Youtube comments of (@psychcowboy1).
-
18
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@MyName-cw4yr 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.]
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Although I don't fault Hicks and Peterson for basically making a living out of attacking fictitious bogey men, I do have a problem with fancy academic terms that fluff up something simple into worthiness for academic debate, in this case post modernism. It's like Peterson continually referring to a tyrannical patriarchy; he can't just say male dominated? But anyway on to Hicks making a living out of fluffing up Post Modernism into an actual thing that threatens logic and western civilization. To simplify; he props up this evil and sinister force called post modernist or socialist that rejects happiness, prosperity, reason, evidence, peace, and freedom. Then he gets in the ring and knocks down his caricature to the glee of his gullible and conservative fans.
Here are some snips of the first review of his book that pops up:
"Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, .. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, ... For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism...The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. … These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables....Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable."
Rhetorical hyperbole, errors, problems persist from the first page on, badly misrepresents, questionable caricature? I haven't read the book, but given Hicks on YouTube, the analysis seems believable.
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
-
2
-
@oerjanlothe2369 The entire GQ interview. 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
-
To analyze the hypothesis that JP is dangerous, lets look at his YT channel: "I have been working on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable... However, now, for the first time in history, lectures can have, or even exceed, the reach and duration of books. Ideas presented in lecture format can be less daunting. They can be offered simultaneously to many people. They can be preserved for long periods of time."
[JP is a fan of 'I chose my language very carefully, to communicate in a precise manner'. Let's break down this language. Transcendent means extraordinary. So JP is telling us here that extraordinary or important values exist? I doubt any 6th graders don't already know that, but thank you JP. Most tangible realities of being? Does that mean they are important in someone's life? Thank you again JP for putting in the work to uncover this phenomenal insight. They have to be discovered? Does this mean during the course of your life in the dance between society and nature you learn what is important to you? OK, but do you have a point here dude? Wait for it... Lectures can be given to many people at once. Wow, this is some serious intellectualism. Either that or it is a guy with ideas that never move beyond the mundane and obvious, who nonetheless can deliver them in over-indulgent vocabulary and with a sense of self-importance. One fan says I criticize JP fans because I would lose in an actual debate with him. I don't think so. Any time, any place, any issue. Just name it JP.]
===========================
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tucker I know facts aren't really your friend but for DACA you had to be in the US since 2007... You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday
You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time
You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012
You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012
You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States
You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat
You were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
2
-
'Your life is so idiosyncratic and peculiar, you have to be social, I have met rich people who have big houses, they still have problems, it is better to be young than old, don't be envious, power is an unstable way of establishing authority, the organization will fail, lawyers in NY work all the time, its biological, traits are effected by learning, conscientious predicts success but if they get laid off they feel bad...'
[Chris, if JP has a single useful insight in this entire video, can you point me to it? Or in any of your interviews? My life is idiosyncratic and peculiar? What does that mean, and of what use is it to anyone? How does JP know how much all corporate lawyers work in NYC? Does he have a digital webcam on them? A GPS tracker? Apparently JP's point is that all work and no play is not good and it isn't fun to get old. I think I learned that in the 2nd grade. He also has the point that both nature and nurture influence who you are. Duh. BTW Chris: I gather that we shouldn't wish to have the success of Tiger Woods. Why not? Can I wish to be Ricky Fowler or Jordan Speith?]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@illbeyourmonster5752 What you should understand is that Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility.
2
-
2
-
@cainemangakahia4842 If you disagree with my analysis on any of these, glad to hear it: 1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
[What is normal incompetence? Does this imply that the median intellect of the US is incompetent? I have to guess of course because JP language is routinely ambiguous. Intelligent people with strong communication skills use precise language. JP does not. JP wants and incompetent president? Why exactly?]
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[Caucasians should not revert to white? WTF does that mean? In normal usage Caucasian and white are synonymous; thus saying Caucasians should not revert to white makes as much sense as saying butter should not revert to being something that is served with jam. Again, JP using ambiguous language, not a trait of intelligent people. Caucasians reverting to white is the ultimate expression of genocide? Really? Wouldn't killing lots of people be more genocidal than 'reverting to white', whatever that means?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
[ Apparently JP came to this realization after reading a paper on lobsters. Capitalism does not create inequality? We have a 500x income gap between rich and poor in the US, as result of capitalism and non regulation of greed. 500x isn't inequality, or capitalism didn't foster that inequity? I can't make a guess what JP is implying here, since as usual his language is ambiguous.]
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
[Almost all Republicans voted for the Iraq war, most Democrats voted against it. Certainly the Iraq war is a giant contributor to 'messy state'. How exactly is that my fault, and not the fault of the identifiable group that authorized it?]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Pretenderhead at 36:00. 'Tech companies are trying deliver something you will attend to, AI machines that will analyze your eye movements, to see what you are looking at, they are trying to figure out what you want and deliver it to you fast, Can we trust us, not if we are lying, that makes misinformation, the naked desire for power, the systems get contaminated, look what we are doing, you and I are having a conversation that will be distributed, its a miracle, translators work on my YT content, its very hard to translate YT to other languages, it hasn't been thought through, there is a real time translator, this is unbelievable...this over simplification and demonization has to stop... I talked to democrats who think antifa is illusory, but who think there is a conspiratory force on the right.'
[The king of over simplification and demonizing thinks we need to stop that, and in the very next sentence he over simplifies and demonizes democrats who think antifa is illusory and right wing conspiracy is real? Whoops dude. And how did he get from tech companies trying to sell us stuff, duh, to antifa in three sentences? Peterson is amazed at YouTube? Hasn't it been around for like 20 years? It's very hard to translate other languages but there is a real time translator? This guys brain is such total chaos. Dave; a coherent point anywhere in this video? Give me a nudge when you find it.]
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
I don't hate him. Rather I have no idea why anyone looks to him as any sort of intellectual. Giving clean your room advice, fine. In science and politics however the guy is a joke. If you disagree with my comments in brackets please elaborate:
1. 'The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong.'
[Who is saying that, and how did you get that from reading a paper on lobsters?]
2. "It is inevitable that there will be continuity in how humans and animals organize their structures."
[What is an animal structure, and how does an animal organize it?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization". [Huh?]
4. "The more likely problem in 100 years, assuming there are even creatures like us in 100 years, is that there will be too few people rather than too many."
[Huh? Humans have not evolved biologically substantially in the last 20,000 or so years, but you are projecting some radical evolution in the next 100? Many of the current world problems are population related, but you are projecting somehow there will be too few people in 100 years? Too few to do what exactly?]
5. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast …I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[What is Caucasians reverting to white, and how is that, whatever it is, more genocidal than say dropping an A-bomb?]
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
-
A core question here I think, is JP a charlatan followed by sheep who love to hear him talk but have no actual clue what he is saying. A visit to his YT page is enlightening: From JP YT channel: "I have been working on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable... However, now, for the first time in history, lectures can have, or even exceed, the reach and duration of books. Ideas presented in lecture format can be less daunting. They can be offered simultaneously to many people. They can be preserved for long periods of time."
[JP is a fan of 'I chose my language very carefully, to communicate in a precise manner'. Let's break down this language. Transcendent means extraordinary. So JP is telling us here that extraordinary or important values exist. I doubt any 6th graders don't already know that, but thank you JP. Most tangible realities of being? Does that mean they are important in someone's life? Thank you again JP for working on this phenomenal insight. They have to be discovered? Does this mean during the course of your life in the dance between society and nature you learn what is important to you? OK, but do you have a point here dude? Wait for it... Lectures can be given to many people at once. Wow, this is some serious intellectualism. Either that or it is a guy with ideas that never move beyond the mundane and obvious, who nonetheless can deliver them in over-indulgent vocabulary and with a sense of self-importance. One fan says I criticize JP fans because I would lose in an actual debate with him. I don't think so. Any time, any place, any issue. Just name it JP.]
===========================
2
-
2
-
Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future.
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
Jordan's 27th Rule: There are no models of animal industriousness, there is nothing random about dreams, no one advises a loved one to get an abortion, we don't have an overpopulation problem, the women's movement didn't advance women's rights, plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies, our hierarchies are of competence not power, no one knows that the world has improved in every way in the last 50 years including the environment, the West is an oppressive patriarchy but the West is not an oppressive patriarchy....
Jordan's 28th Rule: 'You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' @AmbietsRato
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnBasiglone 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.]
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
-
At 9:00 'To understand something is to map it on to your body literally, to say we understand we can structure our actions we have a grip, we have problems to solve, the fact that we can speak is a development of the left hemisphere systems, starting point and goal, the semantic description of that was a story, I was here and going somewhere, I had a good day, a dog jumped at me, then he has a panic attack that is an oedipal story, I went to kindergarten, it is a meta story, you know where a good point B might be, our eyes have a white and an iris, you want to see what someone values, when one person looks up then other people look up which is expensive cognitive resources, we want to infer the value structure that directs attention, we imitate, what should we lift our eyes to....and now back to machines....'
[To understand something is to map it on to your body, literally? Does this guy know what the word literally means? And now he is telling ivy league Oxford students about walking to kindergarten? Yes Jordan speaking requires using your brain. I digress, you are super adept at speaking without using your brain. We want to infer the value structure that directs attention? I mapped that onto my body literally, using crayons, but I still don't understand it.]
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tezwah5651 You found a spot where JP outsmarted Helen? This is super exciting, why are you keeping it a secret? Where was it? 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.]
--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
-
Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
She wants to wear pajamas on a train, with strangers, and have oranges from workers were paid, and their children with a school with educated teachers, only guns with the armies, and read free news, bad generals get prosecuted, and people have a bike festival and legal weed and windows that work...
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One problem with Mark Levin is that he, like most conservatives, think Jordan Peterson is smart. Let's check out Sowell as another pretend intellectual: 'Social justice fallacies, is it stuff, these ambiguities...yes it did, I observed things and facts, it sounds good but it is horrible... what does social justice mean, if you agree with the leftists and the marxists, but if you support capitalism and private property and individuals then you are anti social justice... they assume that if everything isn't the same for everyone that someone has done something wrong...these radical autocrates do they mean centralized government, redistribution of wealth, a permanent government that undermines representative government ... it is... these intellectuals have a high opinion of themselves..
[Why are two guys who have no idea what social justice means pretending to have a high opinion of themselves as intellectuals, while bemoaning people who have a high opinion of themselves as intellectuals like Sowell and Jordan Peterson?]
Let me help you two arrainge your toys. Social justice is at its core a movement to regulate greed, to limit the power of the wealthy to profit off the work of others. It has nothing to do with 'a permanent government that undermines representative government', it has nothing to do with 'if you support capitalism and private property and individuals then you are anti social justice.' You are welcome for a lecture in logic and facts from a liberal.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@susandanner496 Here is a lesson on using facts: The news is always wrong in the first draft? Always? They are lying on purpose. So how do we know when Tucker is lying on purpose? Is he always wrong in the first draft? We don't know who launched the bombs Tucker, and Zelinski didn't say the us should start a world war. Are you lying on purpose right now? He said he believed it was a Russian missile Tucker, that isn't a lie. The security guy said the evidence suggests. Not a lie either. Also Tucker it's not the Biden administration, it is bipartisan votes by Congress to send defense supplies to Ukraine. I agree sometimes the news is inaccurate, but you complaining about that?
Tucker at 7:45 'Why as long as it takes, Ukraine is not a democracy, what is our security interest, could it be that this entire effort is a choreographed scam to enrich the democratic party and it's allies, to achieve Left wing ideology and BLM goals, it is possible, because that is how DC works.....'
[Wait didn't Tucker start this by lamenting the dangers of dishonesty by the media? And now he is trying to link Putin attacking Ukraine with some left-wing ideology to enrich the democratic party? No wonder some of his colleagues quit because of Tucker's indifference to the truth in favor of inciting angst among gullible conservatives?]
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
-
@bry8120 Ok neither of us can find something intelligent by JP. Randomly at 16:00 with these two pretend smart guys; The climate conferences, we have to sacrifice, Obama bought a 15 million house.
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
There is no consensus in science...from a non-scientist, please Jordan, stay in your lane. People don't have detailed solutions -- from a guy who never has a solution to anything. You should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left? What a total idiot. Did he forget he is talking about reducing CO2 levels? Energy consumption is where CO2 comes from dork. Peterson's claim about CO2 reduction is also incorrect. The levels have stayed about the same since 1990, influenced more by cleaner burning cars than more fracking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A conclusion is warranted at this point. I have definitely got a handle on the Jordan Peterson phenomena, and as Stephen Hicks is to some extent cut from the same cloth, we can draw some connections.
1. I recognize the tough job both Peterson and Hicks have inherited. To maintain academic relevance of fields that deserve very little attention. Philosophy and psychology, and I will lump law and economics in with those. With a minimal amount of training I could walk into a courtroom and argue with most other lawyers, and likewise sit behind a desk and listen to someone's psychological problems. Very little of it moves past common sense. Hard science on the other hand cannot be understood with common sense; you can't common sense your way to understanding how cell membranes recognize and respond to hormones as one example. This concept is elucidated in the Sokal Hoax and more recently the Seven Secret Papers. Effectively, real scientists making fun of joke academia.
2. One thing that is recurrent and transparent in the ramblings of Peterson and Hicks is the theme of post modernism. Post modernism as defined by those guys is the denial of evidence, reason, the ability to prove anything, as well as the lack of gratitude and the rejection of free speech. Both Hicks and Peterson attribute this post modern rejection of reason and logic as something confined to the Left, liberals, or socialistic government policies. Basically, if you are on the Left or in favor of limiting greed in capitalism you are thus a post modernist -- someone with no belief in reason, truth, or the provability of anything. Hicks and Peterson have effectively struck gold. By appealing to a large and gullible conservative fan base, they can at the same time get massive amounts followers on Patreon and YouTube, and also gain some perceived relevance to their flimsy academic fields. In effect, libtards are post modernists and anyone who hates post modernism is smart. The fans of this mantra swoon at the hips with the perceived realization that post modernism is an actual thing.
The problem with this over simplified us verses them world view however is that it relies on this theory: The Left and socialism don't believe in logic, reason, and evidence. If you start examining the existence or absence of logic, reasoning, and evidence in the ramblings of Peterson and Hicks however, the obvious conclusion is that those guys are post modernists. When does Peterson provide evidence of anything? He laments that there are no models of animal industriousness, it is foolish to credit the women's movement with advances in women's rights, capitalism does not create inequity, who says we have over population, and dozens upon dozens of other theories that completely fly in the face of objective reality. Basically, it is those other guys who ignore evidence and logic; not us. It is quite a convenient rationalization until you spend more than 10 seconds pondering its actual credibility.
Again, given what they have to work with Peterson and Hicks do a reasonable job. How do you manufacture hours upon hours of lectures resting on content as banal as: pursuing the truth and responsibility are good things, and people have work life and a family life? I couldn't do it. Fortunately there are always masses of conservatives looking for the next flaming bush to worship; intellectual heroes that lend credence to the theory that conservatives are the smart ones. As long as Peterson and Hicks periodically label the Left as ignorant or socialism as denying reality, the loyal won't be bothered to notice the tons of other useless crap mixed in. I hate postmodern libtards, and now where is that link where I can buy some lottery winning holy water?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TubTechGuru NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly?
Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents.
At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Rubin joking? JP most important speech? Dave? Please timestamp and quote an important and useful idea by JP anywhere in this entire video. Good luck. Well the most important speech JP has ever made; not a very high bar.
'Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...'
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
1
-
@John-gu4zn Did you find any mature or intelligent statement by Murray? Try using facts like I do: Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MCharlesPainting Masterclass? In Jordy getting destroyed? Helen was right on Read More, look up the study by heterodox academy, alt right like JP, minimum force, don't go beyond what is necessary? Like when JP called Helen foolish for crediting the women's movement, JP isn't angry? listen to him yell at her 'that's for sure its purely not!' talking about tyrannical patriarchy', Hey Warren, why don't you highlight a section where you analyzed the GQ interview in an insightful accurate way, I promise to check it out. JP is trying to articulate that we have it better? Technology sure, housing costs and a college degree, nope, listen when Helen says a lot of people agree with JP ... and he interrupts to disagree...Huh? People are under the weight of ambition is tyrannical? What a monster straw man, no one is doing that to young men. Post modern thinking? Who pushes that? Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as hierarchy? Show me one. Helen says it is not a widely held view, and then JP cites the Haidt paper that proves Helen right! Masterclass, true, but not a master class in JP intellectual dominance. BTW Warren; do you agree when JP says the West is an oppressive patriarchy?
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
-
@pabloisaev514 Hi,I am a credible scientist who is very precise with my words. 7:00 'What confronts you in the morning is a field of possibility. You approach that with a certain orientation, and you use your words to think, you make order good, aim at good stuff, do what is right, the difference between right and wrong, pay attention to the moment, allow good words to come to you, to do what is right, truth is good...the role consciousness plays in reality... .'
[Apparently it is good to do and say good stuff. Thanks Jordy. But consciousness brings about reality? Huh?]]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
McCain: Judges with Strict adherence to the constitution.
Obama: The court has to stand up for fairness.
Sowell: That means judges can decide thing ad hoc, so we would no longer have law.
[According to Sowell Obama is advocating for no law and trying to destroy the constitution? Fortunately, only gullible conservatives fall for this nonsense, unfortunately that is most conservatives.]
Should the SC be guided by fair justice or the constitution. Obama supporters = fair justice. McCain supporters = constitution. This depresses Stowell. That isn't the judge's job...heads up Sowell, justice is a synonym for fairness, so basically you are saying that justice is not the job of the justice department. Whoops.
Article III, Section 2; The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States.
Sowell: 'Obama wants to overturn that the US is a nation of laws. 49% of Obama supporters want fair court decisions. They want a court decision to turn out differently, but that isn't the judge's job. The unconstrained vision is toward more equalized economic and social conditions, but the means chosen imply great inequality in the right to decide such issues, the Left wants equality of outcome, they don't want equality of choice, the Left wants to take away the families function to make decisions for the family younger members...'
[What a total idiot. Maybe Sowell should read the constitution before he says Obama wants to overturn it. The means chosen imply great inequality to decide? What does that mean? The right to decide has great inequality? Who is deciding, and how is that authority have great inequality? The Left wants equality of outcome? No they don't. The Left doesn't want equality of choice? Yes they do. The Left doesn't want parents to make decisions about their children? Sounds made up Thomas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peterson at 13:00 'The best way to save the planet is to make poor people rich as fast as we can...the biggest environmental issue facing us is over fishing...what does sustainable mean?...why should we care, how should we care? you have to prioritize, 200 goals is chaos, do you have a better idea, then what good is your criticism...'
