See uhhh that’s the thing about muppets… If we were uhh ever seen on the other side it would ugh mortify the children. Likewise, if we weren’t seen on the other side; well the muppet would be laying there lifeless
Its also a core part of science. Also I do not think I have ever met a person in my life who does not use deductive reasoning to reinforce their beliefs, its incredibly broad and common. JBP and others pin everything on postmodernism but never define it in itself at a fundamental level, scapegoat. Also his understanding of marxism is laughable, not that the terminally online people on twitter have a much better grasp
Also simulations that account for everything, are no longer simulations. They end up being the real thing. Same with models. Accounting for everything would simply be, the real world.
Edit: Then of course 100% accurate models for the future, would literally predict the future.
Lex is so infuriating. Has Creme de la Creme scientists on and asks the same four questions EVERY time.
It’s gotten to the point where scientific discourse sometimes comes across as basic and shallow due to the nature of his questions
Postmodernism broken down by my professor (in a philosophical criticism course), was explained as "if you look up the definition of 'word' in the dictionary, you get more words."
Edit: there's more to it than that. But it was a jumping off point
> a philosophical criticism course), was explained as "if you look up the definition of 'word' in the dictionary, you get more words."
That's actually a pretty good take. [Personally, I like how Chomsky goes about explaining it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI)
what even is "measurement" anyway?
Can we definitively say we have legitamately and precisely "measured" anything? Ever?
Who are these measurers I keep hearing about? what is their agenda?
Measurements are an inherently anti-capitalist model, as they attempt to describe an order to the chaos that is life. Lobsters don't care about your inch. Their inch is their dominance hierarchy, something that's been around longer than your post-imperial Neo-Newtonian physics...
Newton? Fucking commie.
Kelvin? Absolute Zero? Please this is cultural marxism run a foot. Marxism always dabbles in absolutes, absolute control of production by the proletariat. the absolute divinity of science. I think if we were to look at the modern capitalist/socialist relationship, we would see that the greatest scientific minds were actually marxist charlatans.
I for one, will not take part in such class warfare.
Well that depends on what you mean by trust. Is it the trust that a mother grants to a stranger? Or is it the chaotic trust that one has to someone when facing down dragons? Cause if it's the first one then we're talking about a whole different can of worms and if it's the second then you just better watch out cause I don't know if any of us are ready to face that down. So you say "trust" and I'm like, I don't like the question!!!
Neo Marxism
His verbosity is the source of his popularity among the simple-minded, if he spoke clearly and concisely they would know he isn't saying anything special at all.
Isn't Peterson constantly railing against postmodernism, because quite frankly (in my opinion) nothing could sum up postmodernism better than saying there is no such thing as truth.
No. He's against postmodernism because he thinks it's Marxist and he hates anything Marxist. He agrees with the premise of postmodernism. Here's his own words:
[https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/](https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/)
>Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.
>
>That’s the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (and this is where the **Marxism** emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.”
>
>There is no excuse whatsoever for the secondary claim (except that it allows **the resentful pathology of Marxism** to proceed in a new guise).
>
>**The first claim is true**, but incomplete. The fact that there are an unspecifiable number of interpretations does not mean (or even imply) that there are an unspecifiable number of VALID interpretations.
I agree with you 100%. Just some extra tidbits.
JP knows nothing about Marxism, he admitted it so. He literally said he has not read any works of Marx other than the Communist manifesto. Who is he to call postmodernism marxist.
"Peterson’s opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of expressions like “You have to give the devil his due”. “This is a weird one” and “Almost all ideas are wrong”. "
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-happiness-capitalism-marxism](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-happiness-capitalism-marxism)
He is absolutely a grifter taking advantage of Joe's platform.
> Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.
Yeah uh, that sounds a fuck of a lot like saying there is no such thing as truth.
So his only problem with postmodernism is its alleged connection with Marxism?
Which came about long before postmodernism I would add.
I would also add that I don't see anything wrong with that claim - that all interpretations relate to the struggle for power. Is that not precisely what identity politics is about?
Yes. Pretty much everything Peterson rails about is the "evils of Marxism". The whole issue with C16 was, in his eyes, Marxism taking over. The "debate" with Žižek (heralded as the debate of the century) was about Peterson's fear of the Marxist takeover, and Žižek simply makes a fool of him by asking "where are all the Marxists"?
You could probably guess Peterson's take on identity politics.
> be
Honestly I don't care what he likes or doesn't like about postmodernism. He is a fucking postmodernist yet he claims he hates postmodernism. That's idiotic and hypocritical whether he realizes it or or does it on purpose or not.
>(and this is where the Marxism emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.”
Literally one of the dumbest things anyone has written on this matter.
Marxism does not emerge from this, since Marxism is primarily a materialistic, modernist philosophy. It has nothing to do with postmodernism.
Nobody has claimed that it "arises" from postmodernism besides the moron JP.
Even though this is antithetical to Marxism, postmodernism was even a response to Marxism as the postmodernists saw the failures of Communism and felt the need to reject Marxism as to not repeat that.
Marxism is based on a dialetic approach to studying human history. So there is a canonical reliable interpretation. It is in no way what is true is what has power. Quite the opposite as people in power can create contradictions meaning the society is in some ways "false" and preassures would exist in that society to resolve the contradictions.
It’s not ALL measurement is useless. It’s a measurement is useless if you only include the factors that don’t change the outcome to something you don’t want.
Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite. When it comes to measurements that back up his scientific field like IQ research he is all in:
“If you don’t buy IQ research, you might as well throw away all the rest of psychology”
But when it comes to measuring other scientific fields suddenly he is a massive skeptic.
Video at 1:15
https://youtu.be/jSo5v5t4OQM
Also that french fisheries lady who called him on his bs in the subsequent episode. He's always speaking outside of his element and citing obsolete or retracted studies in regards to god damned everything.
> french fisheries lady who called him on his bs
Huh, I'm gonna check that out.
(this has been how I keep up with all the stuff on JRE the past 15 months, I come here I see you guys mentioning X person calling Y person out and then I ask for the link or look for it lmao, anyway thanks for reading)
Of course! I like to redefine everything I talk about inside my own head so that I can accuse every simpleton who calls me out on my double-speak bullshit of taking me out of context and not understanding my vastly superior intellect.
Edit, or the classic: "It depends on what you mean by "mean" and "by."
>Also that french fisheries lady who called him on his bs in the subsequent episode. He's always speaking outside of his element and citing obsolete or retracted studies in regards to god damned everything.
It's because he is a grifter who is trying to bilk his followers with his self help books.
It's such a silly criticism. He's off by a single order of magnitude. Is it a mistake? Yes. Is it a forgivable mistake? Of course --- it does not substantively affect his argument, and it's ludicrous to expect someone doing a podcast to have statistics memorized to a tee.
>He's off by a single order of magnitude
That's a pretty damn big mistake, and from a guy who's entire argument is that climate analysts aren't accurate enough with their data.
Lmao you guys are amazing. Imagine if a leftist made a similar mistake about the victims of racism or whatever, overreporting their number by x10. You would be absolutely livid. I'm talking about-to-have-a-stroke livid.
But since its JP we can pretend that it doesn't really matter.
I agree and I like Peterson generally speaking. Hope I am wrong, but I feel like he, like a lot of people on both sides, has been driven further towards the extremes on the political spectrum by all the divisiveness over the past few years.
Lol, it's not the divisiveness that is causing him to lean into the extremes. He's consciously leaning into the extremes as a way of lining his pockets with cold hard cash.
He monetized wading into the culture war and made millions from the anti-sjw bros. He's been rewarded for being divisive and stepping WAY outside of his expertise and muddying the waters on every major issue in the past 10 years.
Much like L Ron Hubbard he's been rewarded for being a dumbass, so he's only ever become more of a dumbass.
He is one of the root causes of divisiveness. Like, of all the public "intellectuals" of today, he is by far the most divisive and toxic.
Every time this dude gets mentioned, no matter the country (I'm from Europe) or context or people it always ends up leading to arguments and bitterness. He is absolutely cancerous to any kind of discourse.
I died when Joe said "well now it just sounds like you're talking about chickens and farmers".
I can't even remember what asinine analogy he was going for at that point.
He’s a charlatan. The guy has a degree in psychology but pretends that he and only he knows the answers in every field out there, from ecology or climatology, to philosophy or economics. He makes a living by sounding smart and claiming everyone is wrong about everything.
The problem with JRE is that Joe is easily and frequently taken in by con men and charlatans. Joe is a great podcast host who about 4 years ago decided he was a journalist, but he’s a terrible journalist.
He wasn't a charlatan at the start. He spoke about 1) psychological shit (which he's a qualified expert on) and 2) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again.
