Jordan Peterson - The most PROBLEMATIC intellectual of our time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- Jordan Peterson is easily the most problematic public intellectual of our time. From his assault on the LGBT community (what he calls the post-modern neo-marxist types) to his defense of traditional christian values. I examine it in this video.
One-time support:
UPI: scienceisdope@icici
buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope
Website: www.scienceisdope.com
Patreon: / scienceisdope_
Discord: / discord
2nd Channel: / @ddrational_
Merch: kadakmerch.com/collections/sc...
#Jordan
#Peterson
#Criticism
Sources
Gender Pay-Gap Paper -
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/1...
Jordan Peterson vs. Matt Dillahunty -
• Does God Exist? Jordan...
Psilocybin induced Smoking Cessation -
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Bill C-16
www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...
Chapters
00:00 - Jordan Peterson
03:20 - Impressionable Young Men & the Gender Pay-Gap
09:20 - Peterson on Religion
19:23 - Bill C-16
24:20 - Sadhguru of the West
27:31 - The Value of Jordan Peterson
Patrons/members that support me at the highest tiers:
Nithin V Nath
BulletproofDuck
nvme978
Sarvesh Kulkarni
Dr. Kirat Tulaskar
Harsha
MD Mudassir Hussain
Loveen Vuppala
Animesh Chaudhary
Wesley Potts
AV
Abhilash
Nate Hand
NEIL MHATRE
Eryk Thompson
Vivek Balasubramanian
Rags H
Jeevan
Sumana Gopinath
Dolly Dasilva
jeethendra d
khujema katleri
Muffin Man
Vedamoorthy Namasivayam
sihoinvi
Sparsh Kumar
Divyaa Srinivasan
DarkSkies
Vinod Gopalakrishnan
Jamila Koshy
Dee Boudreau
Jatin Sharma
Shyam Katnagallu
Alden D'Souza
Arun Kumar
Yudhister Satija
Sri S
Selvakumar Jawahar
Kiran CJ
Prachet Verma
Suds Mekathotti
tariq sharif
Dev Agrawal
Thinking Humanist
Dheeraj
Viswanathan Gopalan
Wrichik Basu
Music Credits:
True Messiah - DJ Freedem
Follow me on social media:
Instagram: / scienceisdope_
Twitter: / scienceisdope_
UA-cam: / scienceisdope
Reddit: / scienceisdope - Розваги
Support me at:
Buymeacoffee: buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope
Patreon: www.patreon.com/scienceisdope_
YT Membership: ua-cam.com/channels/g--ENXdDpXh5LyLigolg2g.htmljoin
UPI: scienceisdope@icici (QR Code available on www.scienceisdope.com/support )
Man , it feels wierd and illogical but I believe I'm a conservative Athiest. The reasoning for my position is quite complex (wierd) but logical to me in a way.
Either this comes because I was born in a conservative religious family or it's because of my intimate human nature.
Who is Jordan Peterson ?
@@fictionsolosanyverseyounam7599 conservativeness comes from emotion every person is conservative by emotion but if you use logic you will not be conservative so use logic instead emotion
@@motherisape where do you get that reasoning buddy? I find conservatives are more ruthless than liberals.
Thank you so much Pranav for making this video... I have seen many people who are atheist/rationalist fall for him...
The biggest problem is not Peterson or any other "guru" or "influencer" figure. The problem is people who have extreme views and think they know more than they actually do, and only consume content that feeds their point of view. They see everything as black or white. Most things are nuanced and often multi-faceted. One needs and open mind, a logical brain, an empathetic heart, and a desire to seek balance.
Empathy literally has no value when logic is at play
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 Theoretically yes! But when it comes to most human interactions, you need a blend of empathy and logic, with one weighing in heavier than the other depending on the particular circumstance. Otherwise people would be either histerical empaths or inhumane robots.
@@peacetoall1858 sure, if human interaction is involved, you could possibly be right
But the dude is speaking to his audience through his videos, there's no point for empathy when he's trying to make others espouse his logic
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 I was talking about general life. As for this specific case, I would argue that his "logic" isn't pure logic. His views have come about as a consequence of his environment(real and virtual), experiences, interactions, internal and external reflections, and a lot more. That means his "logic" is not pure and is indeed (for lack of a better word) tainted with emotion. Part of that emotion is certainly empathy toward the men he addresses. Again, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but while what he says may seem logical to some, it may not to others. Which means it's not pure logic, as pure logic can't be argured against by anyone who isn't an obstuse imbacile. So the point is that he's not trying to "make others espouse his logic". He's trying to convey his thoughts and "feelings" on whatever subject he's on about in his vidos and interviews. Sorry about the long post, I just like to be clear.
I agree with you in the general sense that the problem isn't Peterson. But fundamentally, what you're promoting is indistinguishable from agnosism and pluralism. So where do we move from here?
Dr. Peterson was a great help to me when I was in depression through his videos. He compelled me to do the right thing and work on myself. And I am grateful for that.
The real problem started when he started giving opinion about everything from history, religion, gender politics and everything under the sun. Being a girl initially I was too, sympathetic towards his views on feminism because I thought we have achieved everything for women. Then I realised it's not true for women in many countries like middle East and South Asia.