[Wait, is Peterson, a guy who never has a solution to anything trying to rip on people who criticize with no better ideas? Pretty funny. The biggest environmental issue facing us is over fishing? No it isn't. The only result of over fishing is there are too few fish, who will of course replenish within a generation. The best way to save the planet is to make everyone rich? This guy is so totally full of crap. Environmental problems are caused by consumerism, which is a direct byproduct of wealth. What does sustainable mean? It means Jordan that the rate of consumption equals the rate of replacement. In another section Jordan says that the best way to solve pollution in India is to burn more coal. What is a guy who claims we don't have an over population problem doing projecting to solve problems in India when their entire problem is over population?
How about this Dave, lets do a debate with me, Jordan, and you and discuss actual solutions. HMU, anytime.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kestrelraptorial689 Lot of his fans call him brilliant. Few are willing to identify anything he has said that seems brilliant. I think he spews unfounded claims wrapped in ego vocabulary as a standard MO, including being 100% wrong on agreeableness in the workplace, plummeting violent crime claim, and that in 100 years we will have too few people. Here is some of his standard junk IMHO:
"That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good. People have within them the necessity to manifest in the world and doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you."
[I cannot make sense of most of this, outside of JP telling me when someone is removed they are no longer here, I don't know why I should be impressed at that insight.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pablowall Can you make sense of any of this: "That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good."
[I cannot make sense of most of this, outside of JP telling me when someone is removed they are no longer here, but call me crazy, I am not impressed at that insight.]
"People have within them the necessity to manifest in the world and doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you?"
[Huh?]
1
-
@Remy B I think he is making the argument that JP fans are sheep following a shepherd who they love to hear talk, but they have no idea what he is saying, e.g.: "That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good."
[I cannot make sense of most of this, outside of JP telling me when someone is removed they are no longer here, but call me crazy, I am not impressed at that insight.]
"People have within them the necessity to manifest in the world and doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you?"
[Huh?]
1
-
@Remy B I agree people interpret JP on their internal narrative that he is a brilliant genius, without bothering to actually analyze what he says, from JP YT channel:
"I have been working on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable... However, now, for the first time in history, lectures can have, or even exceed, the reach and duration of books. Ideas presented in lecture format can be less daunting. They can be offered simultaneously to many people. They can be preserved for long periods of time."
[JP is a fan of 'I chose my language very carefully, to communicate in a precise manner'. Let's break down this language. Transcendent means extraordinary. So JP is telling us here that extraordinary or important values exist? I doubt any 6th grader doesn't already know that, but thank you JP. Most tangible realities of being? Does that mean they are important in someone's life? Thank you again JP for working on your belief in this phenomenal insight. They have to be discovered? Does this mean during the course of your life in the dance between society and nature you learn what is important to you? OK, but do you have a point here dude? Wait for it... Lectures can be given to many people at once. Wow, this is some serious intellectualism. Either that or a guy whose ideas never move beyond the mundane and obvious, who nonetheless delivers them in over-indulgent vocabulary and grandiose self-importance. Here is my challenge to any JP fan. When you lift his robe a few inches you realize the whole phenomena is the emperor's new clothes.]
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
[Full Address Oxford Union] Help me out here. Peterson is at Oxford trying to pass on some useful insight that helps advance their upper tier academic knowledge...and he is telling them that we move towards things we want, we need things, if you don't have a purpose you are bitter, we are mortal, life is suffering, if there is no value then you have no justification, you compete and cooperate with people, some pole vaulters are better than others...
I am pretty sure me and everyone knew all that stuff by the second grade. Maybe JP should be teaching this at some kindergarten rather than a self proclaimed academic think tank like Oxford? We move towards things we want, it is valuable to want things, we compete and cooperate with other people, and everyone isn't equally as good as everyone else at everything? Thank you Jordan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:00 'There is a cost to pay for being alive, the cost is the suffering, if the suffering has no purpose you will get bitter, its not good to make things worse, you should ask what do I want so I won't be bitter, negotiate a contract that you like, rub the genie and get a great relationship, manifest it to be motivated, try and be a person you would admire, you are technically motivated, then I would be pleased and in harmony, that would be a good existence...'
So apparently it is not good when you make things worse, and good when you make things better. Holy crap this guy is a total genius. You should also try to get what you want. Amazing.
10:30 'Ask and you will receive is practical advice, an unexplored storehouse of potential treasure, if you make the sacrifice to your goal you can attain it, sometimes you modify your decision, a shining city on the hill, stumble and improve, if you are all in, the worst thing will happen definitely, that is a risk, to manifest in the world...live a life worthwhile, that is the purpose of this conference...'
[So apparently setting goals and strive for them is the message of ARC. Wasn't that already covered in a Berenstein Bear episode? So if everyone just does good stuff we don't need rules or a government? I suppose that is true. Is JP suggesting that is within the realm of possibility?]
1
-
1
-
@rfbedell347 1:30 'SBF Anything I make I am going to give away, money from FTX backdoored to another company, it disappeared, he donated $38 million to democrat elections, a denial is not proof, American government donated to Ukraine with crypto FTX, how much of that went backdoor to SBF and then to democrats, was money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war....'
[Sorry Will, SBF donated about 1% of his networth to election campaigns, not 'anything I make'. A denial is not proof? True, your allegation is not proof either as much as Fox viewers will probably believe it is. The US government donated to Ukraine with FTX crypto? Any proof of that? What the US is doing is supplying security infrastructure for Ukraine defense not 'here is a stake in our crypto account' pal. 'how much money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war.' The US isn't funding a war, it is trying to stop a war invasion by psycho Putin, that Trump and Fox like to excuse. To establish your wild allegations we need to know: A. The US government was giving Ukraine money. B. This was in the form of FTX crypto currency. C. Instead of using this alleged crypto money to fight the Russia invasion, someone in Ukraine simply decided to give it back someone in the US. Here is my suggestion Will and Fox. For your next post, how about addressing those issues with some form of evidence rather than wild inflammatory theories. This would require Fox to be an actual news channel however.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@susandanner496 The news is always wrong in the first draft? Always? They are lying on purpose. So how do we know when Tucker is lying on purpose? Is he always wrong in the first draft? We don't know who launched the bombs Tucker, and Zelinski didn't say the us should start a world war. Are you lying on purpose right now? He said he believed it was a Russian missile Tucker, that isn't a lie. The security guy said the evidence suggests. Not a lie either. Also Tucker it's not the Biden administration, it is bipartisan votes by Congress to send defense supplies to Ukraine. I agree sometimes the news is inaccurate, but you complaining about that?
Tucker at 7:45 'Why as long as it takes, Ukraine is not a democracy, what is our security interest, could it be that this entire effort is a choreographed scam to enrich the democratic party and it's allies, to achieve Left wing ideology and BLM goals, it is possible, because that is how DC works.....'
[Wait didn't Tucker start this by lamenting the dangers of dishonesty by the media? And now he is trying to link Putin attacking Ukraine with some left-wing ideology to enrich the democratic party? No wonder some of his colleagues quit because of Tucker's indifference to the truth in favor of inciting angst among gullible conservatives?]
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 check out Dr. Potaterson at 10:00: 'Climate change is the biggest health issue of our time, No, overreaching beaurocrats are, China is building nuclear reactors, we can't get our act together to build nuclear in the US, if you are concerned about the poor and the environment you make power as cheap as possible because there is no difference between energy and wealth, there is a bit of the problem getting rid of the waste, save the climate by making power as cheap as possible, as CO2 levels rise plants can grow more in drier environments, I read 200 books what I learned was things are way better than everyone thinks, the biggest environmental problem is over fishing in the ocean...
[Help me out Dave, haven't you claimed that JP is some kind of intellectual? What is even remotely intellectual about any of this? There is a bit of a problem getting rid of nuclear waste? Sure Jordan, half life of cancer causing mineral of 50,000 years, a BIT of a problem? We can't get out act together for nuclear in the US? Wrong Jordan, we made an environmental and safety issue to limit new nuclear. You can help the poor by making energy as cheap as possible? Wrong, energy cost is not the biggest part of someone's budget. And making energy cheap helps the environment? Wrong again, cheap energy tends to result in more driving, more air conditioning, more manufacturing, and more consumerism; all at the bottom of the pyramid for environmental damage. Remember when you claim to use multi variate analysis? So why are you over simplifying to 'energy is everything' here? There is no difference between energy and wealth, and climate and everything are the same word? This guy seriously needs a vocabulary lesson and instruction in basic logic. Over reaching beaurocrats are the biggest health issue? Heads up Jordan, do a google search for Covid 19 and bring yourself up to speed with what everyone else in the world has known for the last two years.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peterson at 21:00 'People go to the bathroom there is not Zero pollution, net zero is an empty talking point, it is not careful thinking that produces a solution...' [Heads up Jordan no one is suggesting we can get to zero pollution, the stated goal is NET ZERO CO2. You are welcome for the lesson in basic logic and science. Careful thinking that produces a solution? Dave, has Jordan ever done that himself?]
'How about copious energy for everyone as clean as possible, resilient stable systems, the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, work makes people prosperous and secure, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work wealth, energy is everything, US has knocked CO2 down by 14% in the last couple of decades because of fracking, war is not good for the environment...'
Jump to 34:00 'I rewrote sections of the document and my rewrites stuck, I did the work, they didn't have time to rewrite it, high end people are busy, they don't have time to analyze sustainable development goals...the only person trained to do it is Lomborg...'
[So JP's solution is lots of cheap energy for everyone? Does he have a magic wand to make this happen? Does he not realize that many of our environmental problems are related to energy consumption funding consumerism? What is work? Work is energy? I think JP is confusing work by people with the concept of work and energy in pure physics. Whoops. He wants to brag that he wrote sections that stuck? Maybe that happened, I will check it out. The other people didn't have time to analyze sustainable development goals? He knows this how? Literally every sentence out of his mouth is total nonsense, including that CO2 levels have dropped by 14% and that is due to fracking. The only person trained to analyze sustainable goals is Lomborg? Like in the entire world Jordan. Dave, help me out here, why are you nodding your head to this nonsense?]
1
-
Apparently Hicks and Anderson are sort of hooked at the hip with Jordan Peterson; a little embarrassing considering what a joke Peterson is, but lets check these guys out. Hicks: 'We take for granted the prosperity and lifespans in the 21st century, that we can solve problems.' [So according to Hicks I take for granted my nice car, good medicine, flat screen TV, and the ability to solve problems? How does he know this exactly? Call me skeptical but some guy professing to know what others feel or think is ignoring the objective reality of the grasp of his own awareness. So far, on the lack of self awareness of objective reality, I rate Hicks as a post modernist. Let's see what else he has.]
'We don't do a good job of communicating in education what all of that depends on.' [What doesn't education communicate about Stephen? Technological advances? Maybe you should steer away from pointless 2 hour lectures on post modernism and do that yourself; take some of your own advice maybe?]
Stephen then astonishes us that 'the average person has a work life and a family life, they keep up on what the issues are...the far Left felt beaten up on, they got their act together and social media is part of that...they have a battle on their hands.' [So Mr. Anderson, do you get Hicks point here? People work and have families? Uh Ok. People try and keep up with politics and social media is a part of that? He sounds ambiguous and pointless, but if you see some kind of worthwhile take home message here, can you tell us what it is? Not as big of an idiot as Jordan Peterson, but approaching Peterson's pointless standard, unless I am missing something.]
Stephen talks about 'reason being important in 1700, but now we can't observe the world our concepts are arbitrary, reason is not capable, we don't act on the basis of reason, individuals can think and try ideas, but someone doesn't think that individuals can think and try ideas, competition of ideas is important, open mindedness will make me better off, that process is important, human beings are not individuals are not seeking truth, they are molded by a social context.'
[Let me cut to the chase here Mr. Anderson since Hicks seems to be having a tough time. Apparently at some point in time there were individuals who could reason and debate and seek the truth, but now there isn't? Do I have this mostly right John? Hicks claims that he is open to learning from others and even being humiliated. Sounds good to me. Stephen, Here is my tip. Don't make over simplified claims about ungrateful people who don't believe individuals can discuss the truth, solve problems, etc. Otherwise you look like a complete idiot. Prepare some notes next time with the singular goal of actually having a useful and substantiated point. I hope that helps.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wisdom? Where did that happen? Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
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
-
@slagebobs4109 True it is important to be personally responsible for your success and failures. I learned that from my parents and teachers in third grade. Vast swath believe in guaranteed income? Percent and source? Quote JP saying something insightful in this video. I promise to check it out, mixed with massive amounts of fake intellectual nonsense:
Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
She wants to wear pajamas on a train, with strangers, and have oranges from workers were paid, and their children with a school with educated teachers, only guns with the armies, and read free news, bad generals get prosecuted, and people have a bike festival and legal weed and windows that work...
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Randomly at 16:00 with these two pretend smart guys; The climate conferences, we have to sacrifice, Obama bought a 15 million house.
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
There is no consensus in science...from a non-scientist, please Jordan, stay in your lane. People don't have detailed solutions -- from a guy who never has a solution to anything. You should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left? What a total idiot. Did he forget he is talking about reducing CO2 levels? Energy consumption is where CO2 comes from dork. Peterson's claim about CO2 reduction is also incorrect. The levels have stayed about the same since 1990, influenced more by cleaner burning cars than more fracking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@debd7631 My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception.
1
-
1
-
@@jackmillward5936 If you can't prioritize your goals you can't move forward on jacob's ladder, the macrocosm of the heavenly hierarchy, any system is a structure of values, consciousness is a narrow channel, we can only act one thing at a time, you have to do the first thing first, a hierarchy is an ethic, we cannot see the world except through an ethic, literally, or act in it, you cannot see the world through a hierarchical structure of value which is an ethic, you should chew on for twenty years that a story is a verbal description of a hierarchy of perceptual and and action prioritization.
1
-
@@jackmillward5936 I learned that also, but in third grade. If you can't prioritize your goals you can't move forward on jacob's ladder, the macrocosm of the heavenly hierarchy, any system is a structure of values, consciousness is a narrow channel, we can only act one thing at a time, you have to do the first thing first, a hierarchy is an ethic, we cannot see the world except through an ethic, literally, or act in it, you cannot see the world through a hierarchical structure of value which is an ethic, you should chew on for twenty years that a story is a verbal description of a hierarchy of perceptual and and action prioritization.
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
-
Hey JP and Big Think fans; can anyone point to anything really insightful JP has said? For specifics: As a rule, JP fans describe his brilliance with awe. I do not get the hype, but I invite any JP fans to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science...?
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
7. "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second....this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'. This all looks internally contradicting, rambling and chaotic to me. What am I missing?
1
-
Dear Big Think and JP fans, can you help me out with the hype? After following him for about a week his thought pattern looks pretty chaotic; maybe I am missing something. As a rule, JP fans describe his brilliance with awe. I do not get the hype, but I invite any JP fans to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science...?
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
7. "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second....this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'. This seems like he totally contradicted himself; a pattern of chaotic minds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martin_swellfitness Our quest for an intellectual idea by JP continues.
An impressive amount of nonsense packed into 24:00 minutes. Important isn't the word I would use Dave. Easily the Most _______________ Speech JP has ever done.
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical. Dave? Can you edit the title?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markbrown8937 JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
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
-
@bills5009 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly?
Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents.
At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
1
-
@bills5009 Rubin and his fans aren't fans of facts:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
@bills5009 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
@bills5009 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
@bills5009 I keep replying. It keeps getting deleted. I guess Rubin doesn't like free speech.
NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
@badgeswedontneednostinking5571 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
1
-
Kaitlin, I have better presidential ideas that Trump, Biden, Bernie, and all the prior Dem candidates at jgreene4prez2020 on FB. If you want to interview me, HMU. On income inequity and limiting greed, improving the mental and economic health of the nation, the environment, health care, student loans, housing, and the military. Check them out, ask me any question about any of them.
1
-
Peterson at 21:00 'People go to the bathroom there is not Zero pollution, net zero is an empty talking point, it is not careful thinking that produces a solution...' [Heads up Jordan no one is suggesting we can get to zero pollution, the stated goal is NET ZERO CO2. You are welcome for the lesson in basic logic and science. Careful thinking that produces a solution? Dave, has Jordan ever done that himself?]
'How about copious energy for everyone as clean as possible, resilient stable systems, the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, work makes people prosperous and secure, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work wealth, energy is everything, US has knocked CO2 down by 14% in the last couple of decades because of fracking, war is not good for the environment...'
Jump to 34:00 'I rewrote sections of the document and my rewrites stuck, I did the work, they didn't have time to rewrite it, high end people are busy, they don't have time to analyze sustainable development goals...the only person trained to do it is Lomborg...'
[So JP's solution is lots of cheap energy for everyone? Does he have a magic wand to make this happen? Does he not realize that many of our environmental problems are related to energy consumption funding consumerism? What is work? Work is energy? I think JP is confusing work by people with the concept of work and energy in pure physics. Whoops. He wants to brag that he wrote sections that stuck? Maybe that happened, I will check it out. The other people didn't have time to analyze sustainable development goals? He knows this how? Literally every sentence out of his mouth is total nonsense, including that CO2 levels have dropped by 14% and that is due to fracking. The only person trained to analyze sustainable goals is Lomborg? Like in the entire world Jordan. Dave, help me out here, why are you nodding your head to this nonsense?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oakson3045 Did you find an intelligent coherent statement by JP? Please share.
Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
Mr. Pretenderhead at 36:00. 'Tech companies are trying deliver something you will attend to, AI machines that will analyze your eye movements, to see what you are looking at, they are trying to figure out what you want and deliver it to you fast, Can we trust us, not if we are lying, that makes misinformation, the naked desire for power, the systems get contaminated, look what we are doing, you and I are having a conversation that will be distributed, its a miracle, translators work on my YT content, its very hard to translate YT to other languages, it hasn't been thought through, there is a real time translator, this is unbelievable...this over simplification and demonization has to stop... I talked to democrats who think antifa is illusory, but who think there is a conspiratory force on the right.'
[The king of over simplification and demonizing thinks we need to stop that, and in the very next sentence he over simplifies and demonizes democrats who think antifa is illusory and right wing conspiracy is real? Whoops dude. And how did he get from tech companies trying to sell us stuff, duh, to antifa in three sentences? Peterson is amazed at YouTube? Hasn't it been around for like 20 years? If you are lying you are spreading misinformation? This guy's genius is seriously off the charts. It's very hard to translate other languages but there is a real time translator? This guys brain is such total chaos. Dave; a coherent point anywhere in this video? Give me a nudge when you find it.]
