*FUN FACT* The GQ interviewer (Helen Lewis) cheated on her now ex-husband and is divorced. She is a bit vague about the details, but admits that within 2 years of her marriage she "fell in love with someone else" (in other words she cheated on her husband).
I think he tends to filter out the comments stroking his ego and looks at the criticism, since he said he noticed comments about his impatience in the GQ video which I didnt notice at all.
@@mostlyneutral Well, he was the one being interviewed so him talking more than her is naturally supposed to happen. Although interrupting is still unpleasant…
@@LWLProductions That and she was hostile from the beginning like JP said. He also only defended himself when she’d go off putting words in his mouth or twisting what he said etc. She said it’d be war so she got it didn’t she? Do you expect to be calm to someone who just threatened you? Even so he was still professional.
@@aenamabag What the hell are you talking about? Are you telling me that Jordan Peterson is cherry picking his opponents in his debates? By the way, I'd like to see a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Wolff.
@@mohammadbuhamad7744 That's your theory, thats a foolish theory, man alive how can you say something like that, no thats not right I know my neurochemistry lets go play neurochemistry...calm and collected? Give me a break. Let's get our definitions straight on identity politics...and then JP proceeds to not define identity politics. Whoops Jordan.
The amount of gratitude I feel towards Jordan Peterson is greater than one to perhaps anyone else I've ever got to listen to. Dragged me out of depression also.
He was out of water about 40 minutes into the interview, he held the empty glass in his hand twice, but was never offered a refill. At the 1 hour 20 minute mark the woman even held her glass full of water and put it down without even taking a sip when it was evident from Peterson's mouth movement that he was experiencing dry mouth. The lighting was such where a shadow was cast over peterson's eyes from many angles, that's something done to make a person seem less trust worthy and alter viewer perception. His mic was messed up probably on purpose to do the same. And Peterson still came out victorious.
Lyla xo,the look of contempt on the face was all Peterson,I’m sure he knew how she was trying to paint him and that was his natural and just reaction,she seemed to lack intelligence with generic statements and a lack of courtesy for her GUEST :)
I live in Korea. I just found out "12 Rules" has been translated to Korean and that his lectures are gaining popularity in China and Japan. Dr. Peterson, I believe it's time to start considering an Asian tour.
@@psychcowboy1 Bullshit. She tried to bait him at every turn. She wasn't even playing Devil's advocate. She was trying to embarrass him, but looked the fool, despite her articulateness. They tried hard to make him uncomfortable. Not even a glass of fucking water.
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48 "The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]" "It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
@@canadianroot At around 41:00 JP refers to research on lobster serotonin and on Marxism in academia. He refers to these papers to prove Helen wrong and he alleges that he studied them 'quite carefully'. He may have studied them carefully, but the problem is he still didn't understand them. Both papers actually prove Helen right: 1. Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans; lobsters injected with serotonin adopt aggressive postures and seek agonistic encounters, making Helen right. [Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive. Paper: It makes lobsters more agonistic.] 2. Prevalence of Marxism in Academia; Marxism is a tiny minority faith at only 3%, making Helen right. [Helen: Not a widely held view. Paper: A tiny minority faith. Also JP falsely attributes the author as Jonathan Haidt.] Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism! ===== At 1:17:00. Helen: What about renewable energy? JP: Good luck with that. JP: 'What kind of statement is it that the planet would be better off with fewer people? If you are concerned about your carbon footprint you can kill yourself.' Helen: What overpopulation has done... Peterson interrupting as usual: 'Who says we have overpopulation? We aren't going to run out of fossil fuels. We will top out at 9 billion, in 100 years there will be too few people.' [Let's unpack this. JP's insightful and useful commentary on such a huge issue as renewable energy is...good luck with that? Peterson is denying we have an over population problem? What a complete idiot, that statement is what inspired me to start checking the guy out. Peterson knows we will top out at 9 billion and we won't run out of fossil fuels and in 100 years there will be too few people? Doesn't this guy call himself a credible scientist? What is credible or scientific about any of his statements here?]
@@brianmi40 Did Peterson define identity politics? He said let's get our definitions straight and it's a very specific thing... Then he proceeds to not define it. What an idiot.
the best thing is At the later part of interview, She asks, " What is the most important thing to you in life?" To which Jordan Replied, "NOT BEING STUPID".
Jordan Peterson isn't misunderstood. He is deliberately _misrepresented_ because he challenges the false feminist narratives so effectively. i.e. With actual facts and data and stuff.
he himself misrepresents feminism. peterson once claimed that no feminists has stood up for women in the near east. which is wrong both in regard to women in the near east (obviously) but ALSO in regard to women in the west ! in the exact same speech an context he accused feminists of thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in regard to islam. but how dare someone say something bad about peterson...
@@Mr1987Joe "What are you talking about?" the same thing you are talking about: "Islam, at its core, is the single most anti-feminist thing on the planet." (...) "For some reason, however, feminists don't seem to like acknowledging this. They are avid supporters of Islam, as Islam has represented the figurative destruction of the Western culture they hate, for centuries. It is the literal, exact, perfect definition of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." " these bullshit-claims are the things i am talking about. give me one peace of evidence for the claim that any relevant amount or example of feminists do not have a problem with islam. have fun trying overinterpreting NOT HATING EVERY MUSLIM as loving islam... "This man has become one of the figureheads of civil discourse in the present day! It's only lunatics that are unable to engage themselves in critical thinking that seem to have a problem with him." yeah, you are just proving that you are another sheeple of his cult... if you are never looking for his mistakes, of course you will never find one. anyone who goes to such extremes as "ONLY lunatics (...) seem to have a problem with him" should try FUCKING HARD to think again about whether the truth is really THAT ONE-SIDED...
@@jacobmistake3281 LOL You'd be joking right. Peterson has the most specific rebuttals to toxic feminism, citing scientific study and study that refutes feminist dogma.
I love juijitsu and I'm starting to get annoyed by joe mentioning in every conversation. I can only imagine how people who don't like the sport feel! 😂
I met Jordan when he had an event in Portugal and he was so kind to everyone in line to meet him. He is a great human being spreading nothing but positivity and truth. I told him i got into russian literature because of him and i saw he was actually touched about it. Great experience
Ele já cá veio em 2018. Infelizmente nessa altura ainda não o conhecia mas gostava muito de poder ter uma simples conversa com ele. Deve ser uma experiência para a vida.
Loved when he asked her "If you hate the system, then give your job to someone less privileged" "Well I don't think that would really help the situation....." 😂😂😂
@@psychcowboy1 I wouldn’t say she ‘won’. I wouldn’t even know what that would mean. But I do seem to be a part of an extremely small minority here on UA-cam who found Jordan to be the one who came across as hostile in the interview. I’ve watched it like 4 times and she made her case rather decently. On the partiarchy discussion for example, Jordan basically made the point that the way to look at history as if it consisted of a tyrannical patriarchy would be horrible, and wouldn’t do you any good. But that’s not an argument though, is it? There were way more points than this, but I thought that Helen did fine. I remember the first time watching it, I was like this huge JBP fan and thought he’d ‘won’ as well, but the more I watched it and tried being as neutral as I could be, the more I could see that they were just opposites from each other - the one not neccesarily ‘better’ than the other.
@@shakespearsplat Peterson interrupted her every other sentence. He was arrogant with a fragile ego. I know my neurochemistry, let's play neurochemistry. He goes into a lengthy statement on how he chose lobsters to address Marxism, and Helen notes that he chose lobsters to address Marxism...he denies it, apparently just to be disagreeable. JP fans however would rather just swallow the whole pill rather than pay attention to what actually happened.
I saw a comment under another video saying, " he's the father for fatherless children" & I felt that. I see where alot of ppl listened & love his messages & have had life changing situations after. I appreciate this man
Pffft. Rogan is a sellout two faced jellybean. He doesnt stand for anything. Being open minded is great, dont get me wrong. And appreciating Peterson is easy, the man is brilliant. But as soon as the hypothetical next guest were to trash Peterson, Rogans wide open mind would swallow it whole. Rogan is no role model.
Dave Chappelle on the notion of privileged white women: "Lady, you knew what you were doing. You were in on the heist, you just didn't like your cut." 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It was great. I'm a feminist but she's an example of privileged white feminists who want to shit on others but not hold themselves to the same standard
I thought the whole argument was nuts. Isn't the magazine called Gentlemens Quarterly? Why was a woman doing the interview in the first place? Nothing says white woman provelage like doing an interview for a mens magazine and throwing shade at a man. Gees
Even JP praised her intellect. She’s an intelligent woman with well thought out and researched points. JP also admits he became unstuck and was not as calm throughout the interview. This interview is out there for all to see forever and he doesn’t like that. He tries to discredit her here “coldness” “we’re going to go to war” - but then later admits not in those words. He NEEDS to discredit her - she’s highlighted his frailties all in camera.
@@berniestephens4506 She definitely got under Petersons skin. But there’s a reason why people know who Jordan Peterson is and then refer to the interviewer as the Jordan Peterson GQ interview.
@@AussieZeKieL Or is it that more males buy into his opinion? He says it himself, “the majority of UA-cam users (where he gets these views) are young males (the majority of his support)” So the stats are skewed if you’re judging by UA-cam and social media views. People who agree with Helen Lewis etc are more likely to read papers, magazines and news pages - after all, she’s a journalist, not a social media pundit like JP has become over the last few years…
The exchange where Lewis acknowledges her privilege but declined JP’s suggestion to exchange her position with someone less privileged was an intellectual black belt round house kick to the face.
A white middle-aged woman with a solid job is the most priviledged person in history so she's smart enough to admit it. She's also right in declining to exchange her position, but I'm not sure if it was for the right reason. The right answer is "oh, I quite enjoy my priviledged life and I won't trade it with anyone. I've also earned it as my position is based on competence and not power or oppression". Instead she said about spreading the wealth etc etc total BS, since anyone who she traded the job for likely would do the same in their circles.