My thought is that we should not allow an expert of one field to detect narrative on other unrelated fields. It's simply stupid.
When has JP tried to discredit women's movement in middle east/SE Asia?
@@EvilSapphireR I don’t know if he has done it specifically but dismissing feminist movement as a whole kind of also dismisses around the world
@@beactivebehappy9894 it doesn't. I'm far from a JP fanboy, but criticising a movement as vast and global as feminism doesn't mean invalidating the success some localised versions of it achieve. JP specifically criticises the western version of feminism as it stands today, and its never ending crusade to appropriate victimhood for women even when there is none. Eastern/Western societies are vastly different with very different religious/social/gender dynamics, and conflating criticism of one with the other is a myopic thing to do. Just because one points out disenfranchisement of men in the west doesn't mean he's against improved rape laws in India.
@@beactivebehappy9894 JP doesn't dismiss feminism at all, I'd say he's a feminist himself, you should've heard about him helping many women out in their lives and how he's trained then to do better, his criticism is most against the extremists
Exactly this is what is happening. Earlier only film celebrities were in this position where they were asked every topic under the sun. Now people from other field who eventually become social media celebrities are facing this.
Dude. I appreciate your honesty. I think there are many who take Jordan Peterson extremely seriously without digging any further. Especially because people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are much more visible than a Slavoj Žižek or a Sam Harris, it is not encountered either. I think there are several lessons to be learned from this: 1 - Just because someone speaks calmly and convincingly doesn't mean someone is right. And 2 - What is the agenda of someone with certain points of view?
You described observational assessments of the act, which I believe is called, discernment.
OH MAN! right?
One of the most ignorant aspects of his behavior is how he treats people when they ask him questions or when questions are posed about two opposing parties in a debate. He dismissively tells them that they are wrong, such as when he claimed someone was not an atheist despite their assertion. This can be quite disconcerting, as Jordan, being a clinical psychologist, should possess better conversational skills given his background in psychology. It is truly frustrating, and similar to Ben Shapiro, he resorts to talking quickly and talking over others in order to "win" the argument and create the illusion of being correct.
While I hold a degree in psychology, I do not possess the same scholarly knowledge that Jordan does. However, he could easily accommodate others by simply asking for their name when engaging in conversation. If individuals use their preferred pronouns at work, it would be simple for him to acknowledge and respect their choices. If he struggles with pronouns during conversation, he could bypass his ignorance by using the person's name instead. In every debate he partakes in, he stubbornly maintains that he is right, regardless of the circumstances.
Speaking calmly and convincingly is a) how you should present yourself in a debate which is something others he faces don't do nearly as well if at all. b) him speaking convincingly using logic and reason and then others using their own logic and reason to ponder what he's saying, is why it may seem people take him seriously.
Because he has intelligent things to say rather than saying there is a one word answer for injustice across the globe.
We forgetting he's also a psychologist and has an authoritative say on many of these matters especially the GPG?
I honestly think his intention is to save the world and prevent it from repeating atrocities. He seems pretty self important, but maybe he should, because he's damn powerful. i feel pretty confident in that assessment. I doubt he crafted all of these ideas to conceal his bigotry.
@@user-bb8sw1jo6o Most people who don't have an ideology and aren't listening to what he's saying already angry at everything he stands for, come to similar conclusions you have made.
The most hilarious thing about peterson was his debate with zizek. Peterson tells people to read 800 pages worth of reference books before putting forward their argument.. and he hadn't even read the communist manifesto
Peterson not only read the communist manifesto, but understands it deeply.
Zizeks objections to Peterson were that he wasn't directly quoting the communist manifesto and was instead presenting the implications of it.
Remember when you were in high school and the teacher told you to "write it in your own words"? That's to show that you actually understand the text well enough to express them accurately through your own unique words and perspective.
Wait? You mean the the opposite right? He had read it and analyzed it at great length in the debate. Zizek sidetracked him though since it turned out that he was a strange Marxist
@@jaxwhyland that's not what it came off as.. he refused to actually cite any material at all from the manifesto but wanted to present a grim picture of it. Zizek simply asked about the parts which peterson found objectionable and peterson couldn't come up with anything.
It's a simple book meant for workers for Christ sake.. peterson loves to reference 800 pages thick random books but can't say which parts of CM he was talking about.
@@skumflum3768 lol.. he hadn't. He was describing how he thought the manifesto was.. but didn't say anything from the actual text.
It's like me giving a movie review without actually talking about any plotpoints.
@@pm6127 did you expect him to read it out loud? It was a perfectly reasonable analysis
Pranav, how dare you call out a guy whom I base my whole personality upon? I spend 15 hours a day defending guys and girls who say bad things about Jordan. I refuse to entertain any opposing viewpoints, even though I have never ventured into the real world or engaged in meaningful conversations with women. I am inclined to believe that all women are merely after money and that any mention of feminism is just a product of ignorance. I am content in my self-proclaimed "sigma" bubble, where I consider myself superior and label others as "beta males." Please refrain from challenging my beliefs, as I am quite comfortable in this delusion. Whenever I come across a feminist post on Instagram or any discussion about equal rights, I automatically dismiss it and brand the person as uneducated. I arrogantly consider myself the most knowledgeable person in the world. Additionally, I use terms like "L" and "L generation" to degrade others, and I misuse the term "feminist" as if it were an insult. In my own little world, I believe I have solved all my problems, which is why I feel the need to meddle in other people's lives and make derogatory comments like "LGBT is unnatural" or "It's not biological." I perceive myself as the center of the universe, and everything revolves around me.
