Youtube comments of Jordan B Peterson (@JordanBPeterson).
-
7100
-
6100
-
5600
-
4800
-
4500
-
3900
-
3800
-
3400
-
3200
-
3100
-
3000
-
2900
-
2700
-
00:25: Can I read Beyond Order before reading 12 Rules for Life?
1:58: What is the meaning of Postmodern Neo-Marxism?
14:50: What advice would you give to those following you to not take your teachings as a form of ideology itself, based on the fact that you advise people to stay away from ideologies?
20:30: (Under the same question), Difference between Ideology and Religious Belief.
26:45: My 12 years old younger sister has started dressing up as a boy and keeping her hair short, should I be concerned, or is she just going through exploratory territory?
34:17: I have come to notice that I am unsympathetic towards other's losses, I don't feel any concern even when I personally suffered from the loss of a relative, is it something important to reconcile or is not normal for some people because they're born this way?
43:28: How to understand God is Love? How to Love God? Is it similar to loving a person? How to balance Love with Responsibility?
50:08: A 25 yr old Girl asks Dr. Peterson, that she is scared of being intimate with a person and anticipates his advice for her.
1:00:40: A father of a newborn baby asks if it's okay to not feel love for the baby when it's crying or causing trouble by disturbing their sleep etc?
1:06:55: How do I balance marriage, fatherhood, and a demanding career?
1:12:15: A newly passionate person about psychology asks for books recommendation
1:14:00: Do you have any interest in making the new Biblical Lecture Series?
1:15:37: What are your thoughts on superheroes?
1:20:56: Have you done any more reading on Islam?
1:24:46: What is the difference between Faith, Religion, and Spirituality?
Provided by Akash Bhullar
2400
-
2200
-
2200
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
975
-
905
-
901
-
887
-
874
-
856
-
838
-
833
-
830
-
813
-
811
-
804
-
792
-
785
-
784
-
777
-
763
-
755
-
709
-
Index
0:00 Introduction.
1:15 Lawyer Jared Brown introduces himself describing his involvement with opposing Bill C16.
2:37 Professor Bruce Pardy describes the new Law Society requirement for mandatory statement of principles expressing agreement with the values of diversity, inclusiveness and equality.
4:38 Professor Jordan Peterson expresses concern that if the lawyers in Ontario accept this, then it will quickly become mandatory for all professionals across Canada.
5:20 Jared Brown discusses the obligation of lawyers to stand at the first line of defense against excess governmental/regulatory intrusion.
5:54 Peterson discusses the punishments that are associated with this requirement.
6:30 Pardy distinguishes between restrictions on speech and compelled speech and quotes an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on such issues.
8:00 Discussion begins about the nature, strengths and weakness of the data hypothetically used to justify this decision, putting forth the proposition that the legal practitioners in Ontario are guilty of systemic racism as individuals and as a group.
12:40 Pardy voices his objections to the interpretation of the data, the requirement to essentially confess guilt, and then to govern your future actions in compliance with your accepted guilt.
14:20 Brown discusses his concern that the act of compliance indicates the truth of the accusations of racism and, more deeply, corruption.
15:24 Peterson discusses the psychological dangers of formulating a statement of principles that has been demanded of you: you will bring your opinions and actions in line with your written statement, to reduce “cognitive dissonance”.
17:55 Pardy discusses the transformation of the Law Society from an organization that ensured competence to one that polices and enforces values and regulates thought – with the power of the state behind it.
21:00 Peterson describes the danger inherent in the action of lawyers themselves compelling speech and thought content on the part of their fellows – and the probability that the implicit admission of racism will be divisive.
22:35 Brown details the reasons that lawyers might not be rejecting this additional demand: lack of awareness, overwork, and trust in the Law Society. He also points out that the there is even a “template” for principles.
22:54 Pardy notes that the provision of a template amplifies the authoritarian element of this demand. Discussion ensues.
26:30 Discussion of the consequences of opposing such action for a given individual (and the probability that compliance will be the norm).
27:50 Pardy notes his observation from discussion with colleagues that many individual lawyers are in fact concerned or shocked about the new requirements, and that change may be possible.