1
-
@oakson3045 Let's check out Dr. Potaterson at 10:00: 'Climate change is the biggest health issue of our time, No, overreaching beaurocrats are, China is building nuclear reactors, we can't get our act together to build nuclear in the US, if you are concerned about the poor and the environment you make power as cheap as possible because there is no difference between energy and wealth, there is a bit of the problem getting rid of the waste, save the climate by making power as cheap as possible, as CO2 levels rise plants can grow more in drier environments, I read 200 books what I learned was things are way better than everyone thinks, the biggest environmental problem is over fishing in the ocean...
[Help me out Dave, haven't you claimed that JP is some kind of intellectual? What is even remotely intellectual about any of this? There is a bit of a problem getting rid of nuclear waste? Sure Jordan, half life of cancer causing mineral of 50,000 years, a BIT of a problem? We can't get out act together for nuclear in the US? Wrong Jordan, we made an environmental and safety issue to limit new nuclear. You can help the poor by making energy as cheap as possible? Wrong, energy cost is not the biggest part of someone's budget. And making energy cheap helps the environment? Wrong again, cheap energy tends to result in more driving, more air conditioning, more manufacturing, and more consumerism; all at the bottom of the pyramid for environmental damage. Remember when you claim to use multi variate analysis? So why are you over simplifying to 'energy is everything' here? There is no difference between energy and wealth, and climate and everything are the same word? This guy seriously needs a vocabulary lesson and instruction in basic logic. Over reaching beaurocrats are the biggest health issue? Heads up Jordan, do a google search for Covid 19 and bring yourself up to speed with what everyone else in the world has known for the last two years.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usuall interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalance of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
This is what is 'quite prevalent all throughout the video'; JP on a mission to prove his own ego and not let Helen be right about anything. That is how to use facts. Try it.
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you understood what he said I would be worried. Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
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
-
@deeprollingriver52 Nicely? Are you joking? Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
"There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much..."
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Josh-rn1em At 9:00 'To understand something is to map it on to your body literally, to say we understand we can structure our actions we have a grip, we have problems to solve, the fact that we can speak is a development of the left hemisphere systems, starting point and goal, the semantic description of that was a story, I was here and going somewhere, I had a good day, a dog jumped at me, then he has a panic attack that is an oedipal story, I went to kindergarten, it is a meta story, you know where a good point B might be, our eyes have a white and an iris, you want to see what someone values, when one person looks up then other people look up which is expensive cognitive resources, we want to infer the value structure that directs attention, we imitate, what should we lift our eyes to....and now back to machines....'
[To understand something is to map it on to your body, literally? Does this guy know what the word literally means? And now he is telling ivy league Oxford students about walking to kindergarten? Yes Jordan speaking requires using your brain. I digress, you are super adept at speaking without using your brain. We want to infer the value structure that directs attention? I mapped that onto my body literally, using crayons, but I still don't understand it. If a dog jumps at you on your way to kindergarten it becomes an oedipal story? I love it when JP shrooms up before these lectures.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Josh-rn1em 'If you want to not understand things...' You understood what he said? Cool, lets see it.
"Literature is real but it is fictional, there is a problem with perception, we bump against perception, we try to produce robots with visual perception, why if they world is not made of self-apprehensible perception, a snap shot of reality can be interpreted in many ways, how do you walk down a step, I studied a bunch of stuff, to triangulate the problem, if all your senses say the same thing about the perception we still organize ourselves unreliably, rats navigate a maze, the solution that requires embodiment..." The solution requires embodiment? Why isn't the whole audience laughing?
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
-
JP says you should not run from opinions you disagree with, you should embrace a discussion in pursuit of truth. As a rule JP fans however don't believe in that at all. They are all willing to claim he is a phenomena of brilliance, but none willing to defend him on any statement whatsoever. So if you disagree with any of my comments in brackets, please say so:
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
[What is normal incompetence? Does this imply that the median intellect of the US is incompetent? I have to guess of course because JP language is routinely ambiguous. Intelligent people with strong communication skills use precise language. JP does not. JP wants an incompetent president? Why exactly?]
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[Caucasians should not revert to white? WTF does that mean? In normal usage Caucasian and white are synonymous; thus saying Caucasians should not revert to white makes as much sense as saying butter should not revert to being something that is served with jam. Again, JP using ambiguous language, not a trait of intelligent people. Caucasians reverting to white is the ultimate expression of genocide? Really? Wouldn't killing lots of people be more genocidal than 'reverting to white', whatever that means?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
[Really? Being disagreeable to work tasks you are given is a way to impress your supervisor that you are entitled to a promotion? In what universe, in what job?]
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
[ Apparently JP came to this realization after reading a paper on lobsters. Capitalism does not create inequality? We have a 500x income gap between rich and poor in the US, as result of capitalism and non regulation of greed. 500x isn't inequality, or capitalism didn't foster that inequity? I can't make a guess what JP is implying here, since as usual his language is ambiguous.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Literature is real but it is fictional, there is a problem with perception, we bump against perception, we try to produce robots with visual perception, why if they world is not made of self-apprehensible perception, a snap shot of reality can be interpreted in many ways, how do you walk down a step, I studied a bunch of stuff, to triangulate the problem, if all your senses say the same thing about the perception we still organize ourselves unreliably, rats navigate a maze, the solution that requires embodiment... The solution requires embodiment? Why isn't the whole audience laughing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 9:00 'To understand something is to map it on to your body literally, to say we understand we can structure our actions we have a grip, we have problems to solve, the fact that we can speak is a development of the left hemisphere systems, starting point and goal, the semantic description of that was a story, I was here and going somewhere, I had a good day, a dog jumped at me, then he has a panic attack that is an oedipal story, I went to kindergarten, it is a meta story, you know where a good point B might be, our eyes have a white and an iris, you want to see what someone values, when one person looks up then other people look up which is expensive cognitive resources, we want to infer the value structure that directs attention, we imitate, what should we lift our eyes to....and now back to machines....'
[To understand something is to map it on to your body, literally? Does this guy know what the word literally means? And now he is telling ivy league Oxford students about walking to kindergarten? Yes Jordan speaking requires using your brain. I digress, you are super adept at speaking without using your brain. We want to infer the value structure that directs attention? I mapped that onto my body literally, using crayons, but I still don't understand it.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The statement is total nonsense. Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
@jameswheeler1610 1:30 'SBF Anything I make I am going to give away, money from FTX backdoored to another company, it disappeared, he donated $38 million to democrat elections, a denial is not proof, American government donated to Ukraine with crypto FTX, how much of that went backdoor to SBF and then to democrats, was money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war....'
[Sorry Will, SBF donated about 1% of his networth to election campaigns, not 'anything I make'. A denial is not proof? True, your allegation is not proof either as much as Fox viewers will probably believe it is. The US government donated to Ukraine with FTX crypto? Any proof of that? What the US is doing is supplying security infrastructure for Ukraine defense not 'here is a stake in our crypto account' pal. 'how much money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war.' The US isn't funding a war, it is trying to stop a war invasion by psycho Putin, that Trump and Fox like to excuse. To establish your wild allegations we need to know: A. The US government was giving Ukraine money. B. This was in the form of FTX crypto currency. C. Instead of using this alleged crypto money to fight the Russia invasion, someone in Ukraine simply decided to give it back someone in the US. Here is my suggestion Will and Fox. For your next post, how about addressing those issues with some form of evidence rather than wild inflammatory theories. This would require Fox to be an actual news channel however.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelshalo06 Fox generally not that trustworthy, basically appealing to gullible conservatives, so let's check in to Will Cain here:
1:30 'SBF Anything I make I am going to give away, money from FTX backdoored to another company, it disappeared, he donated $38 million to democrat elections, a denial is not proof, American government donated to Ukraine with crypto FTX, how much of that went backdoor to SBF and then to democrats, was money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war....'
[Sorry Will, SBF donated about 1% of his networth to election campaigns, not 'anything I make'. A denial is not proof? True, your allegation is not proof either as much as Fox viewers will probably believe it is. The US government donated to Ukraine with FTX crypto? Any proof of that? What the US is doing is supplying security infrastructure for Ukraine defense not 'here is a stake in our crypto account' pal. 'how much money to Ukraine going back to the people who were voting to fund the war.' The US isn't funding a war, it is trying to stop a war invasion by psycho Putin, that Trump and Fox like to excuse. To establish your wild allegations we need to know: A. The US government was giving Ukraine money. B. This was in the form of FTX crypto currency. C. Instead of using this alleged crypto money to fight the Russia invasion, someone in Ukraine simply decided to give it back someone in the US. Here is my suggestion Will and Fox. For your next post, how about addressing those issues with some form of evidence rather than wild inflammatory theories. This would require Fox to be an actual news channel however.]
Tucker: "The news media is horrible, it is often intentionally wrong, the first draft is always wrong, laughably untrue, they are lying on purpose, to manipulate you, if Russia attacked NATO by definition that would be world war 3 hundreds of people would die, intel official said Russia had launched a strike on Poland by definition it was time for the US to begin a total war on Putin Russia, and now for a Zelinski clip who is a friend of Sean Penn commanded the US to start a world war, the missle had a s300 ukrainian symbol, Ukraine bombed Poland and Zelinski was lying...is it time to stop backing Zelinski getting rich from US handouts, a ukraine missle killed two Poles..."
[Wait, Tucker is complaining about news media being always wrong and they are lying on purpose? They are always wrong? Sorry Tucker,
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
-
@andrewbradley3305 Wait, you found an intellectual idea by JP? this is exciting, what was it?
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
1
-
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
-
@Birdracer22 Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
Mr. Pretenderhead at 36:00. 'Tech companies are trying deliver something you will attend to, AI machines that will analyze your eye movements, to see what you are looking at, they are trying to figure out what you want and deliver it to you fast, Can we trust us, not if we are lying, that makes misinformation, the naked desire for power, the systems get contaminated, look what we are doing, you and I are having a conversation that will be distributed, its a miracle, translators work on my YT content, its very hard to translate YT to other languages, it hasn't been thought through, there is a real time translator, this is unbelievable...this over simplification and demonization has to stop... I talked to democrats who think antifa is illusory, but who think there is a conspiratory force on the right.'
[The king of over simplification and demonizing thinks we need to stop that, and in the very next sentence he over simplifies and demonizes democrats who think antifa is illusory and right wing conspiracy is real? Whoops dude. And how did he get from tech companies trying to sell us stuff, duh, to antifa in three sentences? Peterson is amazed at YouTube? Hasn't it been around for like 20 years? If you are lying you are spreading misinformation? This guy's genius is seriously off the charts. It's very hard to translate other languages but there is a real time translator? This guys brain is such total chaos. Dave; a coherent point anywhere in this video? Give me a nudge when you find it.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Better title, WE who wrestle with our own ego.... hehe. 'The confusion of the nature of the story that should orient us in the world, the problem with hedonism and power, you need a different pattern to have meaning, the biblical library, those stories are scientifically credible, there is scientific evidence that we see the world through a story, identity politics is confusion about our orientation in the world, the orientation poles have not been superseded, we have stories encapsulated but what is the right story, we are arranged to act out patterns, purpose and accomplishment, to be significant, a good person, and meaning....'
[Hey Jesse, did you notice a single coherent useful idea by JP somewhere, I couldn't find one.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kharnellius I wonder 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.
1
-
1
-
@greylatern Can I see an example? Mr. Pretenderhead at 36:00. 'Tech companies are trying deliver something you will attend to, AI machines that will analyze your eye movements, to see what you are looking at, they are trying to figure out what you want and deliver it to you fast, Can we trust us, not if we are lying, that makes misinformation, the naked desire for power, the systems get contaminated, look what we are doing, you and I are having a conversation that will be distributed, its a miracle, translators work on my YT content, its very hard to translate YT to other languages, it hasn't been thought through, there is a real time translator, this is unbelievable...this over simplification and demonization has to stop... I talked to democrats who think antifa is illusory, but who think there is a conspiratory force on the right.'
[The king of over simplification and demonizing thinks we need to stop that, and in the very next sentence he over simplifies and demonizes democrats who think antifa is illusory and right wing conspiracy is real? Whoops dude. And how did he get from tech companies trying to sell us stuff, duh, to antifa in three sentences? Peterson is amazed at YouTube? Hasn't it been around for like 20 years? If you are lying you are spreading misinformation? This guy's genius is seriously off the charts. It's very hard to translate other languages but there is a real time translator? This guys brain is such total chaos. Dave; a coherent point anywhere in this video? Give me a nudge when you find it.]
1
-
1
-
@greylatern Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
1
-
1
-
@greylatern Apparently you feel JP is an expert in 90% of what he says here, you just aren't sure what it was, when you figure it out LMK.
Let's check out Dr. Potaterson at 10:00: 'Climate change is the biggest health issue of our time, No, overreaching beaurocrats are, China is building nuclear reactors, we can't get our act together to build nuclear in the US, if you are concerned about the poor and the environment you make power as cheap as possible because there is no difference between energy and wealth, there is a bit of the problem getting rid of the waste, save the climate by making power as cheap as possible, as CO2 levels rise plants can grow more in drier environments, I read 200 books what I learned was things are way better than everyone thinks, the biggest environmental problem is over fishing in the ocean...
[Help me out Dave, haven't you claimed that JP is some kind of intellectual? What is even remotely intellectual about any of this? There is a bit of a problem getting rid of nuclear waste? Sure Jordan, half life of cancer causing mineral of 50,000 years, a BIT of a problem? We can't get out act together for nuclear in the US? Wrong Jordan, we made an environmental and safety issue to limit new nuclear. You can help the poor by making energy as cheap as possible? Wrong, energy cost is not the biggest part of someone's budget. And making energy cheap helps the environment? Wrong again, cheap energy tends to result in more driving, more air conditioning, more manufacturing, and more consumerism; all at the bottom of the pyramid for environmental damage. Remember when you claim to use multi variate analysis? So why are you over simplifying to 'energy is everything' here? There is no difference between energy and wealth, and climate and everything are the same word? This guy seriously needs a vocabulary lesson and instruction in basic logic. Over reaching beaurocrats are the biggest health issue? Heads up Jordan, do a google search for Covid 19 and bring yourself up to speed with what everyone else in the world has known for the last two years.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lanaevans7512 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
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
-
Is Rubin joking? JP most important speech? Dave? Please timestamp and quote an important and useful idea by JP anywhere in this entire video. Good luck. Well the most important speech JP has ever made; not a very high bar.
'Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...'
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Josh-rn1em What did JP say that was insightful and coherent?
Literature is real but it is fictional, there is a problem with perception, we bump against perception, we try to produce robots with visual perception, why if they world is not made of self apprehensible perception, a snap shot of reality can be interpreted in many ways, how do you walk down a step, I studied a bunch of stuff, to triangulate the problem, if all your senses say the same thing about the perception we still organize ourselves unreliably, rats navigate a maze, the solution that requires embodiment... The solution requires embodiment? Why isn't the whole audience laughing?
1
-
1
-
NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@surpriserakins9067 Actually you got that 180 degrees off. Helen corrected JP vocabulary problem: 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]
--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']
'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...
[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? Score for Helen.)
1
-
@surpriserakins9067 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
-
@MatthewC137 Try this; quote a coherent, intellectual, profound, insightful, useful idea by JP on any subject anywhere. I am on the edge of my seat. 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 for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
Jordan's 27th Rule: There are no models of animal industriousness, there is nothing random about dreams, no one advises a loved one to get an abortion, we don't have an overpopulation problem, the women's movement didn't advance women's rights, plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies, our hierarchies are of competence not power, no one knows that the world has improved in every way in the last 50 years including the environment, the West is an oppressive patriarchy but the West is not an oppressive patriarchy....
Jordan's 28th Rule: 'You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.'
1
-
@MatthewC137 The New York times said that? Which staff person? I agree, you can't find an intellectual idea by Peterson! JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@MatthewC137 JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@MatthewC137 Which NYT staff person said that? Was it fact checked like they do for every thing their staff submit? Grow a pair, and produce an intellectual idea by JP on any subject anywhere. Any of these?
Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kipperbob Like I said, as a blind conservative JP ideologue I can predict what you say before you say it; You feel he has great skills at dissecting complex ideas...you just don't know where that happened. You feel you have read the JP literature but you can't quote a single idea by Peterson that supports your beliefs. I am the one with evidence and you have none...and you conclude I am the ignorant one? I can predict that response from you also.
LMK if you have any evidence whatsoever. Watch how I do it.
Let's check out Dr. Potaterson at 10:00: 'Climate change is the biggest health issue of our time, No, overreaching beaurocrats are, China is building nuclear reactors, we can't get our act together to build nuclear in the US, if you are concerned about the poor and the environment you make power as cheap as possible because there is no difference between energy and wealth, there is a bit of the problem getting rid of the waste, save the climate by making power as cheap as possible, as CO2 levels rise plants can grow more in drier environments, I read 200 books what I learned was things are way better than everyone thinks, the biggest environmental problem is over fishing in the ocean...
[Help me out Dave, haven't you claimed that JP is some kind of intellectual? What is even remotely intellectual about any of this? There is a bit of a problem getting rid of nuclear waste? Sure Jordan, half life of cancer causing mineral of 50,000 years, a BIT of a problem? We can't get out act together for nuclear in the US? Wrong Jordan, we made an environmental and safety issue to limit new nuclear. You can help the poor by making energy as cheap as possible? Wrong, energy cost is not the biggest part of someone's budget. And making energy cheap helps the environment? Wrong again, cheap energy tends to result in more driving, more air conditioning, more manufacturing, and more consumerism; all at the bottom of the pyramid for environmental damage. Remember when you claim to use multi variate analysis? So why are you over simplifying to 'energy is everything' here? There is no difference between energy and wealth, and climate and everything are the same word? This guy seriously needs a vocabulary lesson and instruction in basic logic. Over reaching beaurocrats are the biggest health issue? Heads up Jordan, do a google search for Covid 19 and bring yourself up to speed with what everyone else in the world has known for the last two years.]
Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
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
-
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
-
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]
--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...