Dude your sarcasm 😂
😂😂
Butthurt right winger crying after reading this 😂
Right winger crying after reading this 😂
Damn, You destroyed the manosphere guys like Andrew Tate. 🤣🤣🤣
Word salad is Peterson's favourite dish
You just didn't have that capability to understand them.
@@stravinskyfanonly lobsters can
@@stravinskyfan but first you'll have to tell....what do you mean by "you", what do you mean "didn't", what do you mean by "have", what do you mean by "capability", what do you mean by "understand", what do you mean by "them"
@@neerajvashisht5364lmao😂
@@mynnkkk I've watched his debates with Dillahunty and Harris so many times that i can almost recite them verbatim. This is because I have taken the position of "If it sounds like word salad to me, but makes perfect sense to, and has improved the lives of millions of other people, sheer probability would indicate that I'm the one who doesn't understand what's being said."
What petersin haters seem not to notice is their disdain for him. It's not that he simply doesn't make sense to them, if that was the case they'd just ignore him and get on with life. There's this apparent desire to attack him and show outright agression to him whenever possible. Anyone with a psychology background knows that aggression toward someone is a threat response. You don't show such illwill to someone unless they pose some kind of threat to you. I guess what I'm saying is that people's hatred toward Jordan Peterson is an acknowledgement that you feel threatened by him
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Jesus always confronted religious people of his time.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. '(Mathew 23)
This was eye opening!
Thanks for sharing, Pranav
What helps me is, I try to not follow anyone (not even you. Although, I am subscriber :D).
Rather, I try to follow advise that are actionable to my life. That way, I can test them and form an opinion/tweak my interpretations myself.
I definitely like - 'thinking = writing'. It does help me be more articulate.
I also like 'clean your room' - I see people (very close friends and family) who gives advices that they themselves don't follow.
What is shocking and dangerous about JP is that he uses his psychology degree to bring credibility to the Christian worldview. I was obsessed with Peterson when he posted self-help lectures at the beginning, I was turning to atheism during this time and I thought it was odd that he was constantly synthesising Bible verses into his reading of post modern social dynamics. If I didn't have atheism to temper JP's influence I would've ended up a rabid, co-dependant fan-boy and would've never caught the misuse of Psychology and re-assessed post-modernism . Christianity like most religion has been very anti-science and post-modernism relies largely, if not entirely, on the might of science to bring positive and sustainable changes to society. So I completely understand why a closeted Christian would be against post-modernism.
Science and religion can't co-exist. One uses old ideas while other is continuously discovering new ones. I f you see anyone trying to link them, they must be upto something.
Exactly my thoughts
He is a conservative and so many people in India especially men are watching these videos of him and ben shapiro. I see people from India talking about woke and men right activist. It has already seeped in society
@@urooj09 I think that this sentiment was already there in indian society as we are comparatively WAY more patriarchal than the west. JP has simply given legitimacy to their pre-existing beliefs and they feel more emboldened to wear it on their sleeve. The internet somehow amplifies what people already think.
I think the main reason he was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
This man Peterson is just so confident about whatever he speaks. It os this conviction that confused his opponents. However the only time I saw his tactics failed was when his opponent was Salvoj Zizek. That debate is really amazing.
I just can't tolerate Zizek's accent. I've personally found it to be really disturbing. I can't listen to the guy for more than 5 mins lol 😅💀
I’m half-Slovenian. I don’t mind Zizkek’s accent, but I find him somewhat uncouth.
Man no one could do what zizek did to Peterson in that debate.
Have you watched Dillahunty's conversation with Peterson? Worth a watch
I was ready to disagree with you based on the title, but you've made some great arguments against JP views on religion, climate change, etc.
But I have to disagree with your assertion that he's the "the most problematic intellectual of our time". The advice on psychology, putting your house in order, how to think, etc. is absolutely invaluable to a young mind.
As critical thinkers, we have to always be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People are complicated, not all their views are consistent, not every belief is defensible with randomized controlled trials or double-blinded peer-reviewed studies. Right or left is almost never completely right or wrong, there is always a nuance in the middle. And understanding that nuance should be our goal.
1.5 million subs 🙀
The reality is that almost everyone that follows JP does so because of his politics and not because of his self-help. And his politics are awful, misogynistic, homophobic & sexist.
But what arguments did he make ..... he is just lying ?
@@PreetvndI can bet you cannot even tell the meaning of the terms you used. He improved the lives of millions of women of all age groups. Better you learn to think
@@Preetvndso?
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is trying to be needlessly confusing with his speech. He has always come across to me as sincere and genuine. I relate a lot to the way that he thinks and gets caught up in semantics. It’s hard for me to understand when people say that he just uses wordplay and has some hidden agenda. I think his beliefs are entirely genuine, but I think it would be beneficial if he used more conventional definitions and frameworks.
No, he is not. It's bullshit word salad. His fans often need help understanding what he's saying. That allows him to sound more intelligent than he is and allows people to project their prejudices and feelings onto whatever he's saying.
