Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Jordan Peterson on his GQ Interview - Joe Rogan" video.
-
16
-
13
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
@weedyp 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.]
==================
'Cognitive systems and interpretation of the world has axiomatic levels, some fundamental presuppositions are more fundamental, you find out how the axioms are nested, how you hierarchically arrange them, there are deeper axioms, power is based on the power of identity groups, the axiomatic substructure, I try and diagnose the axiomatic substructure, what is the metaphysical presumption structure of the radical Left, it is you are your group engaged in arbitrary warfare....
[Word salad much Jordan? Let me help you out here. You are trying to claim that egalitarian measures cause females to retreat further into traditional roles. Your theory is 100% wrong for the US. My advice, use precise language and don't over generalize. I am pretty sure you are doing what you have said is weak logic.]
We have the instinct of the way. The marker for that is meaning. I will speak scientifically. You are adapted to reality. Your instincts orient you in the world. They direct your cognition in ways you can barely comprehend. The instinct of meaning. The purpose of memory is not recollection. I can't tell the difference between houses on my street.
[JP speaking scientifically? Chuckle, wake me up when that happens.]
JP: 'The culture war is about 'what is the proper framework within which to view human identity, and what is the relationship between the individual and the group in relation to that identity, the Leftist answer its all group and its all power.'
[Wait doesn't JP claim to be careful to use precise wording? The relationship between the individual and the group, its all group and its all power? Sorry, ambiguous as heck, the opposite of precise.]
At 15:30 'Forgetting and remembering are very sophisticated cognitive processes, we reduce it to its significance and we let go of the details, when you write fiction you don't write down every thing the character does or thinks, you write down the significant, very sophisticated psychological processing, the purpose of your memory is to extract wisdom, the purpose of memory isn't recollection as such...'
[Why does JP feel that he needs to explain what forgetting and remembering are for? Does he feel that we all just arrived on this planet and don't know anything? When you write a novel you don't write everything the character thinks and does? Sure, but why are you telling us that? You can learn from your mistakes in the past? Duh. The purpose of memory isn't recollection as such? What does 'as such' mean? The purpose of memory is to recall things Jordan. I am not sure how you could have missed that. More conservative logic I guess.]
The feminine is represented as chaos. The patriarchy is represented with masculine symbols. It is a foregone conclusion that the patriarchy is order the masculine system is used by feminists to represent order. If you are a man and you are trying to embody productive order, you make an advance on a female and you are rejected that puts chaos into your existence, the purpose of order by men is to be attractive.[What absolute nonsense.]
Feminists are always calling for the masculine to be re-ordered, how would you symbolize what it is that calls for for order to be re-ordered if you wouldn't symbolize it as chaos...?]
At 39:00... I am going to speak scientifically, you know the difference between a high level conversation and a low level conversation, you are focused on the content and time disappears... [Time disappears? That is Peterson speaking scientifically? This guy is definitely one of a kind. "The conversation is manifesting itself in your deepest instincts as meaning, in the right place between chaos and order...". Question, why is Beck nodding at this nonsense? Peterson is manifesting himself in a conversation about meaning and chaos.... with no meaning and all chaos.]
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Dr_Hoops_McCann iIf you can't find anything smart JP said, don't worry. I can't either. Just a short list of Peterson being an arrogant prick in the GQ interview:
1. Who says we have over population? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec&t=33s]
2. In what way is society male dominated? [Most men hold most money and power, duh you dork.]
3. That is your theory? That is a foolish theory. [It is foolish to credit the women's movement? What an idiot JP is.]
4. I can replace you with someone else and then you are not here, and that is not good.
5. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It is so cliché. [You get paid for your job dipstick,]
6. All the democrats have done is inflame tribal tendencies.
7. He tells her she is wrong on lobster serotonin when she is right and then says 'I know my neurochemistry'.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
5
-
4
-
@francismallard5892 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? 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 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. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sirweebs2914 ok we agree, Peterson was an arrogant prick...At 1:01:00: Helen, you get paid for your career. JP: Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliché. It is so painful to hear that.
[Watch his demeanor here. What a prick. You get paid for your job dork brain.]
20:20 'If is a structure that is dominated by women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Heads up Jordan, look up words you don't know before you use them.]
41:00 Her: Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive. JP: No, that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive. I know my neurochemistry. [Well maybe you know your neurochemistry, but you don't know how to listen to what someone says before you call them wrong.]
40:00 Our hierarchies are based on competence, not power. [You look a little smug and preachy here Jordan. So what are you saying: Bezos, Trump, Zuckerberg have power entirely based upon competence? I can help you out here. Sure competence moves you up the hierarchy, and so does power. If you can talk and chew gum at the same time you may get this concept. Remember your belief in multi-variate? Did you forget it at this point in the interview?]
42:30: 'The absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchies are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous theory as you could possibly develop about anything, hierarchies are a third of a billion years old.'
[Let me help you arrange your toys here Jordan. Every third grader knows that animals establish hierarchies. Try not to look like you are the only one who knows it. You look dumb when you pretend to be smart when you are not. Are you saying that hierarchies, i.e. inequity of power and money are not fostered by capitalism? Try this; Pretend your comments are darts trying to hit a target called reality. I hope that helps.]
Let's check in to Pretenderson randomly at 48:00: 'If you know the literature you know that animals organize themselves into hierarchies.' [Uh Ok LegoBrain; you needed to read gobs of literature to realize what every middle schooler already knows? You look super preachy here. Did Helen say that animals don't create hierarchies? I didn't hear her say that, so why are you speaking down to her like she is a 4 year old who didn't put her toys away properly?]
4
-
E Valstar Why do most published reviews call Peterson an idiot, comically befuddled, the stupid person's smart person? At 1:01:00: Helen, you get paid for your career. JP: Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliché. It is so painful to hear that.
[Watch his demeanor here. What a prick. You get paid for your job dork brain.]
20:20 'If is a structure that is dominated by women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Heads up Jordan, look up words you don't know before you use them.]
41:00 Her: Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive. JP: No, that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive. I know my neurochemistry. [Well maybe you know your neurochemistry, but you don't know how to listen to what someone says before you call them wrong.]
40:00 Our hierarchies are based on competence, not power. [You look a little smug and preachy here Jordan. So what are you saying: Bezos, Trump, Zuckerberg have power entirely based upon competence? I can help you out here. Sure competence moves you up the hierarchy, and so does power. If you can talk and chew gum at the same time you may get this concept. Remember your belief in multi-variate? Did you forget it at this point in the interview?]
42:30: 'The absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchies are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous theory as you could possibly develop about anything, hierarchies are a third of a billion years old.'
[Let me help you arrange your toys here Jordan. Every third grader knows that animals establish hierarchies. Try not to look like you are the only one who knows it. You look dumb when you pretend to be smart when you are not. Are you saying that hierarchies, i.e. inequity of power and money are not fostered by capitalism? Try this; Pretend your comments are darts trying to hit a target called reality. I hope that helps.]
Let's check in to Pretenderson randomly at 48:00: 'If you know the literature you know that animals organize themselves into hierarchies.' [Uh Ok LegoBrain; you needed to read gobs of literature to realize what every middle schooler already knows? You look super preachy here. Did Helen say that animals don't create hierarchies? I didn't hear her say that, so why are you speaking down to her like she is a 4 year old who didn't put her toys away properly?]
4
-
4
-
4
-
@canadianroot 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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 unidimensionality.' [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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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.