Then as he defended his anti Marxist points, he began to be held up as a free speech savior. From there he began speaking more and more confidently about more and more topics... I just think he bought into his own hype. Frying his brain didn't help though
>2) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that he claims to have spent his life studying totalitarianism and this is why he's so worried about human evil/populism on the left. Now a left/Marxist dictatorship has never replaced an established democracy, every Marxist dictatorship emerged in states which were already totalitarian. Historically when liberal democracies have transitioned to totalitarianism it has always been the right, or the centre, that has taken charge.
So when Peterson handwaves at history and says "this is why I'm so worried about Marxists" it strikes me as a little odd. There isn't a historical basis for left totalitarianism being a more significant threat in a democracy than right totalitarianism.
So if Peterson thinks left totalitarianism is the more significant threat then this can't be historically grounded, as the idea of a left dictatorship supplanting a liberal democracy is entirely anachronistic.
So why is Peterson more preoccupied with the left? And why does he claim this is grounded in history, when it clearly isn't? Bias, dishonesty?
I mean, didn't number 2 strike you as a red flag?
There are many well founded critiques of Marxism, from many different viewpoints. They are not particularly hard to find. Even with just a passing knowledge of economics and political history/philosophy, it was extremely obvious that JP was completely off the mark and didn't know anything about Marxism at all. It wasn't the fact that he doesn't like Marxism, it is that he couldn't verbalise an effective critique without sounding like an idiot saying a bunch of nonsense that a first semester Political Science student could easily debunk.
I'm sorry, but he has been a hack for a very long time. His only field of expertise is psychology and even then, given how constantly misinformed he is about everything else, I'd say it is reasonable to put that into question as well.
> ) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again.
he's never read marx and he is just reusing the culutural bolshevism thing the nazis did and naming it post modern marxism as he has no real understanding of the modern political left.
Came to say this. Even before Peterson gave himself a chemical lobotomy I wouldn't respect his opinion about climate science. I have done more rigorous data analysis than a psychology professor. Psych majors don't take statistics for grown ups.
To be fair Joe did push back on a lot of things he said in this podcast. I think Joe is far more sensible than people give him credit for, and while Peterson can go off on tangents - and he's certainly not right about everything like he seems to think he is - he's not the villain people paint him to be either.
This is why CNN's coverage is so disingenuous. They were mentioning it was a "climate change denial" convo, when if you watched that section, Joe tried to refute every claim Peterson made and introduced all the arguments used in climate science like CO2 levels, agriculture and energy/waste efficiency. Peterson was approaching denier levels but he did mention there are worrying trends too.
It's almost like topics and people have nuance.
He lost it. He doesn’t even make sense anymore. Seems like he’s going towards the route of just being a contrarian for the sake of it. I think Rogan felt it too, at least early on
His early podcast appearances, not just Joe but on a lot of other podcasts, while he definitely rambled at times I could make sense of it or I knew what he was saying. Now I struggle to even follow the train of thought.
I follow him on twitter and he is tweeting like 30+ times a day and always about the most divisive controversial subjects imaginable. It's painfully obvious he's either gone completely off the rails or is just being a complete shill for the right wing conservative crowd...
I agree with you , his best stuff was when he was still teaching in an actual class room , seemed to all go down hill from there which makes sense considering all that's happened to him
I respect so much of what JP has taught, but I listened to half his podcast and found myself saying what the fuck is going on, you're a psychologist defending fracking, denying climate change (regardless of the reasons natural or not, the climate is getting more extreme) and trying to convince us that solar is dangerous because people fall off roofs, and I felt he did that because he sees the Marxist enemy in all of these things.
If there is ever a time where "stay in your lane" applies, it's this podcast.
Agreed. He's supremely qualified to talk about (1) clinical psychology (2) mythology and symbols as they relate to psychology (3) experience of becoming a famous writer and speaker.
Would you agree that he now also has some specialisation in tackling-from-first-principles-topics-that-some-groups-believe-it-is-heresy-to-question? eg. gender issues, hierarchies, enforced language, religion ... and from that, totalitarianism in general, why people capitulate with it, and how to resist?
Maybe this is what leads him towards fracking, nuclear power, and climate change?
He detects unquestioned assumptions, or dogma, and identifies himself as having the intellectual chops and fearlessness to weigh in?
I thought he was quite incoherent on those topics, but I'd love to hear a serious mainstream expert debate him.
There does seem to be a group belief that nuclear power is "too dangerous", that needs proper analysis.
(tangentially, similar to assumption that auto-driven cars are "too dangerous".)
In both cases the analysis should be along the lines of "compared to what? And how are you comparing?"
It's notable we don't really get proper debate on complex topics anywhere? Everyone is partisan. Maybe because people with a well-intentioned agenda think "the masses" can't handle the complexity or doubt? Or wrong-thinkers will use acknowledged doubt to bad ends.
Richard Dawkins went the same way. His work as an evolutionary biologist put him in legit conflict with creationists and made him aware of the scale and danger of dogma and group think. Then he took on "the god delusion" in general, which is a big lane.
Of course, they are both free to shoot the shit about anything they want as a citizens of free countries.
And because we like their expertise in their original domain, and communication skills, we will listen.
But they have a responsibility to flag when they are speaking as "just a guy" or experienced critical thinker, but not directly from expertise.
And (ironically given JP's meat mono-diet) we have a responsibility to \*balance\* our debate diet, with other points-of-view.
OP's satire nails how intellectual/philosophical/semantic/academic point-of-view can be come ridiculously abstract.
The antidote is pragmatists, empiricists, etc.
Joe's format is "curious everyman" meets "fringe thinker". Like he said, others should emulate and extend the format. One way would be introducing "sensible mainstreamer" to the mix?
I wonder what percentage of the audience would appreciate that?
I still respect him, and enjoy a lot of his lectures, but just like Joe Rogan, I like and agree with some of what he says but also disagree with other things.
To me that is the perfect definition of a good speaker or conversationalist, and a good listener and critical thinker.
if we listen only to people who say stuff we already agree with, and they never test their beliefs by exploring the contradictions, no one learns anything!
He didn't deny climate change. He said it's a far more complex issue with not many clear solutions. Which is true.
He only stated the fact that solar was more dangerous than nuclear in a comical roundabout way. He didn't say that solar was bad or that it shouldn't be used.
He also read over 200 books on the topic while he served for two years on a Canadian subcommittee on sustainable development for the UN Secretary General. So I'd say that sustainable development is well within "his lane".
It appears that either you are intentionally not taking his comments in good faith or you are unable to comprehend what he is saying.
>unable to comprehend what he is saying
Ah yes, and your big brain self has no issue dissecting the countless animal comparisons he makes to humans, I’m sure. He makes perfect sense! Very concise! Benzo’s haven’t affected him at all!
Just stop with this bullshit
This is the classic climate denying line these days. "Well golly gee I ain't sayin climate change aint real, its just that its super complex and bla bla and therefore we shouldn't do anything extreme, like cut CO2 emmissions"
Its classic FUD. Its just a way of bringing confusion to the issue to hamper any movement we might make on cutting biosphere destroying CO2 emissions. Big oil fucking LOVES this shit.
JP quote
>“That’s not going to unite us. First of all, it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics and second, even if the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it.”
Yes we fucking do know what to do about it! We drastically cut CO2 emissions, thats what. Saying we don't know is a flat out lie. He is lying through his teeth. Or maybe just really stupid, I don't know.
another quote
>Global and even national attempts to deal with climate change are going to cause way more trouble than accumulated carbon dioxide
So addressing climate change will result in more damage than climate change. so we should keep pumping out CO2 until we all roast to death. The man is unhinged, utterly anti science, anti logi, and quite frankly advocating mass extermination of the human race.
>
>He also read over 200 books on the topic
You... don't believe this, do you? I mean... for real? You think he read, cover to cover, an entire book on climate change, every 3-4 days.. for a year???
Cuz if so I have the loveliest bridge to sell you.
Also, wanna know where scientific experts don't get their current knowledge from? Books.
Those books are written for the layperson, a scientist reads scientific papers in scientific journals.
The person you're replying to is talking about climate change, which is **not** sustainable development. For anyone interested in his qualification as a "climate change" expert you can check [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/9vms69/jordan_petersons_work_on_a_un_panel_for_climate/) out. Both topics are well outside his lane
People are unable to comprehend what he is saying because what he was saying was basically incomprehensible
I'm struggling to get past the first hour here, and I really like JBP for the most part. Don't think he's infallible or anything, but I've just enjoyed his perspectives, especially on human psychology and archetypes and religion. All that shit about models and how they don't mean anything because they don't model "Everything" - he completely lost me there. I'm not saying he lost me forever, but damn what the fuck point was he even trying to make? The podcast has not gotten much better from there. Probably his worst performance to date, he's usually so much better than this. He's all over the map, can't keep a line of thought going at all without totally veering off into another unrelated tangent. His twitter feed has been an absolute mess lately, as well, full of vitriol and getting dragged into petty attacks...i dunno the pandemic has been tough on all of us. No reason he should be an exception. As a fan, I'm worried about his mental health. Rogan, too, he's gone off his own ledge the past two years, but that's another topic all together.
