Jordan Peterson: What is Morality and What Reality?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2020
- What is morality? What is reality? How does science relate to religion and how should we think about the concept of truth? Psychologist Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto talks about morality, meaning, and the bible. Furthermore, he introduces the concept of phenomenology and compares it to scientific thinking.
#Peterson #morality
Check out the full video here: • Lecture: Biblical Seri...
---
If you like the content, subscribe!
You can literally see him think...
@Smifnwessn Elaborate or keep your arrogance for yourself.
@Smifnwessn tf u on abt 😭😂
@Smifnwessn your the one going on to something about him with no end or explanation! like wtf is your point? u stated ur points, now explain them. If U THINK u know better, u are not showing any better.
He certainly pretends to think….
Whenever I’m in a moral dilemma I look up Jordan Peterson talking about it and it’s like he’s speaking to me. Thank you for your words !
Where are you J.P.? We all miss you ... more than ever. Please get well...
ImaginaryAdversary he’ll live on through his works
He was addicted to a prescription drug for a little while, recovering. ❤️🩹
Morality is about social boundaries. Social boundaries exist because people had ideas about how to strengthen their social group against enemy social groups. That’s the subjective part. The truce both within and between social groups. Then there’s the other part, the objective part. If you eat sugar your teeth will fall out. If you lie, people won’t trust you. If you give guns to kids, there will be a lot of school shootings. And then there’s the third part: people with different values find it difficult to work together and they find it easy to fight and emotionally harm each other. You have 3 choices: fight, segregate, or be uncomfortable. Fighting will lead to death. Segregation will lead to poverty. And discomfort will lead to the loss of your values. K, now. Go live your life.
Segregation only leads to poverty for people who are not valuable. I do not value the welfare of my enemies or adversaries. I want to defeat them.
Only problem with that viewpoint means if you take the view that morality is about social boundaries your back to subjective morality which means there is no actual morality. It’s just opinion based hence Nazi germany. Do the numbers of a nation who agree with it make it right?
"Whilst REALITY accordance of senses to what we grasp,MORALITY is actions > words,at least by As-Syaf.";
in my opinion he's not talking about morality here, but shadow integration and intuition. Those interact with morality but I believe they specifically are exclusive from morality. That conflation causes a couple faults in his reasoning: A person can be in conflict with their own morality (it's not just what you act out) This is because cognitive dissonance is a reality caused by the unconscious. That is a very important detail because some people need to reassess whether they have strayed from their own morality and if a course correction is needed.
the other flaw is that morality in and of itself has no goal to the same extent that logic does not have a goal. Morality serves as a feedback mechanism for our own judgements. Morality assigns value as a form of judgement to tune the "volume" of different ideas and ethics for the sake of harmony.
The harmony that I seek myself is distorted and as far as cognitive dissonance, there are others that intrude on the mind of others including my own. As far as logic does not have a goal, don't we assign goals based on our logic or did I misinterpret what you were saying ?
Interesting idea. Thanks
@@Last_E_iz_A_thre3 well, I guess there's two ways you could map morality/logic. There's an instrumental sense and an absolute sense. We're limited to using the instrumental form of morality and logic in pursuit of an absolute one which is what causes the inconsistency. Any absolute morality can just be approximated so we're forced to constantly create new instrumental goals in pursuit of that absolute goal
When the people who eat meat but do not want to kill the animals themselves. It is the most important moral question... The consumers always go on the moral high grow because they did not kill the animals. So the sin fall on the hunters as a default..This is what people think
I like this point a lot and I believe this could be a key to solving morality logically for people and "scientifically" whatever that means these days.