4
-
4
-
@gamemage4750 Thanks for taking the time with all this detail. My main problem with JP is a guy who is arrogant and pretends to be smart but isn't. Not a role model. If he has said something smart and useful, please paste it here.
Most of your stuff is just rambling insults, so I will just address the stuff that is based on stuff JP says:
1. Masculine hierarchy does not equal male dominated:
[Wrong, if masculine traits lead to dominance in a hierarchy, then males will dominate. Just like if female traits lead to dominance then females would dominate.
2. Power does not equal competence.
[I never said that. JP says 'Our hierarchies are of competence, not power'. He is full of crap. Both power and competence move you up a hierarchy.]
3. but its not just power and the more corrupt a hierarchy becomes the less competence and the more power is used to climb it.
[Why are you telling me this? I already know that.]
4. No its not entirely a patriarchy, but by virtue of historical context and gender differences, it is to some extent. In order to further ANY of your points you have to adopt this classic binary, this way or that way, mindset that makes you looks ignorant about the ambiguity and imprecision of the world.
[Agreed, the classic binary simplifying everything to black and white makes you look ignorant. Precisely why Peterson looks ignorant all the time... The West isn't an oppressive patriarchy, our hierarchies are of competence, not power...agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace...there is nothing random about dreams. Glad we agree JP is ignorant.]
5. Women weren’t barred from jobs because of men: they just couldn’t do them.
[Wrong. Barred from jobs means you are prohibited from doing them, not that you are incapable of doing them.]
6. You do understand that physical limitations like that still exist.
[Why are you telling me this? I don't know that the top women's tennis player is about as good as the 300th male player?]
BTW: The research on serotonin on lobsters is done by scientists, not psychologists. Also did you note that JP cited a paper on Marxism in academia to prove Helen wrong that proved her right. JP: 'I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic, look it up in Haidt's work'....whoops Jordan, it was not done by Haidt and it proves Helen's point that equality of outcome is not a widely held view, she said she sees it almost never in the world and the paper you cited agrees with her; a tiny minority faith.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ZroBangerz Have you heard of the concept of evidence? That would mean you listen to the interview, then you quote the part that proves your point. Try that. I realize ideas based upon evidence and reality is not really Peterson's strong suit, but try it anyway.
Here is how to do it> Peterson #1: If you say its an oppressive patriarchy then you say its only that. Peterson #2: The West is an oppressive patriarchy, but is not just an oppressive patriarchy. I guess Peterson can't conceptualize what he says from one lecture to the next. At 21:00 JP 'So you are saying that...' Whoops Peterson just pulled a Cathy Newman. If Cathy Newman is an idiot, then Peterson is also right? They both do the same thing.
'So you are saying If it is a structure dominated by women then it is a tyrannical patriarchy?' [Heads up JP, you just pulled another Cathy Newman, and no she didn't say that, she corrected you that female dominated would be a matriarchy. I am not sure why you are being preachy to her here, since her vocabulary on this issue is better than yours.]
========
Here is another one for you: AT 8:00 JP 'What do you think emancipated women in the 20th century?' Helen: 'The pill helped, and legal changes.' JP: 'I don't advise men to be nice, ever. I wouldn't call the invention of the tampon nice, its not nice... he saw that his wife was suffering with her period, and he thought he would do something about it.'
'To look back in time and say men took the upper hand and persecuted women in a tyrannical patriarchy is a dreadful misreading of history, it is a horrible thing to inflict upon men.'
'You don't think the pill was a primary force in the emancipation of women? Toilets and tampons. You are thinking instead it was the action of courageous feminists in the 1920's? That is a foolish theory.'
[Let's unpack this: 1. The guy who invented the tampon did it because his wife was suffering. 2. Peterson calls this not him doing something to be nice to his wife. Could Peterson be any stupider and more annoying if he tried? Doing something to help the suffering of another person is not an act of being nice?
Peterson doesn't ever advise men to be nice? And how is this guy helping humanity exactly if he doesn't think men should be nice to women? I would say he is causing more harm than good, but most relevant is his dumbing down on the composite intellect of humanity.
She said the pill was one of the factors, and then Peterson says that her not crediting the pill as one of the factors is foolish? She just said the pill was a factor 20 seconds ago LegoBrain… your span of attention can't last that long? Who is reading history as a tyrannical gender battle Jordan? Helen didn't say that. Straw man. Oh I get it, you saw a tiny window of opportunity to fit in one of your fake smart guy words 'tyrannical patriarchy'. The term wasn't needed. It wasn't relevant to the issue at hand, but you got it in anyway. A bit narcissistic maybe?
And how exactly in about one minute did JP jump from: I don't advise men to be nice, to how the tampon was invented, to tyrannical patriarchy, and then to calling her foolish for agreeing with you that the pill was a factor? I wonder if Peterson had a bad shroom trip and it never wore off, or maybe he just shrooms up prior to these debates and lectures. What else explains his hyperactive nonsense better than that? Antidote to chaos? The guy's brain is chaos ground zero.]
JP at 1:10:00: 'I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology you were taught, I can replace you then you are not here, you are not synthesizing something that is genuine and surprising and engaging as a narrative consequence, its not good. Why have a conversation?'
[Could this guy be a bigger prick if he tried? I know what JP will say on most issues, e.g. hierarchies and post modernism. Does Peterson himself generate any content that is genuine and surprising? Surprisingly stupid for sure, e.g. there is nothing random about dreams, there are no models of animal industriousness, in 100 years there will be too few people.]
Helen: What do you think I think about transgender issues?
JP: I suspect you think gender identity is a social construct. But I could be wrong.
Helen: Nope, there are biological differences between the sexes, gender is a powerful social structure that we have built on top of that.
[So JP says he can replace her with someone else because he already knows what she thinks, and then he says 'I could be wrong.' Try this JP, don't say something if you already know you could be wrong. Remember that lecture when you said 95% of what you say is garbage? I guess this would be one of those times.]
4
-
@francismallard5892 Apparently you think you can outsmart me. I should warn you that you don't stand a chance. But let's find out. Helen is for progressive tax policy. Peterson's ridiculous strawman retort is that she makes more than a caveman and a Indian sheep herder. She isn't a hypocrite anymore than someone who is for homeless solutions but won't just let homeless people move into their house, so you lost that one. Helen was correct on identity politics since the US was founded on full rights for white males. You lost again. As for your feelings that she couldn't grasp that competence can lead to success... Quote where that happened. It didn't, you made it up but prove me wrong. Did you notice that Peterson said let's get our definitions straight on identity politics...and then proceeded to not define it? Helen defined it so score for Helen.
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.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hf4229 What analysts prove him wrong? That is not what I said, try and keep up. I said most published analysts call him an intellectual fraud. Here are clips from 11 of them:
Most published analysts agree with me. A couple of my favs: 'the stupid person's smart person', his book should be titled 'a bunch of crap I made up', 'devoid of evidence and reason'....: You may like this Peterson analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec
1. Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
2. Jordan Peterson's thought is filled with pseudo-science, bad pop psychology, and deep irrationalism. In other words, he’s full of shit.
3. But his regular pearl-clutching, skirt-gathering episodes of the vapours signify that he is a far more simple creature. He just wants to be taken seriously, goddammit. Being exposed by someone who is so obviously smarter than him and is therefore immune to his pseudo-intellectual schtick is Jordan Peterson’s Room 101, it’s entitlement Kryptonite. It re-erects the prison walls of his mediocrity and unoriginality. This is why he is forever posting items on how much he has sold, how many views his YouTube videos have had. The void must be fed constantly.