Sadguru of the west is so accurate.
Both talk of just enough of motivation to strap you in, to then take you for a ride with their misinformation and prejudice
Yes, they are so good at the strapping in part. Extraordinary even.
Woi JP baba
What prejudice and misinformation?
Sad u r not getting sponsor.....I'm an unemployed viewer and can't support ur channel financially but keep telling friends about your videos that's the only support I can give right now.... please keep going 💟
Same here😢
Obviously stupid people are unemployed. Get a job man leave philosophy until you get one.
I think his wife nearly dying kinda changed him. I understand his obsession with god and I think it’s may be down to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious. That can be explained easily through evolution although it can appear somewhat spiritual. I believe his wife was given a very small chance of survival after her cancer diagnoses and the fact she surivived probably solidified his belief in god. When I first watched him I assumed he was an atheist and I think he maybe was. I can sense the internal battle between his scientific mind and his human mind that yearns for understanding and the concept of something bigger than one’s self. I think we all struggle with that. He doesn’t know the answers so his soul is searching for a belief. It very comforting having a belief in God. Some people need it. Doesn’t make it true though
Nice fantasy...he was exploring the ideas of Jung since his early days as a grad school lecturer long before he met his wife. Typical one solution to all problems, to dump all intellectual pursuit into the evolutionary process of survival..it's pretty lazy to be honest.
Cannot expect more from someone who made the meaning of truth synonymous to "scientific truth"
It just occurred to me how much childhood emotional neglect can lead one to the horrors of Jordan Petersen fandom. He talks constantly about how young men aren’t seen, validated, or told they have inherent worth and their feelings matter.
If your parents never provided those things, then those points will resonate with you. Throw in psychological patriarchy where these young men get mocked, bullied or ostracized for expressing their feelings or being vulnerable and it just makes it worse
I went through the same transitions as you, I was also an atheist from India, who got hugely influenced by the “intellectual dark web”. Now I know better
Do you? Or have you fell into another trap. Maybe time will tell.
@@82abhilashexactly. It’s amazing how little self awareness people have.
If you are the type of person to be hugely influenced by one group then chances are you are still able to be hugely influenced by another. To say you now know better is a deeply naive thing to say.
@@soulfuzz368It's the difference between believing someone at his word, and doing the actual fact check. Fact check Peterson, and a lot of what he's saying turns out to be, at best ill informed or at worst a lie.
@@harrynac6017 I agree but I would extend this level of criticism to all media personalities. Fame and attention makes liars of us all. Is there some other media guru you think speaks only the truth and deserve the attention and fame they receive?
I am amazed at how we had almost the exact same journey. Loved the video!
Same here, I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. His audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into stupids. 😂
@@amityadav-lt5bc Yes.
Please debunk Sudhanshu Trivedi, He is making pseudoscientific claims on every platform
Even a person with the least understanding will cross check his claims before accepting.
Never heard of him. Who is this guy?
He already did 2 - 3 short videos in his second channel.
@@girdharsingh4287 Hindu sceince minister.
That clown should not get any footage
Hi Pranav, would you be able to make a video on your observations on the pay gap? either the article or other citations? Good day.
Pranav, let me tell you. You are basically me when it comes to the chronology of events that happened with you and who you followed and got influenced by. It was like i was doing self reflection. I'm now exactly where you are right now with my position. Loved the video.
Cheers 😊
He is not self-reflecting. He has made assumptions about the world and probably share his world with people who hold those assumptions. He has not examined his world-view or even properly understand what it is.
@@82abhilash well i never said he was, but what you said might be true. He is only to answer
@@82abhilash How do you know?
@@potts995 read what I have written elsewhere.
Hey Pranav, love you videos. I am just wondering if you would make a video on book called "skeptics guide to universe". I think anyone who would love to learn Critical thinking outside of CT class, its magnificient book. 10/10 recommned it to everyone.
What the good thing about your channel pranav is that it saves my lot of time.Usually when I have to form an opinion about something or somebody,I want to do deep research but I don't have much time or energy,by watching you video,I would say I get pretty much idea about the thing or a person.
then you are doing exactly the opposite of what he's suggesting here. accepting someone else's claim without verification
@@raven-888 It is interesting that you pointed out this thing.
But i think there were no scientific claims in this video.
But claims like gender pay gap,C-16,pranav already sited the sources in his discription.
There was not much to verify also,this video was based on "someone" rather than "something".
And his arguments were sound,because I personally have watched many videos of jordern peterson,and I used to thought approx. same about him.
@@user-bb1rn4cc5z Several people have debunked Pranav in the comments but he hasn't responded to any of those comments. How convenient!
He is western Deepak Chopra. Both are player of words and excellent individuals who can teach us How to debate without actual logic.
Not to miss Sam Harris eta JK on live debate.
lol
Sam is weird. No god but does meditation which derives directly from eastern religions.
Ham Sarris can look convincing debating anything under the sun, since his logic matches with 19 year old internet atheist
@@gnanasabaapatirg7376 Meditation is less about religion tho
A decade ago I found his clips on fixing my life. A clear perspective on everyday things, handling emotions, taking responsibility. A beacon of hope and encouragement in a constantly ignorant world. Instant fanhood.