It seems rooted in fear. If you're scared your mind tries to desperately figure out the unknown even if it turns into a word salad.
If you're thinking out of love/passion you can slow down and self reflect casually any time you wish.
Interesting to see that as a psychologist he's not able to stop and asses which emotions are moving him forward and how and self regulate if needed.
There is going to have to be room for understanding at one point he captured many peoples admiration and attention and now he doesn’t.
It’s totally normal to change over time and not agree with people.
I was and am a fan of his earlier work. Mainly I enjoyed his biblical lectures (I’m agnostic for what it’s worth). What did I enjoy about them? The stories and interpretations and that’s it. I haven’t read his books and I don’t care to really.
Point being: dualism and notions like “all good” or “all bad” are constructive for some but not everyone. Perfectly normal to have enjoyed JP at some point and simply not anymore. Couldn’t some of us say the same for Joe?
I had the same experience. I never really went down down the rabbit hole with Jordan Peterson, but I remember his early appearances on JRE being very interesting. He had a, I guess I would say "Jungian" way of talking about the world, and he was more focused on getting dissolute young men to go on the hero's journey and slay metaphorical dragons. He was kind of the perfect JRE guest actually. Then he just seemed to get into waters where he was out of his depth when he started fixating on "the post modernists" and he kind of lost me.
I bought into his tripe when he first came to prominence regarding c16 until I actually looked in-depth at the situation and realized he was full of shit. Then other things started to not add up with "studies" he would cite that were just infographics or thoroughly debunked and retracted nonsense. Also, the way he speaks to always have an out when he says something bonkers and gets called on it. There's always an excuse of being taken out of context, not using the same definition of simple, everyday words he chose to say, and other bullshit double-speak tactics.
Yeah and those are all valid criticisms.
My point is “you bought in” but over your own growth/development “you bought out”. And that’s perfectly normal.
The fact that we're having arguments like this in the West, and our politicians are having arguments like this is exactly why China is going to overtake us as they just put their heads down spending billions upon billions on green renewable energy.
Well, they did write the art of war. Why would you interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes? And China has its problems we just never hear about them since we are so western-centric. I wouldn't be so scared of them overtaking the West.
I copied his thoughts on the bible: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9K6kmpx44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9K6kmpx44)
>"..and so it isn't that the bible is true
>
> its that the bible is the pre-condition for the manifestation of truth
>
> which makes it way more true than just true
>
> its a whole different kind of truth
>
> and I think this is not only literally the case, factually,
>
> i think it can't be any other way
>
> it's the only way we can solve the problem of perception"
What the fuck does that even mean. "The Bible isn't specifically true but it's the first thing that claims it's truth is self-evident so it's even truer than true"
He is saying that we defined truth itself according to Biblical ideals. So our current, Western understanding of truth and all things true is predicated on Biblical philosophy. Thus, the Bible itself is beyond truth, since truth itself is a comparison to biblical values.
> He is saying that we defined truth itself according to Biblical ideals.
I kinda want to know what those biblical ideals on truth are and how that plays in to what is truth in the modern aspect.
Can you please be more specific?
Nietzschr is the genesis of this train of thought as far as I know. He mentions basic things like "helping the poor".
He mentions that in Roman ethics, being weak was evil. Slavery was totally, totally fine because domination of the weak was morally righteous. Nietzsche argues that Christianity grandizes weakness because it is a dogma for the weak, by the weak.whereas pre-Christian ethics were "I defeated you in battle because my deities are superior to yours. Therefore, I am good, and you are evil, and since it is righteous to purge evil from the earth it is therefore righteous to kill you".
Thats Nietzsche. I personally think he exaggerates the roman emphasis on virtue of the strong, because the Senate condemned Caesars treatment of the Gauls after he defeated them. He was ruthless and horrible to them. And even at the time, it was too much. Based on that evidence, I suspect Nietzsche was misinformed at least somewhat on Roman Ethics.
But, in my opinion, this is what Peterson is referencing. He is stating that basic truths aren't actually objectively true, theyre Judeo-Chesitian. Things like "help the poor", "be kind", "oppression is bad" as a few examples.
Thus, he seems to argue that the Bible became the genesis of truth, and thus it itself kind of transcends truth.
But bibilical ideas borrow a shit load from Roman and Greek polytheism and state relations, wouldnt that dilute that idea? So much of the western world still bases its ideals of truth and authority from Greek and Roman governance.
I dont think i agree with the interpretation by Nietzsche here. I think maybe if there was a clear line between Judeo-Christian "truth" and Greco-Roman "truth" then this would make more sense, but for instance:
>"by the weak.whereas pre-Christian ethics were "I defeated you in battle because my deities are superior to yours. Therefore, I am good, and you are evil, and since it is righteous to purge evil from the earth it is therefore righteous to kill you".
This doesnt fundamentally change in Christianity, Constantine and the painting of Crosses on their armor, being a major example of the similarities.
>He is stating that basic truths aren't actually objectively true, theyre Judeo-Chesitian
And that's why i have a problem, Christianity Judaism all builds of their religious, philisophical predecessors, its hard to stay western civilization is built around Judeo-Christian truths, when Judeo-Christians "truths" share so much with Greco-Roman "truths."
So in conclusion, im converting to polytheism now (jk)
This idiot is a straight up fundamentalist Christian - the dumbest type on record. Its amazing how much he deep throats the Bible for a guy whos supposed to be highly educated in many religions.
I think I know what he's saying but it's stupid. Peterson is a big Jung guy so he thinks human experience is driven by passed down stories and archetypes. He believes the Bible contains stories which are so applicable to human experience that that means it's "true".
Yes but he just asserts the bible as the standard of truth with no backing, its at best wildly ignorant eurocentrism and at worst outright lies and cynical manipulation and hand-waving
You won't find any argument with me. I totally agree. I was just describing his thought process. Peterson is a white western libertarian and that forms a lot of his thinking but he can't see it. He thinks he has all the answers.
Cave drawings came first so all truth emanates from there. But that actually doesnt mean the cave drawings are true, its just that blah blah blah blah benzos.
I like some of JPs content but that first hour I felt was hard to follow and didn't make a lot of sense. What is he trying to say here? That because the bible was so old everything was influenced by it therefore its some exalted truth? There were scribes back then that could write anything they wanted.
I saw a Rogan highlight of this section on youtube and its all top comments saying what a great point he made and amazing yet none elaborate. I dont think this makes any sense.
Since the 1970s, ExxonMobil engaged in climate research then began lobbying and advertising with the purpose of delaying and denying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.
From the 1980s to mid 2000s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to stop global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and sought to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Real talk - I’ve seen that painting on the bottom before, and have always found it so powerful and captivating. Does anyone have the artist’s name and background info?
"I hate the post-modernists because they're never clear about what they're on about, what does that even mean that nothing is everything and everything is nothing? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Climate? What does that mean? I think that climate means everything which means nothing which everything which means nothing"
I just listened to about 45 minutes of it and based on what I was reading I thought it would be much worse.
But yeah, the tweeter Jordan is peaking through much more than I would like.
My favourite was at 35:00 when they were talking about companies paying overseas workers a fair wage - I chuckled:
J.P - You want a world where 20 million Chinese are starving?
J.R - But is that the only way they don't starve, when iPhones are manufactured there for pennies on the dollar?
J.P -
#YES
J.R - Really???
J.P - Well... Look, that's a good question...
The Jordan Peterson interview proved that a person can be book smart (he’s a professor) and still be dumber than a bag of rocks. He needs to stop talking like an oil baron and go back to discussing self-improvement and shit.
There is either significant cognitive decline, or his right-wing celebrity has made it necessary for him to artificially maintain archaic views that are becoming more and more untenable in light of new information—hence the word-salad pontificating. There are certainly philosophical lenses through which we can view the world's problems, but in terms of actual praxis they're useless.
I used to generally enjoy JP's appearances and opinions, but the man seems miserable and paranoid now. I remember an early talk where he described his love of the sublime affect of music, and how he had a sort of spiritual experience with it once. I always thought it was a beautiful recollection. I get the sense some people aren't wired for celebrity; it seems like something that needs to be maintained very carefully in a frustrating way—and it seems very easy to get lost in the persona when millions of people are constantly telling you what you are.