"She was hostile the second I walked in. She told me we were gonna have a war. There was a coldness to her. She had a chip on her shoulder" ......Oh a feminist
metalrave obvious to you but to man like Jordan was a little shocked because he doesn’t immediately judge someone. He gives everyone a chance including himself to understand where they are coming from. He never looks like he enjoys any of the conflicts he finds himself in. It’s all over his face that he is not having a good time. He does it anyway which is pretty much the definition of courage.
JP is truly 1 in 7 billion. The way he lays his feeling and thoughts out for others to respond to, while at the same time being so calculated is absolutely astonishing.
@@psychcowboy1 In what regard? She would say I disagree with you then Jordan would explain why she's wrong and she'd typically just say "I agree" after and move on because she didn't even understand the viewpoints being opposed that she's been taught to despise so he just framed it in a different way. That's not called winning
@@Hybred You found a Peterson win? Where? Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00. 1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.' Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.' [uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0] 2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.' Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...' Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?' [Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0 3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.' JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic. [Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
@@psychcowboy1 You commented on another thread of this exact video saying "Helen Won" 7 months ago and then I clicked on this comment that's only one month old saying the same exact thing. You keep coming back to this video to comment the same thing then copy and paste the same arguments. I read the entire thread this comment is literally just pasted from it, I'm not going to argue with someone who devotes their life to this and also who's arguments have already been addressed, just want to point out how creepy you are. Why do you either hate JP or love Helen so much? That's the only thing anyone should care about after seeing your dedication.
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48 "The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]" "It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
I dunno Marilyn... I watched the interview after reading all the comments and reactions and was expecting something much worse. As Joe Rogan says, I found her much more eloquent, reasonable and respectful than other interviewers like Cathy Newman. Helen Lewis had an agenda, wanted to catch him out, had views that I find absurd, but she listened to him, responded to his arguments. She is clearly a radical feminist, but at least she's an articulate one! I don't get why people (and Jordan) found that interview so terrible. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad interview and her actions were reprehensible, but was it really THAT bad? :-)
"Arguing" is how we learn. We tend to be over emotional and it becomes an "argument". Do it respectfully and it's a debate - and we all learn and get better. Newman (ha ha) only argued. Miss Unfaithful (Jordan predicted this - suspecting she'd have challenging relationships) at least debated and evaluated what he said/she heard.
@@brianmi40 He literally stated minutes earlier in that interview that identity politics started in the 1970s. That statement was him saying it has become popularized recently. Way to reinforce Joe Rogan’s statement that he’s the most misquoted man.
People forget that Jordan Peterson was shoved into the spotlight, he didn't choose it. This guy is just doing what he was doing beforehand, teaching people about psychological and philosophical concepts he thinks are important and helpful to others. His life purpose is to help people, he chose that long before a couple years ago when he popped up on UA-cam arguing with college students.
The problem is in certain aspects, he's wrong and misguided. He's not a very good psychologist if he doesn't simple intersectionality. The same intersectionality that's used in Epidemiology.
@@mdusibisi I don't really know what that is. I'm not actually a very developed thinker or know much about these social issues that plague us. If you could elaborate I'd appreciate it. I will say I've grown less fond of Peterson since thinking more for myself. Same thing with Sam Harris. The public intellectual phenomenon is overrated. I'm also over Joe Rogan for the most part. The whole "let's talk about stuff I don't understand" over and over week by week is a little lacking, these podcasts are kind of shallow compared to a lot of the topics discussed in them.
Noone choses to step into the spotlight, that's not something you do. You get offered a spot there by the public, and you either accept or decline. Jordan accepted it and kept on posting lectures online, publishing books and giving interviews. It's not like he's forced into the studio.
I think it may have to do with Anna Wintour (Vogue USA) being creative director for all Conde Nast publications since a few years now, basically dictating the "flow" and philosophy that the different publications should have. I think that explains a lot in and of itself, not that she is that type of "feminist" at all (she is an extremely intelligent woman that got by because of that and determination, certainly not for playing the victim card), she is just probably catering to her markets, magazines are mostly read by women, how would they react if they found their boyfriend magazines were talking about issues in a different way? And find out both publications are from the same media company? They'd stop reading, she probably prefers mens magazines to suffer a little as long as their target market remains fully engaged.
Not to be an ass, but what dictates a ‘Men’s’ magazine? Because a lot of that old stuff was crap too. Basically a giant ad for ‘why your tiny dick ain’t cutting it without this watch’. Men’s health used to be pretty decent.
I watched that GQ interview, I thought JBP was upset from the beginning. After listening to this talk with Joe Rogan it makes total sense. I still loved his points in that interview. God Bless you Dr!
He needs a long form panel to explore his ideas. With short interviews, he isn't given much time to explain anything that needs even an ounce of nuisance. Classic example was his whole 'chaos is classified as female' and then 'antidote to chaos'. Sounds bad until you listen to him talk about what he means.
People want to misinterpret him lol. I'm seeing people say in these comments that he's an insidious force that wants to harm things like women's rights and trans right, when all he's doing is tackling the radical ideologies that have surfaced and have harmful potential to society. People are so willing to hate on anybody because somehow it validates them as a person, so you can only imagine how as JP tackles SJWs even more people would hate him
She was indeed hostile I could even feel her intense vibe coming off while Jordan was respectful until he got fed up and told her “read more” 🤣🤣🤣🤣 he had enough
I watched that interview the other night and I thought it a masterclass on how to deal with someone who has an underlying hostility and prejudice. He countered her hostility and ambush tactics with honesty, great knowledge and facts and figures he seemed to retrieve from the air. She in no way was able to cope with his greater intellect and truthfulness. I watched her face become whiter and whiter during the interview and I must say I was cheering him at the end. Jordan Peterson did not give her an inch and remained direct and focused. Well done!
@@psychcowboy1 literature on egalitarian societies, about serotonin, hierarchies, how problems like the wage gap are compartmentalised to fit a narrative etc
@@xxxgreyhookkickjxxx3295 True those are examples of Peterson commenting on reality, as opposed to when he doesn't. Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old you can't blame them on capitalism and the West. Heads up Jordan, everyone knows that hierarchies are a third of a billion years old and no one is blaming them on capitalism and the West. Egalitarian measures move women further into their traditional vocational roles. Sorry Jordan,100% wrong for the US. Neurotransmitters like serotonin affect behavior. True Jordan. Scientists figured that out. 41:00 Plenty of Motivation] Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive...Peterson interrupting: No that's not right. It makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more willing to fight. I know my neurochemistry. Let's check up on Peterson 'I know my neurochemistry' from the source paper on lobsters and serotonin: "Here we show that injection of serotonin into the hemolymph of subordinate, freely moving animals results in a renewed willingness of these animals to engage the dominants in further agonistic encounters." [agonistic. Adjective. Having a predisposition to fight or engage in confrontations. combative. belligerent. bellicose. aggressive. pugnacious.] Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.' JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. I studied it quite carefully look it up in Haidt's work. [In the study, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and it is not by Haidt. Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism! ==================== JP... Plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies. Plenty of them Jordan? Find me one.
@@xxxgreyhookkickjxxx3295 JP at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options.... [Holy crap Jordan you have some serious voices going on in your head. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.] ============= Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies unidimensional...' [Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert'] What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.] 'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy... [What a total idiot. She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
Jordan Peterson is amazing. He has a factual, responsible and respectful approach. Learned to take care of my life and my own actions before worrying about others. Self care is truly a careless act.
The last few years. Sometimes it was very easy to believe that all those who fight the good fight gave up. But when I see Joe and Jordan in the same room. I know I'm still amongst strong people who care about us.
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48 "The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]" "It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
@@brianmi40 That wikipedia article is actually wrong in comparison to its source for that line. Citation 6: Page 150. 'It was only in the 1990s and thereafter that the term was used to apply to a broader array of interest groups and that it entered mainstream political discourse.' Peterson is correct.
@@komay Now buy a calculator: the 90s started 31 years ago... "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." PETERSON IS WRONG.
@@brianmi40 agree to disagree, I hear it as an exaggeration, you would never have heard of identity politics 10 years ago as much as you do now so it's easily imaginable it was a very tiny thing in the 90s too
I think he gets misunderstood from both ends. Most clips about Jordan Peterson on youtube are about ' peterson destroys feminist' or 'Peterson owns leftists'. If someone would look him up on youtube for the first time, he/she would probably get a totally wrong impression about him. He is a intellectuel, not some kind of weapon against radical left.
Yes! The titles of his clips are usually clickbait, so when you actually watch them you're going in with either a pissed off attitude or a smug one depending on if you're left or right. But the content of his lectures are not about that! He gets misrepresented by a lot of his own fans too. It's really frustrating.
he even admits that. however he has become more of a centrist. in the interest of maintaining that balance, he comes out against the left more often. the reason for this is centered on what he said once: "When we talk about how far the Right can go we have clearly defined boundaries. the Nazis were accused of being far right. the nazis advocated genocide so we say 'ok. you are no longer a part of the conversation'...but when we discuss the left, we have no such limits."
That GQ interview was epic, I swear she had JBP’s mic turned down, her positions still seemed flawed. He was also denied water during his interrogation.
@@psychcowboy1 he absolutlely was, he raised an empty glass twice and was given no water, he did have a much worse mic than her, and he was sitting in a dark corner compared to her sitting in a perfectly lit part of the room.
@janmadejdude, f$@%! cut this shit off = If you, do not like it - Turn it off/change video. There are some ppl/folks that listens to this person for a reason.
The thing I love about JP is that he takes his time to really answer a question and doesn’t shy away from them. There’s nothing more frustrating than people refusing to admit they don’t know something or deflecting a question completely if they don’t like it.