Years passed and his popularity grew, but his opinions went from Psychology lessons to literally everything he could get his hands on, especially socio-political and socio-economic issues. He went too far with his aspirations and fell to appeasing conservative frat boys. His arguemts became very polarising, as he started mixing his Christian Dogma with his established worldview. A rational person could see a new-found pattern of word salad with no logic. It was just a matter of time that his Right Wing bubble would burst, and it did. He got destroyed by Zizek in one of the most important debates in recent history. Rewatching his clips today gives no sense of credibility.
So yea, he's not the same man we were once fond of. He gives the vibe of a boomer uncle in his echo chamber.
wow. perfectly put.
I am not aware of his religion based discussion, but the way western elites are promoting homosexuality is insane, the main reason why his twitter was suspended because he taken stand against gender transition surgery of minors and its promotion by hollywood celebrities and there’s nothing wrong in it, western elites are also promoting their own dogma on name of feminism and gender identity politics
Power corrupts everyone
I watched the Zizek decade a couple of months ago.
And I disagree he destroyed Peterson.
Both made good points.
That's more of like human psyche,
You and I follow someone and then get a kick out of saying that that person has lost it...
He has just become popular.
That's pretty much all that has happened.
His opinions are as informed as they were a couple of years ago.
You have just lost your ability to find value in what Peterson and Zizek were saying.
They both made awesome points.
@@avisharma4576 lol you have been fangirlling over Peterson under this video with your comments, I really had no urge to reply to it, yet you come and tell me that I am getting a "kick" out of the fact he lost OR I don't have the "ability" to understand their greatness 🤡
I can say you're projecting the same "lack of understanding" that you accuse me of.
Peterson's entire new-found personality has been about an invisible enemy - the post-modernist cultural marxists, yet when Zizek asks him that what does he know about these so called Marxists, JP said he doesn't understand Marxists as he hasn't read much about their beleifs, which means he's been locking horns with an entity he has no idea about. The entire debate is polite but Zizek wins and JP loses.
Cope Harder
I used to watch Peterson clips and reels just an year ago lol and I found him fascinating at that point. I'm glad I've changed myself a lot since then.
I think the main reason Jordan Peterson was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
@@max-cs9ko true. Apart from Jordan's religious views, i mostly agree with his social outlook.
I still love his work I just don't care about the other stuffs he talks about 🥲
@@max-cs9ko the real problem isn’t even about trans rights
Look the amount of attention people like him are giving to the trans movement in the first place.The more people talk about it more people get exposed to it.Otherwise trans people could have gone by as a small community of people.
Why? Because he is a transphobe? There is no reason to believe that Pranav is less flawed than JP.
"What sane person wouldn't want equal rights for all groups and individuals especially if given them rights wouldn't take anything away from you?"
Most societal problems would be avoided if only everyone would adopt this fairly obvious principal, but unfortunately this isn't the case. There's always going to be selfish people out there that don't want equality or everyone to live good lives.
Not to bring humans are just another species of animals and in general may like to use their physical or social advantages to take advantage of the weaker groups or people , am I really wrong? I am highly doubting if these -selfish- people are a half if not majority of humans, at least today.
It's so refreshing to see such a balanced take on this by an Indian youtuber. I'm genuinely impressed by your way of articulating yourself. Looking forward to seeing more such content!
I too am someone who has gone down the rabbit hole of watching too many Jordan Peterson videos. His eloquent manner of talking overpowers the fact that some of the arguments he makes are purposefully framed in a vague yet intellectual sounding way. The statistics he quotes often tend to be from studies with smaller sample sizes, and even then he only quotes the statistics which are in line with his personal views. And yet he makes his audience believe that anyone who doesn't agree with him simply doesn't want to accept reality (and just needs to clean their room 💀)
I still do occassionally listen to him, because of course I love his eloquent manner of speaking, plus I still think there is a lot I can learn from him. It's also beneficial to listen to convincing arguments for things that you disagree on to really question why you disagree with these things in the first place.
Would you perhaps also consider making a video about some of his claims in the field of psychology? For example he once mentioned that he doesn't believe in the Multiple Intelligence Theory. I would love to hear your perspective on that.
Also I would love to hear your perspective on gender-affirming care for minors, trans people in sports and gender dysphoria (it's included in the diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders)
I've become such fan of your work. Just unable to renew membership using UPI 😢
I love the move towards the video essayist style of content
I listened to the whole video, and I do agree with some of ur talking points. But I'd say I'm still a fan of JP. He's one of the few that have common sense and has helped me understand and overcome a lot of me negative thoughts and depression. He is a Christian, but I don't think he wants to specify that he is bc he knows that he'll probably loose a lot of followers and ppl will correlate EVERYTHING he says to being religious. No one is perfect, everyone is wrong sometimes too. But that's just my respectful opinion
As an intellectual atheist, I'd love to hear you science based opinion on trans women in women's sports.
What of it? There are cis women in sports with high testosterone. You know that right?
Yes😂, i wanna see his scientific explanation on so called LGBTQ as well
@@dinirx
no he wont do that he has a particular way of operating as far as i have seen he slants a particular way in analysis.
@@loyisad1211 wow, if you knew anything about human endocrinology, you'd know that even high levels of natural testosterone in young women can't rival, low levels of testosterone in old men... plus a few months of being on castration meds doesn't negate the advantages gained from a lifetime of high testosterone levels.