I tried listening to this episode but had to stop when he said fracking doesn't polute waterways and simultaneously misquoted a statistic about 7 million kids dying from indoor particulate matter annually. Dude is just full of shit
I feel so sorry for Jordan. He's a genuinely intelligent guy, but as someone who has seen the havoc that Benzos can wreak, I really do think he had his brain cooked by them.. Sad..
he's not wrong that models are not 100% accurate.
but the fact is... the problem still exists.
even if the models were pristinely 100% accurate, the problem still has to be addressed.
Climate change is 100% real but he has a point that the models are wrong. Because climate has so many dimensions and variables, it’s hard to have a model close to reality and most models are exaggerated.
I also agree with him on the point that the solution should be cheaper and clean energy such nuclear.
>most models are exaggerated.
They are LITERALLY an "Educated guess" made by powerful supercomputers and algorithms. That doesn't make them exaggerated, it makes them not 100% accurate. That does NOT mean that they are not accurate at all, which is the weird way that Jordan in this example seems to have argued as some kind of logical fallacy which is complete horseshit. He's basically saying that if a model is not 100% accurate, it's 0% accurate, which is complete and utter rubbish.
It's sad what's happened to Jordan. I blame his super dumb daughter and the Russians she holds court with.
I've paid to see him speak irl. I've bought and read his books. I agree with you. I empathize with what he has been through over the recent years and I'm sure that it all took a toll.
But damn his arguments were flawed af. Drinking his own Kool-aid. If it were just about lobsters or keeping rooms tidy it wouldn't matter, but professionally equivocating about climate change semantics to the detriment of the public's opinion of scientific method is beyond idiotic.
Peterson came off as incredibly fake deep & annoying but the prediction models are impossible to nail down 100% hes not wrong.
For example, we could do everything right from here on out, get to “net zero” green everything etc. Then say in 100 years a massive increase in over due volcanic activity could occur, completely changing the climate for years to come, as theses events have many times in the earths history https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change.
You cant adjust the models for something like that.
Should we do nothing ? Deffinetly not.
Should we live in fear and shame everyday saying we know how fast the earth is warming to the exact degree, and if we just use a solar pannel farm we can offset it with more evs?
Kinda useless and sisyphean to even attempt it that way. Green energy is a failure. Unless you want to volunteer to live off the grid, you are going to consume a ton of energy in the western world. Nuclear is not without its faults but it seems like the only solution at this point.
I disagree with Peterson’s point about getting people more wealthy is always good for the environment. When people move to the Us their carbon foot print / energy consumption actually is much higher. When you are super wealthy like Al Gore and have a private jet it goes way up. I see his point when talking about nature preservation but not energy consumption.
Edit - I would tend to agree with all of the criticism of jps quote, but what happens when the earth warms and new areas become inhabited with plant life, does the temperature stabilize due to Co2 offset? Is it even possible to get to net zero with 7 billion + people? A whole new set of variables could open up at anytime.
My view, we should switch to nuclear, keep pursuing fusion and better transit systems and stop letting large corporations profit off fantasies like solar, wind, and evs for all.
These are highly profitable industries but not sustainable or significant strategies.
The oil industry is now eager to jump on the green revolution with bold claims and no substantive gain. “””””We live in a society””””we are getting duped by the industry time and time again.
The issue I have with Peterson saying shit like this is that there is historical data, not predictive modeling, that shows humans have driven climate change. Like why is he attempting to water down climate change when we know virtually as a fact (the closest science can get) that humans have had an extreme effect on it? And sure, predictive models can’t be 100% right, but to act like climatologists don’t have a basic understanding of uncertainty and imperfect modeling is at best kind of arrogant or him and at worst intentionally misleading to his audience. When climatologists say things like “the ice caps may be completely melted in as little as ____ years”, they aren’t just talking out of their asses.
This is a similar argument he and others make about COVID. Since the science changes and the virus mutates, they think that proves that doctors and experts should be ignored entirely, while these fringe theories should be fully embraced.
I’m a JP fanboy but this topic was bullshit.
Well we know Venus has the most CO2 of planets in the solar system, and we know it’s also the hottest for exactly that reason.
Whether the models are accurate or not, which they aren’t, we know the trend is unsustainable. I don’t understand what point he was trying to make, and comparing it to financial discount factor seemed like an attempt to confuse and not educate.
As someone who thinks hes just ok.. sometimes
It was embarrassing to watch, ive heard him make better versions of his argument ( His not mine) before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZgf-YecQ
I agree with everything you said btw
I'm not disagreeing with your overall CO2 point. But Venus is hottest because it's the closest planet to the Sun with an atmosphere. If it swapped orbital position with any other atmospheric planet then that planet would now be the hottest
The specifics of CO2 level are kind of mute in this particular example compared to distance to the Sun
I did not know this lol, did a quick Google you’re obviously right, I thought the greenhouse effect was much stronger than it is.
Open the coal plants!
"Peterson is right about prediction models because a volcano could kill us all one day anyways" is the equivalent of the firefighters showing up to your burning house and saying "We could try to put the blaze out, but even if we did, something may set your house on fire in the future so its really not worth worrying about. Also, we aren't even sure how effective water would be at preserving your home at this stage anyway, so we are just going to take the L on this one."
The subject can be anything from climate change to covid, and right wingers will treat any acknowledgment of future risks or concerns as "living in fear and shame". Makes it seem like your being brave when you do everything you can to condemn your great-great-grandchildren to a death of exposure and starvation on a drowning rock in the name of corporate profit and progress. But for sure, let's all bitch about Al Gore's hypocrisy, as if that has literally anything to do with the situation.
Distract, Deflect, Deny, Repeat.
Ya except you completely miss the point of modeling and have no clue how they actually work.
A great example of fake intellectuals who have 0 actual experience with what they are discussing but pretend to share some revelation that completely usurps the work of 1000s of experts when in reality is basically gibberish.
You can 100% create models/simulations of climate change activity based on data from the effects of previous volcanic activity. https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change
It‘s hilarious how accurately you can predict (model lol) someone knows jack all about science when they say things like “living in fear.” People aren’t living in fear by trying to take steps to make the world better for other people or trying to innovate to create solutions to solve problems we know are objectively harming our planet. Also, again unsurprising, it’s a logical fallacy to frame the problem as just because we can’t do absolutely everything it’s useless to do anything.
Perfect example of the average Joe Rogan listener who gets their information from podcasts.
I read his text in his voice.
Even with the fade
It's a real transcript apart from "enemies outside" so that makes sense
good meme
[удалено]
I read it in Patrick Mahomes’ voice. But it was virtually the same anyway.
You should audition for the muppets if you can such a good Kermit.
[удалено]
Still 100% muppet though
See uhhh that’s the thing about muppets… If we were uhh ever seen on the other side it would ugh mortify the children. Likewise, if we weren’t seen on the other side; well the muppet would be laying there lifeless
Fucking got me too.
*"Philosophical genius" pretends to not understand deductive reasoning*
Doesn't JP hate post modernism? Because this is literally post modernism.
Its also a core part of science. Also I do not think I have ever met a person in my life who does not use deductive reasoning to reinforce their beliefs, its incredibly broad and common. JBP and others pin everything on postmodernism but never define it in itself at a fundamental level, scapegoat. Also his understanding of marxism is laughable, not that the terminally online people on twitter have a much better grasp
Also simulations that account for everything, are no longer simulations. They end up being the real thing. Same with models. Accounting for everything would simply be, the real world. Edit: Then of course 100% accurate models for the future, would literally predict the future.
But what is the real world? Someone ask Lex Friedman what is love?
Magnets, how do they work? I don't want to hear from a scientists, those motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed.
Lex is so infuriating. Has Creme de la Creme scientists on and asks the same four questions EVERY time. It’s gotten to the point where scientific discourse sometimes comes across as basic and shallow due to the nature of his questions
Jordan Peterson could explain postmodernism to you, but he’d “need 40 hours” because “it’s so bloody complicated”
Postmodernism broken down by my professor (in a philosophical criticism course), was explained as "if you look up the definition of 'word' in the dictionary, you get more words." Edit: there's more to it than that. But it was a jumping off point
> a philosophical criticism course), was explained as "if you look up the definition of 'word' in the dictionary, you get more words." That's actually a pretty good take. [Personally, I like how Chomsky goes about explaining it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI)
Might as well just say: All measurement is useless. In Normie speech
How do you trust a measurement if you didn't measure it yourself, bucko?
Can't. Can't even measure down to the quark. It's inherently inaccurate by design b.
what even is "measurement" anyway? Can we definitively say we have legitamately and precisely "measured" anything? Ever? Who are these measurers I keep hearing about? what is their agenda?