I like what joe did here. He translated Peterson’s experience into what he knows (martial arts) and I just really like that mutual appreciation. I think that’s just good interviewer/conversation technique
Jordan P. Is by far the best person to walk this earth fighting for truth, articulating what is the best way to approach life. Thank you For everything Jordan.
She wasn't trying to make it tense. That wasn't a consideration and would not help her achieve her goal. She just decided she was going to try to destroy him, but that she would be successful where others had failed. She failed miserably.
@@Nsypski No way did he look like a bully are you serious. He just demolished her with his superior knowledge and yes intellect.,as well as his humor. Even without knowing her pre-interview antagonism, her attitude was obvious. he handled her well very professionally.
I think the point is without the context of the environment she didnt want us to know was she tried to act calm and collected on camera but wanted to fire him up off before they started so he would look like he wasn't and she was. Its was a tactic to help attack his character even though he handled it very well. People who get heated and aggravated in a debate can sometimes look bad against a person who is cool and calm.
Jordan Peterson’s intelligence is so incredibly attractive. I could sit and listen to him for hours. His brilliance has stirred my interest in learning again. I can’t get enough of his lectures & interviews.
Apparently, when he was like in his twenties he decided to start weightlifting as he was super skinny and got himself jacked up to like 185lbs from like 140lbs or something. He said it taught him about the idea of small gains working hard diligently daily, etc. He mentioned this in some video.
My favorite part of the GQ interview was when said something to the effect of “I can already tell what you believe on every issue, you could be replaced with any other ideologue and it wouldn’t make a difference, you practically don’t exist”... He basically NPC’d her haha
Actually, that reminds me of this ... ua-cam.com/video/bBu74aRI3g8/v-deo.html [It's worth listening in full, but pay attention from 4:05 onwards, where he talks about 'idealogical possession' and the Jungian 'people don't have ideas, but ideas have people' ...]
I guess it’s because I’m a man, but I never saw Jordan’s statements as anti-feminists or pushing against changes. Just a guy analyzing peoples and mental make up
Well he says things like: 1) Women are high in negative emotion. 2) Women are more agreeable 3) Women are unhappy in their choices to have a career. I think he comes off as someone advocating traditional way of life, which is great for men but has proven to be a lose for women.. (as a feminist I know his message is a bit nuance) but his audience are men who are listening to those generalization about women which even Jordan himself admit it is only applicable to percentage of women..
4) Women do stupid courses.. all of these are quite insulting to the feminine which just makes women more protective and territorial hence become even more feminist
Christine Awuor I mean I’d say he just presents it in a very unemotional and factual way so that means that if he’s saying something negative or something people don’t like then they grow colder. Also when he does say things like you listed he puts words like ‘most’ in front of would say percentages, he doesn’t make such blanket generalisations
Christine Awuor interesting, I’ve not heard these types of broad statements or at least generalized in that manner. I’ve heard him say his personal, traditional, view points (which I mostly don’t agree with), but I’ve only heard him make statements such as “ percentage of X generally seems to Y” when describing anything that may be perceived as factual. I’ve never taken such remarks as direct correlation because it’s not absolute, it’s his stated opinion. If you have them, I wouldn’t mind links to some of these more declarative statements. If he’s made them, then I can understand the animosity.
J of course he wouldn’t out right call her an npc he’s too measured to burn bridges by direct insults to people who he is using to widen his audience and voice.
haha yeah, jordan was just simply pointing out that she was making a claim she could not back up by claiming she read things, which she used often. that is why he said read more, it attacks both the point and the backing behind it which makes her more likely to become defensive and the audience more likely to lean on your side. it was not actually an attack on her intelligence or reading portfolio.
fiend smoker thanks for feeling the need to break down what we all experienced upon hearing Jordan say that. Do you think you have some superior understanding as opposed to everybody else? We all picked up on that, thanks for that.
I'm surprised there are no replies yet from triggered SJW feminists. "So what you're saying is, all a woman should strive for is finding a husband and having a family?"
He was out of water about 40 minutes into the interview, he held the empty glass in his hand twice, but was never offered a refill. At the 1 hour 20 minute mark the woman even held her glass full of water and put it down without even taking a sip when it was evident from Peterson's mouth movement that he was experiencing dry mouth. The lighting was such where a shadow was cast over peterson's eyes from many angles, that's something done to make a person seem less trust worthy and alter viewer perception. His mic was messed up probably on purpose to do the same. And Peterson still came out victorious.
Jordan Peterson is a gentleman and an actual intellectual who has so much to offer to the world. His heart is in the right place as far as I can tell. Kudos Mr Peterson.
Jordan Peterson is a fraud & intellectual hack. I've been watching him for about two years now and just finished his biblical series. I realized that his entire work is ironically based off of core post modern foundations which is essentially infinite perceptions and Jordan certainly likes to make one standard line into a two hour lecture which is simply his personal projections onto the world. Truthfully anyone could do what Jordan does; just have a good imagination and deep state of creativity and you make make up an entire dimension of information from a simple thing such as " The old man thought of his youth and dead family then took a shit and then killed himself " into a 400 page book about the importance of youth and the deadly realities of regret. When not projecting his feelings, Jordan has never had an original thought in his life, everything runs back to another man: Peterson is nothing but a critic, he has created nothing of value but basic ramblings of setting your life in order, he's essentially a motivational speaker who cites philosophers with original thought to make himself seem smart. Jordan is intelligent, but he's essentially a critic with a good imagination who makes a hack intellectual. Jordan is interesting to listen to. Jordan could make anything out of anything, the content of the bible comes out of Jordan's mouth an entirely different piece of literature; he doesn't respect the work, he's telling it in his own voice and message. Jordan could do the same as he does with any piece of literature he projects his insecurities and anti-depressant & whatever disorders he's trying to circumvent with said SSRI to. Jordan is a broken man, he states that everyone is simply talking from the mouth of a dead philosopher when the truth of the matter is that all of Jordan's work is based off of dead philosophers; Jordan has created nothing to be put into a library, nothing original, nothing Jordan Peterson - he's simply another failure of Academia and another stack of papers onto a million stack of papers of ordinary men explaining their feelings upon great dead men. Jordan has a-lot of feelings and his feelings & creativity is what has given him hundreds of hours of content for his speeches and youtube account and monthly income for his patreon account. Jordan wouldn't have this career, he would be making whatever his job at his University paid him and that only if not for Post-Modernism; his work is based on an infinite number of perceptions. Yet he only argues against the physical actions of an infinite number of perceptions - not the intellectual aspect of it, because he abuses and destroys the foundation of solid work and morphs it into an entire series to explore his fantasies, his projections, his failures as a man which now spread to everyone else because he can't bare the fact that he's a hack. Peterson at the very best is a motivation speaker who cites men who've put in work into the world of actual value. He's a critic who states simple positive acts in life and turns them into cinematic events to excite delusional young men. He simply masquerades his basic, simple, copy-cat words as something fierce. Jordan has never created a work that wasn't piggy-backing on someone else. He might be the most unoriginal '' public intellectual figure '' with his influence today. His words are influential and resonates with his audience of losers & would be deviants because they're fake, made to be epic, made to be something else but simple things such as wipe your ass- You clean your room and wipe your ass because that's not being a fat piece of shit, not because you're slaying a dragon and turning the poverty-stricken NEET self of 50 years old into a millionaire. Jordan Peterson and his lobsters are immunized against all dangers: one may call them scoundrels, parasites, swindlers, profiteers, it all runs off them like water off a raincoat. But call Jordan Peterson an intellectual fraud & hack and you will be astonished at how they recoil, how injured they become, how they suddenly shrink back: “I’ve been found out.” That's what I'm going to say about it. Jordan is a fun idiot and so are his lobsters. it just shows what a ridiculous society we're in when a ridiculous mediocre hack can attract such a large cult following.
@@peznee so, the Ad hominem fallacy (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. For example, an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.
I watched that interview, and Jordan was not impatient considering how hostile that interviewer clearly was. She really had no substantial position to have a conversation with him, so she came off like a little child talking to a rational and patient parent.
Sadly yes. I'm a feminist and don't agree with Peterson on all his views, although I think he nails it in some areas. But you can disagree with someone and have a civil debate with them. She was dissapointing
@@browifgopro his use of logic grabbed her by the pussy. So many machismoaggressions.... It was LITERALLY toxic and they had to call a biohazard team. The Patriarchy arrived in Gray wigs and gavels and started to assign her to ten years of dishwashing. Then they carried him off to run the banking system and play grabass with a meek secretary. Obviously she was raped.
Well it automatically adds hashtags from the description to the top. And the official name if #MeToo is #MeToo, with the hashtag attached, so it makes sense
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48 "The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]" "It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
For an ignorant , or let's say for an "ideologically posessed" person , I think the most dangerous thing about having a conversation with Jordan Peterson is that the guy knows you better than you do , and what's more dangerous is he understands very well your philosophy while you don't understand his , and that's why I love him because he always have a strong idea about something or someone
There was a couple moments where she thought she had him , the best was the rapid fire questions, she asks his favorite author then favorite female author and she didnt even know the female author he mentioned
3:17 Lewis brutally lost that war since she was checked at every single premise she attempted to put forward. For someone drunk on her intellect and education, she came out as a fool and unlikely sees it that way.
Love this interview. I’m a property manager and - as such - I’m subjected to many online reviews. Largely, people aim to dehumanize. It’s tough to stomach.