4. It’s easy to assume Peterson is deserving of respect. A lot of what he says sounds, on the surface, like serious thought. It’s easy to laugh at him: after all, most of what he says is, after fifteen seconds’ consideration, completely inane. I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found, he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.
5. Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrowminded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.
6. Banal, superficial, and insidious...Peterson has nothing to offer but his tawdry philosophical sloganeering. .. a tedious first chapter about both lobsters and wrens defending their turf and striving to achieve social dominance in their supposed hierarchies, all behaviors that humans are endlessly exhorted by Peterson to emulate: “You step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy, and occupy your territory” ..
To occupy your territory, means (wait for it) you actually have to stand up: “Standing up means voluntarily accepting the burden of Being” Later on, continuing to capitalize bogus terms, Peterson says that this standing up to take responsibility means that you move from Being to “Meaning with a capital M” . None of this is ever explained in any detail, of course. It is a neat trick to sound clever and profound while having nothing of substance or originality to say, : an intense boredom-induced drowsiness made all the worse by the leaden prose..
7. I wouldn't say Peterson's “Peterson, even at his most rigorous, is not rigorous at all..."Religion, Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and the Constituent Elements of Experience” is in the worst 1% of the countless social science and humanities articles that I read -- merely the worst 5%. Ultimately, I am struck by its arrogance and uselessness...Peterson indeed goes deep -- deep into muddy arguments, murky obscurities, and maddening amounts of bullshit.
8. “His now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He was a preacher more than a teacher, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact… it’s not clear from the language he uses whether he is being manipulative and trying to induce fear, or whether he is walking a fine line between concern and paranoia, In Jordan’s hands, a claim which is merely ridiculous became dangerous.”
9. According to Peterson, there is an “unspeakably primordial calculator, deep within you, at the very foundation of your brain, far below your thoughts and feelings,” that “monitors exactly where you are positioned in society.” “Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.” But in asking us to consider the lobster, he’s cherry-picking one model of social behavior when there’s a whole ocean full of equally relevant examples.
10. Peterson fails to understand that the liberal left is dominated by neither post-modern nor Marxist thought. When he speaks of the political left, Peterson riles against a fictitious caricature of extreme progressive ideology. Peterson’s imaginary antagonist..
11. It’s that last part I want to focus in on – the claim to any kind of scientific legitimacy. Because anyone with even the most basic understanding of science should be able to quickly figure out that Peterson is not relying on the “stunning revelations” of “scientific research.” But instead, is propping up his intellectually feeble ideas with either a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science. I’m not sure which is more embarrassing.
Now, I can’t claim to know what Peterson’s motives are. But it is difficult to reconcile his demonstrable lies and reliance on easily-disprovable junk science with his purported belief in rational, logical discourse and the precision of language. Or the fact that when someone criticizes him or says something that he doesn’t like, he says things like this Tweet: “And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily.”
Oof. Peterson sounds, dare I say, triggered? A bit snowflakey? Regardless, the actual subtitle of his “12 Rules” book is: “An Antidote to Chaos.” Yet considering all the above, I have to wonder, would a more fitting title be:
“12 Rules: A bunch of crap I made up and supported with some embarrassing pseudoscience.”
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randybutternubs5639 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? 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 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. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gamemage4750 1. Me: Give an example of JP using science in clinical psychology. You: Clinical psychology presents testable hypotheses based on chemical analysis of the brain and uses the scientific method on collected data to draw conclusions ergo science.
[Sorry, not an answer. Maybe have someone explain the concept of evidence/example to you?]
2. You: You need evidence to support a claim. Me: True, but you have yet to do that.
Peterson on alcoholism: [Here is JP as a 'scientist'.]
Individuals use and misuse alcohol (and other drugs) because of the pharmacologically mediated effects these substances have on the operation of 4 psychobiological systems, mediating response to motivationally relevant unconditioned and conditioned stimuli. These 4 systems have unique neuroanatomical structure, biochemical modes of operation, association with affect, behavior and cognition, and responsiveness to drugs of abuse. Individual variation in the operation of these systems determines individual susceptibility to initiation and maintenance of drug use and abuse. Sources of such variation differ, in a vitally important fashion, in various specific populations of individuals at heightened risk for drug abuse. Nonalcoholic sons of male alcoholics, with multigenerational family histories of male alcoholism, appear to be at heightened risk for the development of alcohol abuse because alcohol eliminates their heightened response to threat, and because they are hypersensitive to ethanol's psychomotor stimulant effects. Anxiety-sensitive individuals also appear attracted to alcohol for its anxiolytic properties. Many other important sources of idiosyncratic variability exist. Detailed analysis of such sources may lead to the development of more effective prevention and treatment programs.
[Translation: People like alcohol sometimes for how it makes you feel. If you have alcoholism in your family you may be more prone to alcoholism. Alcohol can reduce nervousness. You can analyze ways to treat and reduce alcoholism.].
3. You: Everyone knows transcendent values exist...you have to do studies. Me: Really, what studies? Transcendent values by definition are those that transcend time and culture, i.e. everyone knows they exist. Yay, I win.
4. You: Politics based on identity is not identity politics. Me: Wrong, that is precisely what it is. Did you note that JP did not define it? Do you think that blacks identifying with BLM is identity politics?
5. You: You paint everything as black and white. False: Peterson does that, I don't.
6. Me: List the benefits to the mental and economic health of the nation from my housing plan. You: And the only way you can even get a higher tax system incorporated in countries like the US is actually by making people more responsible for themselves as a part of a community. [What? If people become more responsible then you can raise taxes? Wrong. The government sets the tax rate irrespective of the level of people's responsibility.] Yay I win again.
As chaotic, pointless, and arrogant as his speaking appearances are, we can get a deeper glimpse into his delusional pretend smart guy stuff from his written material. [From Peterson Website]
Over the last fifty years, specialists in the measurement of personality (a field known as psychometrics) have been applying advanced statistical techniques such as factor analysis to study the language people use to understand themselves and each other. According to the “lexical hypothesis” –the primary guiding idea behind such work...each and every human language contains a relatively complete description of the important similarities and differences between individuals. Language has encapsulated such description because human beings are exceptionally social, and need to understand each other to cooperate effectively and avoid conflict....People who are likely to describe themselves as sad, for example, are also more likely to describe themselves as fearful, anxious, uncertain and volatile, and less likely to describe themselves as cool, collected, calm and stable...people who are nice are compassionate, empathic, caring and soft, while their polar opposites are hard, competitive, blunt and tough.
[So apparently, specialists like Peterson have determined that people are social and use language to describe stuff. Thank you specialists. Sad people can also be fearful and uncertain, and nice people are caring and compassionate. Thank you again Specialists. One question though; it really took you 50 years using advanced techniques figure this stuff out?]
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. 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
-
@lewismiller870 You found a Peterson win? Cool, where?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MomoKehinde Peterson didn't use lobster hierarchy to make a claim about patriarchy. He used it to demonstrate that hierarchies are natural. Of course everyone in the world already knows that, but Peterson trying to explain something that everyone already knows is his trademark.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@MomoKehinde I didn't say that because there was inequality the US was founded on identity politics. Peterson is wrong when he says identity politics is a very specific thing. Helen was right when she said it is politics based on identity.
“Identity politics” is a very vague phrase, but it generally refers to the discussion of and politicking around issues pertaining to one’s, well, identity. The focus typically falls on women, racial minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans. All the social issues you may have heard of in the past several years — same-sex marriage, police shootings of unarmed black men, trans people in bathrooms, the fluidity of gender, discussions about rape culture, campus battles about safe spaces and trigger warnings — are typically the kinds of issues people mean when they refer to identity politics
1
-
@MomoKehinde Peterson makes no connection between hierarchies and male dominance. You are getting it backwards. He denies male dominance, and admits that hierarchies are natural.