Hey Pranav,
What is a Woman?
hahahahaha
Opinion.
What do you mean by 'what is'?
Good video, I am off to disorganize my room
This is one of your best videos in recent times Pranav !! Keep up the good work!
I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. Your audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into waves of stupids. 😂
Yeah consider it a safe space ❤️
the thing is that half the world thinks you are stupid too. What you described is an echo chamber which is used to propagate confirmation bias in people. This guy pranav claimed the covid vax was safe when it came out, but only after its use, people started dying of random heart attacks. There was a detailed study on Cardio myopathy by an independent doctor from John Hopkins, yet this guy pranav just trolled Djokovic instead of getting into the science of vaccines. Because that would expose him right away. Both the left and right are fooling people left right and center. He is no different when it comes to serving the companies who are funded by the left. As for Peterson, he is a great psychiatrist and a doctor. But I wouldn't take religious advice from him. Its that simple. Social medias job is to confuse the people with opinions. Thats it.
I too feel relieved here.
@@zany4132 or an echo chamber ironically
or you can say... an echo chamber of your own world views, delusions and stupidity.
I've seen a lot of peterson debunks, this is definitely one of the best. Awesome work, Pranav.
It is not a debunk. It is a criticism. What exactly did he debunk? Nothing. Pranav just put forward his world-view. One that he holds but does not examine. To borrow a term used by Jordan Peterson in this video, Pranav is imposing moral hierarchy, which he assumes that all the viewers share and agree upon.
There is no need to assume that LGBTQ categories are real or if real, then stable. There is no need to assume that protective classes need to be created based on those categories. There is no need to assume that protecting those people that fall within those categories are the greatest moral good. There is no need to assume that those that do that are "civilized" and those who don't are "barbaric". These are components of a belief system. If it is wrong to impose Christianity on those that are unwilling, why is it right to impose this ideology system on anyone?
@@82abhilash yeah it wasn't a debunk, per se. It was a criticism. Everything else you said was wild though.
LGBTQ people do exist and are discriminated against all over the world. Hence, it makes sense to put them in a protected class. That is a moral good, I don't know if it's the greatest moral good but why does it have to be?
And I would say that being against discrimination makes you more civilized and less barbaric for sure.
Don't know what you mean by the last question, not all beliefs are the same. I have no problem imposing anti-discrimination beliefs while being against imposing religious beliefs. That's not hypocritical at all as my goal for society is a more peaceful and tolerant one.
@@Venksama There are labels called LGBTQ, and there are people labelled that way. Some people self-label with those categories. But that does not mean that those labels represent anything real. We have lot of old labels that intelligent people and even scientists believed in the past that have proven to be inadequate of even false. Human beings are social animals. It is very difficult to know if a human being is acting purely on instinct. Which is what makes the LGB labels suspect. For starters they are only found in Western societies, where such categories of people are given special rights. The argument is that they are oppressed in other countries. Again that seems more like a world view that anything else. It may be that some people have depended on those of the same gender for sexual stimulation, but that does not mean that they are some separate category. Some people like to watch birds and some people like to swim. Do we need separate interest groups for that too?
It is an action that people do to better their life. If they are tolerated why not tolerate polygamy and polyandry as well.? Monogamy is a result of Christian indoctrination after all. Also, how far should you tolerate anything? What about people who involve children in such acts and what if the child likes it too? There is an effort now to relabel and normalize pedophilia calling them minor-attracted persons. Now for the T and Q, the new additions, even more problematic. It is just men dressed as stereotypical women to enter private spaces for women.
Now you speak about religious imposition. LGBTQ are part of a religious imposition. It goes by the slang term woke. It has its own theology too. But it is presented as facts and masquerades as science.
Left wing in the western civilization are just mentally unstable people
@@82abhilashThat's just bullshit. LGBTQ is not a " tag" without meaning. It is you who has no idea about science.
Respect to you for keeping an open mind & learning where you went wrong & then correcting.
It is an enormous problem that a large majority of people are impervious to information that contradicts their favored of self serving viewpoints.
Cheers.
Loved the video ❤
Just somethings I wanted to point out
1) I think you didn't actually refute the claim that he made at 23:15 in the video
2) I don't think he said or meant at 13:25 what you condensed his statement to
Bro so should we verify the information he provides in his personality and maps of meaning lecture series too, or can we take his word for it, assuming that if he is teaching the subject at a university, he would know what he is talking about and wouldn't spread misinformation that suits his agenda?
Title is kind of misleading, i was in dedepression in my teenage. Listening to lectures it really helps me.
“I have figured out a way to monetise the Social Justice Warriors”- Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast
Well, if I'd wish for one breakthrough, it would be that. Unironically the pinnicale of modern archievment.
I don't like Peterson for many reasons, but I think he was right about the bill c16. I am French and a teacher and similar bills have been introduced here without publicity. However, I was once accused by my hierarchy of not addressing properly one of my transgender student. I nearly lost my job over that, but fortunately it wasn't me but another worker who had not used the proper pronouns. In schools here now, if any student decides they want to identify as anything, we have to use the name or pronoun they want, regardless of what they look like or what their family wants. I think it's a total disservice for most kids.