It's awesome when people underestimate DOCTOR Peterson, attack him and feel superior while he calmly and patiently waits. And then.....he calmly responds..... He is beyond incredibly smart, never forgets anything. Facts not emotion
Calm and patient facts? You are joking right? Including these: 1. That's your theory? That's a foolish theory. [That the women's movement helped advance women's rights.] 2. That's for sure. It's purely not! [Peterson contradicting himself on if you call something a patriarchy, you are calling it purely that.] 3. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It's so cliche. [Helen said you get paid for your job. Peterson disagrees.] 4. So you are saying if it is not 50/50 it is a tyrannical patriarchy? [JP pulling a Cathy Newman, 'so you are saying...'] 5. Read more! [Responding to Helen's correct observation that an internet study shows that alt right like Peterson.] 6. Who says we have over population? [JP denies over population is a problem? What an absolute idiot.] 7. How do lobsters say that? [Jordan, you just explained how lobsters address Marxism two minutes ago.] 8. Politics based upon identity is not identity politics. [Really Jordan? What is it then?] 9. Good luck with that. [Peterson offering his brilliant opinion of abortion rights and renewable energy.]
Holy crap, it just hit me that Joe Rogan is quite possibly the only true unbiased "journalist" on the planet. I refuse to call anybody with a blatant bias or agenda a true journalist, and I actually trust Joe more than pretty much any journalist out there
he has had few bias, but very insog ificant. tbh nowadays - if you are simply HoNEST and competent you instantly will be recognized. Countless people.for some reason are at good positions and are faking that they are better than they are and leave this impression of fake. E.g. Trumps major appeal os that he is honest - he has no filter and people are sick of fake lying leaders. it is truly odd time to live but honesty is biggest asset if you want to make it in most public fields, incl journalism
Cudos to you Joe Rogan.... for landing the interview with true gentleman. And to Jordan for accepting it. Well done and thank you both. Sorry I’m so late on the comment... I’m blaming You Tube notification as I know the minute I saw you two paired up I would have dropped everything to tune in. :-)
Fun Fact: the most Liked comment on that GQ interview was comment that says, "I can't wait to not buy her book."
That comment has since been deleted. He must’ve bought her book
@@Aaron-rd3cd No gq deleted it, get your facts right
@@Aaron-rd3cd luckily there’s dozens more. And the replies are fucking primo
Haha. Feminism
They deleted his comment lmao
Peterson: I like cats
Interviewer: so you're saying we should kill dogs
Me, being the provocative åsshole that I am: "No. I didn't say that. I agree with it, but that's not what I said."
@AsSeenOnTV stfu poser
That chick was the nail that met the Hammer of Peterson.
ahaha
Dude it's a about the GQ interview. I will suggest you watch it. The interviewer was being a d***
*FUN FACT* The GQ interviewer (Helen Lewis) cheated on her now ex-husband and is divorced. She is a bit vague about the details, but admits that within 2 years of her marriage she "fell in love with someone else" (in other words she cheated on her husband).
Funny, Peterson predicted they’d have issues in the interview
Um I tried googling but couldn't find anything so could you send a link or something?
@@flacjunkie5553 refer to Personal Life
@@rkv6317 ahh found it.
haha, the bloke got a lucky escape.
If jordan ever feels down about himself he would just need to read the comment section on every interview he´s been.
I think he tends to filter out the comments stroking his ego and looks at the criticism, since he said he noticed comments about his impatience in the GQ video which I didnt notice at all.
@@elisagrace3966 It was clear that he interupted the woman a couple times. He shouldn't have done that, but he knows that.
@@elisagrace3966 yup whatever suits your narrative.
@@mostlyneutral Well, he was the one being interviewed so him talking more than her is naturally supposed to happen. Although interrupting is still unpleasant…
@@LWLProductions That and she was hostile from the beginning like JP said. He also only defended himself when she’d go off putting words in his mouth or twisting what he said etc. She said it’d be war so she got it didn’t she? Do you expect to be calm to someone who just threatened you? Even so he was still professional.
Jordan Peterson is a perfect example of an intellectual black belt.
@@aenamabag Do you have any example?
@@19Slim68 Richard Wolff
@@aenamabag What the hell are you talking about? Are you telling me that Jordan Peterson is cherry picking his opponents in his debates?
By the way, I'd like to see a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Wolff.
@@aenamabag LOL ARE YOU KIDDING ?? GO BACK TO SCHOOL !!!
Watch sam seders videos on him, woke!
Joe “I will find a way to compare anything to martial arts” Rogan
Joe "robot parrot audience" Rogan
Ha!!!!
😂👌❤️
To be fair that's what he knows so makes sense
Everybody always tries to connect it to what you know for simplicity.
This man's ability to stay calm and collected is unreal.
As if he is a God sent to humanity, a much needed person in this dark age, to say it lightly
@@flowerofash4439 he is an exceptional man, stop the over exaggeration
Calm and collected? You are joking right? He was rude and triggered the entire interview.
@@psychcowboy1 not sure if serious
@@mohammadbuhamad7744 That's your theory, thats a foolish theory, man alive how can you say something like that, no thats not right I know my neurochemistry lets go play neurochemistry...calm and collected? Give me a break. Let's get our definitions straight on identity politics...and then JP proceeds to not define identity politics. Whoops Jordan.
This man helped me through depression and still is, I'll forever be grateful for his courage and humility.
God speed and good luck my friend.
✊
Same here. I can't imagine what he deals with. What an example to back up his ideas.
The amount of gratitude I feel towards Jordan Peterson is greater than one to perhaps anyone else I've ever got to listen to. Dragged me out of depression also.
Too bad you need an incel to help you through your bs. The world we be better off if you pulled a Ryan Dunn
He was out of water about 40 minutes into the interview, he held the empty glass in his hand twice, but was never offered a refill. At the 1 hour 20 minute mark the woman even held her glass full of water and put it down without even taking a sip when it was evident from Peterson's mouth movement that he was experiencing dry mouth. The lighting was such where a shadow was cast over peterson's eyes from many angles, that's something done to make a person seem less trust worthy and alter viewer perception. His mic was messed up probably on purpose to do the same. And Peterson still came out victorious.
Thanks for pointing out all those. They're the kind of things one only notices subconsciously.
Also the doomed music at the end with the look of contempt on his face was a clear effort to skew public perception of him.
@@goldrays4862 Damn, I didn't notice that.
Lyla xo,the look of contempt on the face was all Peterson,I’m sure he knew how she was trying to paint him and that was his natural and just reaction,she seemed to lack intelligence with generic statements and a lack of courtesy for her GUEST :)
you sound like a conspiracy theorist
I live in Korea. I just found out "12 Rules" has been translated to Korean and that his lectures are gaining popularity in China and Japan. Dr. Peterson, I believe it's time to start considering an Asian tour.
Agreed.
Yaas
I live in Hong Kong and I would love to one of his lectures!
He’d definitely be helpful in japan
Please someone publish it in Taiwan
The best line from that GQ interview: "Read more!"
Helen was right.
@@psychcowboy1 Bullshit. She tried to bait him at every turn. She wasn't even playing Devil's advocate. She was trying to embarrass him, but looked the fool, despite her articulateness. They tried hard to make him uncomfortable. Not even a glass of fucking water.
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48
"The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]"
"It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
@@canadianroot At around 41:00 JP refers to research on lobster serotonin and on Marxism in academia. He refers to these papers to prove Helen wrong and he alleges that he studied them 'quite carefully'. He may have studied them carefully, but the problem is he still didn't understand them. Both papers actually prove Helen right:
1. Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans; lobsters injected with serotonin adopt aggressive postures and seek agonistic encounters, making Helen right. [Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive. Paper: It makes lobsters more agonistic.]
2. Prevalence of Marxism in Academia; Marxism is a tiny minority faith at only 3%, making Helen right.
[Helen: Not a widely held view. Paper: A tiny minority faith. Also JP falsely attributes the author as Jonathan Haidt.]
Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism!
=====
At 1:17:00. Helen: What about renewable energy? JP: Good luck with that. JP: 'What kind of statement is it that the planet would be better off with fewer people? If you are concerned about your carbon footprint you can kill yourself.' Helen: What overpopulation has done... Peterson interrupting as usual: 'Who says we have overpopulation? We aren't going to run out of fossil fuels. We will top out at 9 billion, in 100 years there will be too few people.'
[Let's unpack this. JP's insightful and useful commentary on such a huge issue as renewable energy is...good luck with that? Peterson is denying we have an over population problem? What a complete idiot, that statement is what inspired me to start checking the guy out. Peterson knows we will top out at 9 billion and we won't run out of fossil fuels and in 100 years there will be too few people? Doesn't this guy call himself a credible scientist? What is credible or scientific about any of his statements here?]
@@brianmi40 Did Peterson define identity politics? He said let's get our definitions straight and it's a very specific thing... Then he proceeds to not define it. What an idiot.
the best thing is At the later part of interview, She asks, " What is the most important thing to you in life?"
To which Jordan Replied, "NOT BEING STUPID".
"multiple orgasms"
"Read More" was badass
@@a.filakiewicz2942 Helen was right on the read more spot. Alt right like Peterson.
@cheff wallets So why is Peterson stupid so often?
@@psychcowboy1 nice b8
Jordan Peterson isn't misunderstood. He is deliberately _misrepresented_ because he challenges the false feminist narratives so effectively. i.e. With actual facts and data and stuff.
Mr Chow he is misinterpreted by the vocal minority so he’s misunderstood by the uninformed majority
he himself misrepresents feminism. peterson once claimed that no feminists has stood up for women in the near east. which is wrong both in regard to women in the near east (obviously) but ALSO in regard to women in the west ! in the exact same speech an context he accused feminists of thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in regard to islam.
but how dare someone say something bad about peterson...
@@Mr1987Joe "What are you talking about?"
the same thing you are talking about:
"Islam, at its core, is the single most anti-feminist thing on the planet."
(...)
"For some reason, however, feminists don't seem to like acknowledging this. They are avid supporters of Islam, as Islam has represented the figurative destruction of the Western culture they hate, for centuries. It is the literal, exact, perfect definition of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." "
these bullshit-claims are the things i am talking about.
give me one peace of evidence for the claim that any relevant amount or example of feminists do not have a problem with islam.
have fun trying overinterpreting NOT HATING EVERY MUSLIM as loving islam...