No that's what you think people modern people don't go out and Hunt their own animals we're still well aware what they're eating people like you take the moral High Ground is it you're above hunting animal for food usually the same people who have no problem aborting babies at will you're not morally Superior because you eat salads
I never know what to make out of Peterson. This whole lecture seems to be some kind of stream of consciousness. I would be hard pressed to try to summarize it. We experience the world through our senses past experiences and a brain and body that reacts to these things in emotional ways that we are wired for evolutionarily. Glad to hear that the Bible is useful fiction. I guess he gets that from Jung. He is right about science too. It is always two steps forward, one step back. While I do see him as a man with the main aim of fixing things in front of him that need fixing I wish he would stay with the areas he knows best, what he was trained for, where he spent years working. He seems to think he is a renaissance man. With an IQ of 150, his words, I can see the temptation. When he gets into geopolitics, economics, government and starts on his liberal conspiracy theories.... As he just asked is he creating tools to help someone ? Just my opinion.
I love listening to him rant. It is a stream of consciousness. I almost lose myself like an out of body experience. Few people can use words like this. It’s beautiful.
You’re pretty good with words yourself. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Jordan Peterson is very intelligent - yet he regularly appears not to know the boundaries of his own circle of competence. ⭕️
Cool, now all it's left to do is to memorise this verbatim and my life will be alright
about the field bit there are optimum paths through a field depending on your goals... im half joking
A society evolve so does the values it hold, changes are inevitable. Its imperative that the Bible, Constitution, UN Security Council (Permanent) and the most basic of laws also evolve or change with the times to accommodate humanity's push forward.
As far as evolving... society does technologically and in other means as well but how would you say that the bible should evolve ? Laws can be changed by the UN and the Constitution can be amended. Do you mean that our interpretation of the bible should evolve according to society's standards ?
@@Last_E_iz_A_thre3 Not "should" evolve *"HAS"* evolved. We no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
Nor that
*"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"*
*"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"*
I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜
Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) .
Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates.
Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔
In a *just* society, the most basic laws will never change because they are based on immutable morality standards. Those attempting to change those basic laws are immoral people who wish to see civilization in chaos for their own immoral purposes.
I see society devolving into evil & degeneration of the worst kind.
@@Last_E_iz_A_thre3the Bible "evolved" from Old Testament to New Testament.
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
Snore
Bell rung!
When I believed in the existence of a god, I believed that a god wanted me to be "moral." Now that I'm an Atheist, the words moral and ethical have become almost meaningless, because the fact is, I don't know how I would behave if I was starving to death, or angry because my family were all killed by a mob that hated me for the color of my skin, or if someone comes to my home and wants to harm my family. I could then "be" the murderer. Catholics and Protestants probably thought they were moral when they killed each other as being heretics.
It goes beyond the man created word "moral" ... to situations.
Your reffering to "situational ethics"...the fact that ethics can be situational doesn't disprove the fact that there is objective truth... Essentially what you are saying is that you are writing off the concept of morality as meaningless due to your own human weakness. But just bkus humans are fallible doesnt mean that there arent laws and principals in the universe that are infallible.. true Morality isnt a social construct.. If i choose to he bitter and hateful towards someone because they ruined my life its still as wrong as hating someone for the color of their skin...the situation of why i hate someone has nothing to do that at the end of the day i have hate in my heart.
On the flip side, with all the examples that you gave there have been many people who did the right thing in the face of such adversities. There are plenty of stories of Jewish men and women in concentration camps who endured torture and starvation and in the end forgave the people who caused them soo much pain.
In my humble opinion, being an atheist is probably one of the most easiest and most comfortable of things that a person could be here on earth..It obsolves you of any and all moral responsibility and eases the conscience of moral obligation to anyone but yourself. It gives a person the liberty to construct their own moral realities according to their imagination, in the same way a child constructs a world of his own with legos...yet in the end it doesnt pay off..
@@meeks4004 Are you suggesting that Atheists are all immoral?
I never even implied such a thing. I know many atheists who are some of the most compassionate human beings that I know even more so than people who claim to have faith in a deity. I guess you didnt really read my comment..
@@meeks4004 From your opinion, what is "objective" truth?
@@junevandermark952 its the truth of a belief or statement that is entirely a matter of how things are with its object, and has nothing to do with the state of its subject - (the person who has the belief or makes the statement)
objective truth is what exists and can be proven in the physicality. Subjective Truth is how the individual sees or experiences the World.
Objective truth says, male and female are the only genders in the animal kingdom.
