Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1.  @Gladerunner2113  I started a new thread on the GQ interview with your comments.
    1
  2.  @Gladerunner2113  go to the source video of all your timestamps, and sort by newest first: The Molecule FX boulder The Molecule FX boulder 3 hours ago I will take on one claim here: 44:00 +1 to Jordan here, for debunking Helen at least on the idea that Marxist scholars are exceedingly rare. [Wrong. Peterson interrupted Helen to cite a study to prove Helen wrong that actually proved her right. Helen: Not a widely held view. Paper: Tiny minority faith at 3%. Score for Helen.] The Molecule FX boulder The Molecule FX boulder 3 hours ago At 4:20 'Our primary social hierarchy structures are masculine.' What? A hierarchy is masculine? Like it acts like a man? And if our hierarchies are masculine why is JP continually arguing that our hierarchies are not male dominated? Score for JP? How exactly? The Molecule FX boulder The Molecule FX boulder 3 hours ago 40:00 We finally get to lobsters, and Peterson doesn't lose here. [Yes he does. Helen it makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more aggressive. JP interrupting as usual, no thats not right, I know my neurochemistry, it makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more willing to fight.]
    1
  3.  @Gladerunner2113  'Jordan said something worthwhile and he got the upper hand?' Sure timestamp and quote where that happened. Here are some places it didn't happen: JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful. Remember at the start of this interview where you stated that no one in 50 years has had a discussion on the relation between meaning and responsibility, and now you are stating you know that everyone is ungrateful? Try this. Don't say stupid stuff, in this case pretending that you know what everyone else thinks.] JP: 'That isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the benefit of a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Are you listening to voices in your head Jordan? Did she make that claim? Are these voices telling you that you know that no one discusses responsibility also? Look at how preachy JP is here.) At 19:00 JP: 'That is for sure, it is purely not. When you describe it as a tyrannical patriarchy then you describe it as purely that. Merely to define it as a patriarchy implies uni-dimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview (around 43:00) where you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely an oppressive patriarchy? There is a big difference between something being purely something and being partly something? Here is my suggestion. If you are not sure what you are talking about, or if you can't remember what you said on the same issue in a prior interview, don't look so smug about it. When you act like a preachy know it all while directly contradicting yourself...well you get my point.) Let's punch in to Pretenderson at 34:30: 'You can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment as identity politics.' [Ok sure JP, but she didn't say that. If you are trying to pull a monster straw man I give you a high score]. Politics based on identity is not the definition of identity politics. [Could JP be more stupid if he tried?] Helen 4 Jordan 0. 'You can't say that people's proclivity to identify with their group is identity politics.' [Uh what Jordan? Nazis identifying with Nazisim, anti Semites identifying with anti Semitism, trans gender identifying with trans gender activists, blacks identifying with BLM - none of that is identity politics? Is Peterson the biggest idiot on the public stage right now?] Peterson 'Let's get our definitions straight on identity politics'...and he then proceeds to not define it. Helen defines it and gives an example, founding documents of the US, so another win for Helen!
    1
  4.  @checkitoutguys1  I have figure out 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.
    1
  5.  @miked5106  You found a Peterson win? Where?
    1
  6.  @miked5106  Try using facts instead of your feelings. Do you have any?
    1
  7.  @miked5106  I understand you feel Peterson won, you just don't know where that happened. Peterson doesn't attract people who use facts.
    1
  8.  @miked5106  Thank you again for your feelings. If you want to learn how to use facts, scroll up in this comment thread and watch how I do it. Trust me once you understand how to use facts it's a game changer. I am not saying that people who disagree with me are wrong. I am just pointing out that analytical reasoning and the use of facts is a subset with no overlapping sections of the other subset, Peterson fan.
    1
  9.  @revalution1965  You found a Peterson win? Cool where?
    1
  10.  @ramteja1550  If you find a Peterson win LMK.
    1
  11. @Alma A Don't take it personally. It's just a hobby like stamp collecting.