"This man has become one of the figureheads of civil discourse in the present day! It's only lunatics that are unable to engage themselves in critical thinking that seem to have a problem with him."
yeah, you are just proving that you are another sheeple of his cult...
if you are never looking for his mistakes, of course you will never find one.
anyone who goes to such extremes as "ONLY lunatics (...) seem to have a problem with him" should try FUCKING HARD to think again about whether the truth is really THAT ONE-SIDED...
Peterson keeps himself vague so he never has to address real criticisms
@@jacobmistake3281 LOL You'd be joking right. Peterson has the most specific rebuttals to toxic feminism, citing scientific study and study that refutes feminist dogma.
Guest: I want to talk about bacon sandwiches
Joe Rogan: Brazilian jiu jutsu
Citizen Kane haha. 🤣 There seems to always be a link to martial arts
@@randomwalk6174 there always is!
😆😆😆👍
I love juijitsu and I'm starting to get annoyed by joe mentioning in every conversation.
I can only imagine how people who don't like the sport feel! 😂
@@adamzoubi96 I feel nothing.
I met Jordan when he had an event in Portugal and he was so kind to everyone in line to meet him. He is a great human being spreading nothing but positivity and truth. I told him i got into russian literature because of him and i saw he was actually touched about it. Great experience
lucky youuuu
Ele já cá veio em 2018. Infelizmente nessa altura ainda não o conhecia mas gostava muito de poder ter uma simples conversa com ele. Deve ser uma experiência para a vida.
Faz sentido, Dostayesk ia gostar de conversar com esta man
Quando é que ele foi? E aonde??
Loved when he asked her "If you hate the system, then give your job to someone less privileged"
"Well I don't think that would really help the situation....."
😂😂😂
Helen won.
@@psychcowboy1 you must be trolling
@@kchilz32 Nope I am just the only person who paid attention.
@@psychcowboy1 I wouldn’t say she ‘won’. I wouldn’t even know what that would mean.
But I do seem to be a part of an extremely small minority here on UA-cam who found Jordan to be the one who came across as hostile in the interview. I’ve watched it like 4 times and she made her case rather decently.
On the partiarchy discussion for example, Jordan basically made the point that the way to look at history as if it consisted of a tyrannical patriarchy would be horrible, and wouldn’t do you any good. But that’s not an argument though, is it? There were way more points than this, but I thought that Helen did fine.
I remember the first time watching it, I was like this huge JBP fan and thought he’d ‘won’ as well, but the more I watched it and tried being as neutral as I could be, the more I could see that they were just opposites from each other - the one not neccesarily ‘better’ than the other.
@@shakespearsplat Peterson interrupted her every other sentence. He was arrogant with a fragile ego. I know my neurochemistry, let's play neurochemistry. He goes into a lengthy statement on how he chose lobsters to address Marxism, and Helen notes that he chose lobsters to address Marxism...he denies it, apparently just to be disagreeable. JP fans however would rather just swallow the whole pill rather than pay attention to what actually happened.
Joe "I WILL be made fun of in the comments section no matter what I do" Rogan
Thank you for this 😂
Quite right too. Shiny-headed shaven-headed slaphead bald feckers deserve it,
Nice!
I mean... he’s just such an easy person to make jokes at the expense of
Most accurate one to date ☝🏼
"They hated Jesus because he spoke the truth" - shiny head man
Bike is short for bicheal - Jesus
- pot smoking bald man
Isnt joe an atheist??
Nunya no
It's a parable about a guy that never existed. But we get what you're saying.
Jordan has helped me through depression. He speaks the type of truth that hurt before it heals
Late comment, but listening to him encouraged me to learn the piano
@@rroughh I wish you good luck on learning the piano 👍
I saw a comment under another video saying, " he's the father for fatherless children" & I felt that. I see where alot of ppl listened & love his messages & have had life changing situations after. I appreciate this man
The amount of respect Joe Rogan has for Jordan is obvious... and that makes me so much more respectful for Joe...
Joe Rogan is what people should strive to be in terms of being open minded and open to discussion.
Pffft. Rogan is a sellout two faced jellybean. He doesnt stand for anything. Being open minded is great, dont get me wrong. And appreciating Peterson is easy, the man is brilliant. But as soon as the hypothetical next guest were to trash Peterson, Rogans wide open mind would swallow it whole.
Rogan is no role model.
@@dublplus3332 Well, you don't want your guests to feel agitated or uncomfortable right?
@@dublplus3332 Ya it really makes me sad when he does stuff like that.
@@dublplus3332 you wanna be the guy who shoots down Joe Rogan.
I loved that interview. The part when he threw the privilege narrative back at her was delicious.
@@julianfischer1485 around 17:00 - 17:35 minutes in that particular interview, I guess.
Dave Chappelle on the notion of privileged white women: "Lady, you knew what you were doing. You were in on the heist, you just didn't like your cut." 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It was great. I'm a feminist but she's an example of privileged white feminists who want to shit on others but not hold themselves to the same standard
@@julianfischer1485 to
I thought the whole argument was nuts. Isn't the magazine called Gentlemens Quarterly? Why was a woman doing the interview in the first place? Nothing says white woman provelage like doing an interview for a mens magazine and throwing shade at a man. Gees
I met Helen a few years ago. Im afraid she is exactly how you would imagine.
I think Joe gave her too much praise. She certainly wasn’t some intellectual juggernaut. Also “can’t wait to not buy her new book” 😂✌️
Even JP praised her intellect. She’s an intelligent woman with well thought out and researched points. JP also admits he became unstuck and was not as calm throughout the interview. This interview is out there for all to see forever and he doesn’t like that. He tries to discredit her here “coldness” “we’re going to go to war” - but then later admits not in those words. He NEEDS to discredit her - she’s highlighted his frailties all in camera.
@@berniestephens4506 She definitely got under Petersons skin. But there’s a reason why people know who Jordan Peterson is and then refer to the interviewer as the Jordan Peterson GQ interview.
@@AussieZeKieL Right, what does that prove? 🤷♂️
@@berniestephens4506 that people don’t see value in her opinion.
@@AussieZeKieL Or is it that more males buy into his opinion? He says it himself, “the majority of UA-cam users (where he gets these views) are young males (the majority of his support)” So the stats are skewed if you’re judging by UA-cam and social media views. People who agree with Helen Lewis etc are more likely to read papers, magazines and news pages - after all, she’s a journalist, not a social media pundit like JP has become over the last few years…
The exchange where Lewis acknowledges her privilege but declined JP’s suggestion to exchange her position with someone less privileged was an intellectual black belt round house kick to the face.
And the greatest irony is she probably didn't realise the hypocrisy of what she said either.
A white middle-aged woman with a solid job is the most priviledged person in history so she's smart enough to admit it. She's also right in declining to exchange her position, but I'm not sure if it was for the right reason. The right answer is "oh, I quite enjoy my priviledged life and I won't trade it with anyone. I've also earned it as my position is based on competence and not power or oppression". Instead she said about spreading the wealth etc etc total BS, since anyone who she traded the job for likely would do the same in their circles.
Hey, I'm a broke woman of color. She needs to give me her job.
That was a great moment. She stumbled a little because it was so absurd to her. #equalityofoutcome
Was Peterson smart in this interview? Like where?
"She was hostile the second I walked in. She told me we were gonna have a war. There was a coldness to her. She had a chip on her shoulder"
......Oh a feminist
metalrave obvious to you but to man like Jordan was a little shocked because he doesn’t immediately judge someone. He gives everyone a chance including himself to understand where they are coming from. He never looks like he enjoys any of the conflicts he finds himself in. It’s all over his face that he is not having a good time. He does it anyway which is pretty much the definition of courage.
Aka she brought up points I had absolutely no answer for
@@austinbeshers5477 Points?
Ha! Hokay, bud.
@@austinbeshers5477 hahahahaha
austin beshers Please explain how somebody answers to nonsense.
JP is truly 1 in 7 billion. The way he lays his feeling and thoughts out for others to respond to, while at the same time being so calculated is absolutely astonishing.
Helen won the interview.
@@psychcowboy1 In what regard? She would say I disagree with you then Jordan would explain why she's wrong and she'd typically just say "I agree" after and move on because she didn't even understand the viewpoints being opposed that she's been taught to despise so he just framed it in a different way. That's not called winning
@@Hybred You found a Peterson win? Where?
Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
@@Hybred bro that girl is a troll she is trying to comment on everything single JP's video with the same groundless message
@@psychcowboy1 You commented on another thread of this exact video saying "Helen Won" 7 months ago and then I clicked on this comment that's only one month old saying the same exact thing. You keep coming back to this video to comment the same thing then copy and paste the same arguments. I read the entire thread this comment is literally just pasted from it, I'm not going to argue with someone who devotes their life to this and also who's arguments have already been addressed, just want to point out how creepy you are. Why do you either hate JP or love Helen so much? That's the only thing anyone should care about after seeing your dedication.
She was ready to go on the attack. She was awful, a terrible interviewer
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48
"The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]"
"It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
I dunno Marilyn... I watched the interview after reading all the comments and reactions and was expecting something much worse. As Joe Rogan says, I found her much more eloquent, reasonable and respectful than other interviewers like Cathy Newman. Helen Lewis had an agenda, wanted to catch him out, had views that I find absurd, but she listened to him, responded to his arguments. She is clearly a radical feminist, but at least she's an articulate one! I don't get why people (and Jordan) found that interview so terrible. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad interview and her actions were reprehensible, but was it really THAT bad? :-)
"Arguing" is how we learn. We tend to be over emotional and it becomes an "argument". Do it respectfully and it's a debate - and we all learn and get better. Newman (ha ha) only argued. Miss Unfaithful (Jordan predicted this - suspecting she'd have challenging relationships) at least debated and evaluated what he said/she heard.