Subjective truth says, there are 99 genders and I feel like I am really a girl not a boy.
Objective truth is a universal truth..something that is true no matter what your opinion is or how you percieve it. (Like the kaw of gravity) the laws and principles of gravity are infallible and stand true no matter what your culture race or religion.. Life is black or white. right or wrong. Just like mathematics there is no grey area no matter how we may feel. This fact is offensive to us as humans bkus we have the proclivity to create our own reality based on our experiences or feelings...
And as a side note i hope you dont feel im attacking you or even trying to necessarily prove you wrong. I just saw your comment and chuckled to myself bkus your belief system closley parallels with that of the Philosopher, Fletcher. In your comment you basically said that you felt morality was weak because you wouldn't know what you would do in a given situation...Fletcher believed the same thing and believed morality was a weak concept and basically dismissed it entirely bkus morality could always essentially change under certain circumstances.. he is quoted as saying that "love is a means to an end"
The moral thing we superimpose is "what to do with what is" given a goal.
I fully agree.
Why then is morality not relative? Peterson has described relative morality as a "lie." Why is it not, as Matt Dillahunty says, the best "move" to make in the "chess game" of life? There are objectively better and worse ways to walk through that field IF "better and worse" are measured relative to a particular goal (getting through it the fastest way, or not tripping in a gopher hole, or not getting ticks or snake bites, etc). Absent the goal there is no framework to overlay. The first bit of this - before he gets on to phenomenology - sounds like a great argument for relative morality, but he doesn't believe in that. Why?
The brain has an evolutionary set of principles we can hardly know at this time but we experience them imperfectly. And not everyone’s brain is the same. But there is a general shared structure and that is where I think people see objective morality
For example who is “we” and what’s good for “us”? I don’t think a multiracial society is good for anyone fundamentally.
@@bryanutility9609 how does this escape the implication at hand here from what JP says about things being good or bad in relation to (relative to) a specific goal? Things can be objectively good or bad relative to a goal, but that doesn't make those things good or bad *in and of themselves.*
And so the "goal" of the Nazi's of pedophiles of murderers is "moral" because it achieves the "goal"? Mostly, atheists appeal to pragmatism, NOT morality. There is no possibility of the moral in the mindless and ultimately purposeless universe that the atheists claims to believe they live in. And so the atheists own objection to various behaviors that don't affect them personally and that they insist upon even if others do not agree, is evidence that objective moral values and duties do exist-and that therefore, there is a transcendent authority to whom man is accountable-which I contend we would rightly call 'GOD'. (Romans 2:14-15)
Amazing…
Morality is doing what’s right regardless what you are told . Rigid, dogmatic religious indoctrination is doing what you’re told regardless if it’s right
where can I find the continuation?
He mas so much better at delivery when he was high on XANAX
🤪
💊
👐
What talk is this?
The world‘s best sociologist is one who isn‘t one.
"The best X is not an X". Stay in school, buddy.
Rex Juglandorum he’s saying sometimes “experts” can be so entrenched in dogma that someone outside the traditional scope of the field is needed to revivify the field and give it better perspective.
I think it's time to listen to maps of meaning again for the 101th time. :) ty PI
Morality "for me"? I like Peterson, but his expertise clearly doesn't extend into ethics, epistemology, or ontology. Ethics is prescriptive, but Peterson seems to believe it's merely descriptive and pragmatic, which, upon analysis, reduces them to useful fictions that impose no obligatory duty on anyone.
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. Author … Albert Einstein.
And from the book ... The Final Inequality, by L. J. Ludovici. "Morals at any given moment have always been as good, or as bad, as our imaginations credit them, for the morals (from the Latin, mores: customs) means simply customs, and they keep changing all the time in all the corners of the world."
If you believe that why don't you live your life that way? If your wife went to a different country and was sexual assaulted would you ne ok with that if it was their culture? What about slavery was that ok back when it was culturally accepted. If so why are we still taking about it? How about i came over and stole from you cuz my culture accepted that? I guess child sex trade is ok because some countries say it's fine? Would you do that if you were there, when in Rome as they say. No not all morality is just relative sorry. That argument is a glib simplistic argument that sounds rational until you actually think about it.