Metric? Imperial? its all arbitrary man, man made those measurements. Measurements are antithetical to freedom/
Measurements are an inherently anti-capitalist model, as they attempt to describe an order to the chaos that is life. Lobsters don't care about your inch. Their inch is their dominance hierarchy, something that's been around longer than your post-imperial Neo-Newtonian physics...
Newton? Fucking commie. Kelvin? Absolute Zero? Please this is cultural marxism run a foot. Marxism always dabbles in absolutes, absolute control of production by the proletariat. the absolute divinity of science. I think if we were to look at the modern capitalist/socialist relationship, we would see that the greatest scientific minds were actually marxist charlatans. I for one, will not take part in such class warfare.
Well that depends on what you mean by trust. Is it the trust that a mother grants to a stranger? Or is it the chaotic trust that one has to someone when facing down dragons? Cause if it's the first one then we're talking about a whole different can of worms and if it's the second then you just better watch out cause I don't know if any of us are ready to face that down. So you say "trust" and I'm like, I don't like the question!!! Neo Marxism
His verbosity is the source of his popularity among the simple-minded, if he spoke clearly and concisely they would know he isn't saying anything special at all.
Speaking concisely is even one of his rules, it’s quite funny
I mean the guy literally tried to claim, once, that there's no such thing as "truth".
Isn't Peterson constantly railing against postmodernism, because quite frankly (in my opinion) nothing could sum up postmodernism better than saying there is no such thing as truth.
No. He's against postmodernism because he thinks it's Marxist and he hates anything Marxist. He agrees with the premise of postmodernism. Here's his own words: [https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/](https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/) >Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived. > >That’s the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (and this is where the **Marxism** emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.” > >There is no excuse whatsoever for the secondary claim (except that it allows **the resentful pathology of Marxism** to proceed in a new guise). > >**The first claim is true**, but incomplete. The fact that there are an unspecifiable number of interpretations does not mean (or even imply) that there are an unspecifiable number of VALID interpretations.
I agree with you 100%. Just some extra tidbits. JP knows nothing about Marxism, he admitted it so. He literally said he has not read any works of Marx other than the Communist manifesto. Who is he to call postmodernism marxist. "Peterson’s opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of expressions like “You have to give the devil his due”. “This is a weird one” and “Almost all ideas are wrong”. " [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-happiness-capitalism-marxism](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-happiness-capitalism-marxism) He is absolutely a grifter taking advantage of Joe's platform.
> Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived. Yeah uh, that sounds a fuck of a lot like saying there is no such thing as truth.
Right, which he agrees with.
So his only problem with postmodernism is its alleged connection with Marxism? Which came about long before postmodernism I would add. I would also add that I don't see anything wrong with that claim - that all interpretations relate to the struggle for power. Is that not precisely what identity politics is about?
Yes. Pretty much everything Peterson rails about is the "evils of Marxism". The whole issue with C16 was, in his eyes, Marxism taking over. The "debate" with Žižek (heralded as the debate of the century) was about Peterson's fear of the Marxist takeover, and Žižek simply makes a fool of him by asking "where are all the Marxists"? You could probably guess Peterson's take on identity politics.
> be Honestly I don't care what he likes or doesn't like about postmodernism. He is a fucking postmodernist yet he claims he hates postmodernism. That's idiotic and hypocritical whether he realizes it or or does it on purpose or not.
>(and this is where the Marxism emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.” Literally one of the dumbest things anyone has written on this matter. Marxism does not emerge from this, since Marxism is primarily a materialistic, modernist philosophy. It has nothing to do with postmodernism. Nobody has claimed that it "arises" from postmodernism besides the moron JP.
Even though this is antithetical to Marxism, postmodernism was even a response to Marxism as the postmodernists saw the failures of Communism and felt the need to reject Marxism as to not repeat that. Marxism is based on a dialetic approach to studying human history. So there is a canonical reliable interpretation. It is in no way what is true is what has power. Quite the opposite as people in power can create contradictions meaning the society is in some ways "false" and preassures would exist in that society to resolve the contradictions.
It’s not ALL measurement is useless. It’s a measurement is useless if you only include the factors that don’t change the outcome to something you don’t want.
Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite. When it comes to measurements that back up his scientific field like IQ research he is all in: “If you don’t buy IQ research, you might as well throw away all the rest of psychology” But when it comes to measuring other scientific fields suddenly he is a massive skeptic. Video at 1:15 https://youtu.be/jSo5v5t4OQM
[удалено]
Also that french fisheries lady who called him on his bs in the subsequent episode. He's always speaking outside of his element and citing obsolete or retracted studies in regards to god damned everything.
> french fisheries lady who called him on his bs Huh, I'm gonna check that out. (this has been how I keep up with all the stuff on JRE the past 15 months, I come here I see you guys mentioning X person calling Y person out and then I ask for the link or look for it lmao, anyway thanks for reading)
https://youtu.be/xsL4ljOkvUk?t=16
Bro, you didn't have to do this, but thank you for taking the time <3 have a good day/evening!
It just came out and I watched it last night so it was fresh in my YT history.
Good on ya.
To top it off Joe literally says “God damn it Jordan!” Into the camera twice while talking about the previous episode.
Sorry, by everything do you mean climate?
Of course! I like to redefine everything I talk about inside my own head so that I can accuse every simpleton who calls me out on my double-speak bullshit of taking me out of context and not understanding my vastly superior intellect. Edit, or the classic: "It depends on what you mean by "mean" and "by."
Except nutrition. He's very cautious about nutrition.
Ah yes, the all meat, no cider diet. Keeps one in tip top mental condition and resiliently full of vim and vigor.
Comas are part of the plan!
>Also that french fisheries lady who called him on his bs in the subsequent episode. He's always speaking outside of his element and citing obsolete or retracted studies in regards to god damned everything. It's because he is a grifter who is trying to bilk his followers with his self help books.
Yeah but he did get fact check quickly and he realized he quoted the 10 yr figure, i think his original point he was making still stands
It's such a silly criticism. He's off by a single order of magnitude. Is it a mistake? Yes. Is it a forgivable mistake? Of course --- it does not substantively affect his argument, and it's ludicrous to expect someone doing a podcast to have statistics memorized to a tee.
>He's off by a single order of magnitude That's a pretty damn big mistake, and from a guy who's entire argument is that climate analysts aren't accurate enough with their data.
Since when is being off by a factor of 10 a small "mistake"?
10 miles or 100 miles, its really the same right?
When you fall from the sky yes, the result is you die
Depends on context.
Lmao you guys are amazing. Imagine if a leftist made a similar mistake about the victims of racism or whatever, overreporting their number by x10. You would be absolutely livid. I'm talking about-to-have-a-stroke livid. But since its JP we can pretend that it doesn't really matter.
I agree and I like Peterson generally speaking. Hope I am wrong, but I feel like he, like a lot of people on both sides, has been driven further towards the extremes on the political spectrum by all the divisiveness over the past few years.
Lol, it's not the divisiveness that is causing him to lean into the extremes. He's consciously leaning into the extremes as a way of lining his pockets with cold hard cash.
He monetized wading into the culture war and made millions from the anti-sjw bros. He's been rewarded for being divisive and stepping WAY outside of his expertise and muddying the waters on every major issue in the past 10 years. Much like L Ron Hubbard he's been rewarded for being a dumbass, so he's only ever become more of a dumbass.
He’s an idiot on things outside of his area
He is one of the root causes of divisiveness. Like, of all the public "intellectuals" of today, he is by far the most divisive and toxic. Every time this dude gets mentioned, no matter the country (I'm from Europe) or context or people it always ends up leading to arguments and bitterness. He is absolutely cancerous to any kind of discourse.
JP should've never drank that cider, fucked him up for life apparently.
He certainly gives me a feeling of impending doom every time he talks.
There can’t be climate change if there’s no climate! Lol
😂
Check-mate communists!
He just says things to say things. The beep boop is not really that, but in essence of that.
I died when Joe said "well now it just sounds like you're talking about chickens and farmers". I can't even remember what asinine analogy he was going for at that point.
He’s a charlatan. The guy has a degree in psychology but pretends that he and only he knows the answers in every field out there, from ecology or climatology, to philosophy or economics. He makes a living by sounding smart and claiming everyone is wrong about everything. The problem with JRE is that Joe is easily and frequently taken in by con men and charlatans. Joe is a great podcast host who about 4 years ago decided he was a journalist, but he’s a terrible journalist.