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman -- So You are Saying. Sorry Jordan, Helen, 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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stuartannetts300 Gobbledy gook? Are you in the third grade? JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@Max-jl2ie
20:00 We should have careful differentiated thoughtful thorough detail-oriented thinking that will produce solutions, there is no discussion about what are we aiming at here, how about copious energy that is clean for everyone, resilient stable systems...There is manure from cows, people go to the bathroom, there is not zero pollution...the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, what makes people prosperous and secure, work, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work, what is work, wealth,
[What an absolute idiot, he claims we need thoughtful detailed solutions and his unthoughtful, undetailed, uncareful idea is lots of cheap energy? You just said you need well thought out detailed plans, and your well thought out detailed plan is how about clean energy and stable systems? There is no discussion about what we are aiming at? You just mentioned the aim one sentence ago; Net Zero. Heads up dork brain, the concept is Net Zero, not Zero]
[If you care about poor people, The only thing you should care about is cheap energy... Wrong. What makes people prosperous... work, wrong not if that work is at minimum wage. Work is the expenditure of energy - wrong. What is energy - work, wrong. What is work, wealth, wrong.]
Dave, If JP says a single accurate useful statement about anything in this entire interview, can you let me know where that is?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NiWdLES Compassion is a virtue, no one is arguing for treating adults like infants, straw man by Peterson, encouragement requires judgement, duh, no one is arguing it doesn't, another straw man by Peterson, love is complicated man? Wow, Jordan that is a deeply intellectual idea. Your turn, a profound intellectual coherent useful idea by Peterson in this or any other video, go...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@C.is.for.Classified We are searching for a useful profound idea by JP, no one can find one.
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@C.is.for.Classified I am pretty sure that the best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right and 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. The principles are good, what is the underlying meta principle, orient to the highest good, towards good, and be nice to other people, the divine spirit that unites us with other people that is what the monotheistic tendency tilts towards portray psychologically, if your principles are coherent then there is a meta principle that unites them, what is that meta principle and how do you conduct yourself, there is a moral element that shapes your behavior. [Do you agree?]
1
-
@Nonreligeousthiestic I am pretty sure that the best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right and 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. The principles are good, what is the underlying meta principle, orient to the highest good, towards good, and be nice to other people, the divine spirit that unites us with other people that is what the monotheistic tendency tilts towards portray psychologically, if your principles are coherent then there is a meta principle that unites them, what is that meta principle and how do you conduct yourself, there is a moral element that shapes your behavior. [Do you agree?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi,I am a credible scientist who is very precise with my words. 7:00 'What confronts you in the morning is a field of possibility. You approach that with a certain orientation, and you use your words to think, you make order good, aim at good stuff, do what is right, the difference between right and wrong, pay attention to the moment, allow good words to come to you, to do what is right, truth is good...the role consciousness plays in reality... .'
[Apparently it is good to do and say good stuff. Thanks Jordy. But consciousness brings about reality? Huh?]]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annarodriguez9868 Let's plug into DR. Pretendhead at 7:00. 'There is nothing behind it but the most instrumentally and cowardly random polling, how do you get accurate polling data, how did you construct the questions...
Let's jump to 30:00: 'Don't screw it up with facile criticism, you have to do a detailed analysis, where is it procedurally going wrong the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground, people don't want a detailed analysis of the problem, it is heuristics, you are not seeing me, I am not there, you don't see my cellular structure, what is the job, a heuristic turns into a bias, you don't know what you don't know, people who want to fix the power system they don't know how to do home wiring, I worked on a committee and they kept my changes...
[OK so guy who complains about facile criticism spends an hour giving us facile criticism like people don't want a detailed analysis, there is cowardly random polling, and people can't see his cellular structure, and someone who can't install home wiring may have any idea to improve efficient and cleaner use of electricity? Dave, help me out here, why are you nodding at Peterson's heuristic nonsense from start to finish?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illbeyourmonster5752 I know facts are scary for you, but here is another lesson;
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]
--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']
'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...
[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? Score for Helen.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illbeyourmonster5752 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illbeyourmonster5752 Agreed, neither of us can find a coherent, useful, profound idea by JP. JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illbeyourmonster5752 Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future.
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
1
-
One problem with Mark Levin is that he, like most conservatives, think Jordan Peterson is smart. Let's check out Sowell as another pretend intellectual: 'Social justice fallacies, is it stuff, these ambiguities...yes it did, I observed things and facts, it sounds good but it is horrible... what does social justice mean, if you agree with the leftists and the Marxists, but if you support capitalism and private property and individuals then you are anti-social justice... they assume that if everything isn't the same for everyone that someone has done something wrong...these radical autocrats do they mean centralized government, redistribution of wealth, a permanent government that undermines representative government ... it is... these intellectuals have a high opinion of themselves..
[Why are two guys who have no idea what social justice means pretending to have a high opinion of themselves as intellectuals, while bemoaning people who have a high opinion of themselves as intellectuals like Sowell and Jordan Peterson?]
Let me help you two arrange your toys. Social justice is at its core a movement to regulate greed, to limit the power of the wealthy to profit off the work of others. It has nothing to do with 'a permanent government that undermines representative government', it has nothing to do with 'if you support capitalism and private property and individuals then you are anti-social justice.' You are welcome for a lecture in logic and facts from a liberal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasbrown5267 If you disagree with my analysis in brackets on any of these, glad to hear it: 8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
[What is normal incompetence? Does this imply that the median intellect of the US is incompetent? I have to guess of course because JP language is routinely ambiguous. Intelligent people with strong communication skills use precise language. JP does not. JP wants and incompetent president? Why exactly?]
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[Caucasians should not revert to white? WTF does that mean? In normal usage Caucasian and white are synonymous; thus saying Caucasians should not revert to white makes as much sense as saying butter should not revert to being something that is served with jam. Again, JP using ambiguous language, not a trait of intelligent people. Caucasians reverting to white is the ultimate expression of genocide? Really? Wouldn't killing lots of people be more genocidal than 'reverting to white', whatever that means?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
[Almost all Republicans voted for the Iraq war, most Democrats voted against it. Certainly the Iraq war is a giant contributor to 'messy state'. How exactly is that my fault, and not the fault of the identifiable group that authorized it?]
9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
[There are plenty of sins on the conscience of the West. Is that a useful statement. Is JP telling me that fans don't boo at sports stars supposed to impress me of his intellect? In this age of information at your finger tips people are advancements in economy is not well distributed knowledge? Do you have a source or example JP?]
1
-
@cainemangakahia4842 As for your specific question; 'DOES agreeableness negatively predict success in the workplace?' In general, disagreeableness directly limits promotion or even gets you fired, making JP 100% wrong here in most applications. He is a fan of saying he is very precise in his choice of words. I don't think so, analyze these two if you want: "That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good."
[I cannot make sense of most of this, outside of JP telling me when someone is removed they are no longer here, but call me crazy, I am not impressed at that insight.]
"People have within them the necessity to manifest in the world and doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you?"
[Huh?]
1
-
@thomasbrown5267 OK, you disagree with me characterizing him as a charlatan, but you will not debate his intellect or lack of. Seems like a cop out; you tell me I am wrong, but will not debate it. Whatever. I guess your original point is about his fans. As for his fans, I posted a made up sokal hoax statement, intentionally meaningless to see if any JP fans would take the bait. 6 did, one said the statement was ridiculous, 5 jumped in to an explanation of what JP meant by it. Lots of fans describe him as brilliant, but when I ask for an example of his brilliance they reply with laughing emojis or cop out in other ways like this one: "I hear what you say and choose to ignore it. That's my choice and you don't have to read my reply. No harm intended. I do see your points I don't have to agree with any of them." So JP fan says he will ignore my comments about specific JP statements? Tell me that is not a cop out. They love him; they are unwilling or unable to defend him.
If you feel like it, comment on the following, my comments in brackets: From JP YT channel: "I have been working on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable... However, now, for the first time in history, lectures can have, or even exceed, the reach and duration of books. Ideas presented in lecture format can be less daunting. They can be offered simultaneously to many people. They can be preserved for long periods of time."
[JP is a fan of 'I chose my language very carefully, to communicate in a precise manner'. Let's break down his language. Transcendent means extraordinary. So JP is telling us here that extraordinary or important values exist? I doubt any 6th graders don't already know that, but thank you JP. Most tangible realities of being? Does that mean they are important in someone's life? Thank you again JP for working on this phenomenal insight. They have to be discovered? Does this mean during the course of your life in the dance between society and nature you learn what is important to you? OK, but do you have a point here dude? Wait for it... Lectures can be given to many people at once. Wow, this is some serious intellectualism. Either that or it is a guy with ideas that never move beyond the mundane and obvious, who nonetheless delivers them in over-indulgent vocabulary and with a sense of grandiose self-importance. One fan says I criticize JP fans because I would lose in an actual debate with him. I don't think so. Any time, any place, any issue. Just name it JP.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasbrown5267 OK, here is some stuff from his fans, some of it explaining to me either A. the most brilliant thing JP has ever said, B. explaining the meaning of a nonsense phrase I made up: "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"Hey Friend. If you can't grasp his brilliance I won't be able to explain it to you."
"You’re one or two messages from freaking out and calling Peterson a fraud. Your game is obvious."
"Clean up your room, set your house in order before you criticize others, take responsibility for your life."
"When you're in that place of where you're facing things courageously and you're speaking the truth... you are imbued with a sense of fundamental meaning, and that meaning is the antidote to the catastrophe of life."
"He has 100s of hours of lectures on YouTube and you want someone to spoon feed you some of his best points? You can’t even grasp one of his simplest rules which is to clean your room."
"You're citing the man, but what's so bad about those particular bits, of all the things he said, to be picked among all else ? It's pretty reasonable things to me."
"Perhaps just put a little more effort into listening to what he's saying and you'll be golden."
"The logos is primary in bringing order out of chaos. By logos, he is referring to the concept of truthful speech."
"In essence, the left and it's postmodern disciples view Western Civilization as continuing inequality in the world and destruction of non western people groups."
"I love how clear his talk is. He definitely thinks about what he says."
"People like this shouldn’t be aloud out side. Unfortunately majority of people think like these fools and that’s the reason the world is so fucked."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dark3031 I cleaned JP's room, found scraps of paper all over the floor. I decided that My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeapingBlackman The transcendent is what we bump up against when we realize our ignorance. It is an implacable fact. We can think can about it technically, you tend to represent the world in the simplest manner that you can that works for what you are doing, you don't actually see the world, you see useful low-resolution representations of the world, sometimes you have a misapprehension about someone, the conversation goes sideways, the thing that you thought you are conversing with is not the thing you are conversing with, that manifests itself as error, what is revealing itself is the reality that is outside and beneath your perceptions, what you see is a sense of animated cartoons, that is you seeing nothing but your memory, the thing is richer, God only knows there is more there than meets the eye, you can determine this scientifically with chemicals that disrupt the inhibition of perception by memory and then the transcendent reveals itself'.
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
-
I have effectively challenged Colorado SC justice Melissa Hart to debate the below issues. Hart is magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I have never taken a class in the practice of law. What could she possibly be afraid of?
1. ABA standards are that failure to render reports of lawyer dishonesty are 'a disservice to the public and the legal profession'. Not only did Lindsey refuse comment on the extensive pattern of dishonesty by a state paid lawyer lying on behalf of a state funded university, she in fact signed her name to dishonest proposed statements and orders by Megan Clark. There is no evidence judge Lindsey even read my complaint, and as to the pro se injunction, the only substantial difference between the filings by me and Clark, is that I tell the truth and Clark doesn't.
The ALJ order by Tyburski is capricious, irrational, biased and with no basis in fact or law. It wasn't frivolous to appeal it; it was in fact a necessity to address judicial bias and complete indifference to the facts and the law, most notably the refusal of Tyburski to comply with CRS 24-50-101, CRS 13-5.5-107, and CRS 13-5.7-101.
The failure in conduct and credibility of Tyburski is undisputed by three state personnel directors and the Board of Ethics, who are the responsible parties to analyze conduct and performance of SPB ALJ. Not only did Tyburski fail to comply with the single assignment the legislature has given her; determine what is fair, she even failed to comply with SPB rules, e.g.:
SPB Rule 7.2 Board Rule strongly encourages the governor, the state personnel director, and all appointing authorities to apply “progressive employment practices” and “alternatives to minimize or avoid layoffs of employees in the state personnel system.”
2. Denver judge Jill Dorancy dismissal misinterpreted mandamus CRCP 106 rule:
a) Her statement that CU refusal to comply with CRS 24-50-101 is 'not contemplated by the rule' is false as can be confirmed from the Civil Rules Committee. State officials refusing to comply with statutory duties, as CU has clearly done, is the entire purpose of CRCP 106.
b) Dorancy decided not to address the CRS 24-50-101 violation because similar issues with different defendants were pending in the COA. She was relying on the exhaustion doctrine that she misinterpreted. The exhaustion doctrine requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before proceeding to the courts. I had clearly exhausted administrative remedies.
3. The COA order by Grove/Furman/Yun misinterpreted the protection of Classified tenure in XII Sec. 13. They dismissed my case because I didn't provide SPECIFIC language protecting Classified tenure. The case I provided stated that Classified tenure is protected by IMPLIED language in XII, Sec.13. I don't need to provide specific protection if the protection is implied.
Similarly, judge Elizabeth Brodsky statement that 'the COA confirmed there is no policy that would grant Greene the relief he requests', is also false. They didn't confirm that; they misinterpreted the case law, and they failed to even mention the governing statute in this case; CRS 24-50-101, which makes the university president 'responsible and accountable' for policy directives from the state personnel director. Brodsky also violated civil procedure by granting defendant's motion to dismiss on the same day she received it.
4. The statements by COA judges Berger/Brown/Johnson are a violation of the code of judicial conduct, and CRS 13-5.7-101; I am not permitted to ask them questions, and they are dismissing my case on the claim that my brief was not structured properly. I asked them how it was not substantially compliant; they declined comment.
1
-
1
-
Tucker: I have better presidential ideas that Trump, Biden, Bernie, and all the prior Dem candidates at jgreene4prez2020 on FB. If you want to interview me, HMU. On income inequity and limiting greed, improving the mental and economic health of the nation, the environment, health care, student loans, housing, and the military. Check them out, ask me any question about any of them. On the police issue, the toxic cop syndrome needs a paradigm shift, but I do not support vandalism or looting, nor do I support defunding police. We need them, there are a lot of good ones, but clearly the 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality requires a message of firing for some and criminal charges for others. Thx.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronjon5241 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
1
-
@aggnal2892 Douglas Murray wasn't mean to her? Dude are you on drugs or in the 3rd grade? Yay I win:
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
1
-
@henrikaugustsson4041 Thank you for your feelings that JP said something brilliant. Try using facts, source, timestamp, and analysis.
When he says the West is not an oppressive patriarchy or when he says the West is an oppressive patriarchy? When he says setting your dinner table is an act of organizing the cosmos?
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that cognitive ability is a predictor of life success, working class people are more irritated with the intellectual elite than the wealthy elite, the intellectual Left are not positive in their attitude towards the working class, they are patronizing, there is no appreciation by the intellectual elite for the pathology of rationalism. Further We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. However The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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, and that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@useruseruseruseruser790 I understand, you are pretty darn sure that JP says some intellectual stuff. You just don't know what it is. Agreed, JP stating on the cover of his new book he is the West leading intellectual is pretty lame.
Any of this intellectual?
Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner 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]
--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...
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman -- So You are Saying. Sorry Jordan, Helen, 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Rubin joking? JP most important speech? Dave? Please timestamp and quote an important and useful idea by JP anywhere in this entire video. Good luck. Well, the most important speech JP has ever made; not a very high bar.
'Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...'
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
20:00 We should have careful differentiated thoughtful thorough detail-oriented thinking that will produce solutions, there is no discussion about what are we aiming at here, how about copious energy that is clean for everyone, resilient stable systems...There is manure from cows, people go to the bathroom, there is not zero pollution...the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, what makes people prosperous and secure, work, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work, what is work, wealth,
[What an absolute idiot, he claims we need thoughtful detailed solutions and his unthoughtful, undetailed, uncareful idea is lots of cheap energy? You just said you need well thought out detailed plans, and your well thought out detailed plan is how about clean energy and stable systems? There is no discussion about what we are aiming at? You just mentioned the aim one sentence ago; Net Zero. Heads up dork brain, the concept is Net Zero, not Zero]
[If you care about poor people, The only thing you should care about is cheap energy... Wrong. What makes people prosperous... work, wrong not if that work is at minimum wage. Work is the expenditure of energy - wrong. What is energy - work, wrong. What is work, wealth, wrong.]
Dave, If JP says a single accurate useful statement about anything in this entire interview, can you let me know where that is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
She wants to wear pajamas on a train, with strangers, and have oranges from workers were paid, and their children with a school with educated teachers, only guns with the armies, and read free news, bad generals get prosecuted, and people have a bike festival and legal weed and windows that work...
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An impressive amount of nonsense packed into 24:00 minutes. Important isn't the word I would use Dave. Easily the Most _________________ Speech JP has ever done.
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical. Dave? Can you edit the title?
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
-
1
-
1
-
@candaniel2 You found a coherent sensible idea? Cool, can I see one?
Consciousness is a world engendering force, without it the cosmos as such would not exist....you become what you practice...to be out of concordance with reality you think of the totalitarian impulse underneath....a journey outside of language outside of linguistic certainty...an over emphasis on certainty puts you in a prison that bars you from a well...sacred implies deep...no one disputes the proposition that some stories are deeper than others...movement in a direction that is better than what you know, is there is anything that could possibly more fervently hoped for than that, the amount of evil that is a result of our moral insufficiency is indeterminate.
Winning a championship and winning a game are not the same thing. We don't know how we manage the active perception, perceiving the world turns out to be way more complicated than anyone ever imagined, we think there are objects out there and we just see them. Clinical psychology research has determined that if you set goals and strive for goals you may achieve them... Jordan Peterson.
[Doesn't this guy claim to be some sort of intellectual? Perceiving the world is complicated for us? It's complicated for you Jordan, but don't project your personal confusion on to everyone else.]
[Apparently people hope to move towards something better. Wow. Put some big words in a blender, pour them onto a spinning fan, walla, a Peterson speech.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rich.L-J_KZN
20:00 We should have careful differentiated thoughtful thorough detail-oriented thinking that will produce solutions, there is no discussion about what are we aiming at here, how about copious energy that is clean for everyone, resilient stable systems...There is manure from cows, people go to the bathroom, there is not zero pollution...the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, what makes people prosperous and secure, work, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work, what is work, wealth,
[What an absolute idiot, he claims we need thoughtful detailed solutions and his unthoughtful, undetailed, uncareful idea is lots of cheap energy? You just said you need well thought out detailed plans, and your well thought out detailed plan is how about clean energy and stable systems? There is no discussion about what we are aiming at? You just mentioned the aim one sentence ago; Net Zero. Heads up dork brain, the concept is Net Zero, not Zero]
[If you care about poor people, The only thing you should care about is cheap energy... Wrong. What makes people prosperous... work, wrong not if that work is at minimum wage. Work is the expenditure of energy - wrong. What is energy - work, wrong. What is work, wealth, wrong.]