Well that's good to know so I guess you have no problems with slavery or child sex-trafficking then
@@jamieshannon9019 People in religion still believe that killing heretics "according to GOD" ... IS moral.
You can't change their minds on that subject, because they believe they are being MORAL.
What about this modern-day preacher? He is certain that a god exists that wants homosexuals put to death. He believes that he IS being MORAL.
I suggest that we can't trust each other to know the meaning of that word "moral." That is my point.
Protestant preacher wants the government to put homosexuals to death ua-cam.com/video/UbSM_kxpObc/v-deo.html
If you could go ahead and send me your bank information I will steal your money and then maybe stop by and make out with your wife. Hey in my culture that's what we do I know you'll understand that considering your worldview
@@jamieshannon9019 Do *YOU* "have problems with slavery or child sex trafficking dear? If so based upon WHAT ?? 🙄🤔
What an awe inspiring sight it is to see this most charismatic of public intellectuals in full flow, the more because one wonders if such displays are now relegated to history. Notwithstanding the hell of benzodiazepine withdrawal, and clonazepam is one of the most potent, one can’t help but suspect that his capacity for faultless communication was chemically facilitated. And I understand Tammy is terminally unwell, so he has to shoulder that in addition. I fear we won’t see the Professor expound in public again let alone slice sjws into little pieces in debate after debate.
3 years later he’s doing well and marching on! Amazing talk this is.
Answer: Two things that don’t objectively exist.
What are those things you speak of?
Life is a paradox that will make sense. And that, doesn't make sense. 😉
I got the exact same beleif and god says in quran and closes this debate by a phrase. That he aint gonna divide us based on what we know or we dont know.. its what you do at the end!
Okay, the way Mesopotamians saw the world - and later people - I can now hypothesize why in all the movies with demons - or bad spirits - people used salt to keep them off, salt represents a point no one can go beyond, a border if you will.
✝️
I’ve seen holly crosses being used against demons.
😈
🧄 Maybe it was garlic they used?
🧛
Vampires are demons, right?
😈
We are going away forever.
Well, for starters, leave religion out of it.
"That's the problem with a collection of books like the bible. You're called upon to believe things that no one can believe".
I like Jordan Peterson, but statements like this are why he is an unreliable source of insight for anyone who claims to follow Christ. His entire worldview is fundamentally incorrect and he is leading numerous people down the path to hell. Too many Christians place value in his words which seem both sincere and misguided.
Sadly, he has no love of God and only values his own understanding.
How are you sure you’re not going to hell and those he leads are?
*ANY* and *EVERY* theistic derived set of beliefs would be subjective. The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Well if you are a bible-believing Christian you're not looking to Jordan Peterson to supersede what the Bible says. He's diving into subject matter with an honest truthful motivation to really discover what the Bible is I have watched his lectures since about 2013 before he even became famous his honest Pursuit Of Truth has led him to the belief in Christ. The fact that I highly educated scientific thinking man came to the conclusion of a belief in God and Christ is something to behold. The reason most intellectuals do not believe in a Creator is because of their intellectual arrogance. They dismiss such things right off the bat he however does not do that he is searching for the truth wherever it leads. Also you don't have to necessarily agree with every perspective he has on every situation he's talking about but I can speak from experience that he can actually help you understand certain things in the Bible that you probably already knew but couldn't really articulate it out. He is also giving me lectures on the problem of rationality and intelligence and also many lectures on the nature of evil which is something most academics do not even touch. You do not look to him as a messiah you looked at him to maybe understand something a little deeper than before. When a very intelligent man is honestly seeking out truth it might be wise to listen to what they have to say don't let your arrogance cause you to miss out on something you could learn. He also very much believes in the concept of evil it has exposed many historical evils. He walked away from the establishment Harvard in clinical practice basically because he refused to participate in a lie that takes a lot of Courage and if believe in yourself comes off as arrogance sometimes so be it. Also you mentioned the reality of hell well there's a lot of people that find the concept of how hard to believe are you going to stop talking about it just because of that. I mean what parts in the Bible do you not believe you pick and choose. You have the Bible as the final Authority he is not going to replace that but you can still learn something
@@peterrosqvist2480he's talking about what he thinks he's not leading anybody anywhere you're responsible for your own actions and thoughts
@@trumpbellend6717okay fair enough I would ask you where do your moral claims come from the state? Government? If you have any moral beliefs at all and they don't come from atheist to God while you're getting them from somewhere and assuming that they are correct too. But let's just take a basic example if somebody came to your house and murdered your family would you tell that is morally wrong or would you just go well maybe they thought it was okay so I guess it's fine cuz it's all subjective? I'll assume you would think it was morally wrong well just so you know murder of innocent people is a theosophical claim from the Bible so if you're going to use certain moral precepts that we get from the Bible in your own life and then turn around and act like they have no merit well I'll leave it at that but it's pretty obvious the contradictory thinking
I worry more about my mortality than I do my morality. But that's just me.