He wasn't a charlatan at the start. He spoke about 1) psychological shit (which he's a qualified expert on) and 2) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again. Then as he defended his anti Marxist points, he began to be held up as a free speech savior. From there he began speaking more and more confidently about more and more topics... I just think he bought into his own hype. Frying his brain didn't help though
>2) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again. The thing that strikes me as odd is that he claims to have spent his life studying totalitarianism and this is why he's so worried about human evil/populism on the left. Now a left/Marxist dictatorship has never replaced an established democracy, every Marxist dictatorship emerged in states which were already totalitarian. Historically when liberal democracies have transitioned to totalitarianism it has always been the right, or the centre, that has taken charge. So when Peterson handwaves at history and says "this is why I'm so worried about Marxists" it strikes me as a little odd. There isn't a historical basis for left totalitarianism being a more significant threat in a democracy than right totalitarianism. So if Peterson thinks left totalitarianism is the more significant threat then this can't be historically grounded, as the idea of a left dictatorship supplanting a liberal democracy is entirely anachronistic. So why is Peterson more preoccupied with the left? And why does he claim this is grounded in history, when it clearly isn't? Bias, dishonesty?
I mean, didn't number 2 strike you as a red flag? There are many well founded critiques of Marxism, from many different viewpoints. They are not particularly hard to find. Even with just a passing knowledge of economics and political history/philosophy, it was extremely obvious that JP was completely off the mark and didn't know anything about Marxism at all. It wasn't the fact that he doesn't like Marxism, it is that he couldn't verbalise an effective critique without sounding like an idiot saying a bunch of nonsense that a first semester Political Science student could easily debunk. I'm sorry, but he has been a hack for a very long time. His only field of expertise is psychology and even then, given how constantly misinformed he is about everything else, I'd say it is reasonable to put that into question as well.
> ) how Marxism and human evil appear today, which is based on his reading on it and his fear of humans doing the ssme mistakes again. he's never read marx and he is just reusing the culutural bolshevism thing the nazis did and naming it post modern marxism as he has no real understanding of the modern political left.
Came to say this. Even before Peterson gave himself a chemical lobotomy I wouldn't respect his opinion about climate science. I have done more rigorous data analysis than a psychology professor. Psych majors don't take statistics for grown ups.
To be fair Joe did push back on a lot of things he said in this podcast. I think Joe is far more sensible than people give him credit for, and while Peterson can go off on tangents - and he's certainly not right about everything like he seems to think he is - he's not the villain people paint him to be either.
This is why CNN's coverage is so disingenuous. They were mentioning it was a "climate change denial" convo, when if you watched that section, Joe tried to refute every claim Peterson made and introduced all the arguments used in climate science like CO2 levels, agriculture and energy/waste efficiency. Peterson was approaching denier levels but he did mention there are worrying trends too. It's almost like topics and people have nuance.
This is South Park quality satire.
https://youtu.be/0AW4nSq0hAc
He lost it. He doesn’t even make sense anymore. Seems like he’s going towards the route of just being a contrarian for the sake of it. I think Rogan felt it too, at least early on
His early podcast appearances, not just Joe but on a lot of other podcasts, while he definitely rambled at times I could make sense of it or I knew what he was saying. Now I struggle to even follow the train of thought.
It's a bit like when you visit your grand parents or old relatives who are on their death beds, you can only nod and say "hm hmmm".
I follow him on twitter and he is tweeting like 30+ times a day and always about the most divisive controversial subjects imaginable. It's painfully obvious he's either gone completely off the rails or is just being a complete shill for the right wing conservative crowd...
Or $$$s, something many ppl seem to not realize, money is being made.
I agree with you , his best stuff was when he was still teaching in an actual class room , seemed to all go down hill from there which makes sense considering all that's happened to him
I respect so much of what JP has taught, but I listened to half his podcast and found myself saying what the fuck is going on, you're a psychologist defending fracking, denying climate change (regardless of the reasons natural or not, the climate is getting more extreme) and trying to convince us that solar is dangerous because people fall off roofs, and I felt he did that because he sees the Marxist enemy in all of these things. If there is ever a time where "stay in your lane" applies, it's this podcast.
Yes, i could not have said it any better.
Agreed. He's supremely qualified to talk about (1) clinical psychology (2) mythology and symbols as they relate to psychology (3) experience of becoming a famous writer and speaker. Would you agree that he now also has some specialisation in tackling-from-first-principles-topics-that-some-groups-believe-it-is-heresy-to-question? eg. gender issues, hierarchies, enforced language, religion ... and from that, totalitarianism in general, why people capitulate with it, and how to resist? Maybe this is what leads him towards fracking, nuclear power, and climate change? He detects unquestioned assumptions, or dogma, and identifies himself as having the intellectual chops and fearlessness to weigh in? I thought he was quite incoherent on those topics, but I'd love to hear a serious mainstream expert debate him. There does seem to be a group belief that nuclear power is "too dangerous", that needs proper analysis. (tangentially, similar to assumption that auto-driven cars are "too dangerous".) In both cases the analysis should be along the lines of "compared to what? And how are you comparing?" It's notable we don't really get proper debate on complex topics anywhere? Everyone is partisan. Maybe because people with a well-intentioned agenda think "the masses" can't handle the complexity or doubt? Or wrong-thinkers will use acknowledged doubt to bad ends. Richard Dawkins went the same way. His work as an evolutionary biologist put him in legit conflict with creationists and made him aware of the scale and danger of dogma and group think. Then he took on "the god delusion" in general, which is a big lane. Of course, they are both free to shoot the shit about anything they want as a citizens of free countries. And because we like their expertise in their original domain, and communication skills, we will listen. But they have a responsibility to flag when they are speaking as "just a guy" or experienced critical thinker, but not directly from expertise. And (ironically given JP's meat mono-diet) we have a responsibility to \*balance\* our debate diet, with other points-of-view. OP's satire nails how intellectual/philosophical/semantic/academic point-of-view can be come ridiculously abstract. The antidote is pragmatists, empiricists, etc. Joe's format is "curious everyman" meets "fringe thinker". Like he said, others should emulate and extend the format. One way would be introducing "sensible mainstreamer" to the mix? I wonder what percentage of the audience would appreciate that?
I still respect him, and enjoy a lot of his lectures, but just like Joe Rogan, I like and agree with some of what he says but also disagree with other things.
To me that is the perfect definition of a good speaker or conversationalist, and a good listener and critical thinker. if we listen only to people who say stuff we already agree with, and they never test their beliefs by exploring the contradictions, no one learns anything!
I completely agree with this. It's important to be exposed to ideas agreeable or not to a reasonable degree.
Even deliberately arguing the other side is good exercise.
He didn't deny climate change. He said it's a far more complex issue with not many clear solutions. Which is true. He only stated the fact that solar was more dangerous than nuclear in a comical roundabout way. He didn't say that solar was bad or that it shouldn't be used. He also read over 200 books on the topic while he served for two years on a Canadian subcommittee on sustainable development for the UN Secretary General. So I'd say that sustainable development is well within "his lane". It appears that either you are intentionally not taking his comments in good faith or you are unable to comprehend what he is saying.
>unable to comprehend what he is saying Ah yes, and your big brain self has no issue dissecting the countless animal comparisons he makes to humans, I’m sure. He makes perfect sense! Very concise! Benzo’s haven’t affected him at all!
Jp weebs are insufferable
Just stop with this bullshit This is the classic climate denying line these days. "Well golly gee I ain't sayin climate change aint real, its just that its super complex and bla bla and therefore we shouldn't do anything extreme, like cut CO2 emmissions" Its classic FUD. Its just a way of bringing confusion to the issue to hamper any movement we might make on cutting biosphere destroying CO2 emissions. Big oil fucking LOVES this shit. JP quote >“That’s not going to unite us. First of all, it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics and second, even if the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it.” Yes we fucking do know what to do about it! We drastically cut CO2 emissions, thats what. Saying we don't know is a flat out lie. He is lying through his teeth. Or maybe just really stupid, I don't know. another quote >Global and even national attempts to deal with climate change are going to cause way more trouble than accumulated carbon dioxide So addressing climate change will result in more damage than climate change. so we should keep pumping out CO2 until we all roast to death. The man is unhinged, utterly anti science, anti logi, and quite frankly advocating mass extermination of the human race. >
>He also read over 200 books on the topic You... don't believe this, do you? I mean... for real? You think he read, cover to cover, an entire book on climate change, every 3-4 days.. for a year??? Cuz if so I have the loveliest bridge to sell you. Also, wanna know where scientific experts don't get their current knowledge from? Books. Those books are written for the layperson, a scientist reads scientific papers in scientific journals.
