In a 2018 television interview, psychologist Jordan Peterson has the following exchange when asked about the gender wage gap:

Peterson: There's multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that's not the only reason. If you're a social scientist worth your salt, you never univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break it down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Interviewer: But you're saying, basically, it doesn't matter if women aren't getting to the top, because that's what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it? You're saying that's just a fact of life, women aren't necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter, either. I'm saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Interviewer: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: I'm not saying that they should put up with it! I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There's no doubt about that.

In class, we discussed that control variables such as age or occupation are examples of "bad controls." What makes these controls "bad"? What is the usefulness of including them in our estimates of the gender wage gap given that they are bad?