28:45 Brown, Pardy & Peterson note that clients will be taken aback and lose faith in the profession if the lawyers can’t even protect themselves against such ideological intrusions.
30:30 Pardy notes that the Law Society has not precisely described the penalties for non-compliance. Brown notes that failing to fill out the complete Annual Report will bring with it administrative punishment, and that all dealings between individual lawyers and the Law Society are immediately made public.
33:49 Pardy introduces the discussion of what lawyers might do to rebel against this: Brown, citing Pardy’s National Post article, suggests not filling the statement and providing a written description of objection. Pardy warns against filing an alternative, personal statement of principle, because even that is forced speech. Brown concurs.
36:05 Pardy notes that this is not a debate about inclusiveness, equality and diversity, but concern about the mandatory requirement that you state and have your principles approved. Brown notes that lawyers are already required by law not to discriminate.
37:20 Pardy notes that, according to the Supreme Court, that you are required to abide by the law, but not obliged to approve of the law (and have every right to criticize it).
38:10 Peterson describes the inappropriateness of the attribution of guilt to individual lawyers for the hypothetical class guilt of the legal profession (and the totalitarian implications of such accusation): you are to be judged, according to the Western legal tradition (1) as an individual and (2) with the initial assumption of innocence.
40:30 Pardy notes that by such standards we are all guilty and worthy of accusation and punishment, regardless of our individual merits.
41:30 Peterson describes his creation of an anonymous list for lawyer sign-up, so that the number of lawyers objecting to this demand can be determined and publicized. The list is available at
42:20 Summary of recommended actions for lawyers: (1) File your objections—simply, if so desired--to the statement of principles as the statement of principle (or send it Pardy’s National Post article; (2) sign the signatory list so that the number of people philosophically or professionally opposed can be determined; (3) consider the possibility of legal action (Brown describes his encounter with a very senior lawyer who is willing to reject compliance and allow the general court system to render a decision).
46:10 Peterson notes that the other professions (and Canadian citizens in general) are dependent upon lawyers to defend the principles of English Common Law.
698
-
693
-
674
-
672
-
670
-
650
-
641
-
615
-
608
-
605
-
581
-
553
-
[2:00] Jordan asks Iain to outline his concept of attention that he outlines in his forthcoming book The Matter of Things
[14:30] Creating the world through attention. Examining studies done to understand what we would miss without the right hemisphere of our brain. Contrasting the known differences of the two brain hemispheres
[24:00] Discussion of the function of categories and the distinction we make that pull things out of those categories
[33:30] What holes, in reality, are your values or belief structures filling in enabling you to function in the world. looking at the importance of looking at things as a whole instead of a part of the whole.
[36:30] Iain talks about paradoxes in the lens of his new book and examines them. Iain denotes the importance of understanding the significance of the left or right hemisphere when looking at ideas, structures, or projects that have contributed to society.
[43:08] Jordan creates an analogy of tiers of resolution when we are living our lives and performing tasks. McGilchrist outlines his analogy of task attention the two hemispheres as a stage with a spotlight, the highlighted portion is the action of the left hemisphere while the whole stage is the collective consciousness of the right hemisphere.
[54:50] Important schools of thought that improve culture, Science, Reason, Intuition, and Imagination. Unpacking the idea of ontological primaries related to consciousness
[1:05:35] Iain recounts the public reaction to The Master and His Emissary
[1:07:30] Iain and Jordan debate about the nature of implicit values and the idea of God, or what we use the word God to describe
[1:15:00] The failing of the left hemisphere vision of the world according to McGilchrist
[1:20:00] debating the value of industrial rationalists that ignore the co-creation relationship of the divine
[1:23:30] Iain's drive to write his books, the disconnect he sees with the rational, scientific construction of society leading to more unhappy people as society "improves" Iain's three things all humans need to be happy are to feel socially connected, being in the presence of nature, and being part of a religious community.
[1:29:30] Discussing the need for science to be embedded in a larger value structure and not simply rational and removed from right brain thinking
[1:34:30] revisiting the co-creation idea of the cosmos, Iain relates his closing argument that science needs to bring back imagination and intuition as important aspects of exploration beyond the strictly rational.