lol
Genius.
Religious morality will always put the religion first. Secular morality will always be superior because of this.
On the contrary whilst Islam and Buddhism seek a state of mind or behaviour, Christianity stands out in it's call to follow a man who is God. The religion of Jesus is to listen and become like the founder and creator.
Secular morality is a contradiction. whilst a humanist for example can have morals what are they based on and why should he or she imagine good and bad? Based on self made or culturally constructed ideas or laws. It at it's best will be subjective quick sand .
@@pasainchina97 Christianity is no different than any other cult. You've just proven exactly what I said. Christianity is about following a particular divine figure. It's not about being a good human being, it's about servitude. Christianity is arguably one of the very worst religions in terms of a moral basis. The whole we are born into sin thing is just incredibly immoral.
@@pasainchina97 utter nonsense. Secular morality is not a contradiction at all. It is a basis for morality which isn't influenced by any particular religious faith. A secular moral system is automatically superior to religious morality as it isn't bound by scripture. Speaking to most reasonable and sane human beings, human wellbeing is the basis for our secular morality. Why should we consider what is good or bad? Because it aids our survival as a social species. You are again proving my very point. The fact you cannot see a basis for morality beyond a silly religious belief is astounding and very troubling.
@@ant9925 If you are a male for example from a head hunting tribe in Papua New Guinea who according to his culture practices head hunting or a middle aged American who has shot 7 Afghan people who or what decides a boundary? You see secular morals fall flat on their face because it's very basis is subjective! Whilst a Christian would kill a person they have overstepped a boundary or spiritual law which declares that action to be destructive and wrong. An atheist has no such law apart from what he or she decides is right or wrong. A secular being is an evolved uncreated accident with no set boundaries save the ones he decides fits him or her at any given time. The nature of man is towards wrong and not right...and in his self preservation he has even tried to recreate his own right...which by it's own results is wrong.
KISS rule. Semantics. But reality is platform on a foundation. Morality is ethics of whatever consciousnesses is on that platform. Duh
he talk faster than my brain processes it..
No, the writers of the Bible did NOT believe the earth was flat... [face-palm]
At least even apologetics know that the earth is not flat, so they try to make us believe their holy book wouldn't tell us otherwise. But sorry, your holy book defintely sayes the earth would be flat.
Isaiah 41:5 "The islands have seen it and fear, the ends of the earth tremble." Job 26: 10-11 "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof."
A globe has neither "ends" nore "pillars". The writers of the bible did think the earth would be flat.
@@klausroxin4437
No they didn't. One would have to be pretty desperate to make the silly claim you just did. Good job, bud. (Proverbs 26:12)
@@jessebryant9233 What exactly is it that you don't understand if the text literally (as quoted above) speaks from "ends of the world" and "pillars of heaven"?
Of course it is hard, when the fairy tale you want to believe in sayes the earth has ends and pillars of heaven, but you know better. On one hand your own knowledge that the earth is a globe, on the other hand your fairy tale saing the opposite. Only solution to this problem: pretending the fairy tale would say the earth is a globe. No disharmony between believe and knowledge anymore, for the small price of a little lie.
