Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Alliance for Responsible Citizenship" channel.

  1.  @russianbot4418  Those are timestamps to JP most famous video 'there was plenty of motivation...' As for this video, did you find any useful coherent points by JP? Timestamp and quote.
    1
  2.  @russianbot4418  We are searching for an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  3.  @russianbot4418  You said my quotes of Peterson make no sense. See we agree!
    1
  4.  @russianbot4418  Did you know that there is no technical difference between thinking and being miserable, likewise cognitive systems have axiomatic levels and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity.? Just wanted to share some of my wisdom.
    1
  5.  @russianbot4418  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  6. JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  7.  @illbeyourmonster5752  No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  8.  @illbeyourmonster5752  I agree, you can't find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  9.  @illbeyourmonster5752  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot.
    1
  10.  @illbeyourmonster5752  But what if you are climbing Jacob's ladder with the fork and plate in your hand as you try and organize the cosmos? Wouldn't that be dangerous?
    1
  11.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Actually it was all Peterson nonsense, including the fork and the plate.
    1
  12.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Agreed, neither of us can find a coherent, useful, profound idea by JP. JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  13.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Actually my arguments are JP quotes. So we finally agree, JP is a pseudo intellectual!
    1
  14.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Isn't it great that after all this time we agree that Peterson is a pseudo intellectual? I quoted Jordan and you called it fake intellectual word salad!
    1
  15.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Thank you for your feelings that I misquoted him. But my facts don't care about your feelings. But we both agree he is a pseudo intellectual, so that is good,.
    1
  16.  @illbeyourmonster5752  I quoted Peterson, you called it fake intellectual. I win you lose. Get over it.
    1
  17.  @botspotter8379  We are searching for an intellectual and useful idea by JP. No one can find one. BTW: What was it that I can't read? I quoted Peterson, that one guy called it fake intellectual. So we have an agreement on fake intellectual. Real intellectual though; that search continues.
    1
  18.  @botspotter8379  Did you know that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, and also that speech is the most social form of thought?
    1
  19.  @botspotter8379  Did you find this alleged thing I can't read yet? Use facts not your feelings.
    1
  20.  @botspotter8379  Time to give the tablet back to your parents.
    1
  21.  @botspotter8379  I think what you need to realize is that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, further that cognitive systems have axiomatic levels.
    1
  22.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Thank you again for your feelings. But my facts don't care about your feelings.
    1
  23.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Our quest for an intellectual idea by Peterson continues.
    1
  24.  @illbeyourmonster5752  I have facts, you have feelings. I win!
    1
  25.  @illbeyourmonster5752  Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. [Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?] Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind. Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future. Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations. Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior. [Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.] Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.] Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable. [You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.] Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.] Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance . Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need. [I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.] Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together. [Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
    1
  26. No one can find a valuable message by JP.
    1
  27. JP is auditioning for the 700 club, next to Joel Osteen.
    1
  28. JP pretends that the ARC has ideas for a better world. Let's check it out: 'What do you mean by WE? The untrammeled atomistic isolated liberal individual is indistinguishable from an immature immediate hedonistic model or itself. Our values are the same as a 2 year old, technically, the work we do pertains to that topic...sexual gratification is a wish, sexual pleasure on its own, men who have many women are psychopathic and sadistic...' [Translation; big words attempting to sound technical discussing nothing technical or useful at all. OUR values are the same as a 2 year old technically? Like everyone? How does JP know that my values are the same as two year old, or the other 7 billion people on earth? Everyone who likes a lot of sex is a sadistic psychopath? What about the sadistic psychopaths that do school shootings because they aren't getting any sex?]
    1
  29. No one can find a profound useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  30. But what if you are climbing Jacob's ladder with the fork and plate in your hand as you try and organize the cosmos? Wouldn't that be dangerous?
    1
  31.  @wgblues9887  Actually the fork and jacob ladder thing was JP statement. We agree JP is idiotic.
    1
  32. NO one can find a coherent useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  33.  @roflstomplolmao  I agree, you can't find a profound useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  34.  @crystalsky9512  No one can find a useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  35.  @danielreed823  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  36.  @Shei-vei  We agree finally! That psychobabble was from Maps of Meaning! Isn't it great to start out disagreeing and then evolving to an agreement that JP is the king of incoherent pseudo intellectual psychobabble?
    1
  37.  @Shei-vei  You should also realize if you think about it that identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity. I have shared this with JP, but he just doesn't get it, since he is not at my level.
    1
  38.  @roflstomplolmao  True, Peterson doesn't get that intellectual idea I stated.
    1
  39.  @roflstomplolmao  True, I shared my intellectual idea that surpasses Peterson. Glad we agree. The scaffold constitutes our identity.
    1
  40.  @roflstomplolmao  Peterson posts on YouTube also. You don't believe him there either?
    1
  41.  @roflstomplolmao  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  42. 'Hope is movement towards a valuable goal, you need a goal that unites you internally, you have less anxiety when you have a vision, there is a cost of suffering in your life, if that suffering is without purpose, then you will be bitter, what do I want to not be bitter, or to be thrilled, being thrilled is good, imagine the relationship that you want, admit what you don't have now, be a person that you would admire, technically now you are motivated, to fulfill and act that existence is good, if you ask you will receive is good advice, if you make the sacrifice then you will attain, but you may have to modify your vision... [Wow impressive. It's good to have good goals?]
    1
  43.  @theycallmekensington  No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  44.  @Shei-vei  I quoted from Maps of Meaning and you called it psychobabble. So we agree, we can both recognize psychobabble. But let's move on. Did you know that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable? That is some real intellectualism from me. A real intellectual.
    1
  45.  @BR26-o6o  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity.
    1
  46. ​ @emanuelephrem4307 No one can find a profound intellectual useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  47.  @emanuelephrem4307  I agree, you can't find a profound coherent useful idea by Peterson
    1
  48.  @kevinng1702  Peterson has self help advice that helps some people, similar to what most parents tell their fourth graders. I support him in that. The ARC however is Peterson pretending he has world solutions when he doesn't.
    1
  49.  @jasonsherlock7480  No one can find a profound useful idea by JP, as he promotes his 'I have a plan to save the world ARC''
    1
  50.  @jasonsherlock7480  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1