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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. 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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HatesoLowliesNotasDelichousasPastries 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 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@t.bozmkw3562 You found a JP win? Timestamp and quote please. -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? 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
-
Did you find an JP wins? 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert The debate setting is heavily skewed in favor of Helen? How? Here is an example of adult analysis:
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
-
1
-
@Rekaert If you do stumble across a Peterson win LMK. Timestamp and quote. It's how adults debate. Here is how...
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? 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
-
@Rekaert Let's plug in to JP at 3:00 'Helen was cold and had a chip on her shoulder, there was no willingness to believe I could be different, I was impatient, I expect that they have professionalism to be civil, luckily my impatience wasn't overboard, it is important to not be resentful, I want to be present, I am taken aback that people are there, they fly in from everywhere, I don't take it for granted, you don't know how an interview is going to go, I don't find conflict enjoyable, some people enjoy that combat...'
[Helen had a chip on her shoulder and had no willingness to be open to Peterson's ideas? It is important to be professional and civil? That's you theory? That's a foolish theory. Man alive how can you say something like that? I know my neurochemistry, lets go play neurochemistry.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert Wait now you have some facts finally? Cool can I see some? BTW imagine you are this allegedly necessary moderator. Pick a spot where you would have moderated and what would you have done. When Peterson interrupted her every other sentence, or...?
Here is lesson on using facts. Try it sometime.
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? 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
-
@Rekaert Here is another lesson:
FEELINGS: The entire damn interview is a 'Peterson win'.
FACTS: JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
JP: What do you think emancipated women in the 20th century?
Helen: The pill and legal changes.
JP: I don't ever advise men to be nice. It wasn't nice that this guy invented the tampon to help his wife suffering.
JP: Men and women have cooperated to survive. Someone is looking back in time and say that men persecuted women.
JP: You don't think the pill was a primary force in emancipation of women, toilets, you are thinking it was the action of courageous feminists, that is a foolish theory.
[Can this guy be more obtuse if he tried? He doesn't ever advise men to be nice? He is completely denouncing the women's rights movement as a force in increasing women's rights? Instead it was toilets and tampons? The guy who did something to help his wife wasn't being nice? Someone is denying that men and women have cooperated to survive? No one is denying that Jordan, and no one is saying that all of history is a tyrannical patriarchy.]
FEELINGS: she still failed to take him on effectively.
FACTS: 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 one-dimensional...'
[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 it 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?)
So if it's 50/50 then it is not a tyrannical patriarchy... [Notice that JP keeps pulling a Cathy Newman... So you are saying. No Jordan she didn't say any of those things.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert Peterson has called female chaos. Is it reasonable that a female would enter a interview with an axe to grind? Further there is no shortage of Peterson calling the Left ignorant, so he has set himself up for a recoil from the Left. Also the majority of comments are that Peterson destroyed Helen with his calm facts and logic. He wasn't calm, he didn't have facts, he didn't have logic. This is a trait of blind ideology. If you want to discuss a section, try this...
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? 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
-
@Rekaert JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
JP: What do you think emancipated women in the 20th century?
Helen: The pill and legal changes.
JP: I don't ever advise men to be nice. It wasn't nice that this guy invented the tampon to help his wife suffering.
JP: Men and women have cooperated to survive. Someone is looking back in time and say that men persecuted women.
JP: You don't think the pill was a primary force in emancipation of women, toilets, you are thinking it was the action of courageous feminists, that is a foolish theory.
Helen: Courageous feminists overthrew the patriarchy.
Jordan: Nope, it was toilets, tampons, and the pill.
[Can this guy be more obtuse if he tried? Toilets, tampons, and the pill overthrew the patriarchy? He doesn't ever advise men to be nice? He is completely denouncing the women's rights movement as a force in increasing women's rights? Instead it was toilets and tampons? The guy who did something to help his wife wasn't being nice? Someone is denying that men and women have cooperated to survive? No one is denying that Jordan, and no one is saying that all of history is a tyrannical patriarchy.]
No, It makes them more dominant. No that's not right. Serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive. It makes a lobster who has been defeated in a fight more likely to fight again.
43:00, I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous a theory as you can have about anything.
[Heads up Jordan, capitalism results in a steepening of hierarchies, i.e. they are a consequence of capitalism, remember when you said capitalism causes the poor to stack up at the bottom of the hierarchy? Basically, you are saying your own theory is preposterous.]
Helen: Lobsters say the thing that ideologically you want to talk about that there is a kind of Marxist...
JP: How do lobsters say that?
[Jordan you just finished talking about choosing lobsters to address your belief about Marxism, and now you are denying that lobsters support your belief about Marxism?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert Helen: Makes lobsters more aggressive. Jordan: It makes lobsters more willing to fight. Research: "The results with both lobsters and cray®sh
were qualitatively the same: 5HT infusion into subor dinate animals, after a variable but lengthy (ca. 45 min)
delay, increased the duration and the maximum inten sity reached during subsequent encounters. Subordinate
animals, who hardly ever initiate encounters, could be
seen to advance on the former dominants"
No, It makes them more dominant. No that's not right. Serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive. It makes a lobster who has been defeated in a fight more likely to fight again.
43:00, I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous a theory as you can have about anything.
[Heads up Jordan, capitalism results in a steepening of hierarchies, i.e. they are a consequence of capitalism, remember when you said capitalism causes the poor to stack up at the bottom of the hierarchy? Basically, you are saying your own theory is preposterous.]
Helen: Lobsters say the thing that ideologically you want to talk about that there is a kind of Marxist...
JP: How do lobsters say that?
[Jordan you just finished talking about choosing lobsters to address your belief about Marxism, and now you are denying that lobsters support your belief about Marxism?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert I totally tried. Just a heads up the Marxism in academia thing has been taken on by about 20 JP fans, all with the same checker move argument; JP correctly stated that 20% of social sciences professors identify as Marxist.
There are two possibilities: As a JP fan you have a cognitive ceiling that prevents you from understanding the deeper level: JP cited a paper to prove Helen wrong that proved her right: Not a widely held view = tiny minority faith. Score for Helen.
The other possibility is that you are so blinded by JP beer goggles you can't see the truth even when it sits on your face and wiggles. Your statement 'It did not prove her correct.' is 100% wrong. The paper proved her completely correct. Hit up some of your friends or someone in a high school debate or logic class. Hopefully they will fare better than me. But with a cognitive ceiling below that conceptual level...
In the first five minutes:
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.
===========
2:00 We haven't had a discussion of the relationship and responsibility and meaning, and we haven't had that conversation for fifty years. Storms come along. That is what I am offering. I am a credible scientist. To make a case for the significance of individual life. People need to become adults. We don't make a case for being an adult.
[So Peterson claims to be a credible scientist who is the only person on earth who has discussed responsibility and meaning and the importance of being an adult? He is making a case for the significance of life? Like being alive is important? A guy with no credible scientific idea about anything he claims to be a credible scientist? Storms come along and you need a strong foundation? You mean like bad stuff happens and you are better prepared to deal with it if you have a strong personality etc? Yeah thanks Jordan, but everyone in the world already knows that.]