Ah no. He lied through his teeth about Bill C-16 - and the law in Canada. Not one claim he made about it was accurate or true.
I am not familiar with the law in France, but I *guarantee* whatever bills have been introduced, they are not anything like C-16 - which, effectively, changed nothing in Canada.
You should look around right wing youtuber in india , because they are now becoming famous and giving half bake fact and scientific terminology to justify their view.
for example :some Vedic channel(veducation/jaipurdialogue )said ramsetu is said to 5000yr old by asi(so they assume to be build by Shri Ram) and said so why not look at Vedic text that said ramsetu
Is older than million year so hence proved ramsetu is build million year old , they say it in a such way that this point will get accepted who adores shri ram ,and in such way they also glorify patriarchy with such explanation.
🙏sorry if you are not interested in this type of video , because I can understand it will be more controversial, but I don't want to stop you ,you have given me whole new perspective,I am religious but i believe it is so personal and it should not harm other , because it is base on faith not science.
No jaipur dialogue is great channel they alway speak about facts and ved education also speak logicly .you cannot understand about Vedas like them.
Thank God that somebody said something about this man. He has been giving Gyan like there's no tomorrow. And I don't even understand most of the things he says. Same with Andrew Huberman.
This is because of his Great English vocabulary he looks like someone intellectual nd then he mix matches his word ( word salad ) so that most of audience doesn't even focus on what he is saying but just blindly agree with his stand
@@mynnkkk He's exploiting the whole Big words=definitely correct mentality of the commoners.
@@mynnkkk similar to shapiro " say things fast and confuse people "
@@mynnkkk freedom of thought is such a wonderful thing. And I love how this community of nonconformist, logical & rational thinkers is growing.
@@alpeshmittal3779 exactly, these guys also cleverly use logical fallacies like "Strawman" to win arguments
Matt Dillahunty debate was a classic. I liked him there still, as an ok religious interlocutor, relatively. I think JP really took defeat well towards the end. Then as you say, he's avoided debates altogether, especially Matt Dilahunty.
Well done, this was really insightful and entertaining
The problem is anyone can critique anyone. Unless they both have a dialogue. Someone can take this video and do criticism of it, show some other research etc etc and prove him wrong. And this goes on..
14:12 I have not seen the entire video b/w Peterson and Dillahunty and dont want to but i dont think he is saying that athesits are murders. He is simpy pointing out that because an atheist is smart enough to understand that there is no natural basis for any morals, even seemingly immoral behaviour like murder would not be seen as wrong.
At the end of the day i think Jordan Peterson understands the value of myth and religion in shaping our cultures, morals and valies and his comments calling prominent atheists as christians stem from seeing much of western culture as derivatve of Judeo christian cultures, philosophy an value which is premised on existence of God. That is how i understand his views i may be wrong about it though.
Morals are simple, it can be summarised with one single sentence: don't intentionally hurt somebody. New babies cry because they are hurt by something, crying is a feeling that does not "feel" good. You don't need an imaginary entity to rule out that if I don't feel good doing something, I will not not do this to others. JP's argument is flawed, it assumed we don't cry or feel "bad".
@@eeriemyxi Morals are much, much more than that. They are the unwritten rules that enable cooperative living and provide a guide in how to get through life.
What you are describing is an inherent feeling about empathy, like the inherent feeling about fairness that all human have. Morals are how a group sharpens and directs these very base feelings concrete rules and regulations and codes of actions. You can't live life unfortunately with only a feeling that you should not hurt others, you need codes and guidelines how to use that feeling as you interact with the world.
Think of a deity existing like value enclosed in a currency note, both fictions but fictions that enable to create a set of behaviors based on our inherent feeling of empathy and understanding of value.
Thank God someone with a braincell.
@@battlerushiromiya651 Life is not an defined task, we only survive it. Some live it against the morale, some live it following the morale.
Cooperative living, that is human race surviving together, is all based on a simple "meta-rule", to not hurt somebody; we have defined several rules basing this little feeling -- religions provided these derived rules while also making an imaginary entity to cherish and be fearful of, but this is not the sole way of doing it. Your hierarchy of value can be empathy alone, not an imaginary figure being coalesced. You don't need God to generate morale.
Here I simulate my little planet: Two beings are summoned, they are social creatures, they are curious, they try going back and forth, they look everywhere, they find a source of lava (lava pool), they try to touch this glowing thing, they touch it, it burns them really bad, they "feel bad", they conclude it is bad to touch lava, but they then find a stick, they try touching the lava with the stick, it doesn't hurt them, so they now conclude touching lava barehands is bad. Similarly sexual assaults and criminal behaviors are attacked using morale with this little feeling, a feeling that is a chemical reaction in our minds, it is not developed by religions, or by reading religious scriptures. We don't need God to fear, we only need empathy to not having to fear, because that is what we can assure.
@@eeriemyxi I don't think not hurting others is what drove human civilization but other than that you yourself admit religions role in formulating these roles while simultaneously denouncing the role a higher deity playe in ensuring the rules were followed. You can't have it both ways.
Society forming is more complex than simply being guided by your feelings of empathy because we are not just driven by empathy but by greed, guilt, disgust, envy etc. Not only have many societies formed that put empathy at lower value than say disgust but hav even thrived.