    1
  12.  @natashabaguyo9249  Did you find a Peterson win? JP at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options.... [Holy crap Jordan you have some serious voices going on in your head. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.] ============= Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies unidimensional...' [Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert'] What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.] 'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy... [What a total idiot. She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
    1
  13.  EL JAY  She was responding to JP saying 'of all people who have ever lived on the planet'; e.g. Neanderthals. Responding to what someone else said is not a strawman. Later in the video JP states the best way to help poor people is to give up the belief that they are victims of the patriarchy. Helen's solution is progressive tax, so since JP's 'solution' doesn't do anything to help poor people, Helen wins on that point.
    1
  14.  EL JAY  Here is a more intelligent less immature way to pose that Question... What would you consider filthy rich? Then let Helen answer instead of interrupt her.
    1
  15.  EL JAY  JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful. Remember at the start of this interview where you stated that no one in 50 years has had a discussion on the relation between meaning and responsibility, and now you are stating you know that everyone is ungrateful? Try this. Don't say stupid stuff, in this case pretending that you know what everyone else thinks.] JP: 'That isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the benefit of a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Are you listening to voices in your head Jordan? Did she make that claim? Are these voices telling you that you know that no one discusses responsibility also? Look at how preachy JP is here.) At 19:00 JP: 'That is for sure, it is purely not. When you describe it as a tyrannical patriarchy then you describe it as purely that. Merely to define it as a patriarchy implies uni-dimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview (around 43:00) where you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely an oppressive patriarchy? There is a big difference between something being purely something and being partly something? Here is my suggestion. If you are not sure what you are talking about, or if you can't remember what you said on the same issue in a prior interview, don't look so smug about it. When you act like a preachy know it all while directly contradicting yourself...well you get my point.) Let's punch in to Pretenderson at 34:30: 'You can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment as identity politics.' [Ok sure JP, but she didn't say that. If you are trying to pull a monster straw man I give you a high score]. Politics based on identity is not the definition of identity politics. [Could JP be more stupid if he tried?] Helen 4 Jordan 0.
    1
  16.  EL JAY  Helen was responding to Peterson's ridiculous statement that she makes more than a caveman.
    1
  17.  EL JAY  Helen won on patriarchy lobsters Marxism women's rights identity politics and policies to help the poor. The main thing Peterson did in this interview was to interrupt Helen to tell her she was wrong when she was right. If you found a Peterson win LMK.
    1
  18.  @ahmed-lx8pl  You found a Peterson win? Where?
    1
  19.  @quackitytheasker9977  The West is an oppressive patriarchy... Jordan Peterson.
    1
  20. @Prasanth Thomas Thank you for your feelings that Peterson won. Do you have any facts to share?
    1
  21. @Prasanth Thomas I apologize for using facts. You might try it sometime.
    1
  22. @Prasanth Thomas You laid out two reasons? For what? I appreciate your feelings but try using facts. Here is a lesson. ---------------- Let's keep score; A correct statement by Helen is a Helen score, H1. A made up or pointless or erroneous statement by JP is a Helen score; H1. And visa versa: JP claims to be the only person on earth who discusses responsibility, meaning, and being an adult: H1 JP makes a case for the significance of individual life: H1 Helen correctly defines patriarchy: H1 JP disagrees with Helen's correct definition: H1 JP claims that our social hierarchies are masculine: H1 Helen gives a correct example of male dominance: H1 JP does a goal post switch to, is our culture easier or more fair to men: H1 5 minutes into the video: Helen 7, Jordan 0.
    1
  23. @Prasanth Thomas You want me to respond to what? "People come to my lectures because WE haven't discussed responsibility and meaning for fifty years". He did say he is the only person. Try quoting from the interview and you won't make those mistakes. She couldn't even define patriarchy? Yes she did...a system of male dominance. If you want to elevate yourself to my level, address what was said in the interview rather than your feelings of what you hope was said. Just a pro tip. I am glad to look at any facts you have if you actually have any.
    1
  24.  @stevengroeneveld7406  Peterson wants us to analyze what he says.
    1
  25.  @luqmanalatas8418  Why is thinking important? Jordan Peterson.
    1
  26.  @luqmanalatas8418  Transcribing and copying Peterson's statements is called using facts and evidence. That is what thinking people do. Blind ideologues simply praise Peterson.
    1
  27.  @manfredmatzen1893  I have a job. Helping Peterson clean his room. It's a mess. 'Life is too complicated to sum up in one sentence and you can see stuff in the dark with a source of light' -- Jordan Peterson super profound PhD guy.