@@klausroxin4437
Context.
God is not an object and thus not objective, God cannot be used for any "objective morality".
Amazing how secular academics fail to recognize the logically fallacious nature of their positions. Peterson's outline embraces "being" rather than objective reality, which makes his use of "being" something like logical positivism or empiricism, both of which are self-contradictory. If one cannot affirm their position to be objectively true, then Peterson's position isn't objectively true. Moreover, Peterson understands neither science nor Christian philosophy, the latter being far more philosophically sophisticated than his lecture here. (I'm not suggesting all religious people are philosophically sophisticated, because it's obvious that many of them are not; but anyone remotely familiar with the world of philosophy knows that Peterson's claims about Judeo-Christian approaches to science and philosophy are demonstrably false.)
1) you can't perceive reality to a level where you can say "it's objective". Nor what you call objective reality explains how we've come to be where we are, in many senses.
2) he's not making a claim that there is no objective reality.
3) he clearly say he's an existentialist, so he is more concerned with being.
you're twisting his words.
He's looking for truth.
He looks every where , but where he should start. Start with Jesus. The biblical Jesus and work your way back through History. Then and only then will you be able to stand and know what way you should go and how to go. Because Jesus is all of that.
The Way the Truth and the Life.
One word sir. Faith. Good talk though. But he seems so confused and not able to rest in the knowledge he has. Sad. Lord have mercy on his soul.
How do you know that what you were seeing if objectively the right path?
@@TheShikerWolf Through experience. And solid biblical Truth.
And Faith. Faith touches the spiritual and faith is what allows me to fulfill the will of God.
How do we all know what the right path is?
Answer: We personally experience WHO the path is. Good question.
Every other religion has got news for you then...
@@TheShikerWolf
News yes , but not Good news.
This world is full of false hope that leads to what the Bible calls Hell.
We can argue grave, fine with me.
But what Jesus offers is the Truth, through faith and His Grace. No one has defeated death , but One and the One is The Son of God.
Look throughout History and tell me was there ever a man Who flipped this world upside down like this man did. And you will find none but One.
Religion will kill a man , but faith in Christ will make a man free. Experience this Truth. Truth is Christ.
@@corymasterson9043 sounds like you're saying "Good news = Truth" instead of "Truth = Truth". Also, the Jews (who also believe in the Christian God) don't believe Jesus was a magical man. Just some guy that had some disciples and was killed for being a nuisance. It's not hard for a real event to become partly true because people often rewrite stories throughout history with their own interpretations.
That's the best example to see how the devil deceive the world, still faith through lies, and kill eternally. This guy will have to justify his words, not only for himself, but for all people that he pull in the pit of hell.
what the fuck are you talking about buddy
What is deceiving, sir?
Evolution is not law, it is hypothesis or at best theory.
Agree… Noah's children couldn't "evolutionized" to three main races what exist today per few thousand year...
Dar Mac no such thing as race.
Evolution is a fact, but evolution doesn't state where we all come from, nor does it explain what consciousness is
Evolution is a fact. If u deny it you are mentally deficit.
Some didn't study science at school 🤦♂️
The only morality in this world is measured by the wine glass and pint
I have listened to hundreds of hours of Jordan's lectures and it is clear to me that Jordan doesn't understand the Bible well enough to attempt to analyze some of the deeper meaning.
Chuck Missler would be a better choice.
He simply said there's too much about the bible that requires you to believe something unbelievable. Since the bible is entirely based on truth and requires belief of unbelievable things in order to even go to heaven/be saved, it doesn't work. I mean, what kind of a god would say that you have to believe in Jesus to be saved when there's not even any good proof that Jesus existed, let alone was the messiah. That alone is a completely unfair standard to put on humanity. You are required to believe something that is outrageous or you die. But in order to believe that Jesus was the son of god, you would HAVE to already believe that God existed for his commands to mean anything to you anyway. It's paradoxical.
Rand was so much smarter than Peterson.
So smart that she ended up as a drug-addict taking welfare checks.
cool story