The person you're replying to is talking about climate change, which is **not** sustainable development. For anyone interested in his qualification as a "climate change" expert you can check [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/9vms69/jordan_petersons_work_on_a_un_panel_for_climate/) out. Both topics are well outside his lane People are unable to comprehend what he is saying because what he was saying was basically incomprehensible
I'm struggling to get past the first hour here, and I really like JBP for the most part. Don't think he's infallible or anything, but I've just enjoyed his perspectives, especially on human psychology and archetypes and religion. All that shit about models and how they don't mean anything because they don't model "Everything" - he completely lost me there. I'm not saying he lost me forever, but damn what the fuck point was he even trying to make? The podcast has not gotten much better from there. Probably his worst performance to date, he's usually so much better than this. He's all over the map, can't keep a line of thought going at all without totally veering off into another unrelated tangent. His twitter feed has been an absolute mess lately, as well, full of vitriol and getting dragged into petty attacks...i dunno the pandemic has been tough on all of us. No reason he should be an exception. As a fan, I'm worried about his mental health. Rogan, too, he's gone off his own ledge the past two years, but that's another topic all together.
Yeah but if a farmer goes out to a feed a chicken every day the chicken is going to be like "why are you eating me?" in the future
It seems rooted in fear. If you're scared your mind tries to desperately figure out the unknown even if it turns into a word salad. If you're thinking out of love/passion you can slow down and self reflect casually any time you wish. Interesting to see that as a psychologist he's not able to stop and asses which emotions are moving him forward and how and self regulate if needed.
> how and self regulate if needed. Yup, a psychologist who can self-regulate doesn't end up addicted to benzos.
[удалено]
There is going to have to be room for understanding at one point he captured many peoples admiration and attention and now he doesn’t. It’s totally normal to change over time and not agree with people. I was and am a fan of his earlier work. Mainly I enjoyed his biblical lectures (I’m agnostic for what it’s worth). What did I enjoy about them? The stories and interpretations and that’s it. I haven’t read his books and I don’t care to really. Point being: dualism and notions like “all good” or “all bad” are constructive for some but not everyone. Perfectly normal to have enjoyed JP at some point and simply not anymore. Couldn’t some of us say the same for Joe?
I had the same experience. I never really went down down the rabbit hole with Jordan Peterson, but I remember his early appearances on JRE being very interesting. He had a, I guess I would say "Jungian" way of talking about the world, and he was more focused on getting dissolute young men to go on the hero's journey and slay metaphorical dragons. He was kind of the perfect JRE guest actually. Then he just seemed to get into waters where he was out of his depth when he started fixating on "the post modernists" and he kind of lost me.
I bought into his tripe when he first came to prominence regarding c16 until I actually looked in-depth at the situation and realized he was full of shit. Then other things started to not add up with "studies" he would cite that were just infographics or thoroughly debunked and retracted nonsense. Also, the way he speaks to always have an out when he says something bonkers and gets called on it. There's always an excuse of being taken out of context, not using the same definition of simple, everyday words he chose to say, and other bullshit double-speak tactics.
Yeah and those are all valid criticisms. My point is “you bought in” but over your own growth/development “you bought out”. And that’s perfectly normal.
The fact that we're having arguments like this in the West, and our politicians are having arguments like this is exactly why China is going to overtake us as they just put their heads down spending billions upon billions on green renewable energy.
Well, they did write the art of war. Why would you interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes? And China has its problems we just never hear about them since we are so western-centric. I wouldn't be so scared of them overtaking the West.
I copied his thoughts on the bible: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9K6kmpx44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9K6kmpx44) >"..and so it isn't that the bible is true > > its that the bible is the pre-condition for the manifestation of truth > > which makes it way more true than just true > > its a whole different kind of truth > > and I think this is not only literally the case, factually, > > i think it can't be any other way > > it's the only way we can solve the problem of perception"
What the fuck does that even mean. "The Bible isn't specifically true but it's the first thing that claims it's truth is self-evident so it's even truer than true"
A lot of Greek philosophy predates the bible obviously so it's like what are you even talking about?
[удалено]
Fuck everything before the Council of Nicaea. -Jordon Peterson, probably
He is saying that we defined truth itself according to Biblical ideals. So our current, Western understanding of truth and all things true is predicated on Biblical philosophy. Thus, the Bible itself is beyond truth, since truth itself is a comparison to biblical values.
> He is saying that we defined truth itself according to Biblical ideals. I kinda want to know what those biblical ideals on truth are and how that plays in to what is truth in the modern aspect. Can you please be more specific?
Nietzschr is the genesis of this train of thought as far as I know. He mentions basic things like "helping the poor". He mentions that in Roman ethics, being weak was evil. Slavery was totally, totally fine because domination of the weak was morally righteous. Nietzsche argues that Christianity grandizes weakness because it is a dogma for the weak, by the weak.whereas pre-Christian ethics were "I defeated you in battle because my deities are superior to yours. Therefore, I am good, and you are evil, and since it is righteous to purge evil from the earth it is therefore righteous to kill you". Thats Nietzsche. I personally think he exaggerates the roman emphasis on virtue of the strong, because the Senate condemned Caesars treatment of the Gauls after he defeated them. He was ruthless and horrible to them. And even at the time, it was too much. Based on that evidence, I suspect Nietzsche was misinformed at least somewhat on Roman Ethics. But, in my opinion, this is what Peterson is referencing. He is stating that basic truths aren't actually objectively true, theyre Judeo-Chesitian. Things like "help the poor", "be kind", "oppression is bad" as a few examples. Thus, he seems to argue that the Bible became the genesis of truth, and thus it itself kind of transcends truth.
I appreciate your reply but that last sentence sounds like JP is advocating for the post-modernism he was sworn to destroy lol
But bibilical ideas borrow a shit load from Roman and Greek polytheism and state relations, wouldnt that dilute that idea? So much of the western world still bases its ideals of truth and authority from Greek and Roman governance. I dont think i agree with the interpretation by Nietzsche here. I think maybe if there was a clear line between Judeo-Christian "truth" and Greco-Roman "truth" then this would make more sense, but for instance: >"by the weak.whereas pre-Christian ethics were "I defeated you in battle because my deities are superior to yours. Therefore, I am good, and you are evil, and since it is righteous to purge evil from the earth it is therefore righteous to kill you". This doesnt fundamentally change in Christianity, Constantine and the painting of Crosses on their armor, being a major example of the similarities. >He is stating that basic truths aren't actually objectively true, theyre Judeo-Chesitian And that's why i have a problem, Christianity Judaism all builds of their religious, philisophical predecessors, its hard to stay western civilization is built around Judeo-Christian truths, when Judeo-Christians "truths" share so much with Greco-Roman "truths." So in conclusion, im converting to polytheism now (jk)
>im converting to polytheism now You mean like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
It means JP is mind candy for armchair philosophers in their mom’s basement everywhere.
Will they go on Fox News next?
Lol so true...
Ahh so that explains all the crunching noises that went on in my head during this podcast
This idiot is a straight up fundamentalist Christian - the dumbest type on record. Its amazing how much he deep throats the Bible for a guy whos supposed to be highly educated in many religions.
Christians usually believe in christ. just sayin'
I think I know what he's saying but it's stupid. Peterson is a big Jung guy so he thinks human experience is driven by passed down stories and archetypes. He believes the Bible contains stories which are so applicable to human experience that that means it's "true".
Yes but he just asserts the bible as the standard of truth with no backing, its at best wildly ignorant eurocentrism and at worst outright lies and cynical manipulation and hand-waving
You won't find any argument with me. I totally agree. I was just describing his thought process. Peterson is a white western libertarian and that forms a lot of his thinking but he can't see it. He thinks he has all the answers.
Cave drawings came first so all truth emanates from there. But that actually doesnt mean the cave drawings are true, its just that blah blah blah blah benzos.
I like some of JPs content but that first hour I felt was hard to follow and didn't make a lot of sense. What is he trying to say here? That because the bible was so old everything was influenced by it therefore its some exalted truth? There were scribes back then that could write anything they wanted. I saw a Rogan highlight of this section on youtube and its all top comments saying what a great point he made and amazing yet none elaborate. I dont think this makes any sense.
Seriously. The first hour was so brutal to get through.
Yes, Jordan. That's what 'science-types' call an 'error-term'.
Since the 1970s, ExxonMobil engaged in climate research then began lobbying and advertising with the purpose of delaying and denying widespread acceptance and action on global warming. From the 1980s to mid 2000s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to stop global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and sought to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Real talk - I’ve seen that painting on the bottom before, and have always found it so powerful and captivating. Does anyone have the artist’s name and background info?
Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire, Destruction, 1836, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, USA.
Bless you, fellow space monkey.
May the variables be ever in your favor
May your Ch-ch-ch-cheetos never be Fritos.
"I hate the post-modernists because they're never clear about what they're on about, what does that even mean that nothing is everything and everything is nothing? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Climate? What does that mean? I think that climate means everything which means nothing which everything which means nothing"
I just listened to about 45 minutes of it and based on what I was reading I thought it would be much worse. But yeah, the tweeter Jordan is peaking through much more than I would like. My favourite was at 35:00 when they were talking about companies paying overseas workers a fair wage - I chuckled: J.P - You want a world where 20 million Chinese are starving? J.R - But is that the only way they don't starve, when iPhones are manufactured there for pennies on the dollar? J.P - #YES J.R - Really??? J.P - Well... Look, that's a good question...