Dave, If JP says a single accurate useful statement about anything in this entire interview, can you let me know where that is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey Big Think and JP fans. I am perplexed at the 'art of argument' in the following. As a rule, JP fans describe his brilliance with awe. I do not get the hype, but I invite any JP fans to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science...?
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
7. "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second....this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'. Seems more rambling and chaotic than the art of argument.
1
-
1
-
@alexgeorgousis1948 Go to the video 'Listen to Angry Student...' and point me to an insightful JP statement. As to the prior: 1) It's unclear what he means out of context, I can only make a superficial guess: the political system works regardless of who the president is, unless he's crazy. So let's hope he's just moderately (normally) incompetent and everything will be fine. Again, context is required here.
[What does normally competent mean? As usual JP making up phrases that are ambiguous. JP wants an incompetent president? How is that anything but a ludicrous hope?]
2) He's clearly talking about his well-known disagreement with the ideology of identity politics. Not sure what the specific example (Caucasian -> white) is about. Again, context is required.
[He says 'Caucasians reverting to white'. I have no idea what that means. The ideology of identity politics? Speak English much JP?]
3) Don't have the brainpower to think about this now, sorry.
[No idea of the meaning.]
4) This is referring to the sociological studies in Scandinavia and other countries, in which the correlation between social equality and the gap in personality/career-interests between the sexes was shown to be negative. It's a very solid and interesting body of literature, google it: you'll find many good articles summarising the results.
[Freedom of choice, e.g. feminism, moved women away from their normal vocational corner. In that example JP is 180 degrees off. As usual his language is ambiguous and over generalized -- may work in some situations, makes no sense in others.]
5) Agreeableness is one of the five personality traits in the five-factor model in psychology and the data shows that it negatively predicts success in the workplace, as Peterson often points out. Another interesting piece of literature that is worth looking into.
[Being agreeable to work projects assigned to you, rather than being disagreeable, is routinely a pathway to respect and promotion. Again JP over generalizes language that may sometimes be accurate, other times completely off. Smart people use precise language.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An impressive amount of nonsense packed into 24:00 minutes. Important isn't the word I would use Dave. Easily the Most _________________ Speech JP has ever done.
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical. Dave? Can you edit the title?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He has some simple self help advice that helps some people. He is also widely known as the biggest fake intellecctual of this century. 90% of what he says is total nonsense...Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future.
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
Jordan's 27th Rule: There are no models of animal industriousness, there is nothing random about dreams, no one advises a loved one to get an abortion, we don't have an overpopulation problem, the women's movement didn't advance women's rights, plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies, our hierarchies are of competence not power, no one knows that the world has improved in every way in the last 50 years including the environment, the West is an oppressive patriarchy but the West is not an oppressive patriarchy....
Jordan's 28th Rule: 'You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.'
@neologian1783
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@etchediniron4249 Did you know that There are no models of animal industriousness, there is nothing random about dreams, no one advises a loved one to get an abortion, we don't have an overpopulation problem, the women's movement didn't advance women's rights, plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies, our hierarchies are of competence not power, no one knows that the world has improved in every way in the last 50 years including the environment, the West is an oppressive patriarchy but the West is not an oppressive patriarchy....
Jordan's 28th Rule: 'You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.'?
1
-
1
-
My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. @kephjs
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 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 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?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mag_W_ I agree, you can't find a coherent useful idea by JP in this video: Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Literature is real but it is fictional, there is a problem with perception, we bump against perception, we try to produce robots with visual perception, why if they world is not made of self-apprehensible perception, a snap shot of reality can be interpreted in many ways, how do you walk down a step, I studied a bunch of stuff, to triangulate the problem, if all your senses say the same thing about the perception we still organize ourselves unreliably, rats navigate a maze, the solution that requires embodiment... [The solution requires embodiment? Why isn't the whole audience laughing?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielevans5864 Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless, unstraightforward, unclear and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peterson at 13:00 'The best way to save the planet is to make poor people rich as fast as we can...the biggest environmental issue facing us is over fishing...what does sustainable mean?...why should we care, how should we care? you have to prioritize, 200 goals is chaos, do you have a better idea, then what good is your criticism...'
[Wait, is Peterson, a guy who never has a solution to anything trying to rip on people who criticize with no better ideas? Pretty funny. The biggest environmental issue facing us is over fishing? No it isn't. The only result of over fishing is there are too few fish, who will of course replenish within a generation. The best way to save the planet is to make everyone rich? This guy is so totally full of crap. Environmental problems are caused by consumerism, which is a direct byproduct of wealth. What does sustainable mean? It means Jordan that the rate of consumption equals the rate of replacement. In another section Jordan says that the best way to solve pollution in India is to burn more coal. What is a guy who claims we don't have an over population problem doing projecting to solve problems in India when their entire problem is over population?
How about this Dave, lets do a debate with me, Jordan, and you and discuss actual solutions. HMU, anytime.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usuall interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalance of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
This is what is 'quite prevalent all throughout the video'; JP on a mission to prove his own ego and not let Helen be right about anything. That is how to use facts. Try it.
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
1
-
1
-
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
-
Peterson said something intelligent? What? We should have careful differentiated thoughtful thorough detail-oriented thinking that will produce solutions, there is no discussion about what are we aiming at here, how about copious energy that is clean for everyone, resilient stable systems...There is manure from cows, people go to the bathroom, there is not zero pollution
[What an absolute idiot, he claims we need thoughtful detailed solutions and his unthoughtful, undetailed, uncareful idea is lots of cheap energy? You just said you need well thought out detailed plans, and your well thought out detailed plan is how about clean energy and stable systems? There is no discussion about what we are aiming at? You just mentioned the aim one sentence ago; Net Zero. Heads up dork brain, the concept is Net Zero, not Zero]
1
-
1
-
Mr. Pretenderhead at 36:00. 'Tech companies are trying deliver something you will attend to, AI machines that will analyze your eye movements, to see what you are looking at, they are trying to figure out what you want and deliver it to you fast, Can we trust us, not if we are lying, that makes misinformation, the naked desire for power, the systems get contaminated, look what we are doing, you and I are having a conversation that will be distributed, its a miracle, translators work on my YT content, its very hard to translate YT to other languages, it hasn't been thought through, there is a real time translator, this is unbelievable...this over simplification and demonization has to stop... I talked to democrats who think antifa is illusory, but who think there is a conspiratory force on the right.'
[The king of over simplification and demonizing thinks we need to stop that, and in the very next sentence he over simplifies and demonizes democrats who think antifa is illusory and right wing conspiracy is real? Whoops dude. And how did he get from tech companies trying to sell us stuff, duh, to antifa in three sentences? Peterson is amazed at YouTube? Hasn't it been around for like 20 years? If you are lying you are spreading misinformation? This guy's genius is seriously off the charts. It's very hard to translate other languages but there is a real time translator? This guys brain is such total chaos. Dave; a coherent point anywhere in this video? Give me a nudge when you find it.]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markbarger1791 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; Good relationships have a high percentage of positive interactions.
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.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@mindyourbusiness4101 Any useful idea that your average middle schooler couldn't figure out on their own. Does JP have any?
FAKE INTELLECTUAL BY JP: 'Do you have something to say that you are not saying? Then that is your fault.' Jordan Peterson. Impressive Jordan, figure that one out on your own did you?
TRUE INTELLECTUAL BY ME
What you should realize is that The principles are good, what is the underlying meta principle, orient to the highest good, towards good, and be nice to other people, the divine spirit that unites us with other people that is what the monotheistic tendency tilts towards portray psychologically, if your principles are coherent then there is a meta principle that unites them, what is that meta principle and how do you conduct yourself, there is a moral element that shapes your behavior, the well constituted polity has to have two dimensions, that unite it with the transcendent, the feeling of universality, the other axis is that I have to conduct myself so I can engage with reciprocal altruism with other people. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.'
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
-
@aggnal2892 Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardpatrizio1658 Obama signed many landmark bills into law during his first two years in office. The main reforms include: the Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as "the ACA" or "Obamacare", the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act served as economic stimuli amidst the Great Recession. After a lengthy debate over the national debt limit, he signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. In foreign policy, he increased U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, reduced nuclear weapons with the United States–Russia New START treaty, and ended military involvement in the Iraq War. In 2011, Obama ordered the drone-strike killing in Yemen of al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen. He ordered military involvement in Libya in order to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1973, contributing to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. He also ordered the counterterrorism raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@w.reidripley1968 'Democrats are alienating the working class and minority front, educated elites are a secular religion, blindness of religion, the messages are heresy, a billionaire is telling people it is good to be in pain, now about Cesar and Good, the sacred collapses into the religious, I think about this psychologically, a hierarchy of conception of deep and shallow things, the constitution is deep, the more it becomes religious, if you think about it technically, the political becomes a substitute for that depth, a secularized religion, Big God Small Government, now about the devil and knocking down laws, also some singing nuns were guillotined, we should make sure white males don't get hired for anything, it is a religion, they are weird and insane...'
[Wait, Newt is calling the democrats weird and insane and advocating for a big God and a small government? Heads up Newty, God doesn't do anything, the government strives for fairness and limiting people from harming others, builds roads, polices crime etc. JP thinks about it psychologically and realizes that some ideas are deeper than others? I figured that out without thinking about it psychologically. But more to the point, do either of these two pretend intellectuals have any ideas for a better world?]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Give a shot at these if you want: As JP fans describe his brilliance with awe, I invite any JP fan to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science...?
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
7. "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second....this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."
8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'. This seems more like the self-contradicting and rambling and chaotic to me, but maybe I am missing something. Thank you in advance for your clarification on any of these 9 points. @fantasizer8473
1
-
@nb86030 I am absolutely glad to give my feedback on all of these, as in brackets below. JP says you should not run from opinions you disagree with, you should embrace a discussion in pursuit of truth. As a rule JP fans however don't believe in that at all. They are all willing to claim he is a phenomena of brilliance, but none willing to defend him on any statement whatsoever. So if you disagree with any of my comments in brackets, please say so:
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
[What is normal incompetence? Does this imply that the median intellect of the US is incompetent? I have to guess of course because JP language is routinely ambiguous. Intelligent people with strong communication skills use precise language. JP does not. JP wants an incompetent president? Why exactly?]
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[Caucasians should not revert to white? WTF does that mean? In normal usage Caucasian and white are synonymous; thus saying Caucasians should not revert to white makes as much sense as saying butter should not revert to being something that is served with jam. Again, JP using ambiguous language, not a trait of intelligent people. Caucasians reverting to white is the ultimate expression of genocide? Really? Wouldn't killing lots of people be more genocidal than 'reverting to white', whatever that means?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
[Really? Being disagreeable to work tasks you are given is a way to impress your supervisor that you are entitled to a promotion? In what universe, in what job?]
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
[ Apparently JP came to this realization after reading a paper on lobsters. Capitalism does not create inequality? We have a 500x income gap between rich and poor in the US, as result of capitalism and non regulation of greed. 500x isn't inequality, or capitalism didn't foster that inequity? I can't make a guess what JP is implying here, since as usual his language is ambiguous.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrangry2057 I guess you find these precise, I do not: 'Normally incompetent, Caucasian reverting to white, ultimate in its genocidal expression, flatten out the sociological landscape, place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization." Here is some more banal ambiguity, disagree if you want: "That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good." I am glad JP has clarified for me when someone leaves the room they are no longer here though. I agree that is precise; entirely inane and pointless though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fantasizer8473 Here is some JP insight. Would you say he is using his brain to think? "That is what the people who think that the differences between people who are primarily culturally constructed, but that is not what the evidence suggests...I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology that you have been taught, I can replace you with someone else, and that means you are not here. Its not pleasant. You are not integrating the specifics of your personal experience, to synthesize something that is engaging as a consequence, and that is the pathology of ideological possession, and its not good." I cannot make sense of most of this, outside of JP telling me when someone leaves they are no longer here, but call me crazy, I am not impressed at that insight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shei-vei You should also realize if you think about it that identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity.
I have shared this with JP, but he just doesn't get it, since he is not at my level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justincenters2762 The GQ interview 'There was plenty of motivation...? You found a JP win in that video? Cool, Please share what it was.
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]
--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']
'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...
[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? Score for Helen.)
Let's get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen gives a correct definition, JP gives no definition. Score for Helen.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pierreb6860 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it. Do you agree?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wooptidoodoo Maybe JP's self appointed explainer of the world ego is actually a cry for help. But again, any spot in this interview where JP is trying to learn rather than acting like we need him to explain the world to the rest of us.
Randomly at 16:00 with these two pretend smart guys; The climate conferences, we have to sacrifice, Obama bought a 15 million house.
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
]There is no consensus in science...from a non-scientist, please Jordan, stay in your lane. People don't have detailed solutions -- from a guy who never has a solution to anything. You should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left? What a total idiot. Did he forget he is talking about reducing CO2 levels? Energy consumption is where CO2 comes from dork. Peterson's claim about CO2 reduction is also incorrect. The levels have stayed about the same since 1990, influenced more by cleaner burning cars than more fracking.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faceplants2 Peterson made a smart clear intellectual point? In this video? Can you timestamp it? Thanks.
Randomly at 16:00 with these two pretend smart guys; The climate conferences, we have to sacrifice, Obama bought a 15 million house.
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
There is no consensus in science...from a non-scientist, please Jordan, stay in your lane. People don't have detailed solutions -- from a guy who never has a solution to anything. You should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left? What a total idiot. Did he forget he is talking about reducing CO2 levels? Energy consumption is where CO2 comes from dork. Peterson's claim about CO2 reduction is also incorrect. The levels have stayed about the same since 1990, influenced more by cleaner burning cars than more fracking.
1
-
@Aeneas-aojb Peterson has a climate change idea? What? BTW that I criticize his ideas is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that he routinely appoints himself to explain the world to us.
I repeat: Timestamp and quote a spot in this video where Peterson states an accurate and useful idea where he is not attempting to show that he has things figured out better than everyone else, i.e. self appointed explainer of the world.
Use evidence, like this:
Randomly at 16:00 with these two pretend smart guys; The climate conferences, we have to sacrifice, Obama bought a 15 million house.
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
There is no consensus in science...from a non-scientist, please Jordan, stay in your lane. People don't have detailed solutions -- from a guy who never has a solution to anything. You should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left? What a total idiot. Did he forget he is talking about reducing CO2 levels? Energy consumption is where CO2 comes from dork. Peterson's claim about CO2 reduction is also incorrect. The levels have stayed about the same since 1990, influenced more by cleaner burning cars than more fracking.
1
-
1
-
@Aeneas-aojb Ok. We may agree that JP has not insightful useful theory.
A. I am simply saying that you cannot use your disagreement to infer that he has appointed himself as a self-explainer of the world. [non sequitir, the two concepts are unrelated.]
B. I am saying that your criticisms of his motivations specifically are misguided. You are claiming to have some insight on his character and you clearly do not....I’ve watched enough of his content to see that this is not his motivation. He has not only said that he is interested in learning and speaking the truth about what he thinks, but he also acts that out as far as I’ve seen, and I’ve seen quite a bit of his content. [So you know his motivation and I do not? ]
C. Every thing I have ever heard JP is him explaining the world to us. Find a spot that supports your OP, he wants to learn not win.
Consciousness is a world engendering force, without it the cosmos as such would not exist....you become what you practice...to be out of concordance with reality you think of the totalitarian impulse underneath....a journey outside of language outside of linguistic certainty...an over emphasis on certainty puts you in a prison that bars you from a well...sacred implies deep...no one disputes the proposition that some stories are deeper than others...movement in a direction that is better than what you know, is there is anything that could possibly more fervently hoped for than that, the amount of evil that is a result of our moral insufficiency is indeterminate. Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace. It is foolish to credit the woman's movement for advances in women's rights. Our hierarchies are of competence not power.
Winning a championship and winning a game are not the same thing. We don't know how we manage the active perception, perceiving the world turns out to be way more complicated than anyone ever imagined, we think there are objects out there and we just see them. Clinical psychology research has determined that if you set goals and strive for goals you may achieve them... Jordan Peterson, self appointed explainer of the world.
1
-
1
-
@faceplants2 Note JP's strawman argument against zero emissions. Heads up Jordan, no one is arguing for zero emissions, the issue is NET ZERO. See the difference?
"There are hierarchies of competence and corrupted by power, how much, we should clean them up, to fix them, illness and death climb from the bottom up, psycho-physiologically easer at the top, we double energy cost old poor people die, which side are you on Leftists?, are you going to sacrifice the poor, there is no consensus in science...people go to the bathroom so there is no zero pollution, it is not detailed solutions, copious energy for everyone, you should only care about cheap energy if you are on the Left, what is work, energy is everything...the US has cut CO2 14% because of fracking..."
So Rubin describes this as: Looking for smart and honest conversations ...increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because ... the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians.
Rubin is calling JP a critical thinking thought leader? How the hell did JP get from sacrifice for climate change to hierarchies and competence? Because he can't go more than a couple paragraphs without leaning on his go to phrases, competence hierarchies and tyrannical patriarchy.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usuall interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalance of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
This is what is 'quite prevalent all throughout the video'; JP on a mission to prove his own ego and not let Helen be right about anything. That is how to use facts. Try it.
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lets punch in to JP at around 6:00. 'In two hours you reveal the weaknesses and strengths, if you are rectifying your flaws you are forgiven, we edit out factual errors, I am hoping to get politicians on my channel, you can make mistakes, but if you are in good faith then the audience forgives you, I try and address my mistakes.'
[So if you talk continuously for 2 hours people can tell about your intellect and integrity? Sure, but what is your point? If you act in good faith people will forgive your mistakes? Sure, but what is your point?]
At about 4:00... 'In football players to try and make a goal, when you participate in a conversation you are trying to make a point, you have to listen, it is fun when I talk to my guests... [Ok duh, super duh, and super duper duh.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dreamingmusic3299 See you feel JP is an intellectual but you have no evidence that he is. That makes you one of those blind zombie cult fans. If you stumble across an intellectual statement by JP, lmk.