4:00 'Our culture confuses men's desire for achievement and competence with the patriarchal desire for tyrannical power.' 'Our social hierarchies are fundamentally masculine.' Helen: Patriarchy is a system of male dominance. JP: That's not my idea of the patriarchy.
[That's not your idea of it Jordan? She just basically gave the dictionary definition. So you know what all our culture does regarding inspiring children to be competent? And how do you know this exactly? Our hierarchies are masculine? Like they act like a man?]
10:00 'Men and women have cooperated to survive as a species, to look back in time and claim all that happened is that men persecuted women is a dreadful misread of history, you already said that technological revolution emancipated women...it was the action of courageous feminists, that is a foolish theory....'
[Heads up Jordan, everyone in the world already knows that men and women cooperate to survive and no one is claiming that all history is a tyrannical patriarchy. Also stop doing the Cathy Newman thing of 'so you are saying it was primarily technology', no Jordan she didn't say that. You think it is foolish to credit the women's movement for advances in women's rights? What an absolute arrogant idiot.]
17:00 'You are grateful for the productions of a tyrannical patriarchy, that isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the beneficiary of a tyrannical patriarchy, tyranny isn't good is it, that is the definition of tyranny, something that isn't good...'
[Note that Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman here, you are saying that you are the beneficiary of a tyrannical patriarchy...no Jordan, she didn't say that, and how can a female benefit from to tyrannical patriarchy? Also, your definition of tyranny is wrong.]
=============
Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies one-dimensional...'
[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']
That's your theory? That's a foolish theory. No that's not right, I know my neurochemistry, lets go play neurochemistry. Man alive how can you say that?, its so cliche so painful to hear'.
What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that it 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 she 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?]
So if it's 50/50 then it is not a tyrannical patriarchy... [Notice that JP keeps pulling a Cathy Newman... So you are saying. No Jordan she didn't say any of those things.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rekaert Sure if you stumble across a credible scientific statement by JP LMK.
Here are some non examples:
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 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.]
============
How is it that we manage to infer the stability of an object in cross transformations of illumination, how are we able to perceive objects, you can see objects in photo shop, there is an endless number of things you can do with an image, how is perception possible then, how can you derive a single canonical interpretation of text, sentences can be interpreted in many ways....A finite number of objects can be grouped in an infinite number of ways, how do you arrange books, it is a big problem and complex, that is the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind, color thickness density age, how about thickness of paper, on the 35th page, that is a stupid way to organize your books, how do you know that, the self evidence of the stupidity of that categorical structure is the mystery.
===========================
JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaiahwelch8066 How do you know that JP has never said the West is an oppressive patriarchy? Do you have a searchable database of everything he has ever said? Do you have a link to your alleged database, can I see it?
You say: I would like to know how, or why, you think I disagree with Petersen? I don't disagree with him at all.
I already answered why you and I disagree with JP, but here it is again:
You: 'to say what you've claimed would antithetical and oxymoronic, as no political authority I've ever heard has ever said there should be no hierarchy. ..But to address your point fully, I would say that the idea of a person in a position of authority, who is still living, who says that there should be no hierarchies is contradictory at best. That idea makes no logical sense...
Jordan: Plenty of them say there should be no such thing as hierarchies.
Therefor we both disagree with him and we both agree with Helen; 'I see that almost never in the world as an argument.'
As for the Haidt thing, I know precisely what paper he is referring to, the only paper that surveyed the prevalence of Marxism in academia, title 'The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia.'
Helen scores on lobsters and serotonin also:
[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! To
1
-
@isaiahwelch8066 Let's unpack your statement here: 'And in case you're wondering, neither I, nor Petersen, are in favor of equality of outcomes. I am in favor of hierarchies, as JP is, and like him, I want those hierarchies based on competence and merit. So to say that Petersen is in favor of tearing down the patriarchy tells me you aren't paying attention to what his actual position is, you're taking what you want to hear, and twisting it to make it look like he's saying something he's not.'
Helen is not in favor of equality of outcome either, in fact practically no one is. So you me Helen and JP agree. JP says that power moves you up a hierarchy. It sounds like you disagree with him on that also, but actually JP even disagrees with himself. So to say that JP is in favor of tearing down the patriarchy? I never said that. Sorry, strawman. I made it look like he said something he didn't say? Do you have any evidence of that claim? What did I say that misrepresents him?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaiahwelch8066 Given all your mistakes up to now I figured you wouldn't get the benefits of my plan, so here they are:
BENEFITS:
1. Stable housing costs of those crossing from renter to owner increases spending power for restaurants, vacations, better clothes and appliances etc, thus boosting the economy via demand.
2. Home ownership is hope; depression and crime reduce.
3. Above 400k there is little incentive for real estate investors to buy more property and little investment to keep raising rents. This opens up the market for smaller investors, and by reducing rent costs increases spending power and thus demand.
4. Above 400k there is little incentive for business to keep wages low, thus wages increase and more employees move into higher management positions.
My plan also reduces student loan debt and helps small businesses. See if you can figure out how.
YOU: And again, you misread my comment. I never said eliminate all taxes -- which, again proves my point you're not comprehending what you're reading. It also shows a lack of understanding how the US tax system is supposed to work.
YOU: 2) Eliminate all income taxes on all jobs.
ME: Eliminate all income taxes...so how do we pay for government services then?
[Strawman by you]
JORDAN: The West is an oppressive patriarchy.
YOU: Jordan never said the West is an oppressive patriarchy, you are not comprehending what you are reading.
Yay I win again, destroying the 'logic' of conservative JP fans just gets easier and easier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgepierre8450 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?]
So if it's 50/50 then it is not a tyrannical patriarchy... [Notice that JP keeps pulling a Cathy Newman...So you are saying. No Jordan she didn't say any of those things.]
-----------------
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgepierre8450 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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. 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
-
@georgepierre8450 Wrong on all counts. Focus on what JP said like I do. Don't invent what you think he meant.
'I never advise men to be nice.' What an idiot.
The guy invented the tampon to help his suffering wife, not to make money and advance technology like the computer...
Try this: Quote a JP statement you consider useful and insightful or that in some way outsmarted Helen. Watch how I do it:
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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. 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
-
@stephenmellor3572 You are saying this isn't evidence? 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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 unidimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview 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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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
-
@cyberdronefpv Actually Peterson fans hate facts, i.e. stuff Peterson says. Sorry to annoy you with facts. 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]
1
-
@cyberdronefpv 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.]====
Let's unpack the whole Peterson lobster thing. Here is how it went down:
1. Peterson read a paper on lobsters and realized lobsters have hierarchies, and they fight to get to dominance.
2. Peterson decided this was a revelation and decided to go tell the world: 'Lobsters have hierarchies, and so do we.'
3. Peterson decided that lobsters striving for dominance indicated that the political Left don't know that we are programmed to compete and do better than others, to quote Peterson: 'As preposterous a theory you can have about anything is that capitalism and the West lead to hierarchies of power and money.'
4. Peterson also read about serotonin, and decided this was a revelation also, i.e. humans and animals have behavior that is influenced by neuro-transmitters.
The problem of course is the middle level delusion of thinking that animal hierarchies is a revelation worthy of sharing on the public stage. Then there is the super high level delusion of determining that lobster hierarchies prove that capitalism does not create inequity. But Peterson of course operates in a form of mental chaos that in modern media really has no rival.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kayakh.8231 Thanks. So if our hierarchies are masculine, how are they not male dominated?
He said the West is an oppressive patriarchy in the John Anderson Dave Rubin one, not sarcastically, thus directly contradicting himself in GQ.