    1
  28.  @Jojo_D_Northstar  I was wrong on something? Remind me.
    1
  29.  @kchilz32  Jordy got destroyed in that debate.
    1
  30.  @JAYSPLASHMUSIC  There is something to us... Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.
    1
  31.  @selfishstockton6123  I agree, you can't find any Peterson wins.
    1
  32.  @selfishstockton6123  Did you find a Peterson win yet.?
    1
  33.  @gonzomandela  Did you find any Peterson wins?
    1
  34.  @gonzomandela  Did you find any Peterson wins yet?
    1
  35. Jordan was polite? Are you kidding? He has a great mind? Like where? Peterson at 44:00 'Plenty of them are arguing that there should be no such thing as hierarchies.' Helen:  I see that as almost never in the world as an argument. Jordan:  What do you think the demand for equality of outcome is?  And you don't think the neo-marxists and post modernists think that hierarchies are a social construction? Helen:  I don't think that is a very widely held view. Jordan:  20% of social scientists identify as Marxist.  Look it up in Haidt's work, I have checked it out quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic. [JP is so totally full of crap.  Note how he often refers to these mysterious and unspecified evil post modern neo marxist social constructionists, who want equality of outcome and no hierarchies?  Why does he never once identify who he is talking about?  Because outside of fictitious bogeymen in the dust balls under JP's bed they do not exist. In the paper JP is referring to 'Prevalence of Marxism in Academia', they conclude that Marxism in universities is 'A tiny minority view, 3%'.  So Helen was right.  You studied it quite carefully? Whoops Jordan. JP refers Helen to Jonathan Haidt's work to find the study.  Whoops again Jordan, you studied it quite carefully and then falsely attributed the author as Haidt?
    1
  36. Did you find any points that JP won?
    1
  37. Peterson used logic? Where?
    1
  38.  @RacingSnails64  Peterson had a clinically logical idea in that interview? Where? Peterson was willing to listen and discuss? You are joking right? He interrupted her every other sentence.
    1
  39. Gracefully? He interrupted her every other sentence.
    1
  40. JP was composed? You are joking right? He interrupted her every other sentence. Peterson at 46:00; 'You think the social constructionists think that hierarchy is built into biology? No they don't... they blame hierarchy on the West. If you are concerned about the poor you should abandon your presupposition that their dispossessed is a consequence of the patriarchal structure of the West...Helen how do you tackle it? JP I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability, Helen: redistribute tax policy. 'No reasonable biologist disputes the fact that animals organize themselves into hierarchies, and this is regulated by the serotonin system, how can you be skeptical about this, the hierarchy is the pattern...' [Heads up Jordan, no one including Helen is denying that animals have hierarchies, so try not to be so preachy attacking an argument that no one is presenting. That's called a straw man. Your way to help the poor is to abandon the idea that poverty is caused by a patriarchal structure, and Helen's idea is a progressive tax policy. Let me think who wins on that one? Total score for Helen. And yes Jordan we already know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.] P at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options.... [Holy crap Jordan you have some serious voices going on in your head. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.]
    1
  41.  @supremetaco5349  Thank you for your feelings. Try using facts like I do. Pick any five minute section and count the interruptions. That's your theory? That's a foolish theory. No that's not right I know my neurochemistry let's go play neurochemistry.
    1
  42.  @supremetaco5349  [41:00 Plenty of Motivation] Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive...Peterson interrupting: No that's not right. It makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more willing to fight. I know my neurochemistry. Let's check up on Peterson 'I know my neurochemistry' "Here we show that injection of serotonin into the hemolymph of subordinate, freely moving animals results in a renewed willingness of these animals to engage the dominants in further agonistic encounters." [agonistic. Adjective. Having a predisposition to fight or engage in confrontations. combative. belligerent. bellicose. aggressive. pugnacious.] 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. I studied it quite carefully to look it up in Haidt's work. [In the study, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and it is not by Haidt. Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism! ==================== JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful.)
    1
  43.  @kaztheunbreakable  I use facts, sorry I know that is bothersome.