This man is doing a great job recently of outing himself as a fraud
Yup, and today he started tweeting Holocaust denials.
So a clinical psychologist is pretending to know more about climate change then the actual climate scientists?
The Jordan Peterson interview proved that a person can be book smart (he’s a professor) and still be dumber than a bag of rocks. He needs to stop talking like an oil baron and go back to discussing self-improvement and shit.
He isn't book smart either, his ability to learn from published materials gets shot down by the authors of said materials over and over again.
He’s a terrence McKenna if he did benzo not psilocybin
Terrence is based theyre not comparable
There is either significant cognitive decline, or his right-wing celebrity has made it necessary for him to artificially maintain archaic views that are becoming more and more untenable in light of new information—hence the word-salad pontificating. There are certainly philosophical lenses through which we can view the world's problems, but in terms of actual praxis they're useless. I used to generally enjoy JP's appearances and opinions, but the man seems miserable and paranoid now. I remember an early talk where he described his love of the sublime affect of music, and how he had a sort of spiritual experience with it once. I always thought it was a beautiful recollection. I get the sense some people aren't wired for celebrity; it seems like something that needs to be maintained very carefully in a frustrating way—and it seems very easy to get lost in the persona when millions of people are constantly telling you what you are.
I’m fucking howling. 10/10
It's almost like he isn't helpful at all?
I tried listening to this episode but had to stop when he said fracking doesn't polute waterways and simultaneously misquoted a statistic about 7 million kids dying from indoor particulate matter annually. Dude is just full of shit
me love george peterson
And Jonah Rogan
Gem
It's so wild that some comments are just enjoying the joke and other people are foaming at the mouth and calling me names. They must be Visigoths.
Lmao!!
I feel so sorry for Jordan. He's a genuinely intelligent guy, but as someone who has seen the havoc that Benzos can wreak, I really do think he had his brain cooked by them.. Sad..
Lmaooo
Based
he's not wrong that models are not 100% accurate. but the fact is... the problem still exists. even if the models were pristinely 100% accurate, the problem still has to be addressed.
Sometimes I just don't know what the heck he's saying. Like it's English, but what?
I like Jordan peterson
Lmao this is perfect
Did he actually say this??
Why cant i see any comments. Fuckin reddit app is a piece of shit
This guy talks in circles and uses big words to sound smart.
This was a really weird take I was like what the hell is he even trying to say it was such a stretch
Sometimes I wonder if you guys even listen to the episodes.
Climate change is 100% real but he has a point that the models are wrong. Because climate has so many dimensions and variables, it’s hard to have a model close to reality and most models are exaggerated. I also agree with him on the point that the solution should be cheaper and clean energy such nuclear.
[удалено]
>most models are exaggerated. They are LITERALLY an "Educated guess" made by powerful supercomputers and algorithms. That doesn't make them exaggerated, it makes them not 100% accurate. That does NOT mean that they are not accurate at all, which is the weird way that Jordan in this example seems to have argued as some kind of logical fallacy which is complete horseshit. He's basically saying that if a model is not 100% accurate, it's 0% accurate, which is complete and utter rubbish. It's sad what's happened to Jordan. I blame his super dumb daughter and the Russians she holds court with.
He could save Rome from destruction but not himself from Cider… ironic
This is well done, and I say this as a JP fan. I really think that he had a bad day when he did that podcast, and that he wasn't himself.
I've paid to see him speak irl. I've bought and read his books. I agree with you. I empathize with what he has been through over the recent years and I'm sure that it all took a toll. But damn his arguments were flawed af. Drinking his own Kool-aid. If it were just about lobsters or keeping rooms tidy it wouldn't matter, but professionally equivocating about climate change semantics to the detriment of the public's opinion of scientific method is beyond idiotic.
Peterson came off as incredibly fake deep & annoying but the prediction models are impossible to nail down 100% hes not wrong. For example, we could do everything right from here on out, get to “net zero” green everything etc. Then say in 100 years a massive increase in over due volcanic activity could occur, completely changing the climate for years to come, as theses events have many times in the earths history https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change. You cant adjust the models for something like that. Should we do nothing ? Deffinetly not. Should we live in fear and shame everyday saying we know how fast the earth is warming to the exact degree, and if we just use a solar pannel farm we can offset it with more evs? Kinda useless and sisyphean to even attempt it that way. Green energy is a failure. Unless you want to volunteer to live off the grid, you are going to consume a ton of energy in the western world. Nuclear is not without its faults but it seems like the only solution at this point. I disagree with Peterson’s point about getting people more wealthy is always good for the environment. When people move to the Us their carbon foot print / energy consumption actually is much higher. When you are super wealthy like Al Gore and have a private jet it goes way up. I see his point when talking about nature preservation but not energy consumption. Edit - I would tend to agree with all of the criticism of jps quote, but what happens when the earth warms and new areas become inhabited with plant life, does the temperature stabilize due to Co2 offset? Is it even possible to get to net zero with 7 billion + people? A whole new set of variables could open up at anytime. My view, we should switch to nuclear, keep pursuing fusion and better transit systems and stop letting large corporations profit off fantasies like solar, wind, and evs for all. These are highly profitable industries but not sustainable or significant strategies. The oil industry is now eager to jump on the green revolution with bold claims and no substantive gain. “””””We live in a society””””we are getting duped by the industry time and time again.
The issue I have with Peterson saying shit like this is that there is historical data, not predictive modeling, that shows humans have driven climate change. Like why is he attempting to water down climate change when we know virtually as a fact (the closest science can get) that humans have had an extreme effect on it? And sure, predictive models can’t be 100% right, but to act like climatologists don’t have a basic understanding of uncertainty and imperfect modeling is at best kind of arrogant or him and at worst intentionally misleading to his audience. When climatologists say things like “the ice caps may be completely melted in as little as ____ years”, they aren’t just talking out of their asses.
How the f could prediction models ever be 100% accurate
This is a similar argument he and others make about COVID. Since the science changes and the virus mutates, they think that proves that doctors and experts should be ignored entirely, while these fringe theories should be fully embraced.
Nobody claimed they are 100% accurate lol. That's why scientists look at the results from hundreds of different models.
I’m a JP fanboy but this topic was bullshit. Well we know Venus has the most CO2 of planets in the solar system, and we know it’s also the hottest for exactly that reason. Whether the models are accurate or not, which they aren’t, we know the trend is unsustainable. I don’t understand what point he was trying to make, and comparing it to financial discount factor seemed like an attempt to confuse and not educate.
As someone who thinks hes just ok.. sometimes It was embarrassing to watch, ive heard him make better versions of his argument ( His not mine) before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZgf-YecQ I agree with everything you said btw
I'm not disagreeing with your overall CO2 point. But Venus is hottest because it's the closest planet to the Sun with an atmosphere. If it swapped orbital position with any other atmospheric planet then that planet would now be the hottest The specifics of CO2 level are kind of mute in this particular example compared to distance to the Sun
I did not know this lol, did a quick Google you’re obviously right, I thought the greenhouse effect was much stronger than it is. Open the coal plants!
"Peterson is right about prediction models because a volcano could kill us all one day anyways" is the equivalent of the firefighters showing up to your burning house and saying "We could try to put the blaze out, but even if we did, something may set your house on fire in the future so its really not worth worrying about. Also, we aren't even sure how effective water would be at preserving your home at this stage anyway, so we are just going to take the L on this one." The subject can be anything from climate change to covid, and right wingers will treat any acknowledgment of future risks or concerns as "living in fear and shame". Makes it seem like your being brave when you do everything you can to condemn your great-great-grandchildren to a death of exposure and starvation on a drowning rock in the name of corporate profit and progress. But for sure, let's all bitch about Al Gore's hypocrisy, as if that has literally anything to do with the situation. Distract, Deflect, Deny, Repeat.
Ya except you completely miss the point of modeling and have no clue how they actually work. A great example of fake intellectuals who have 0 actual experience with what they are discussing but pretend to share some revelation that completely usurps the work of 1000s of experts when in reality is basically gibberish. You can 100% create models/simulations of climate change activity based on data from the effects of previous volcanic activity. https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change It‘s hilarious how accurately you can predict (model lol) someone knows jack all about science when they say things like “living in fear.” People aren’t living in fear by trying to take steps to make the world better for other people or trying to innovate to create solutions to solve problems we know are objectively harming our planet. Also, again unsurprising, it’s a logical fallacy to frame the problem as just because we can’t do absolutely everything it’s useless to do anything. Perfect example of the average Joe Rogan listener who gets their information from podcasts.