have a point, but saying that there is no cultural problem at all is maybe not really good either. i know men who openly admitted, that when they get beaten in something, doesn't matter what, it hurts more for them if it was a women. this might also be biological who knows. in the past the opponent of a man was usually another man. maybe men are also programmed to work togehter or make deals more likely with other men because in the past this was maybe more beneficial.
it's clear at some point people have to admit that genetics do play an important role, but imo, many of the created social groupings we still have today are outdated and need to be removed, replaced with individuals. and yes i know this extreme "woke" movement is doint the exact opposite.
Wasn't my point precisely that there is no controversy because everyone has conformed to those ideas? It's only mainly in the "Anglophone world" that there is still resistance.
Everything the Scandinavians argued in that clip is what "WOKE" people would say.
You completely misunderstand what Peterson said and the nature of the division of viewpoint.
Let me put it in very simple terms.
NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
As Peterson has said ad nauseam, no decent person would argue that there shouldn't be equality of opportunity for men/women, different races, religions, ethnicities, and on and on.
The issue is what explains the INEQUALITY OF RESULT AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.
The woke world view which has taken over, for example, Sweden, says that inequality of result is because of the social conditioning of women, to use the man/woman situation. Therefore, to use an easily quantifiable example, there are less women in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) because they are socially conditioned to not want to enter into those fields. If any disparity exists, quotas should be mandated.
What Peterson is pointing out is that there is a mountain of scientific literature which indisputably shows that as social constraints against women are removed, women in the STEM fields don't increase; they don't even stay stable; they DECREASE.
The woke response is that we'll just have to push girls harder to enter those fields.
That isn't free choice. Women in Sweden are free to choose. They CHOOSE, by increasing numbers, NOT to enter those fields but to enter fields where people are more important than objects. That is an innate temperamental difference between men and women ON AVERAGE.
As he has also said ad nauseam: men and women are more alike than they are different. If you look at a graph and choose random men and women from the center of the distribution curve, men are about 60% more likely than women to be violent. I don't know the figure offhand for interest in engineering, for example. HOWEVER, if you go to the extremes and look at 100 people, the violent ones are all men. Higher order mathematics and engineering would show the same kind of skew.
You aren't going to get equality of outcome in some of these areas by insisting that girls play with blocks or by forcing them into higher order math. If you force firms to hire 50% female engineers and 50% male engineers regardless of qualifications, you're going to get a less competent group of engineers.
All that should matter in professions or college admissions is COMPETENCE, or we are doomed as societies.
I find him crystal clear in his explanations. I don't understand the issue in understanding him.