Here is some content from GQ:
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? 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.] Sore: 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. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. Score: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
@kayakh.8231 You sound like you are defending him. Would you get up on a stage with a PhD and say 'I am making a case for the significance of individual life'? I wouldn't; I would look like an idiot. As for the masculine one, what traits move you up a hierarchy? Masculine traits or feminine traits?
You say: His point here is that ingenuity of both men and women were responsible for progress of women's rights. How is this stupid or useless? That isn't what he said. Here is what he said:
AT 8:00 JP 'What do you think emancipated women in the 20th century?' Helen: 'The pill helped, and legal changes.' JP: 'I don't advise men to be nice, ever. I wouldn't call the invention of the tampon nice, its not nice... he saw that his wife was suffering with her period, and he thought he would do something about it.'
'To look back in time and say men took the upper hand and persecuted women in a tyrannical patriarchy is a dreadful misreading of history, it is a horrible thing to inflict upon men.'
'You don't think the pill was a primary force in the emancipation of women? Toilets and tampons. You are thinking instead it was the action of courageous feminists in the 1920's? That is a foolish theory.'
[Let's unpack this: 1. The guy who invented the tampon did it because his wife was suffering. 2. Peterson calls this not him doing something to be nice to his wife. Could Peterson be any stupider and more annoying if he tried? Doing something to help the suffering of another person is not an act of being nice?
Peterson doesn't ever advise men to be nice? And how is this guy helping humanity exactly if he doesn't think men should be nice to women? I would say he is causing more harm than good, but most relevant is his dumbing down on the composite intellect of humanity.
She said the pill was one of the factors, and then Peterson says that her not crediting the pill as one of the factors is foolish? She just said the pill was a factor 20 seconds ago LegoBrain… your span of attention can't last that long? Who is reading history as a tyrannical gender battle Jordan? Helen didn't say that. Straw man. Oh I get it, you saw a tiny window of opportunity to fit in one of your fake smart guy words 'tyrannical patriarchy'. The term wasn't needed. It wasn't relevant to the issue at hand, but you got it in anyway. A bit narcissistic maybe?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kayakh.8231 Peterson#1. I don't regard the West as an oppressive patriarchy. Peterson #2 the West is an oppressive patriarchy. Peterson#1. Our hiererarchies are of competence not power. Peterson #2. Power moves you up a hiererarchy. Peterson. I chose lobsters to address Marxism. Helen.. you chose lobsters to address Marxism. Peterson..how do lobsters address Marxism? Peterson... It is foolish to credit the women's movement for advances in women's rights.
BTW most published analysts agree with me...
1. Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
2. Jordan Peterson's thought is filled with pseudo-science, bad pop psychology, and deep irrationalism. In other words, he’s full of shit.
3. But his regular pearl-clutching, skirt-gathering episodes of the vapours signify that he is a far more simple creature. He just wants to be taken seriously, goddammit. Being exposed by someone who is so obviously smarter than him and is therefore immune to his pseudo-intellectual schtick is Jordan Peterson’s Room 101, it’s entitlement Kryptonite. It re-erects the prison walls of his mediocrity and unoriginality. This is why he is forever posting items on how much he has sold, how many views his YouTube videos have had. The void must be fed constantly.
4. It’s easy to assume Peterson is deserving of respect. A lot of what he says sounds, on the surface, like serious thought. It’s easy to laugh at him: after all, most of what he says is, after fifteen seconds’ consideration, completely inane. I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found, he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.
5. Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrowminded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.
6. Banal, superficial, and insidious...Peterson has nothing to offer but his tawdry philosophical sloganeering. .. a tedious first chapter about both lobsters and wrens defending their turf and striving to achieve social dominance in their supposed hierarchies, all behaviors that humans are endlessly exhorted by Peterson to emulate: “You step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy, and occupy your territory” ..
To occupy your territory, means (wait for it) you actually have to stand up: “Standing up means voluntarily accepting the burden of Being” Later on, continuing to capitalize bogus terms, Peterson says that this standing up
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
-
@echo.romeo. 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]
17:20 Tyranny isn't good, that is the definition of tyranny, something that isn't good. [Uh no Jordan, that isn't the definition of tyranny.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
E Valstar Let's take score starting at like 41:00.
A) 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]
B) "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]
C) 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]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xonrob9575 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? 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 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. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. 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
-
@jjh2456 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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@professortruth56 Helen won most of the points. 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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AznGotChen You are making a good effort but wrong, sorry... Engage in further agonistic encounters. Helen said almost the same thing as Peterson... His reply, no that's not right, let's go play neurochemistry. 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? 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 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. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
@AznGotChen 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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
-
@AznGotChen Let's check in at 1:15:00 'Ideologies take pieces of that, the radical Left fights against a tyrant, what about the benevolent father...Dan: 'A preferred mechanism or outcome, for the Left it has to be solar and wind, you can't solve climate change another way.'
JP: 'There is no environment, there is no problem with the environment that can be solved, they are too low resolution, it interferes with your feelings of omniscience, you can ask someone about their opinion about the environment but they can't run a nuclear power plant, its obvious that the sum total of our energy infrastructure are far more complex than one nuclear power plant, but people offer proscriptions that cover the entire territory, their map has no definition, that is the attraction of ideological thinking it covers up your ignorance..
[Every time I think JP cannot exceed his prior stupid comment he goes a step further. There is no environment because you have feelings of omniscience? Because someone doesn't know how to operate a nuclear power plant they can't have an environmental solution? ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Datanditto Peterson fans as gullible and blind sheep as they are think that when they changed the memory card in the camera it was a spot where Peterson finally outsmarted Helen.. Helen won, get over 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!
====================
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.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@banker1313 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0yafrl Let's plug in to JP at 3:00 'Helen was cold and had a chip on her shoulder, there was no willingness to believe I could be different, I was impatient, I expect that they have professionalism to be civil, luckily my impatience wasn't overboard, it is important to not be resentful, I want to be present, I am taken aback that people are there, they fly in from everywhere, I don't take it for granted, you don't know how an interview is going to go, I don't find conflict enjoyable, some people enjoy that combat...'
[Helen had a chip on her shoulder and had no willingness to be open to Peterson's ideas? It is important to be professional and civil? That's you theory? That's a foolish theory. Man alive how can you say something like that? I know my neurochemistry, lets go play neurochemistry.]
'I don't enjoy conflict'....'That's your theory, that's a foolish theory, no that's not right, I know my neurochemistry, man alive how can you say something like that...' 'You should avoid ego inflation...you can't believe how far people travel to see me, and the YT comments about me are unbelievably positive...'
[I am not into ego inflation and here is some information about how much people love me.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sucaadshardi9650 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 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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's plug in to JP at 3:00 'Helen was cold and had a chip on her shoulder, there was no willingness to believe I could be different, I was impatient, I expect that they have professionalism to be civil, luckily my impatience wasn't overboard, it is important to not be resentful, I want to be present, I am taken aback that people are there, they fly in from everywhere, I don't take it for granted, you don't know how an interview is going to go, I don't find conflict enjoyable, some people enjoy that combat...'
[Helen had a chip on her shoulder and had no willingness to be open to Peterson's ideas? It is important to be professional and civil? That's you theory? That's a foolish theory. Man alive how can you say something like that? I know my neurochemistry, lets go play neurochemistry.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blinkjump8723 Let's plug in to JP at 3:00 'Helen was cold and had a chip on her shoulder, there was no willingness to believe I could be different, I was impatient, I expect that they have professionalism to be civil, luckily my impatience wasn't overboard, it is important to not be resentful, I want to be present, I am taken aback that people are there, they fly in from everywhere, I don't take it for granted, you don't know how an interview is going to go, I don't find conflict enjoyable, some people enjoy that combat...'