SKALVAN INTERVIEW:
At 13:55 JP 'Chaos is the uncertainty of the meaning of life and how people feel about their position in the world...we have an instinct for meaning, when what we are doing is working, we are advancing ourselves, good athletes have practiced and they try to get better.. [So Peterson has realized that good athletes have practiced a lot to get good, and they are still trying to get better? Thank you Jordan.]
I am trying to help people understand that this meaning is a true phenomena, and meaning comes with responsibility, people don't understand... [People don't understand that meaning and responsibility are good things? What people? Apparently JP thinks that People wander through life with no meaning and no responsibility, and by simply telling them that there is meaning in responsibility will awaken them? I personally am not that confused, nor can a fortune cookie platitude inspire me to get my life together. But I guess there are people like that, in a blind zombie cult who think a guy who tells them that Olympic and NBA/NFL athletes actually practice is a form of wisdom. Whatever.]
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
-
@russianbot4418 My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's plug into DR. Pretendhead at 7:00. 'There is nothing behind it but the most instrumentally and cowardly random polling, how do you get accurate polling data, how did you construct the questions...
Let's jump to 30:00: 'Don't screw it up with facile criticism, you have to do a detailed analysis, where is it procedurally going wrong the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground, people don't want a detailed analysis of the problem, it is heuristics, you are not seeing me, I am not there, you don't see my cellular structure, what is the job, a heuristic turns into a bias, you don't know what you don't know, people who want to fix the power system they don't know how to do home wiring, I worked on a committee and they kept my changes...
[OK so guy who complains about facile criticism spends an hour giving us facile criticism like people don't want a detailed analysis, there is cowardly random polling, and people can't see his cellular structure, and someone who can't install home wiring may have any idea to improve efficient and cleaner use of electricity? Dave, help me out here, why are you nodding at Peterson's heuristic nonsense from start to finish?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carolinekirby1587 Ok you couldn't figure out the benefits, no problem here they are....The benefits of my housing plan are:
a) Stabilized housing costs increase the spending power of those currently renting, roughly 40% of the current adult population. That helps the economy because those people will eat out more, buy more goods and services and vacations...
b) Reduces crime; a path to home ownership gives hope and reduces depression.
c) Limits the incentive of the wealthy to profit off the work of others; once you reach an income of 400,000 from all sources there is little incentive to make more, landlords would lower rents on renters and small businesses, thus making it easier for small businesses to survive. Wealthy business owners would have no incentive to keep wages low to increase their personal profits, so wages would go up, also helping the economy.
d) Reduces student loan debt because some people would opt for the 3-years to home ownership rather than go to college.
e) Increases work performance and retention and reduces unemployment; people are motivated to rack up a three year work history, and then motivated to keep working to afford their mortgage, at about 30% of a person's income under this plan.
==================
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
At 9:00 'To understand something is to map it on to your body literally, to say we understand we can structure our actions we have a grip, we have problems to solve, the fact that we can speak is a development of the left hemisphere systems, starting point and goal, the semantic description of that was a story, I was here and going somewhere, I had a good day, a dog jumped at me, then he has a panic attack that is an oedipal story, I went to kindergarten, it is a meta story, you know where a good point B might be, our eyes have a white and an iris, you want to see what someone values, when one person looks up then other people look up which is expensive cognitive resources, we want to infer the value structure that directs attention, we imitate, what should we lift our eyes to....and now back to machines....'
[To understand something is to map it on to your body, literally? Does this guy know what the word literally means? And now he is telling ivy league Oxford students about walking to kindergarten? Yes Jordan speaking requires using your brain. I digress, you are super adept at speaking without using your brain. We want to infer the value structure that directs attention? I mapped that onto my body literally, using crayons, but I still don't understand it. If a dog jumps at you on your way to kindergarten it becomes an oedipal story? I love it when JP shrooms up before these lectures.]
1
-
1
-
Let's plug in to JP at 5:00; I don't like a bill of rights, my father isn't vaccinated, there is nothing behind it except cowardly random polling, do you poll every minute, if you are not vaccinated you can't leave Canada, I have to get tested, I think that vaccinated are less contagious, the least trusted institutions include big pharma, the Left is now trust big pharma, for health and safety is good, climate change is not a big challenge.... then Rubin says he has honest conversation and not on stop yelling...uh wait didn't we just listen to non stop yelling by JP?
JP doesn't like the Bill of Rights? Like free speech and freedom of religion? A core question though is why is JP lecturing on science, medicine. and the environment? The guy isn't a scientist. He claims our biggest environmental challenge is over fishing in the ocean. No it isn't Jordan, not even close. Apparently Peterson is trying to make the claim that big pharma are the ones mandating the restrictions. Only the ultra gullible fall for that argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourPersonalBoogeymanDJT JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, and now about fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
'Hope is movement towards a valuable goal, you need a goal that unites you internally, you have less anxiety when you have a vision, there is a cost of suffering in your life, if that suffering is without purpose, then you will be bitter, what do I want to not be bitter, or to be thrilled, being thrilled is good, imagine the relationship that you want, admit what you don't have now, be a person that you would admire, technically now you are motivated, to fulfill and act that existence is good, if you ask you will receive is good advice, if you make the sacrifice then you will attain, but you may have to modify your vision...
[Wow impressive. It's good to have good goals?]
1
-
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
-
@Indian_Kamala When do I get to see this alleged intellectual mastermind examples? Any of these?
Jordan's 13th Rule; We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos.
[Jordan, how about not projecting your personal confusion about consciousness on to everyone else?]
Jordan's 14th Rule; How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self evident fact to your ignorant mind.
Jordan's 15 Rule; The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right.
Jordan's 16th Rule; Free speech also is the mechanism by which we generate the conceptions that allow us to organize our experience in the world, it is the mechanism that allows us to reformulate and criticize those conceptions when they become outdated and sterile, to reanimate them in a new form so we can move into the future.
Jordan's 17th Rule; There is no evidence that women can create social organizations.
Jordan's 18th Rule, Hard core clinical psychology research has determined that perception influences behavior.
[Yes Jordan, when I perceive I am thirsty my behavior is to go to the fridge for a drink.]
Jordan's 19th Rule; There is something to us. [Uh sure Jordan, a bit pointless and ambiguous however.]
Jordan's 20th Rule; I realized psychologically that the future is in a sense actually unpredictable.
[You needed psychology to figure that out Jordan? I figured it out without psychology.]
Jordan's 21 Rule: It is hard to get in to Harvard and it takes good SAT scores. [Yes Jordan, everyone already knows that.]
Jordan's 22 Rule: The world is not objects, it is the harmonious interplay of patterns, you dance with the world, you don't want a person who will dominate you sexually during the initial dance .
Jordan's 23 Rule: If you have a functional identity, when you act it out in the world you get what you want and need.
[I am pretty sure I have a function, and an identity, and I act out in the world, but merely wanting something is no promise that I will get it. Sorry Jordan If/Then logic failure on your part.]
Jordan's 24 Rule: I highly recommend that you try and put yourself together.
[Wow, I am totally going to do that now that you told me.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
POST-MODERNISM 'The revolution has come to an end, the modern world has been a mistake, negative disastrous pathological results, democratic republican politics are mistaken, anti democracy, authoritarian, increase adversarial authoritarianism, anti free market, the world is a disaster. Science and technology the results are negative, science is a white male way of thinking, disagree with individualism, individual choices don't make you who you are, reject freedom and democratic politics.'
SOCIALISM: 'We make families to nurture children, we form businesses to work together, we join sports as individuals... socialism disagrees and says the group is more important than the individuals, in religion Catholics are socialists, socialists think institutions should decide what is going to be made, who gets what, how much, individuals should not make their own decisions. Socialism wants to control your mind, your actions, your church, your love life, your organizations.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...I know my neurochemistry, if you want to go play neurochemistry, It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistical.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', ie Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. What you need to realize is that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, and that we don't understand consciousness and its place in the cosmos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Entheos84 I think you have perfectly nailed the condescending, manipulative, narcissistic, can't stand to have his opinions challenged personality of JP in that video; so good call on that. I would have to see an example of where I dodged criticism, however. What criticism exactly? I did have to comment on your goal post switch of:
What is the point of a conversation, to, What is your point in this conversation. Did that trigger you? The only criticism I noticed from you was that 'I wouldn't answer your question', but of course then you changed the question to something answerable.
Wait a minute; is this paragraph of yours attempting to not be condescending and manipulative? Sorry, I have to give you a low score.
Here is a lesson in self awareness; Keep track of what was said, and comment on that, rather than twisting it to something to fit your narrative, e.g. claiming that I had stated I know how to make everyone equally smart when I said nothing of the sort. It requires skill at keeping facts straight in your head, something JP is usually bad at, e.g.:
How to lobsters say that -- uh seriously Jordy, you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago.
BTW would you say you agree with JP when he says the West is not an oppressive patriarchy, or when he says the West is an oppressive patriarchy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leesa3140 'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. 'Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical.' Dave? Can you edit the title?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP is generally triggered and insecure. My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. @deathrodamus9608
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
-
@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
-
@Marshallgill
What you should realize is that The principles are good, what is the underlying meta principle, orient to the highest good, towards good, and be nice to other people, the divine spirit that unites us with other people that is what the monotheistic tendency tilts towards portray psychologically, if your principles are coherent then there is a meta principle that unites them, what is that meta principle and how do you conduct yourself, there is a moral element that shapes your behavior, the well constituted polity has to have two dimensions, that unite it with the transcendent, the feeling of universality, the other axis is that I have to conduct myself so I can engage with reciprocal altruism with other people. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.'
I am pretty sure that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand –
which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we
believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of
implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even
perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according
to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
1
-
@blaroym1 I am aware of JP academic background. My question is has he ever stated a profound intellectual useful idea about anything.
However, I am pretty sure 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?
Further, The painstaking empirical process of identification, communication and comparison has proven to be a
strikingly effective means for accurately specifying the nature of the relatively invariant features of the
collectively apprehensible world. Unfortunately, this useful methodology cannot be applied to
determination of value – to consideration of what should be, to specification of the direction that things
should take (which means, to description of the future we should construct, as a consequence of our
actions). Such acts of valuation necessarily constitute moral decisions. We can use information generated in
consequence of the application of science to guide those decisions, but not to tell us if they are correct. We
lack a process of verification, in the moral domain, that is as powerful or as universally acceptable as the
experimental (empirical) method, in the realm of description.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blaroym1 Peterson is a fake intellectual. I am a true intellectual as I am pretty sure 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?
Further, The painstaking empirical process of identification, communication and comparison has proven to be a
strikingly effective means for accurately specifying the nature of the relatively invariant features of the
collectively apprehensible world. Unfortunately, this useful methodology cannot be applied to
determination of value – to consideration of what should be, to specification of the direction that things
should take (which means, to description of the future we should construct, as a consequence of our
actions). Such acts of valuation necessarily constitute moral decisions. We can use information generated in
consequence of the application of science to guide those decisions, but not to tell us if they are correct. We
lack a process of verification, in the moral domain, that is as powerful or as universally acceptable as the
experimental (empirical) method, in the realm of description.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Genius being open to interpretation: JP says you should not run from opinions you disagree with, you should embrace a discussion in pursuit of truth. As a rule JP fans however don't believe in that at all. They are all willing to claim he is a phenomena of brilliance, but none willing to defend him on any statement whatsoever. So if you disagree with any of my comments in brackets, please say so:
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
[What is normal incompetence? Does this imply that the median intellect of the US is incompetent? I have to guess of course because JP language is routinely ambiguous. Intelligent people with strong communication skills use precise language. JP does not. JP wants and incompetent president? Why exactly?]
2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[Caucasians should not revert to white? WTF does that mean? In normal usage Caucasian and white are synonymous; thus saying Caucasians should not revert to white makes as much sense as saying butter should not revert to being something that is served with jam. Again, JP using ambiguous language, not a trait of intelligent people. Caucasians reverting to white is the ultimate expression of genocide? Really? Wouldn't killing lots of people be more genocidal than 'reverting to white', whatever that means?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
[I have no clue what this means myself. If you do please enlighten me.]
5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
[Really? Being disagreeable to work tasks you are given is a way to impress your supervisor that you are entitled to a promotion? In what universe, in what job?]
6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong."
[ Apparently JP came to this realization after reading a paper on lobsters. Capitalism does not create inequality? We have a 500x income gap between rich and poor in the US, as result of capitalism and non regulation of greed. 500x isn't inequality, or capitalism didn't foster that inequity? I can't make a guess what JP is implying here, since as usual his language is ambiguous.]
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
-
YOUR FEELINGS: The entire video was a JP win.
MY FACTS: At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usuall interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalance of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
This is what is 'quite prevalent all throughout the video'; JP on a mission to prove his own ego and not let Helen be right about anything. That is how to use facts. Try it.
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PaulMartin-n6m
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.] 44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.] 48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.] 41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?] 20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
That's your theory, that's a foolish theory. No that's not right, I know my neurochemistry, Man alive how can you say that it is so painful and cliche to hear, you are not saying anything engaging in a narrative sense, thats for sure its purely not!
37: There are hardly any math geniuses. If you want to be successful you should be competent, you shouldn't pick an incompetent mate. I don't believe that our fundamental hierarchies are based on power. You don't move up a hierarchy via power, its competence. Most hierarchies are of competence not power. [Everyone on earth knows that power and competence help you move up a hierarchy, and no one on earth needs JP to explain hierarchies to us.]
1
-
1
-
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.] 44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.] 48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.] 41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?] 20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
That's your theory, that's a foolish theory. No that's not right, I know my neurochemistry, Man alive how can you say that it is so painful and cliche to hear, you are not saying anything engaging in a narrative sense, thats for sure its purely not!
37: There are hardly any math geniuses. If you want to be successful you should be competent, you shouldn't pick an incompetent mate. I don't believe that our fundamental hierarchies are based on power. You don't move up a hierarchy via power, its competence. Most hierarchies are of competence not power. [Everyone on earth knows that power and competence help you move up a hierarchy, and no one on earth needs JP to explain hierarchies to us.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@korviscapetrova5269 He actively listens? Are you kidding? He interrupts her every other sentence. At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usual interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalence of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So, JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
1
-
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
-
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]
--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...
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman -- So You are Saying. Sorry Jordan, Helen, 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
-
@TranscendentSol Better title, WE who wrestle with our own ego.... hehe. 'The confusion of the nature of the story that should orient us in the world, the problem with hedonism and power, you need a different pattern to have meaning, the biblical library, those stories are scientifically credible, there is scientific evidence that we see the world through a story, identity politics is confusion about our orientation in the world, the orientation poles have not been superseded, we have stories encapsulated but what is the right story, we are arranged to act out patterns, purpose and accomplishment, to be significant, a good person, and meaning....'
[Hey Jesse, did you notice a single coherent useful idea by JP somewhere, I couldn't find one.]
1
-
1
-
@InfoArtistJK Better title: Murray gets triggered and gets savagely mauled by his immature ego, accompanied by triggered strawman nonsense text inserts while Flavia is talking about her hopes for a fair world.
Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.
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
-
You found a profound intellectual idea by JP? Timestamp and quote from some YT video? My opinion is what you should realize however is that We don't understand consciousness, we don't know where it fits in the cosmos. How do you arrange books? Using the axiomatic structure of your a priori perceptions manifesting as self-evident fact to your ignorant mind. The best way for me to interact is individual to individual and as if they are part of the process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can yet be set right. 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. You want to fight the dragons that guard the gate to the treasure that you wish to attain, productivity requires aim and responsibility, discipline and willingness to work, it orients you solidly in the world and gives you a dragon to fight, do you want to be illiterate, you have to think, you can't build muscle at the gym unless you lift weights, face your being with the necessity of transformation, those are the dragons, you have to say to yourself 'I will do good.' And most importantly, the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception.
@sovl2659
1
-
1
-
1
-
@random.3665 Here is a simple test: What is the percentage of women in legislature, lawyer, MD, engineer in US compared to a country with really low egalitarian measures like Saudi Arabia. Here is how a smart person would say it: In the past, say prior to egalitarian measures in the US, nurse, homemaker, housewife were the dominant female vocations. With measures promoting freedom of choice, the percentages have shifted with women moving into traditional male roles. However, genetics also plays a factor; on average women tend toward people oriented jobs, and men dominate in the control of things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yt.damian Google the word intellectual or use your own definition. Peterson had an insight you didn't already know? What? JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wstavis3135 I agree. You can't find an intellectual idea by Peterson. Did you know that highly trained affective neuroscientists recognize that there is biological and behavioral continuity between humans and animals? Uh thanks Jordan, but third graders know that also. I thought about it psychologically and realized that the future is technically unpredictable. You needed psychology to figure out that the future is unpredictable Jordan? JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@wstavis3135 JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@wstavis3135 JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@wstavis3135 I agree, you can't find an intellectual idea by JP, however:
JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
1
-
@wstavis3135 JP is a fake intellectual. I am a real intellectual since I realize things that JP does not, for example that characterization is a precondition for individual freedom, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, cognitive systems have axiomatic levels, and compassion doesn't scale as you move up the hierarchy of complexity, and also that the biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light on the hierarchy of perception. What faith means is that you act out the proposition that you can ride the wave as big as it comes, all together in good will. Canonical patterns of being for what we act out in the world, waves of behavioral patterns across time, no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are not true, there are stories about you and you and you and the human experience as such, the thing is the pattern of their being, the process has been occurring for thousands of years, a representation of the distillation of the process, fairy tales that are really old, cultures that don't change stay the same, while creatures with nervous systems watch each other.
Jordan Peterson JP doesn't have the intellectual ability I have, since I realize that the future is unpredictable technically, you are not a clockwork machine, what does free will mean, you are not a deterministic clockwork machine, I move my arm in a complex way, I set it up in a deterministic way, as we implement our actions the horizon of possibility collapses into a deterministic actuality, the farther out into the future, the less deterministic our perceptions necessarily become, you are a visionary, you have to reconfigure how you think scientifically, you think there are objects and you react to those objects, and that is not true, you don't see objects, none of that is true, you don't see objects you see patterns that are functional.
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
-
@ki001 Here is a lesson in using facts regarding a civil case with no victim...In the Trump case, Ms. James accused the former president of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other financial benefits. Mr. Trump, she argued, defrauded his lenders and in doing so, undermined the integrity of New York’s business world.
Mr. Trump’s conduct “distorts the market,” Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for Ms. James’s office, said during closing arguments in the civil fraud trial.
