Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShowersWithAshleyBiden Can you point to somewhere in the interview that JP was smart? 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...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?]
[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: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist.
[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. 3% of a skewed sample group does not equal 'widely held view'. I guess you can teach psychology even at Harvard without having a basic grasp on scientific and mathematical analysis.]
[Score: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
2
-
2
-
@nNicok Thanks. Just to address number three. You are missing the point. Peterson cited a paper on Marxism in academia to prove Helen wrong that actually proved her right. He said he studied it quite carefully and it was a perfectly valid statistic and he attributes the author as Haidt. I guess he studied it carefully, he just didn't understand it.
Let's check out JP on IDENTITY POLITICS at around 34:00: 'Identity politics is a very specific thing.'
As opposed to what Jordan? A non-specific thing. Listen after he says that. Does he define identity politics? I didn't hear it. Apparently JP knows that Identity Politics is a specific thing, he just does not know what specific thing that it is. Helen for the score again, at least she defines it.===========
Peterson often contradicts himself between lectures, and sometimes within the same lecture. Here between the GQ one and the Full Oxford.
Let's punch in randomly around 4:30 in Full Address Oxford Union: 'We pursue things of value, people who have no purpose are bitter, social creatures compete and cooperate, you produce a hierarchy of competence, people vary in their ability, some are very good, in a hierarchy most of the people stack up at the bottom, to those who have everything more will be given and to those who have nothing everything will be taken away, it is an iron law, inequality is a problem, the Left says you have to be careful because they tend to inequality, people will use power to attain status in the hierarchy....if it is too steep with too many at the bottom it is unjust and unfair, that is not good...'
[Lets unpack this. Jordan speaking at the alleged international center of intellectual thought Oxford astounds us that we pursue things of value and that some football players are better than others? Thank you Jordan. Remember Jordan in the GQ interview where you said that it is a preposterous theory that capitalism produces inequity and that hierarchies are of competence not power? Do I need to help you out with this one, or do you see your 100% contradiction between your theory in Oxford and your theory in GQ? Obviously Oxford invited JP for the views to their video they would get, not because of his non-existent intellectualism.]====
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1