[Helen had a chip on her shoulder and had no willingness to be open to Peterson's ideas? It is important to be professional and civil? That's you theory? That's a foolish theory. Man alive how can you say something like that? I know my neurochemistry, lets go play neurochemistry.]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@co7769 Helen time and time again told us she lives in a male dominated world that she hates? Try to avoid just making stuff up or you will lose every argument against me. Use facts. Helen said the opposite of what you said. 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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
-
TRue, JP fans are blind ideologues who think he is a genius, but aren't sure where that happened.
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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
Maybe Joe Rogan can help explain the weird fan phenomena exemplified by Simply Orange below, i.e. 'He absolutely DESTROYED that woman in their interview. He was a man on fire, and it was bloody brilliant to watch.' Or Noel Hopley, calls Peterson a 'wonderful human', but apparently doesn't know why he feels that way or if Peterson said anything smart in the video.
Were you JP fanbois even remotely paying attention? Brilliant? He made a fool of himself. Joe or any fanboy: Point to any spot in that video where Peterson was smart and civil, and any spot where he destroyed Lewis. What I am trying to get a handle on, Is how anyone can interpret that performance as worthy of praise.
Here are some samples: Just a short list of Peterson being an arrogant prick in this interview:
1. Who says we have over population? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec&t=33s]
2. In what way is society male dominated? [Most men hold most money and power, duh you dork.]
3. That is your theory? That is a foolish theory. [It is foolish to credit the women's movement? What an idiot JP is.]
4. I can replace you with someone else and then you are not here, and that is not good.
5. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It is so cliché. [You get paid for your job dipstick,]
6. All the democrats have done is inflame tribal tendencies.
7. He tells her she is wrong on lobster serotonin when she is right and then says 'I know my neurochemistry'.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dr_Hoops_McCann 1. It all depends how you look at it. US and Europe birthrates are at a all-time low. Population will stagnate and shrink by atleast 10% over 50 years in those countries as many reseachers have proclaimed.
[If over population causes problems then we have an over population problem. It does. Anyone who denies it is a complete idiot. Peterson also predicts in 100 years there will be too few people. Too few people to do what Jordan?]
2. Yes that's true but does that mean that 'society' is male dominated ? The market is female dominated, which means much more in a capitalist society. Just look around. Most stores, commercials and online webshops are solely focused on women.
[His question was 'In what way is society male dominated?' It is a stupid question, everyone knows the answer to it.]
3 - 5, I totally agree with Peterson here ( as you might have guessed ). All the examples she gives have no ground at all and there she is....A female interviewer for a men's magazine.
[It's foolish to credit the women's movement for advances in women's rights, and it is cliché to say you get paid for your job? If JP is trying to be the biggest idiot on the face of the planet, I give him a high score.]
6. They / we do ( I am a liberal democrat), but I think Jordan may have been more specific that he was talking about extreme left which I think he was.
[That is all the democrats have done? Are you sure? What about the ACA and getting out of Iraq?]
7. I must admit, my knowledge about lobsters and serotonin are none. I do get his example though about structured hierarchy and that we as conscious humans beings, capable of free choice, remain bound to our nature of animal from which we can't be unbound.
[She was right and he told her she was wrong. There is absolutely no way to deny that.]
Helen:. Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.
Peterson:. No that is not right. It makes humans less aggressive.
1
-
Here are 10 analysts on Peterson, pretty much saying the same thing I have been saying. He is nonsense as a matter of routine. Only the gullible and mentally unsophisticated fall for it. What kind of guy walks on stage frantically pacing and waving his arms telling us that people regret missed opportunities in life, and competence can advance you in work and leadership roles? He reminds me of the guy in Spinal Tap that doesn't realize he is making fun of himself, 'But these go to 11.'
1. Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
2. Jordan Peterson's thought is filled with pseudo-science, bad pop psychology, and deep irrationalism. In other words, he’s full of shit.
3. But his regular pearl-clutching, skirt-gathering episodes of the vapours signify that he is a far more simple creature. He just wants to be taken seriously, goddammit. Being exposed by someone who is so obviously smarter than him and is therefore immune to his pseudo-intellectual schtick is Jordan Peterson’s Room 101, it’s entitlement Kryptonite. It re-erects the prison walls of his mediocrity and unoriginality. This is why he is forever posting items on how much he has sold, how many views his YouTube videos have had. The void must be fed constantly.
4. It’s easy to assume Peterson is deserving of respect. A lot of what he says sounds, on the surface, like serious thought. It’s easy to laugh at him: after all, most of what he says is, after fifteen seconds’ consideration, completely inane. I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found, he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.
5. Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrowminded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.
6. Banal, superficial, and insidious...Peterson has nothing to offer but his tawdry philosophical sloganeering. .. a tedious first chapter about both lobsters and wrens defending their turf and striving to achieve social dominance in their supposed hierarchies, all behaviors that humans are endlessly exhorted by Peterson to emulate: “You step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy, and occupy your territory” ..
To occupy your territory, means (wait for it) you actually have to stand up: “Standing up means voluntarily accepting the burden of Being” Later on, continuing to capitalize bogus terms, Peterson says that this standing up to take responsibility means that you move from Being to “Meaning with a capital M” . None of this is ever explained in any detail, of course. It is a neat trick to sound clever and profound while having nothing of substance or originality to say, : an intense boredom-induced drowsiness made all the worse by the leaden prose..
7. I wouldn't say Peterson's “Peterson, even at his most rigorous, is not rigorous at all..."Religion, Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and the Constituent Elements of Experience” is in the worst 1% of the countless social science and humanities articles that I read -- merely the worst 5%. Ultimately, I am struck by its arrogance and uselessness...Peterson indeed goes deep -- deep into muddy arguments, murky obscurities, and maddening amounts of bullshit.
8. “His now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He was a preacher more than a teacher, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact… it’s not clear from the language he uses whether he is being manipulative and trying to induce fear, or whether he is walking a fine line between concern and paranoia, In Jordan’s hands, a claim which is merely ridiculous became dangerous.”
9. According to Peterson, there is an “unspeakably primordial calculator, deep within you, at the very foundation of your brain, far below your thoughts and feelings,” that “monitors exactly where you are positioned in society.” “Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.” But in asking us to consider the lobster, he’s cherry-picking one model of social behavior when there’s a whole ocean full of equally relevant examples.
10. Peterson fails to understand that the liberal left is dominated by neither post-modern nor Marxist thought. When he speaks of the political left, Peterson riles against a fictitious caricature of extreme progressive ideology. Peterson’s imaginary antagonist..
11. It’s that last part I want to focus in on – the claim to any kind of scientific legitimacy. Because anyone with even the most basic understanding of science should be able to quickly figure out that Peterson is not relying on the “stunning revelations” of “scientific research.” But instead, is propping up his intellectually feeble ideas with either a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science. I’m not sure which is more embarrassing.
Now, I can’t claim to know what Peterson’s motives are. But it is difficult to reconcile his demonstrable lies and reliance on easily-disprovable junk science with his purported belief in rational, logical discourse and the precision of language. Or the fact that when someone criticizes him or says something that he doesn’t like, he says things like this Tweet: “And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily.”