    1
  44. 4. People who actually pay attention to what JP says. 5. Smart liberals who would rip Peterson's pretend intellect to shreds. Short list of stupidest most useless things JP says in GQ interview: 1.  I make a case for the significance of individual life. 2.  We haven't discussed the relationship between responsibility and meaning for 50 years. 3.  Who says we have over population? 4.  I don't know how to make everyone equally smart. 5.  Our hierarchies are masculine but not male dominated. 6.  Our hierarchies are of competence, not power. 7.  It is foolish to credit the women's movement for advances in women's rights.
    1
  45. At 44:00 Helen: your belief that lobsters say the thing you want to talk about Marxist ideology... JP: How do lobsters say that? [What Jordan, you just explained how lobsters address Marxism two minutes ago.] Let's punch in to Dr. God Complex at like 20:00. 'What if the patriarchy is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? If it is a structure that is composed mostly of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy? So how do we get something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy? So if it's 50/50 then its not a tyrannical patriarchy? So you think the hallmark of a tyrannical structure is the predominance of one gender? [Notice that Peterson uses the 'So you are saying...' trick from Cathy Newman. So you are saying if it is composed of women it is still a patriarchy? So you are saying if it is 50/50 then it is not a tyrannical patriarchy? No Jordan, she didn't say any of those things. She corrected your error that 'composed of mostly women would be a patriarchy'...that's matriarchy dude, you are welcome. And aren't you a little embarrassed with your condescending tone her, talking down to Helen like she is a four-year old who didn't put away her toys properly?] "The ignorant Left says that you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism. That's wrong. It's not just a little bit wrong. Its unbelievably wrong." [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the Full Oxford lecture you stated that capitalism creates a situation where the rich use power to profit off the work of others and the poor stack up at the bottom and that is a bad thing? Maybe keep notes of what you say in lectures so you don't contradict yourself in another one.]
    1
  46. Peterson said something smart?
    1
  47. According to Rogan 'Peterson is the most misunderstood person in the world.' There is some accuracy to this statement. Lots of people think Peterson is smart; however since he isn't, that would thus qualify as a misunderstanding. If Peterson has ever said something that your average middle schooler can't think out for themselves, I have never heard it. The problem is, Peterson delivers it with such a 'I am the only person who knows this' demeanor its just hard to not laugh at the guy. I think post rehab Peterson will stick to self help guru. That is a decent role for him, as a pretend intellectual however, not really effective. Joe says that Helen Lewis in GQ was intelligent, skilled, and well reasoned. I agree. Peterson on the other hand embarrassed himself. Peterson laughed at her, called her foolish, told he she was wrong when she was right... JP came off like an angry chiujajua, aggressive to compensate for incompetence. Apparently Peterson is trying to explain away his performance by blaming it on Lewis. I guess he can't handle the heat. Peterson has been watching the comments on the interview. Fortunately for JP is that his fans are so blind they think he did a good job. Peterson drives home the point that lots of people come to see him. Peterson says he doesn't enjoy conflict. So why did you call Lewis foolish for crediting the women's movement, and laugh at her 'man alive how can you say something like that' if you were not inciting conflict? Calling someone foolish and telling her you can replace her with someone else because you already know her -- that is you being a nice guy seeking peace and harmony in a conversation? Sure if you say so.
    1
  48.  @ferozayasmin4703  That's your theory? That's a foolish theory. No that's not right. I know my neurochemistry. Peterson being calm and collected?
    1
  49.  @skydragon23101979  Thank you for your feelings that JP defined identity politics and his ideas are meticulous and researched. Try using evidence. You look smarter that way. JP defined identity politics at timestamp X as Y. Just watch how I do it. [41:00 Plenty of Motivation] Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive...Peterson interrupting: No that's not right. It makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more willing to fight. I know my neurochemistry. Let's check up on Peterson 'I know my neurochemistry' from the source paper on lobsters and serotonin: "Here we show that injection of serotonin into the hemolymph of subordinate, freely moving animals results in a renewed willingness of these animals to engage the dominants in further agonistic encounters." [agonistic. Adjective. Having a predisposition to fight or engage in confrontations. combative. belligerent. bellicose. aggressive. pugnacious.] Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.' JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. I studied it quite carefully look it up in Haidt's work. [In the study, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and it is not by Haidt. Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism!
    1
  50.  @skydragon23101979  No he didn't define it. Quote his definition. You won't find one because he didn't give one. Helen gave an accurate definition, score for Helen.
    1