Likely a disgusting person too. She seems like a squawking banshee
@@brianmi40 He literally stated minutes earlier in that interview that identity politics started in the 1970s. That statement was him saying it has become popularized recently.
Way to reinforce Joe Rogan’s statement that he’s the most misquoted man.
People forget that Jordan Peterson was shoved into the spotlight, he didn't choose it. This guy is just doing what he was doing beforehand, teaching people about psychological and philosophical concepts he thinks are important and helpful to others. His life purpose is to help people, he chose that long before a couple years ago when he popped up on UA-cam arguing with college students.
The problem is in certain aspects, he's wrong and misguided. He's not a very good psychologist if he doesn't simple intersectionality. The same intersectionality that's used in Epidemiology.
@@mdusibisi I don't really know what that is. I'm not actually a very developed thinker or know much about these social issues that plague us. If you could elaborate I'd appreciate it.
I will say I've grown less fond of Peterson since thinking more for myself. Same thing with Sam Harris. The public intellectual phenomenon is overrated. I'm also over Joe Rogan for the most part. The whole "let's talk about stuff I don't understand" over and over week by week is a little lacking, these podcasts are kind of shallow compared to a lot of the topics discussed in them.
Noone choses to step into the spotlight, that's not something you do. You get offered a spot there by the public, and you either accept or decline. Jordan accepted it and kept on posting lectures online, publishing books and giving interviews. It's not like he's forced into the studio.
@@Merthalophor yeah I thought about it more later and agree with you.
He popped up on youtube after condemning and opposing canada instituting compelled speech laws.
I remember when GQ used to be a men's magazine... now it's some sort of new age, feminist, metro-sexual horse crap.
Truth Seeker 😂
I think it may have to do with Anna Wintour (Vogue USA) being creative director for all Conde Nast publications since a few years now, basically dictating the "flow" and philosophy that the different publications should have. I think that explains a lot in and of itself, not that she is that type of "feminist" at all (she is an extremely intelligent woman that got by because of that and determination, certainly not for playing the victim card), she is just probably catering to her markets, magazines are mostly read by women, how would they react if they found their boyfriend magazines were talking about issues in a different way? And find out both publications are from the same media company? They'd stop reading, she probably prefers mens magazines to suffer a little as long as their target market remains fully engaged.
@@fonziegee 👍
Not to be an ass, but what dictates a ‘Men’s’ magazine? Because a lot of that old stuff was crap too. Basically a giant ad for ‘why your tiny dick ain’t cutting it without this watch’. Men’s health used to be pretty decent.
An Einstein in a world of teletubbies
I watched that GQ interview, I thought JBP was upset from the beginning. After listening to this talk with Joe Rogan it makes total sense. I still loved his points in that interview. God Bless you Dr!
Jordan Peterson has definitely helped me with a better outlook and view of the world and I am forever grateful thank you!
Thank you ☺️ for supporting Jordan Peterson I do love seeing females girls and women being helped by Jordan Peterson
I can’t see how he is so misunderstood. He’s excellent.
He's deliberately misinterpreted by far leftist politicians and SJW's.
He has a brilliant mind for sure.
He needs a long form panel to explore his ideas. With short interviews, he isn't given much time to explain anything that needs even an ounce of nuisance.
Classic example was his whole 'chaos is classified as female' and then 'antidote to chaos'. Sounds bad until you listen to him talk about what he means.
People want to misinterpret him lol. I'm seeing people say in these comments that he's an insidious force that wants to harm things like women's rights and trans right, when all he's doing is tackling the radical ideologies that have surfaced and have harmful potential to society. People are so willing to hate on anybody because somehow it validates them as a person, so you can only imagine how as JP tackles SJWs even more people would hate him
So are you! I agree.
Love what you've done with your hair in this one Joe
What hair
Misunderestimated comment^ 10/10
Golden
Er what hair lol
Fuck sake 😂
She was indeed hostile I could even feel her intense vibe coming off while Jordan was respectful until he got fed up and told her “read more” 🤣🤣🤣🤣 he had enough
I watched that interview the other night and I thought it a masterclass on how to deal with someone who has an underlying hostility and prejudice. He countered her hostility and ambush tactics with honesty, great knowledge and facts and figures he seemed to retrieve from the air. She in no way was able to cope with his greater intellect and truthfulness. I watched her face become whiter and whiter during the interview and I must say I was cheering him at the end. Jordan Peterson did not give her an inch and remained direct and focused. Well done!
Peterson had honesty knowledge and facts? Where?
@@psychcowboy1 🤡
@@psychcowboy1 literature on egalitarian societies, about serotonin, hierarchies, how problems like the wage gap are compartmentalised to fit a narrative etc
@@xxxgreyhookkickjxxx3295 True those are examples of Peterson commenting on reality, as opposed to when he doesn't. Hierarchies are a third of a billion years old you can't blame them on capitalism and the West. Heads up Jordan, everyone knows that hierarchies are a third of a billion years old and no one is blaming them on capitalism and the West. Egalitarian measures move women further into their traditional vocational roles. Sorry Jordan,100% wrong for the US. Neurotransmitters like serotonin affect behavior. True Jordan. Scientists figured that out.
41:00 Plenty of Motivation] Helen: It makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive...Peterson interrupting: No that's not right. It makes humans less aggressive and lobsters more willing to fight. I know my neurochemistry.
Let's check up on Peterson 'I know my neurochemistry' from the source paper on lobsters and serotonin:
"Here we show that injection of serotonin into the hemolymph of subordinate, freely moving animals results in a renewed willingness of these animals to engage the dominants in further agonistic encounters."
[agonistic. Adjective. Having a predisposition to fight or engage in confrontations. combative. belligerent. bellicose. aggressive. pugnacious.]
Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. I studied it quite carefully look it up in Haidt's work.
[In the study, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and it is not by Haidt.
Helen for the score on lobsters and Marxism!
====================
JP... Plenty of them are saying there should be no such thing as hierarchies. Plenty of them Jordan? Find me one.
@@xxxgreyhookkickjxxx3295 JP at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options....
[Holy crap Jordan you have some serious voices going on in your head. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.]
=============
Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies unidimensional...'
[Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert']
What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.]
'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy...
[What a total idiot. She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
I'm a simple man. I saw Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson in the same video. I smoked DMT and started doing my chores.
And ate some lobster…?
very simple
@@glengamble526 Yes some lobsters and elk meats! :)
@@lilbaby_1 Life is simple but we make it so hard.
Brilliant!
Joe rogan just went 110% bald.
@@TheSmilodon85 wow . . .great joke
FOR REAL WTF
Jesus, that is almost Saitama bald
@jackmccormick Nope, just No.
Lol Joe took off the usual headphones that he wears. That’s why he looks more bald than usual, but that’s actually just what he looks like.
This man is a legend. I love his brilliant mind and pure heart.
I'd run out of patience too if people were constantly making me out to be something I'm not.
Jordan is a human necessity. He has been battling health issue recently, hoping he gets well sooner than later.
I hope that too! Still, I just don't understand how he started to take bentsos. Even the worst addict knows you should stay the hell away from them.
Anyone else think it’s super weird seeing joe without his headphones?
It's beautiful
@@calum9124 LOL
If your head shines like his, it's best to keep it hidden so that you can treasure it.
@NextLeveLhumaNPC Peterson came with beards, so he greeted with fresh shave. Also no headphones.
I didn't even know he had ears😂
Jordan Peterson is amazing. He has a factual, responsible and respectful approach. Learned to take care of my life and my own actions before worrying about others. Self care is truly a careless act.
The last few years. Sometimes it was very easy to believe that all those who fight the good fight gave up. But when I see Joe and Jordan in the same room. I know I'm still amongst strong people who care about us.
Joe "Misunderestimated" Rogan
Joe "Dubya" Rogan
You beat me to it😂
Would've bet on this being here
Joe "85 IQ score" Hogan.
Yogi-berraism
The look in Jordan's eyes during that interview was he will not be beat by her or anyone. He was amazing
I was gonna like but 69😎
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48
"The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]"
"It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
@@brianmi40 That wikipedia article is actually wrong in comparison to its source for that line. Citation 6: Page 150. 'It was only in the 1990s and thereafter that the term was used to apply to a broader array of interest groups and that it entered mainstream political discourse.'
Peterson is correct.
@@komay Now buy a calculator: the 90s started 31 years ago...
"No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term."
PETERSON IS WRONG.
@@brianmi40 agree to disagree, I hear it as an exaggeration, you would never have heard of identity politics 10 years ago as much as you do now so it's easily imaginable it was a very tiny thing in the 90s too
How can you not like a person that speaks a lot of common sense and has integrity running through their veins.
Jordan Peterson has helped so many many people, he is truly a great man
I think he gets misunderstood from both ends. Most clips about Jordan Peterson on youtube are about ' peterson destroys feminist' or 'Peterson owns leftists'. If someone would look him up on youtube for the first time, he/she would probably get a totally wrong impression about him. He is a intellectuel, not some kind of weapon against radical left.
Yes! The titles of his clips are usually clickbait, so when you actually watch them you're going in with either a pissed off attitude or a smug one depending on if you're left or right. But the content of his lectures are not about that! He gets misrepresented by a lot of his own fans too. It's really frustrating.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
@@iordannelucas 'I am the Walrus'
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov
he even admits that. however he has become more of a centrist. in the interest of maintaining that balance, he comes out against the left more often. the reason for this is centered on what he said once: "When we talk about how far the Right can go we have clearly defined boundaries. the Nazis were accused of being far right. the nazis advocated genocide so we say 'ok. you are no longer a part of the conversation'...but when we discuss the left, we have no such limits."
Can you give an example of him being an intellectual in the GQ interview?
That GQ interview was epic, I swear she had JBP’s mic turned down, her positions still seemed flawed. He was also denied water during his interrogation.
He was also denied water during his interrogation 😂🤣
Yes twice
Interrogation, yes
@@olddnkinobi5758 he was not denied water, he wasn't given a bad mic, he wasn't lit badly..read more.