544
-
540
-
529
-
525
-
520
-
458
-
451
-
447
-
444
-
433
-
430
-
430
-
425
-
422
-
415
-
411
-
403
-
397
-
395
-
394
-
393
-
382
-
382
-
381
-
379
-
368
-
364
-
364
-
361
-
361
-
357
-
356
-
345
-
339
-
338
-
331
-
330
-
328
-
327
-
325
-
321
-
[4:00] - Physical aggression study - research of juvenile delinquency research - Peaked at age 2/3
[8:50] - The problem with research and terminology
[11:11] - Why was he surprised by the studies, and what assumptions did he have
[14:20] - Similar to the findings of Thomas Hobbes and the idea of original sin
[16:02] - Why does this resistance to this type of data manifest itself?
[18:50] - Walkthrough how all children are not the same violent
[22:00] - Risk factors, more likely to be male, mothers who didn't complete high school education
[23:30] - Characterizing the mothers who have aggressive children, fail in school, emotional problems, problems with smoking, drugs, every problem you can mention, and multi-generational development
[27:30] - Hierarchy of risk factors, no clear data where a nonoptimal birth increases proclivity for aggression or decreases the ability that the child would be able to control it
[30:00] - Experimental interventions on helping (supporting during pregnancy after birth) young women with behavioral problems
[32:45] - What needs do these women have?
[33:00] - Is marital status a risk factor? Part of the problem is assortative mating
[37:30] - The role of the father aggressive fathers; modelling the parents
[38:50] - The ease of hitting and stealing vs the challenge to get a toy with negotiation
[40:40] - The methods parents use for discipline (the disciplinary strategies that are implemented for the child, using words instead of physical expression)
[42:24] - Back to experimental interventions. The interventions 20 years down the line, and the girls are acting much better. it's possible to change the life of the children
[44:20] - What the interventions looked like, and what the mother would receive. Visits at home, and the nurse will console her in all her decisions in life
[47:40] - Quality daycare
[53:00] - The cost of daycare
[55:30] - How you identify who is at risk
[58:00] - Grouping study social children with anti-social children - How did you encourage people to make friendships?
[1:03:00] - Relating his studies against the theories of tyrannical hierarchies
[1:07:30] - How is his work being received among sociologists
[1:12:20] - What are the weaknesses of what he is doing. and scientific funding; The philosophical opposition because of the anti-rousseauian nature of research and finding out information is different than what you expected
[1:24:10] - The biology of aggressive behavior
[1:39:30] - How he evaluates his career - is it what he wants, why, and who should consider doing this type of work?
[1:42:10] - What got him interested in his research
[1:45:10] - The compelling nature of doing research
[1:49:00] - Sex different in aggressions - girl aggression - more indirect aggression vs. males physical; what is indirect aggression
[1:59:00] - Jordan sums up the argument
[2:05:00] - Preparation for people looking to get into research
313
-
308
-
304
-
297
-
280
-
280
-
273
-
271
-
267
-
256
-
254
-
254
-
254
-
248
-
243
-
243
-
240
-
240
-
236
-
235
-
235
-
232
-
230
-
229
-
219
-
212
-
209
-
203
-
202
-
200
-
199
-
196
-
194
-
191
-
188
-
187
-
185
-
184
-
181
-
179
-
177
-
175
-
175
-
173
-
168
-
166
-
165
-
161
-
161
-
159
-
158
-
158
-
157
-
154
-
153
-
153
-
152
-
152
-
150
-
148
-
148
-
148
-
146
-
145
-
134
-
133
-
130
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
127
-
126
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
115
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
107
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
100
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
91
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
81
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
I have never claimed in any manner that my main purpose is to "simmer the conservative body of 'white men'" and would never put forward such a proposal, not least because of its racial nature (and political prejudice). I have nothing against conservatives, or white men, for that matter, even when they appear in combination :) But there is nothing but catastrophe in identity politics, regardless of the reason, because there is no reliable way of categorizing people in groups that is not subject to endless fragmentation. It's a fatal flaw. How long have all "white people" felt that they had something fundamental in common? Think of the endless wars of Europe. To believe that grouping together now in something approximating a racial identity will somehow save "us," whoever "us" happens to be, is absurd. And just exactly who is white? What about people from the Middle East, or India? What race, precisely, are they, if not white?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1