Oof. Peterson sounds, dare I say, triggered? A bit snowflakey? Regardless, the actual subtitle of his “12 Rules” book is: “An Antidote to Chaos.” Yet considering all the above, I have to wonder, would a more fitting title be:
“12 Rules: A bunch of crap I made up and supported with some embarrassing pseudoscience.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregrowe9650 I will look for the female patriarchy section and get back to you. As for serotonin: Helen:. Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.
Peterson:. No that is not right. It makes humans less aggressive.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AClark-jx9zp Around 4:00 'When I speak about responsibility, what I am saying is landing, when I talk about responsibility everything is quiet, it makes me cry, I had an emotional reaction that I don't understand, it is pathological, we are fed a diet of rights and freedoms, the antidote is truth and responsibility, that is the secret to a meaningful life, it is good to be responsible, men should be responsible, you are cursed that your active engagement with the world is what is destroying and undermining the planet and adding to tyranny, if you can reveal the best you are good...
[Seriously, this video is supposed to change my mind? Someone is telling men that their active engagement is destroying the planet? What do you mean by active engagement? I am pretty sure I actively engaged the world yesterday, and pretty sure I didn't destroy the world in the process. People go quiet with awe when you talk about responsibility? Are you sure it's awe? Maybe they are just taking a nap. The antidote to rights and freedoms is truth and responsibility? That sounds pretty ambiguous. Don't you claim to be precise in your speech? ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He never says crazy stuff off the top of his head? Are you sure? None of this qualifies: Just a short list of Peterson being an arrogant prick in this interview:
1. Who says we have over population? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec&t=33s]
2. In what way is society male dominated? [Most men hold most money and power, duh you dork.]
3. That is your theory? That is a foolish theory. [It is foolish to credit the women's movement? What an idiot JP is.]
4. I can replace you with someone else and then you are not here, and that is not good.
5. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It is so cliché. [You get paid for your job dipstick,]
6. All the democrats have done is inflame tribal tendencies.
7. He tells her she is wrong on lobster serotonin when she is right and then says 'I know my neurochemistry'.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeevanimmanuel1653 Peterson is debating claims by feminists? Here is what he said on that issue:
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.
[When he says 'plenty of THEM', who is them? Do you know he isn't referring to people in power, and how do you know that? And if these alleged 'Them' have no power, why is JP trying to make it such a big issue?
As to your allegation that he dismantles feminists etc, maybe in some videos, not in the GQ one. Helen won most issues, or more accurately JP made a food of himself.
So again: 'Plenty of them??' Who are they? BTW, JP says he read the paper [Prevalence of Marxism in Academia] quite carefully. If so why didn't he realize it actually proved Helen right, and why did he falsely attribute it to Haidt?
[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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@natediaz1863 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@worldisfilledb "The new atheists have fail to grapple with the fact that we are religious by nature, I don't understand the relationship between subjective and objective, and I don't understand consciousness, I don't know what its role is, consciousness is nothing, there is no objective perspective on consciousness..."
[As Peterson is still cleaning his room obviously, to the point he understands consciousness and objective vs. subjective...why is he proclaiming to be an intellectual with solutions on how to live?]
Let's check in at 1:15:00 'Ideologies take pieces of that, the radical Left fights against a tyrant, what about the benevolent father...Dan: 'A preferred mechanism or outcome, for the Left it has to be solar and wind, you can't solve climate change another way.'
JP: 'There is no environment, there is no problem with the environment that can be solved, they are too low resolution, it interferes with your feelings of omniscience, you can ask someone about their opinion about the environment but they can't run a nuclear power plant, its obvious that the sum total of our energy infrastructure are far more complex than one nuclear power plant, but people offer proscriptions that cover the entire territory, their map has no definition, that is the attraction of ideological thinking it covers up your ignorance..
[Every time I think JP cannot exceed his prior stupid comment he goes a step further. There is no environment because you have feelings of omniscience? Because someone doesn't know how to operate a nuclear power plant they can't have an environmental solution? ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swordierre9341 Just a short list of Peterson being an arrogant prick in the GQ interview:
1. Who says we have over population? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec&t=33s]
2. In what way is society male dominated? [Most men hold most money and power, duh you dork.]
3. That is your theory? That is a foolish theory. [It is foolish to credit the women's movement? What an idiot JP is.]
4. I can replace you with someone else and then you are not here, and that is not good.
5. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It is so cliché. [You get paid for your job dipstick,]
6. All the democrats have done is inflame tribal tendencies.
7. He tells her she is wrong on lobster serotonin when she is right and then says 'I know my neurochemistry'.
Helen:. Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.
Peterson:. No that is not right. It makes humans less aggressive.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
E
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gwenleenethdelasllagas1659 The comments are from JP fans who are blind conservative ideologues. I on the other hand use facts. In first five minutes:
Helen: Patriarchy is a system of male dominance.
JP: That isn't my definition of it.
[Helen gives the dictionary definition and JP disagrees, score for Helen.]
JP: In what way is society male dominated?
Helen: Men have most of the money.
JP: You are taking a tiny percentage of hyper successful males and using it to describe all of western culture, most men in prison are men, most people who commit suicide are men...
[Helen gives a correct example of male dominance and JP switches the goal post to 'is society easier or more fair to men'. Score for Helen.]
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....
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman, SO YOU ARE SAYING if is composed mostly of women it is a tyrannical patriarchy? No Jordan she didn't say anything like that.
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.]
JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions? Score for Helen.]
Around 44:00 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
-
@gwenleenethdelasllagas1659 Thank you for your feelings. Try using facts, here is a lesson. -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? 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
-
@Biid21 You found a JP win against Helen Lewis? Don't keep it a secret, what was it? 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]
JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
--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]
19:00 in GQ interview: 'I don't regard the West as a tyrannical patriarchy, that's for sure its purely not, when you describe it as tyrannical patriarchy you are saying it is purely that, merely to define it as a patriarchy implies unidimensionality, to insist that is also tyrannical is not a balanced view point, what if the patriarchy is composed primarily of women?
[Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem, that would be a matriarchy.],
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Biid21 You found a JP win? Don't keep it a secret. Where?
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]
JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
--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
-
@Biid21 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?
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 menNote Jordan also pulls a Cathy Newman...SO YOU ARE SAYING if it is dominated by women it is a tyrannical patriarchy? No Jordan, she didn't say anything like that.]
JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that?
[Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you find any JP wins? 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
-
1
-
@Bertie22222 I refuse to admit what? We are searching for a JP win. No one can find one.
--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
-
@Hybred You found a Peterson win? Where?
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? 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 scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[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', i.e. 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
-
You found a peterson win? Where?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skrtgoat9369 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. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
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 unidimensionality.' [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. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kchilz32 Thank you for your feelings. Try using facts like I do. If you hate Jordan this will change your mind.]
Around 4:00 'When I speak about responsibility, what I am saying is landing, when I talk about responsibility everything is quiet, it makes me cry, I had an emotional reaction that I don't understand, it is pathological, we are fed a diet of rights and freedoms, the antidote is truth and responsibility, that is the secret to a meaningful life, it is good to be responsible, men should be responsible, you are cursed that your active engagement with the world is what is destroying and undermining the planet and adding to tyranny, if you can reveal the best you are good...
[Seriously, this video is supposed to change my mind? Someone is telling men that their active engagement is destroying the planet? What do you mean by active engagement? I am pretty sure I actively engaged the world yesterday, and pretty sure I didn't destroy the world in the process. People go quiet with awe when you talk about responsibility? Are you sure it's awe? Maybe they are just taking a nap. The antidote to rights and freedoms is truth and responsibility? That sounds pretty ambiguous. Don't you claim to be precise in your speech? ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1