@@psychcowboy1 lol I've just watched a couple JBP videos recently and your replies are everywhere. He be living rent free in your head for sure haha
@@psychcowboy1 he absolutlely was, he raised an empty glass twice and was given no water, he did have a much worse mic than her, and he was sitting in a dark corner compared to her sitting in a perfectly lit part of the room.
I love Mr.Peterson dude is just awesome n I watched n listened to everything I can find about him n his shows n talks hes had
Man I love Dr JP. I love seeing him in laid back conversations bc he looks relaxed and more comfortable.
Hairdresser: how we cuttin'?
Joe Rogan: turn my head into a mirror please
Say no more fam
@janmadejdude, f$@%! cut this shit off = If you, do not like it - Turn it off/change video. There are some ppl/folks that listens to this person for a reason.
Jan Madej Or as he would pronounce it “a mear”
As a bald man, I’m offended. As a fan of comedy, I say well done.
LMAO
I had to wear sunglasses while watching this.
1jw2 , I put on my solar eclipse goggles. Take care!
Snow glasses are in now
Embrace the shine you fools don't try to hide from it
That was the first thing I saw. Joe's head is looking extra shiny today. I think he's trying to mesmerize Jordan with his crystal ball.
😂😎
The thing I love about JP is that he takes his time to really answer a question and doesn’t shy away from them. There’s nothing more frustrating than people refusing to admit they don’t know something or deflecting a question completely if they don’t like it.
I like what joe did here. He translated Peterson’s experience into what he knows (martial arts) and I just really like that mutual appreciation. I think that’s just good interviewer/conversation technique
Folks....the "weird" difference you're seeing with Joe is he's not wearing his headphones. Huge difference.
is that why my pee pee has a half chub?
My God
It's entirely possible.
Jordan Peterson is what Brain Callen thinks he sounds like
J Swartz interesting
Hahahha
Lmfaoooooooo
Hahah so true
Perfectly said
i just came from that interview. what a relief to listen to reasonable people.
the word "reasonable" spikes an idea in my mind, there really appears to be a lack of reasonable people.
@@halocheck1 Helen won.
Jordan P. Is by far the best person to walk this earth fighting for truth, articulating what is the best way to approach life.
Thank you For everything Jordan.
She was hostile before the interview deliberately to make the interview tense. That's sad, I wish JP wouldve revealed this sooner.
@carollois65 no, revealed. JP came off looking like a bully, and that's because we didn't know the context and atmosphere in the room.
She wasn't trying to make it tense. That wasn't a consideration and would not help her achieve her goal. She just decided she was going to try to destroy him, but that she would be successful where others had failed. She failed miserably.
@@Nsypski No way did he look like a bully are you serious. He just demolished her with his superior knowledge and yes intellect.,as well as his humor. Even without knowing her pre-interview antagonism, her attitude was obvious. he handled her well very professionally.
Interrogation. British GQ wrote that she *interrogated* him in the video description ))
ua-cam.com/video/yZYQpge1W5s/v-deo.html
I think the point is without the context of the environment she didnt want us to know was she tried to act calm and collected on camera but wanted to fire him up off before they started so he would look like he wasn't and she was. Its was a tactic to help attack his character even though he handled it very well. People who get heated and aggravated in a debate can sometimes look bad against a person who is cool and calm.
Wish Jordan Peterson had been one of my professors.
He is if you're watching his lectures 😁
You can be the professor others need right now my brother, truly
Jordan Peterson’s intelligence is so incredibly attractive. I could sit and listen to him for hours. His brilliance has stirred my interest in learning again. I can’t get enough of his lectures & interviews.
Peterson said something intelligent and brilliant?
@@psychcowboy1absolutely, cowboy.
@@muhammadputera6593 We continue our quest for an intellectual idea by Peterson. Did you find one?
It was a brilliant interview on Peterson's part. One of my favourites.
Imagine a jacked Jordan Peterson. Wtf he would be unstoppable
TRUEEE
So gay why even think this.
@@club.Sceniicc cuz he is already a savage, if he had muscle it would be like the perfect human being.
Apparently, when he was like in his twenties he decided to start weightlifting as he was super skinny and got himself jacked up to like 185lbs from like 140lbs or something. He said it taught him about the idea of small gains working hard diligently daily, etc. He mentioned this in some video.
He’s no savage
My favorite part of the GQ interview was when said something to the effect of “I can already tell what you believe on every issue, you could be replaced with any other ideologue and it wouldn’t make a difference, you practically don’t exist”...
He basically NPC’d her haha
Actually, that reminds me of this ...
ua-cam.com/video/bBu74aRI3g8/v-deo.html
[It's worth listening in full, but pay attention from 4:05 onwards, where he talks about 'idealogical possession' and the Jungian 'people don't have ideas, but ideas have people' ...]
And when he asked her why she wore makeup. She writhed like a snake. She has never been challenged like that, I bet.
What part was it?
@@odious5317 1.08.20 in the British GQ video.
lewisner thanks!!
i always feel like i learned something helpful or grew in a healthy way watching these videos , thanks joe !
Watching this again over a year later and I can't get past seeing Joe without headphones.
I guess it’s because I’m a man, but I never saw Jordan’s statements as anti-feminists or pushing against changes. Just a guy analyzing peoples and mental make up
Well he says things like:
1) Women are high in negative emotion.
2) Women are more agreeable
3) Women are unhappy in their choices to have a career.
I think he comes off as someone advocating traditional way of life, which is great for men but has proven to be a lose for women.. (as a feminist I know his message is a bit nuance) but his audience are men who are listening to those generalization about women which even Jordan himself admit it is only applicable to percentage of women..
4) Women do stupid courses..
all of these are quite insulting to the feminine which just makes women more protective and territorial hence become even more feminist
Christine Awuor I mean I’d say he just presents it in a very unemotional and factual way so that means that if he’s saying something negative or something people don’t like then they grow colder. Also when he does say things like you listed he puts words like ‘most’ in front of would say percentages, he doesn’t make such blanket generalisations
Christine Awuor interesting, I’ve not heard these types of broad statements or at least generalized in that manner. I’ve heard him say his personal, traditional, view points (which I mostly don’t agree with), but I’ve only heard him make statements such as “ percentage of X generally seems to Y” when describing anything that may be perceived as factual. I’ve never taken such remarks as direct correlation because it’s not absolute, it’s his stated opinion.
If you have them, I wouldn’t mind links to some of these more declarative statements. If he’s made them, then I can understand the animosity.
Nah plenty of women like him. it's not about gender it's about whether you're an unreasonable moron or not.
he basically called her a NPC
Very much so.
What's that?
JP roasted her multiple times in that interview even more than Cathy Newman.
J he talks about meme culture a lot I would hold your lobster claw bucko
J of course he wouldn’t out right call her an npc he’s too measured to burn bridges by direct insults to people who he is using to widen his audience and voice.
Just watched that interview and I truly admire Jordan Peterson. Great guy and hope to help carry his mission forward ☝🏼🙌🏻👍🏼
I love Jordan Peterson! We need more people like him! Thank you this interview! What a fascinating gentleman.
Joe: the GQ interviewer was well read.
Jordan during the interview : "Read More"..!!
haha yeah, jordan was just simply pointing out that she was making a claim she could not back up by claiming she read things, which she used often. that is why he said read more, it attacks both the point and the backing behind it which makes her more likely to become defensive and the audience more likely to lean on your side. it was not actually an attack on her intelligence or reading portfolio.
fiend smoker thanks for feeling the need to break down what we all experienced upon hearing Jordan say that. Do you think you have some superior understanding as opposed to everybody else? We all picked up on that, thanks for that.
@@MarshyDitch ...I mean, I appreciated the breakdown and perspective.
@@MarshyDitch We all? You mean Seth and Doan?
Hahhahahhahahahaha
True
Thank God for Jordan Peterson. He’s reason in a world of emotional derangement.
The primary derangement being God
@@paulg6274 get off this channel silly libtard
I'm ashamed to be British because of these feminists, Jordan is a legend
Don’t be. Majority of these radical feminists live in the United States because the left dominates media and politics in USA.
Come on now matey, don't be Lily Allen, you are who you are, you just happen to live in Britain.👍👍
Helen won.
@@psychcowboy1 🤣🤣
@@arnoldrimmer9161 Not jordan's best performance.
6:47 this is what made him a great clinical psychologist and counsellor. Damn i wish i could be like him one day.
Feminists don't realise that Peterson is the best thing ever to help Women get a better partner and a family.
I'm surprised there are no replies yet from triggered SJW feminists. "So what you're saying is, all a woman should strive for is finding a husband and having a family?"
Bonez0r I guess they're busy posting selfies on Instagram for validation.
Bonez0r we’re tired.
@@urbanfu lmaooo so true
I don't feel invalidated by Peterson. I am that 40% he talks about.
GQ went out of their way with the audio to LITERALLY silence Jordan Peterson.
Didn't work did it? Not for me anyway I just listened very attentively to whatever he said and boy was it worth listening to.
They should change GQ to FQ then, Feminist's Quarterly
He was out of water about 40 minutes into the interview, he held the empty glass in his hand twice, but was never offered a refill. At the 1 hour 20 minute mark the woman even held her glass full of water and put it down without even taking a sip when it was evident from Peterson's mouth movement that he was experiencing dry mouth. The lighting was such where a shadow was cast over peterson's eyes from many angles, that's something done to make a person seem less trust worthy and alter viewer perception. His mic was messed up probably on purpose to do the same. And Peterson still came out victorious.
Peterson pretty much called her an NPC during that interview
😂😂😂😂😂 This comment deserves more likes
Is he wrong tho?
I like how Joe can just create an MMA analogy of every situation.
Jordan Peterson is a gentleman and an actual intellectual who has so much to offer to the world. His heart is in the right place as far as I can tell. Kudos Mr Peterson.