“It prices out honest borrowers and can lead to more catastrophic results,” Mr. Wallace said, adding, “That’s why it’s important for the court to take the steps to protect the marketplace to prevent this from happening again.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amalekedomite Masterclass? In Jordy getting destroyed? Helen was right on Read More, look up the study by heterodox academy, alt right like JP, minimum force, don't go beyond what is necessary? Like when JP called Helen foolish for crediting the women's movement, JP isn't angry? listen to him yell at her 'that's for sure its purely not!' talking about tyrannical patriarchy', Hey Warren, why don't you highlight a section where you analyzed the GQ interview in an insightful accurate way, I promise to check it out. JP is trying to articulate that we have it better? Technology sure, housing costs and a college degree, nope, listen when Helen says a lot of people agree with JP ... and he interrupts to disagree...Huh? People are under the weight of ambition is tyrannical? What a monster straw man, no one is doing that to young men. Post modern thinking? Who pushes that? Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as hierarchy? Show me one. Helen says it is not a widely held view, and then JP cites the Haidt paper that proves Helen right! Masterclass, true, but not a master class in JP intellectual dominance. BTW Warren; do you agree when JP says the West is an oppressive patriarchy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have the below questions to COLORADO JUDICIAL OFFICIALS at IAALS, Ingrid Bakke and 20th Judicial District, State Court Administrator Office, CBA and BCBA
The embarrassing thing is that I even have to ask these questions; but even more embarrassing is none of these judicial authorities will have the integrity to answer them, pointing to the fundamental problem with the judiciary; it is staffed by lawyers. Imagine if judges were chosen from a pool of people whose livelihood would go out of business if they refused to answer client questions and took months to complete jobs that could be done in an hour.
We would have something unrecognizable from the present system if judges were picked from a field of plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics. As one example in the recent King Soopers case; after 3 hours of presenting evidence, the judge would say 'that is enough, give us your closing argument, it is undisputed who the killer is and what he did. I am not going to let you spend days proving something that it already known by everyone in the courtroom'. Instead, we have a week or more of testimony with over 100 motions; any plumbing company with that level of inefficiency would quickly go out of business.
Now to my PENDING QUESTIONS:
TO IAALS: Does IAALS agree with Brian Boatright, the ABA, and the Colorado legislature?
TO INGRID BAKKE AND 20TH DISTRICT; Does anyone on your district management team or any of your judges agree with Dea Lindsey?
TO SCAO: Does the SCAO have a mechanism to identify an honest judge or judicial official in Colorado?
TO CBA AND BCBA: Have any of you seen a worse more capricious and biased court order than the one by Dea Lindsey?
BOATRIGHT:
Where there was wrongdoing, we will address it. Where there was an abuse of power, we will stop it. Where our policies are deficient, we will change them. We want to know the truth. I do want to put a face to the system and let people know that we're human beings and care about the public, and we are doing our best to do the job. So, it's putting a human voice to the system. It bears repeating that we will make public the results and recommendations of the investigations, including steps to ensure accountability, fairness and transparency throughout Colorado’s judicial branch...We will think anew and we will act anew...I want to assure you that we, as the judicial branch, will bring the clear-eyed perspective, energy and determination to tackling the challenges that face the branch … during these trying times. We are committed to lifting the clouds over the branch.
IAALS AND COLORADO LEGISLATURE
CRS 13-5.7-101
(1) The general assembly finds and declares that:
(a)Access to justice is a basic principle of the rule of law, and it ensures that all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. In the absence of access to justice, people are unable to have their voice heard, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision makers accountable.
(b)Lack of access to justice is a problem that has serious social, legal, economic, and political consequences;
(c)Since 2003, the Colorado access to justice commission has collaborated with organizations concerned about the gap in access to justice in Colorado to develop and support a range of tools, policies, and services to address this gap. The commission has served as a hub for the many stakeholders working on access to the civil legal process without statutory acknowledgment.
(d)From 2003 to the present, the need for access to justice and the importance of improving access have grown, but the challenges of access to justice in Colorado and around the nation have become more acute;
(e)A study by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the university of Denver found that access to justice is a broad societal problem, with sixty-six percent of the American population experiencing at least one legal problem in the past four years and with less than half of those problems being completely resolved;
(i)There is an intersection of need and opportunity with respect to access to civil justice for all Coloradans, such that the commission’s ongoing work merits statutory recognition, informing the governor and general assembly through regular, systematic input from the commission.
(2) Therefore, the general assembly recognizes that access to civil courts is a pillar of democracy and enacts this article 5.7 to codify the Colorado access to justice commission and affirm its commitment to equitable access to the civil legal process.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
ABA MODEL RULES AND MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Rule 2.6 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct (Model Code) requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” Model Code Rule 2.2 requires the judge to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the . . . impartiality of the judiciary.” The most fundamental mistake trial judges make is failing to guarantee the right “to be heard according to law” out of fear of losing their “impartiality.” The ABA Standards Relating to Trial Courts, promulgated in 1976, give predominant weight to ensuring the right to be heard: “When litigants undertake to represent themselves, the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial.” Echoing the earlier trial court standards, in 2007 the ABA amended the Model Code, adding the following commentary to Rule 2.2 on impartiality: To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open minded; It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
ABA: … the strength of the fabric of our society depends on the active participation of its members. The Preamble to the Model Rules exhorts lawyers to “seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession . . .” and to “further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority”
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peterson is a Putin apologist. He says Putin is mentally stable and we shouldn't denounce him...and then says Putin is paranoid and imbalanced. Make up your mind Jordan. Let's check him out here. 'Solzinitzen and Jung, [hmm JP figures a way mention those two dorks.] If Jordan was in Putin's shoes, he would shut off the energy and use a tactical nuke. Hell this way and Hell that way. I don't know what the conditions for peace are, what does it mean if we win, we devastated Ukraine, that was our mission, Ukraine in ruins is a victory, you cannot win against someone you can say no to, we can't say no to Putin because we sold our soul for oil and gas, our own foolishness, if we have an environmental crisis then we should have measures to fix it, all the measures we are using makes the environment worse...they hate humanity.'
[Piers, why are you interviewing this dork, except of course for him to make a fool of himself? Putin's mission is to destroy Ukraine? No it isn't, it is to annex Ukraine back into Russia. All the measures we are using to fix the environment are making it worse? Bold claim Jordan, care to share any evidence? People who love the environment hate humanity? JP priming his fans for his next 'Prince of Chaos' world tour. If you were in Putin's shoes you would shut off the energy and use nukes? Very helpful ideas Jordan.]
1
-
1
-
I don't consider JP an enemy of the Left. I consider him an enemy of logic, more accurately a pseudo intellectual who is more suited to selling holy water on the 700 club. Change my mind, if you disagree with my comments in brackets:
1. 'The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism...that is unbelievably wrong.'
[Who is saying that, and how did you get that from reading a paper on lobsters?]
2. "It is inevitable that there will be continuity in how humans and animals organize their structures."
[What is an animal structure, and how does an animal organize it?]
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization". [Huh?]
4. "The more likely problem in 100 years, assuming there are even creatures like us in 100 years, is that there will be too few people rather than too many."
[Huh? Humans have not evolved biologically substantially in the last 20,000 or so years, but you are projecting some radical evolution in the next 100? Many of the current world problems are population related, but you are projecting somehow there will be too few people in 100 years? Too few to do what exactly?]
5. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast …I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
[What is Caucasians reverting to white, and how is that, whatever it is, more genocidal than say dropping an A-bomb?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know who Sam Harris is, but I have studied dozens of JP lectures. I have never heard him string together a single useful, coherent, and insightful paragraph anywhere. The phenomena of people looking to him as an intellectual is really mind boggling. Here is just one of dozens of examples: Eye Opening Speech Change Yourself:
Let's see how JP can open my eyes. 'Occupy some space, have a sign of confidence, stand up, other people will take you seriously, confront the world courageously, confront thinks with courage, treat yourself like you care about yourself, how do you want your child to be treated, people treat other people better than they treat themselves, take you dog to a vet and give him medicine, you may not administer medication properly, your dog likes you, there is some skepticism about doctors, we are fragile all the time, its not easy for a self conscious being, you know yourself better than other people, you are weak and useless, you shouldn't be that way, why should you take care of yourself, you are useless and terrible, the answer is love the sinner but hate the sin, have an attitude like you care about yourself, why you have a moral obligation, you make the world a worse place if you do not care for yourself, take care of yourself, you have something valuable, if the world is a dim place it gets very dark, we are mortal and capable of doing terrible things...
[Oh crap I give up. What is even remotely eye opening about any of this? I am going to change myself listening to some hyper indulgent stranger telling me telling me that I am useless and terrible but I should take care of myself anyway because my dog likes me? I personally think JP is going insane right before our eyes. I have never heard him string together a single paragraph of useful coherent thought, but he seems to be spinning into insanity in more recent lectures, absolutely devoid of anything useful or intelligible. Antidote to Chaos? More like the King of Chaos. Change my mind.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arete7884 JP in his typical rude and triggered know it all form 'I thought we are talking about masculinity? You have accused me of misbehavior. 'You should want the best and for people, courage is good' (wow this guy is a genius); 'I think men are punished for virility' (huh?), 'Ambition is discouraged'??? this guy is so full of crap. 'I don't think we have a patriarchal hierarchy'. (Uh Jordan, remember when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy in the Dave Rubin John Anderson interview?), 'women haven't contributed' (straw man by Jordan, no one is saying that, irrelevant to the fact that men dominate in power and money), 'women weren't doing anything at all'?? ( what a dork, you can have a patriarchy where women do things to contribute to society, if then logic error by JP). 'What about in warfare and dangerous jobs?' (goal post switch by JP, to men have most power to men have harder jobs.)
Hey Millionaire; Do you agree with JP when he says the West is an oppressive patriarchy or when he says the West is not an oppressive patriarchy? 'Men are punished for development, ambition is discouraged, people confuse power and competence, women had no role in shaping society, does that mean we don't have a patriarchy'... 'men rule the world, who gets killed in war... ' 'The West is an oppressive patriarchy... Jordan Peterson. Ambition is discouraged? Is this guy totally full of crap every time he opens his mouth? Millionaire? Rebuttal?
Demasulculinzation of our society -- Feminst groups have a lot to do with it -- Uh Jordan remember when you said you never said that society is being overly feminized? Whoops, contradicted yourself. 'Feminist insist we live in a patriarchal tyranny, that is complete nonsense'. [Uh Jordan, remember when you said in the Dave Rubin John Anderson interview that the West is an oppressive patriarchy? So now you are admitting you are complete nonsense? I finally agree with you.]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@house0paine535 Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peterson at 21:00 'People go to the bathroom there is not Zero pollution, net zero is an empty talking point, it is not careful thinking that produces a solution...' [Heads up Jordan no one is suggesting we can get to zero pollution, the stated goal is NET ZERO CO2. You are welcome for the lesson in basic logic and science. Careful thinking that produces a solution? Dave, has Jordan ever done that himself?]
'How about copious energy for everyone as clean as possible, resilient stable systems, the only thing you should care about is cheap energy, work makes people prosperous and secure, what is work, it is the expenditure of energy, what is energy, work wealth, energy is everything, US has knocked CO2 down by 14% in the last couple of decades because of fracking, war is not good for the environment...'
Jump to 34:00 'I rewrote sections of the document and my rewrites stuck, I did the work, they didn't have time to rewrite it, high end people are busy, they don't have time to analyze sustainable development goals...the only person trained to do it is Lomborg...'
[So JP's solution is lots of cheap energy for everyone? Does he have a magic wand to make this happen? Does he not realize that many of our environmental problems are related to energy consumption funding consumerism? What is work? Work is energy? I think JP is confusing work by people with the concept of work and energy in pure physics. Whoops. He wants to brag that he wrote sections that stuck? Maybe that happened, I will check it out. The other people didn't have time to analyze sustainable development goals? He knows this how? Literally every sentence out of his mouth is total nonsense, including that CO2 levels have dropped by 14% and that is due to fracking. The only person trained to analyze sustainable goals is Lomborg? Like in the entire world Jordan. Dave, help me out here, why are you nodding your head to this nonsense?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IAALS founded by former Colorado SC justice Becky Kourlis. Let's see if IAALS as the go to authority in transparency in judicial performance access to justice will be transparent about access to justice and judicial performance, at the forefront of judicial improvement. Stay tuned. The only thing I have noticed is lengthy papers that could all be titled 'It's good when good judges do good stuff', followed by self-congratulating themselves.
IAALS experts Jordan Singer, Danielle Kalil, Janet Drobinski,
I understand that you support transparency in judicial performance, as does the Colorado legislature in CRS 13-5.5-101, 107, and IAALS has the leading legal minds in the nation with profound changes to improve access to justice, to make the legal system supported by all.
Obviously the most transparent mechanism is for judges to be questioned directly on their performance in a judicial performance hearing.
Given that you are the go-to group for recommendations as to what works well in judicial performance, what do you think about my proposal to the Colorado performance commissions that I be allowed to question a judge directly on her orders, considering that her orders are in violation of CRS 13-5.5-107, and a violation of the code of judicial conduct?
Our judicial performance director Kent Wagner and my district chief oppose judges being directly questioned in performance hearings, and our discipline director Chris Gregory thinks judges signing their names to false statements by lawyers is not misconduct, and our SC clerk Cheryl Stevens has decided that if a pro se litigant doesn't pass her screening for the SC jurisdiction, she can keep the fee and dismiss the case.
What does the IAALS think?
Since opening its doors in 2006, IAALS has been at the forefront of efforts to improve and expand programs for evaluating the on-the-bench performance of judges, and we have earned a reputation as the “go to” group for research, recommendations, and practical assistance in the judicial performance evaluation (JPE) field.
Based on our extensive work in this area over the last decade, the research IAALS and others have conducted, and our interactions with JPE programs around the country through our JPE Working Group, we have learned much about what works well—and what does not work as well—in evaluating judges’ performance.
In 2016, we felt it was time to update the JPE blueprint we first offered in 2006 in our Transparent Courthouse publication. Transparent Courthouse Revisited: An Updated Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation provides that update, offering a menu of recommended practices and tools for designing and implementing a judicial performance evaluation program that fosters legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the judges.
1
-
1
-
I have effectively challenged Colorado SC justice Melissa Hart to debate the below issues. Hart is magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I have never taken a class in the practice of law. What could she possibly be afraid of?
1. ABA standards are that failure to render reports of lawyer dishonesty are 'a disservice to the public and the legal profession'. Not only did Lindsey refuse comment on the extensive pattern of dishonesty by a state paid lawyer lying on behalf of a state funded university, she in fact signed her name to dishonest proposed statements and orders by Megan Clark. There is no evidence judge Lindsey even read my complaint, and as to the pro se injunction, the only substantial difference between the filings by me and Clark, is that I tell the truth and Clark doesn't.
The ALJ order by Tyburski is capricious, irrational, biased and with no basis in fact or law. It wasn't frivolous to appeal it; it was in fact a necessity to address judicial bias and complete indifference to the facts and the law, most notably the refusal of Tyburski to comply with CRS 24-50-101, CRS 13-5.5-107, and CRS 13-5.7-101.
The failure in conduct and credibility of Tyburski is undisputed by three state personnel directors and the Board of Ethics, who are the responsible parties to analyze conduct and performance of SPB ALJ. Not only did Tyburski fail to comply with the single assignment the legislature has given her; determine what is fair, she even failed to comply with SPB rules, e.g.:
SPB Rule 7.2 Board Rule strongly encourages the governor, the state personnel director, and all appointing authorities to apply “progressive employment practices” and “alternatives to minimize or avoid layoffs of employees in the state personnel system.”
2. Denver judge Jill Dorancy dismissal misinterpreted mandamus CRCP 106 rule:
a) Her statement that CU refusal to comply with CRS 24-50-101 is 'not contemplated by the rule' is false as can be confirmed from the Civil Rules Committee. State officials refusing to comply with statutory duties, as CU has clearly done, is the entire purpose of CRCP 106.
b) Dorancy decided not to address the CRS 24-50-101 violation because similar issues with different defendants were pending in the COA. She was relying on the exhaustion doctrine that she misinterpreted. The exhaustion doctrine requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before proceeding to the courts. I had clearly exhausted administrative remedies.
3. The COA order by Grove/Furman/Yun misinterpreted the protection of Classified tenure in XII Sec. 13. They dismissed my case because I didn't provide SPECIFIC language protecting Classified tenure. The case I provided stated that Classified tenure is protected by IMPLIED language in XII, Sec.13. I don't need to provide specific protection if the protection is implied.
Similarly, judge Elizabeth Brodsky statement that 'the COA confirmed there is no policy that would grant Greene the relief he requests', is also false. They didn't confirm that; they misinterpreted the case law, and they failed to even mention the governing statute in this case; CRS 24-50-101, which makes the university president 'responsible and accountable' for policy directives from the state personnel director. Brodsky also violated civil procedure by granting defendant's motion to dismiss on the same day she received it.
4. The statements by COA judges Berger/Brown/Johnson are a violation of the code of judicial conduct, and CRS 13-5.7-101; I am not permitted to ask them questions, and they are dismissing my case on the claim that my brief was not structured properly. I asked them how it was not substantially compliant; they declined comment.
1
-
1
-
@smartbart80 An impressive amount of nonsense packed into 24:00 minutes. Important isn't the word I would use Dave. Easily the Most _______________ Speech JP has ever done.
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical. Dave? Can you edit the title?
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
An impressive amount of nonsense packed into 24:00 minutes. Important isn't the word I would use Dave. Easily the Most _________________ Speech JP has ever done.
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
Let's see what to put in the blank. Rambling Self Absorbed Nonsensical. Dave? Can you edit the title?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reahthorolund8373 Pretenderson at 40:00 talking about antifa, 'how many people identifiable, who the hell are they, are they right or left, 800 antifa, then they don't exist, does it exist, they are agents of chaos, to sow discord, how to we protect ourselves, that is the endless question of the human race, men are less agreeable, women like disagreeable men, women chose their mates, the more disagreeable you are the less compassionate and generous you are, why do women pick disagreeable men, in one city they had a summer of love, so everyone is agreeable, do the psychopaths come out at night, agreeable people share, women have to protect their infants, they need men who can guard, if a man is too masculine they can't communicate, you have to hold the psychopaths down, they are at 3%, the Left says hierarchies are nothing but power, tough men are tougher than tough women, are we going to look at this straightforward and clearly?'
