Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Warren Smith - Secret Scholar Society"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...I know my neurochemistry, if you want to go play neurochemistry, It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistical.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', ie Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 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. What you need to realize is that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, and that we don't understand consciousness and its place in the cosmos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 I think you have perfectly nailed the condescending, manipulative, narcissistic, can't stand to have his opinions challenged personality of JP in that video; so good call on that. I would have to see an example of where I dodged criticism, however. What criticism exactly? I did have to comment on your goal post switch of:
What is the point of a conversation, to, What is your point in this conversation. Did that trigger you? The only criticism I noticed from you was that 'I wouldn't answer your question', but of course then you changed the question to something answerable.
Wait a minute; is this paragraph of yours attempting to not be condescending and manipulative? Sorry, I have to give you a low score.
Here is a lesson in self awareness; Keep track of what was said, and comment on that, rather than twisting it to something to fit your narrative, e.g. claiming that I had stated I know how to make everyone equally smart when I said nothing of the sort. It requires skill at keeping facts straight in your head, something JP is usually bad at, e.g.:
How to lobsters say that -- uh seriously Jordy, you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago.
BTW would you say you agree with JP when he says the West is not an oppressive patriarchy, or when he says the West is an oppressive patriarchy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YOUR FEELINGS: The entire video was a JP win.
MY FACTS: At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usuall interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalance of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
This is what is 'quite prevalent all throughout the video'; JP on a mission to prove his own ego and not let Helen be right about anything. That is how to use facts. Try it.
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
1
-
1