Jordan Peterson is a fraud & intellectual hack.
I've been watching him for about two years now and just finished his biblical series. I realized that his entire work is ironically based off of core post modern foundations which is essentially infinite perceptions and Jordan certainly likes to make one standard line into a two hour lecture which is simply his personal projections onto the world. Truthfully anyone could do what Jordan does; just have a good imagination and deep state of creativity and you make make up an entire dimension of information from a simple thing such as " The old man thought of his youth and dead family then took a shit and then killed himself " into a 400 page book about the importance of youth and the deadly realities of regret. When not projecting his feelings, Jordan has never had an original thought in his life, everything runs back to another man: Peterson is nothing but a critic, he has created nothing of value but basic ramblings of setting your life in order, he's essentially a motivational speaker who cites philosophers with original thought to make himself seem smart. Jordan is intelligent, but he's essentially a critic with a good imagination who makes a hack intellectual.
Jordan is interesting to listen to. Jordan could make anything out of anything, the content of the bible comes out of Jordan's mouth an entirely different piece of literature; he doesn't respect the work, he's telling it in his own voice and message. Jordan could do the same as he does with any piece of literature he projects his insecurities and anti-depressant & whatever disorders he's trying to circumvent with said SSRI to. Jordan is a broken man, he states that everyone is simply talking from the mouth of a dead philosopher when the truth of the matter is that all of Jordan's work is based off of dead philosophers; Jordan has created nothing to be put into a library, nothing original, nothing Jordan Peterson - he's simply another failure of Academia and another stack of papers onto a million stack of papers of ordinary men explaining their feelings upon great dead men. Jordan has a-lot of feelings and his feelings & creativity is what has given him hundreds of hours of content for his speeches and youtube account and monthly income for his patreon account. Jordan wouldn't have this career, he would be making whatever his job at his University paid him and that only if not for Post-Modernism; his work is based on an infinite number of perceptions. Yet he only argues against the physical actions of an infinite number of perceptions - not the intellectual aspect of it, because he abuses and destroys the foundation of solid work and morphs it into an entire series to explore his fantasies, his projections, his failures as a man which now spread to everyone else because he can't bare the fact that he's a hack.
Peterson at the very best is a motivation speaker who cites men who've put in work into the world of actual value. He's a critic who states simple positive acts in life and turns them into cinematic events to excite delusional young men. He simply masquerades his basic, simple, copy-cat words as something fierce. Jordan has never created a work that wasn't piggy-backing on someone else. He might be the most unoriginal '' public intellectual figure '' with his influence today. His words are influential and resonates with his audience of losers & would be deviants because they're fake, made to be epic, made to be something else but simple things such as wipe your ass- You clean your room and wipe your ass because that's not being a fat piece of shit, not because you're slaying a dragon and turning the poverty-stricken NEET self of 50 years old into a millionaire.
Jordan Peterson and his lobsters are immunized against all dangers: one may call them scoundrels, parasites, swindlers, profiteers, it all runs off them like water off a raincoat. But call Jordan Peterson an intellectual fraud & hack and you will be astonished at how they recoil, how injured they become, how they suddenly shrink back: “I’ve been found out.”
That's what I'm going to say about it. Jordan is a fun idiot and so are his lobsters.
it just shows what a ridiculous society we're in when a ridiculous mediocre hack can attract such a large cult following.
@@ajbluesh377 looks like someone didn’t get enough cuddles from their mummy when they were little.
@@peznee so, the Ad hominem fallacy
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
For example, an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.
@@ajbluesh377 I look forward to reading your published, peer reviewed articles.
@@peznee thanks, I'm in the middle of writing several papers. 🙄
I watched that interview, and Jordan was not impatient considering how hostile that interviewer clearly was. She really had no substantial position to have a conversation with him, so she came off like a little child talking to a rational and patient parent.
I love Peterson, but he did better in the Newman interview. (Not that I blame him, though.)
He was not so impatient, but it was clear from the start that there was a lot of tension. Now we know why.
🎯
She looked at some times like a rabbit caught in the car headlights.
"she came off like a little child talking to a rational and patient parent". Most leftists do....
“Some ridiculous number like 4 million” lol it’s at 30 million now
Still going up 34m now :)
@@paularkins6039 40m now :D
@@glenngress682 With 35million 'I can't wait not to buy her book' comments 😂
47 million now
I can't wait not to buy her book
I've never heard of this person before this. But He is now one of my Hero's!!
Her distaste was palpable throughout the interview.
@ omgzfuup - I agree! Well said. Even though she was trying to be civil, she still exuded hostility. A "prove it" attitude.
She was a shining example of Dunning-Kruger Effect. An aggressive one at that.
Good word. Palpable thanks.
Sadly yes. I'm a feminist and don't agree with Peterson on all his views, although I think he nails it in some areas. But you can disagree with someone and have a civil debate with them. She was dissapointing
In the beginning..not the closing wrap up questions. It's my thought she took in much during the time spent
Just noticed that the only hashtag on the GQ video is "MeToo" ... good lord.
Cause jordan assaulted her verbally
@@browifgopro his use of logic grabbed her by the pussy. So many machismoaggressions.... It was LITERALLY toxic and they had to call a biohazard team. The Patriarchy arrived in Gray wigs and gavels and started to assign her to ten years of dishwashing. Then they carried him off to run the banking system and play grabass with a meek secretary.
Obviously she was raped.
The comments section on jre stuff has made me the man I am today...
Wow!!! Really?? Fucking sucks. They are not even trying to hide their retardation.
Well it automatically adds hashtags from the description to the top. And the official name if #MeToo is #MeToo, with the hashtag attached, so it makes sense
For people to pay in time and money to travel from Australia to England is a testament to how much Jordan is greatly respected,
I absolutely loved his gq interview. He owned it.
JP: GQ Interview: "No one talked about identity politics 20 or 30 years ago, it's a new term." 34:48
"The term was coined by the Combahee River Collective in 1977.[4]"
"It took on widespread usage in the early 1980s..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
so jordan was right it seems
thanks for the fact
For an ignorant , or let's say for an "ideologically posessed" person , I think the most dangerous thing about having a conversation with Jordan Peterson is that the guy knows you better than you do , and what's more dangerous is he understands very well your philosophy while you don't understand his , and that's why I love him because he always have a strong idea about something or someone
Bro I was just thinking about this. It was so good!
Joe "let me tell you about weed and jujitsu" Rogan
jewjitsu
Gotta have goooood tweed dude
DMT and jujutsu
There was a couple moments where she thought she had him , the best was the rapid fire questions, she asks his favorite author then favorite female author and she didnt even know the female author he mentioned
3:17 Lewis brutally lost that war since she was checked at every single premise she attempted to put forward. For someone drunk on her intellect and education, she came out as a fool and unlikely sees it that way.
If I had money I'd come all the way from Syria to watch and listen to this genius of a man
Joe "Joe Rogan" Rogan.
Joe "Joe "joe rogan" Rogan" Rogan
Lex IV
Awesome “this thing” thing.
Roe "Oej Jogan" Goraj
Lex IV haha
Joe "Rogan Joe" Rogan
Love this interview. I’m a property manager and - as such - I’m subjected to many online reviews. Largely, people aim to dehumanize. It’s tough to stomach.
It's awesome when people underestimate DOCTOR Peterson, attack him and feel superior while he calmly and patiently waits.
And then.....he calmly responds.....
He is beyond incredibly smart, never forgets anything.
Facts not emotion
Calm and patient facts? You are joking right? Including these:
1. That's your theory? That's a foolish theory.
[That the women's movement helped advance women's rights.]
2. That's for sure. It's purely not!
[Peterson contradicting himself on if you call something a patriarchy, you are calling it purely that.]
3. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It's so cliche.
[Helen said you get paid for your job. Peterson disagrees.]
4. So you are saying if it is not 50/50 it is a tyrannical patriarchy?
[JP pulling a Cathy Newman, 'so you are saying...']
5. Read more!
[Responding to Helen's correct observation that an internet study shows that alt right like Peterson.]
6. Who says we have over population?
[JP denies over population is a problem? What an absolute idiot.]
7. How do lobsters say that?
[Jordan, you just explained how lobsters address Marxism two minutes ago.]
8. Politics based upon identity is not identity politics.
[Really Jordan? What is it then?]
9. Good luck with that.
[Peterson offering his brilliant opinion of abortion rights and renewable energy.]
Holy crap, it just hit me that Joe Rogan is quite possibly the only true unbiased "journalist" on the planet. I refuse to call anybody with a blatant bias or agenda a true journalist, and I actually trust Joe more than pretty much any journalist out there
He can be biassed aswell. Everybody is a bit biased. But if you can realize it then you can look at yourself and remove it.
@@dodonnell-ze9yc yeah hes biased for the weed argument for sure hes never once admitted obvious things like it is and addictive drug
At least Joe is genuine. I think that has a lot of value.
@@anitabonghit7606 true true but compare him to most of the hosts and journalists ... he is quite fair.
he has had few bias, but very insog ificant.
tbh nowadays - if you are simply HoNEST and competent you instantly will be recognized. Countless people.for some reason are at good positions and are faking that they are better than they are and leave this impression of fake. E.g. Trumps major appeal os that he is honest - he has no filter and people are sick of fake lying leaders. it is truly odd time to live but honesty is biggest asset if you want to make it in most public fields, incl journalism
That woman in that debate was an absolute chore to listen to. Thank god Dr Peterson is interesting enough to compensate for it.
His just an amazing person and I am glad there are people still in this world willing to say their truths
Cudos to you Joe Rogan.... for landing the interview with true gentleman. And to Jordan for accepting it. Well done and thank you both. Sorry I’m so late on the comment... I’m blaming You Tube notification as I know the minute I saw you two paired up I would have dropped everything to tune in. :-)