[Holy crap Dave, did Peterson just claim he is looking at this straightforward and clearly, after a pointless and chaotic rambling that goes from how many antifa there are to women are more agreeable to the summer of love? Help me out Dave, reply to this comment. What precisely is Peterson's point here? Antifa exists or it doesn't exist? Women are more agreeable? I don't think that is true and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with antifa. The Left says hierarchies are nothing but power? Not true. JP made that up. How many Peterson's does it take to unscrew a lightbulb? One, but he does it by rotating the entire house in the opposite direction.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. What you need to realize is that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, and that we don't understand consciousness and its place in the cosmos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrSRA13 I understand you are pretty sure JP has said some brilliant stuff, but you aren't sure what it was. This is standard for JP fans; he has a great vocabulary and confident delivery of mysterious sounding statements...he just has to be really brilliant. On the other hand he is widely known as a pseudo intellectual for good reason, i.e. the stuff he says:
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.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also JP has said that we are rapidly approaching ultimate genocide, but he is not too worried about what is happening in the US. These are of course categorically opposite statements. That he contradicts himself doesn't really surprise me actually. Compared to STEM fields, fake science fields like psychology generate thoughts like a ping pong ball randomly hitting neurons in a lotto machine. JP has also questioned whether we have a population problem; e.g. 'Who says we have a population problem?' Gee, I don't know JP -- Africa, India, China, oceans full of plastic, homelessness, water and food shortages. One fan said I am attacking JP fans because I know I would lose in an actual debate with him. I don't think so. Anytime, any place, any issue. How about it JP?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bgill7475 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dynasty3310 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
@dynasty3310 JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 44: What do you think that the demand for equality of outcome is if not an attempt to flatten hierarchy, what else could it possibly be? [Do you see how stupid that comment is? Obviously equality of outcome is the same as flatten hierarchy. It is about as bright as saying: 'What do you think is the point of a haircut if not an attempt to make your hair shorter. What else could it possibly be?']
46: I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range widely in cognitive ability. [Yes Jordan, we know you don't know how to make everyone equally smart.]
44: Plenty are arguing there should be no such thing as Marxism. [Plent of them JP? Find me one.] [JP cites a paper from Haidt work that proves Helen right.]
48: Animals organize themselves into hierarchies, [Hey 2nd grade class did dinosaurs compete to get to the top of the dinosaur hierarchy' Class-Yes, ooh impressive Jordy] How can you be skeptical about this? [Uh what was she skeptical about Jordy?] Hierarchies can't be claimed on hierarchies and the West. [Uh Jordy, no one is claiming that.]
41: Helen: Serotonin makes humans less aggressive, JP no that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive [Whoops JP] Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old. [Hey 3rd grade class did dinosaurs have hierarchies? Class; yes.] Lobsters say what you want about Marxism. How do lobsters say that? Jordy you just explained how lobsters say that two minutes ago. Remember 'I chose lobsters to put paid to the absurd Marxist supposition?]
20: What if it is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP vocabulary problem; no that is a matriarchy.] We take a patriarchal structure like the medical field. [Jh Jordy, after spending this entire interview denying we have a patriarchy, you are now admitting the medical field is a patriarchy?] 33: Lets get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen correctly defines it and gives a correct example, JP doesn't define it or give an example, score for Helen.]
At about 45:00 Helen says that equality of outcome is 'not a widely held view'. JP as usual interrupts her to state that '20% of social science professors identify as Marxist, I read it quite carefully it is a perfectly valid statistic.'
Problem is, the paper he is referring to Prevalence of Marxism in Academia, concluded that even in the left leaning environment of university, Marxism is a 'tiny minority faith'. So, JP interrupted Helen to brag about his reasoning and research skills, claiming he 'read it quite carefully', but he still didn't understand it; the paper proves Helen right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's see how easy it is to see through Pirro and Rubin as they label the Left as stupid. Pirro 'We have had our views censored for several years now.' [Anyone see the irony? Rubin has 1.3 million subscribers, and this video has 32k views in one day...and Pirro is complaining about her views being censored? Uh, Ok, Jeanine.] RUBIN: 'Free speech is good, lefty liberals have been silent as the mob has come for the Right, they do this with Tucker...' [So Dave, the mob has come to silence Tucker? Isn't Tucker on every night? I guess this alleged mob is not too successful.]
The mob is coming to my house, people have tried to cancel me. PIRRO: 'They wouldn't attempt to join forces with the Right.' RUBIN: The Left fails on free speech, conservatives we believe in free speech, they are afraid of being called conservative...' [So Rubin's assertion here is if Left leaders stand up for free speech, then they will be called conservative? Where the heck are you getting this stuff Dave. Show me one Left leader who is arguing against free speech for fear of being labeled a conservative? And Dave and Jeanine: can you list a couple of recent examples of you trying to join forces with the Left? How exactly Dave is 150 liberals publishing a letter for free speech 'the Left fails on free speech'?]
My guess is Dave realizes as long as he labels the Left as bad, no one will notice what complete nonsense his argument is. I swear these Right wing Vlog's really preach to the gullible. Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks being two great examples. Why people consider Peterson as smart is just plain mind boggling. Every time Peterson calls the ignorant Left he gets a free pass for a couple weeks to say whatever he dreams up without challenge, figuratively. Looks like Rubin is an apt pupil of this trick. Pretty much the same for Hicks.
PIRRO says the Left doesn't want to hear from the Right. RUBIN: 'The woke condition is a mind virus, once you accept those ideas....' Doesn't this letter from lefty liberals actually advocate for free speech? So what are Rubin and Pirro complaining about? Why did 150 leaders sign a letter for free speech if they are afraid of being called conservatives? Unless I am missing something this video is phenomenal at internal contradictions and complaining about libtards agreeing with Pirro and Rubin.
(The letter expressed alarm over the “intolerance of opposing views” and “public shaming and ostracism” aimed at those who challenge liberal ideas. The authors said this phenomenon has “steadily narrowed the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.” “It is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” the letter states.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doubletapthatdotty4597 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@itsdragon3085 We still agree. Neither of us can find a credible scientific critical thinking profound intellectual idea by Peterson. Lots of pseudo intellectual nonsense though. 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
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonwarren4606 19:00 '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.], we take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with most women, is it then a matriarchal structure?
If it's dominated by women is it a tyrannical patriarchy? [Jordan, she already corrected you on that, dominated by women is a matriarchy. JP pulls a Cathy Newman, so you are saying If it's dominated by women is it a tyrannical patriarchy? You don't regard the West as patriarchy, but you regard the medical field as a patriarchy? What about in the Rubin/Anderson interview when you said the West is an oppresive patriarchy but not purely that? So which is it? If you say its an oppressive patriarchy you are saying it is unidimensional, purely that, or that it is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that?]
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
-
@johnbeckwith1361 NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly?
Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents.
At somewhere aroung the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
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
-
@johnrobie9694 Here is one review of Hicks, his performance in this video doesn't change my mind, but if you think he was smart, maybe you can point to it:
"Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, .. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, ... For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism...The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. … These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables....Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ST-rj8iu 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]
--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']
'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...
[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? Score for Helen.)
Let's get our definitions straight on identity politics. [Helen gives a correct definition, JP gives no definition. Score for Helen.]
1
-
@ST-rj8iu I understand, you feel JP or Sowell are intellectuals, but you don't know where that happened.
You also couldn't figure out the benefits of my home ownership plan. No problem, I probably know a lot more about economics than you; funny since you accused me of not understanding economics!
BENEFITS OF MY 70% MARGINAL TAX WORK FOR THREE YEARS HOME OWNERSHIP PLAN:
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.
5. With little incentive to keep raising retail rents above 400k, retail rents stabilize thus helping small business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's see if JP is smart... "Complex and simple biological creatures have to move forward in the world, we need things to keep us alive, we move towards things we value, you move towards things that you value, to move towards a place with advantages, point A may be difficult, life is suffering, people can transcend that by pursuing things of value, people who have no purpose are bitter, social creatures compete and cooperate, thus a hierarchy of competence will develop, people vary in their ability, some are good in the pursuit of value, a minority will be fantastic and many will stack up at the bottom, then you will have inequality, if you demolish hierarchies you demolish value, but hierarchies tend towards tyranny where people with power, it is unjust and unfair, that is not good..."
[Let's break this down. Animals move towards things they want...duh. People with no purpose are bitter...duh. Social creatures compete with other social creatures...duh. Some people are better at some things than other people...super duh. Hierarchies can become too steep and unfair where people with power take advantage of people without power...super duh.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@olderuglierandwiser Is Rubin joking? JP most important speech? Dave? Please timestamp and quote an important and useful idea by JP anywhere in this entire video. Good luck. Well the most important speech JP has ever made; not a very high bar.
'Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...'
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
1
-
1
-
@sambowe8288 Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey I know everyone thinks JP is an intellectual hero, I am seeking feedback on the 'intellectual hero-ness' of a couple quotes, all hero caliber, some hero caliber, any of them junk, or...? Here they are:
1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years."
2. 'I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression.'
3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization."
4. "'Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
5. "''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
1
-
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...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]
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Rubin joking? JP most important speech? Dave? Please timestamp and quote an important and useful idea by JP anywhere in this entire video. Good luck. Well the most important speech JP has ever made; not a very high bar.
'Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...'
'Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility...'
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
-
1
-
@slagebobs4109 I supplied an excellent quote out of context? What? JP goal is to help people? Maybe, and I gather his simple self-help message helps some people which I fully support him on. His at least equally obvious mission is to always be seen as the smartest person in the room who can't stand to have his opinions challenged. I am just addressing the strange sociological phenomenon of a guy with no useful intellectual ideas about anything seen as an intellectual role model. I invite you to produce a useful, coherent, intellectual statement by JP on any subject anywhere to prove me wrong.
Here are some non-examples:
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.]
Jordan's 25th Rule: The biblical corpus is a collection of narratives that shine a different light of characterization on the spirit that occupies the pinnacle in the hierarchy of perception. [Huh?]
Jordan's 26th Rule: I have been thinking for 40 years and I realized that you have to prioritize your perceptions. Prioritize means some things are more important than others in a hierarchy. Does that hierarchy have to be unified or not. There is an immediate existential consequence to not having a hierarchy of perceptual priority. You need a hierarchy to filter the world and what is at the highest point of the hierarchy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@King_Anime528 Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought).
But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. What you need to realize is that there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, and that we don't understand consciousness and its place in the cosmos.
1
-
NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:00 People vary in competence and thus there will be a hierarchy, most of the people stack up at the bottom, then you have inequality and that is a problem, to their credit, the hierarchies tend to a form of tyranny, power can attain status in the hierarchy, if it is too steep it is unfair and unjust, the right is admire and support hierarchies, liberals generate new hierarchies...
A society formed of conservatives is static, a society of liberals is bad at generating actualities, hierarchy is inescapable, but it produces negative consequence, you need hierarchies, the poor will be a chronic functional problem...
[Any fans here, did JP say anything that everyone in the world doesn't already know.?? Liberals are bad at actualities? Stop just making stuff up Jordan and that you know what all liberals do or can or cannot do.]
You need to describe and perceive the world at different levels of resolution....you use a thumbnail, it is a type of cognitive process, we need a low resolution theory an agreed upon narrative how we can move forward, that comes in two forms, collectivist form, chimps kill other chimps in tribes, the collectivist view looks at the tribe people belong to...
[Peterson trying to word salad the most basic ideas imaginable into some kind of academic discussion.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomcaine226 Let's see how mature Murray is being called a fool:
There wasn't much in it just an I want list, followed by a set of presumptuous insults, there was no meat, it is hard to find anything useful she is done, she is so insulting, ill spoken and rude attempts to attack me, it demonstrates her personal failing, she refuses to engage, I engage with serious people, I speak with leaders, they don't read lists and then insult, they try to understand if the public is trying to tell them something, its bad to call someone a fool and draw comfortable lines around yourself, she won't be able to achieve much...
[Ok so Murray draws a line around himself as someone who speaks with serious people on serious issues, and repeatedly insults flavia.... and then says it is bad to draw a better than thou line around yourself and insult others? Whoops. Score for Flavia. He says it is important to listen if someone is trying to tell you something, and Flavia read a wish list? Yes Doug, she read a wish list and the only thing you listened to was when she called you a fool. It wasn't a list of ill informed presumptuous insults, it was just a half sentence with the word 'fool'.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No one can find a coherent useful idea by JP: Let's check out this allegedly important speech... a solution that beckons and is generous, we have odds about identity, to a psychological integration, and now I delve into what identity is, and also what social structure must and should be, faith and responsibility, faith is the courage to welcome the future, the future is the manifestation of possibility into actuality, the treasure house of the unknown possibility, with courageous faith, being and becoming are intrinsically good....Huh? Doesn't this guy claim to be precise in your speech?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raneads1458 Better title, WE who wrestle with our own ego.... hehe. 'The confusion of the nature of the story that should orient us in the world, the problem with hedonism and power, you need a different pattern to have meaning, the biblical library, those stories are scientifically credible, there is scientific evidence that we see the world through a story, identity politics is confusion about our orientation in the world, the orientation poles have not been superseded, we have stories encapsulated but what is the right story, we are arranged to act out patterns, purpose and accomplishment, to be significant, a good person, and meaning....'
[Hey Jesse, did you notice a single coherent useful idea by JP somewhere, I couldn't find one.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Let's check in to lobster head here, at [debate gender pay gap], at 1:00: 'Men need to grow up, people have the capacity to set the world straight, to manifest in the world, and then you find meaning, I don't think young men ever hear words of encouragement, women want competent men, women want to dominate men is a bad long term solution, long term relationships are reciprocal, the pay gap doesn't exist, women in aggregate are paid less than men, it is wrong that the pay gap is only due to gender... [OK lets break this down. Men need to grow up = Duh, I don't think young men ever hear words of encouragement = what percent of young men never hear words of encouragement and how do you know that?, women want competent men = duh, It is wrong that the pay gap is only due to gender = Duh. Smart guy? How exactly?]
1
-
NOEM: What has he done, what has he done, he has done nothing with tools and policy, he doesn't let us do our job, he will not keep us safe.
RUBIN: She is saying what everyone knows, no one believes the federal government is doing their job, border agents don't like to be a travel agent, you can go to Chicago. The democrat party, one of your few jobs dude.
Dave, this alleged Host is stumped by question turned against her? Where did that happen exactly? Here is what happened, Noem shared her made up feelings that Biden has done nothing with tools and policy, and then Rubin shared his made-up feelings that no one believes the federal government is doing their job and border agents are forced to act as travel agents. At somewhere around the 80th percentile for gullibility you become a Rubin believer.
Rubin and his fans aren't really fans of facts, but:
WHAT TRUMP DID: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border.
Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Mr Trump left the White House.
WHAT BIDEN DID: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over 2.28 million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and March 2023, the last month for which data is available. But when the US ended its coronavirus public health emergency on May 11, Title 42 expired with it. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. They have opened regional processing centres in Latin America aimed at helping migrants apply to come to the US and expanded access to CBP One, an app migrants can use to schedule asylum appointments. People who cross illegally will be deported, barred from re-entering the US for at least five years, and be "presumed ineligible for asylum", according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's see what JP is up to...make energy cheap, there is no difference between energy and wealth, there is a problem with nuclear waste, if you want to save the climate you want to make power as cheap as possible to make people rich, China has greened totally, as CO2 rises plants can grow better in drier environments, I learned that things are better than we think the best way to save the planet is to make poor people rich as fast as we can....the biggest environmental problem isn't global warming it is over fishing, we know how to stop it...
[This guy is so totally full of crap every time he opens his mouth. We should make poor people rich? Uh ok, Jordan, how do we do that exactly? If you make power cheap you save the environment? What an absolute idiot. The cheaper power gets the more people use of it, and what is the biggest problem we have? Emissions from power use, and pollution from products made with energy. And then there is the lame brained argument that gullible conservatives fall for; since plants breathe CO2, the more CO2 we produce, the better. There is no difference between energy and wealth? Really? Everyone who has enough energy to heat their house and fill up their gas tank is automatically wealthy? How does that work exactly?]
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
-
Hicks at 27:00: 'Post modernists are anti realists, we should stop asking about religion, they put truth in quotations, but for the politics of liberty, people should have their judgment, there is no such a thing as reality... [Ok, according to Hicks post modernists don't believe in reality but people who believe in liberty are at odds with this? See the trick? Post modernists don't believe in liberty. Sure dude, show me one of these alleged post modernists who don't believe in reality or liberty.]
According to the Good people, the modernists, they think slavery is bad, women should have equal rights, we can figure out truth, our judgment can acquire knowledge. But the Bad people, the post modernists, don't believe in individuals. The implicit message here; post modernists are pro slavery and anti equal gender rights. Tell me there are at least a few people who can see through Hicks flimsy tricks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sowell: Plame had a desk job. Facts: It was a desk job under cover as a spy. Whoops Thomas...Plame served the CIA at times as a non-official cover (or NOC), operating in Athens and Brussels.[15] While using her own name, "Valerie Plame", her assignments required posing in various professional roles in order to gather intelligence more effectively.[16][17][18] Two of her covers include serving as a junior consular officer in the early 1990s in Athens and then later as an energy analyst for the private company (founded in 1994) "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations.[19] A former senior diplomat in Athens remembered Plame in her dual role and also recalled that she served as one of the "control officers" coordinating the visit of President George H. W. Bush to Greece and Turkey in July 1991. The matter of whether she actually had covert status is disputed.[20][21] After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the CIA sent her first to the London School of Economics and then the College of Europe, in Bruges, for Master's degrees. After earning the second degree, she stayed on in Brussels, where she began her next assignment under cover as an "energy consultant" for Brewster-Jennings.[6] Beginning in 1997, Plame's primary assignment was shifted to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.[22]
1
-
1
-
This looks like two pretend intellectuals talking to me. If either of them says some smart point in this video, can someone point it out to me? Lets punch it to Benny Johnson: "Every state is different, every state is supposed to be their own government, we are watching that wash away horribly, every state votes... Bernie has been a communist his whole life, and old crusty communist..." Benny or Dave: When has Bernie ever been a communist? If he as made any 'I am a communist' type statement in like the last 6 years, can you point me to it? If you guys want to see some real presidential style ideas, check jgreene4prez2020 on FB. 'People want to know where there information is coming from, they are Leftist propagandist, there is no such thing as objectivity any more...I have a firm pulse on DC...' Anyway, waiting for anything smart either of these guys say. Remember Dave Rubin decided that Jordan Peterson was the real deal when JP petted a cat. Conservatives think JP is a smart guy. JP is an idiot. Do the math.
1
-
1
-
1