Empathy is not useful when you go theough periodic epidemics and where you need to cultivate disgust for society to survive. Empathy is a very important emotion but on its own is not sufficient.
You may not need God to survive but those societies with God have survived the worse of calamities. In the future I hope that societies which don't base their values on God survive a crisis on their way of life.
You are a breath of fresh air. I Appreciate your video.
OMG! Thankful that I landed to your video. I had myself questioning whether I'm the only one who is finding these people's strange.
Just one thing to ask,Is it violation of my free speech if I am Compelled by "law" To Speak a specific word That a specific human with Special rights prefers??
Finally, the video I was eagerly waiting for! 🔥
Ok member
@@motherisape yeah. 🤓
Only ₹29.😉
@@jangwan 😂
18:00 18:05 18:07 18:08
If you guys want other videos which criticise Jordan Peterson, I can recommend CosmicSkeptic, Vlad Vexler, and Carefree Wandering. All of them professional philosophers and criticise Peterson on different topics.
I don't know the other two guys but Cosmic Skeptic isn't a professional Philosopher LMFAO 😂
@@Nietzsche666 According to his website, he is "A graduate of philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University". I'm not sure if this qualifies him as a professional philosopher, but given that he's got a degree from one of the best schools in the world, he's certainly not uneducated in philosophy :)
@@Charlie-br8wp Yeah bro, a graduate isn't a professional Philosopher. PhD is generally considered as the threshold to be regarded as a professional Philosopher. The same applies to any field.
@@Nietzsche666 I see we differ on our definitions for "professional" philosopher. I won't argue further about that. Still, I stand by my recommendation :)
@@Charlie-br8wp Cool! 😊👍🏻
Thank you and keep on educating us.
Yeah same here, I was really into him in 2019 and all through 2020 but after he came back from his coma (which I am glad he did) he struck me as something wasn't right and he was leaning more and more towards the alt-right. I slowly stopped keeping up with him as his content became more and more political. The last straw for me was when he defended the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm pretty apolitical and people's views don't really bother me but Jordan is way more of a political sensationalist who only stores up controversy and peddles his opinions as facts which is just wrong!
War might never be the right solution but I defend Russia's rights to defend itself.
@@ivorynails i also defend russia's right to occupy ukrainian land and kidnap ukrainian children
Jordan fans really need to see this
I mean as far as LGBT goes , JPs right .
This channel is using feelings instead of science .
Why should society consider a man who has male characteristics and XY chromosomes to be a lady .
This creator uses rationality only when it suits his agenda
i used to have exact opposite views but creators like you made me think critically and made me rational. thank you and keep up the good work.
Dude this video didn't even scratch the surface. You should still read more and listen more, probably from both the sides to conclude on your opinions. This video was equally biased and was cherry picking arguments mostly
I basically took the same path as SiD concerning Peterson.
He seemed bright at first but the more i watched the more I saw tremendous errors spewed with tremendous confidence. Sad, really. His sheep just baahhhh.
@@windscaar13 JP is a charlatan, what does a psychologist have to do with diets and climate? That's right nothing. I need no more proof I should not have to disprove every single instance of someone being wrong before I know they are lying for money.
Coming out of your internet bubble is one of the most challenging thing a person can do on the internet. You must have a strong fortitude and character to achieve that.
I used to like Pranav until he became the mostly PROBLEMATIC intellectual by elegantly defending gender gap myths even in 2023 and authoritarian bill c-16 that is well hidden behind feel good words (also because imo Pranav knows less about Canada than I do). He was sort of right on christianity but the other two blunders made me lose respect in him
Nope. He's right on both. You should check out the research he cites wrt the GPG. There's nothing mythological going on there.
And Peterson lied through his teeth about Bill C-16.... not one claim he made about it was true.
There was nothing 'authoritarian' going on. That's a crock.
@@dmob881there is no gender pay Gap
@@sakethrayudu Yes. There is. It's calculated in countries across the world. Like I said. Check out the research this guy cites.
@@dmob881We are talking about western world where it's illegal to discriminate based on sex, of course there is pay gap in countries of middle east but there are bigger problems with human rights there
@@glenncarver9049 My response was to the entirely false claim that there is no Gender Pay Gap. There is. Clearly.
Yes, the CN interview was about the UK GPG, the report referenced in the video concerns analysis of the USA GPG. The western world.
But I think you may be a little behind the times, at least two MENA countries - Saudi Arabia and the UAE - have made gender pay discrimination illegal.
That said, there are indeed wider/greater problems wrt human rights issues in a number of the Countries which produce a GPG.
*But this is not the issue being discussed in this video*
Pranav uses the example of the exchange between CN and JP on the matter of the UK GPG, to demonstrate how/why his confidence in JP' has been undermined. Not only are his observations entirely accurate, he supports/evidences his argument.
Your, rebuttal is vague on the matter of the GPG and a simple repetition of false claims made about Bill C-16.
Hi Pranav,,, Can you make a video on the scientific basis for Transgenderism and Homosexuality. I always wonder what makes people homosexual or transgender against our natural evolutionary tendency to procreate for survival.
His videos around religion , psychology and self help is great.. Haven't watched him on politics and gender things
Not religion
Not psychology
And he could make use of some of that self help.
@@zany4132 lol his videos on psychology are pretty insightful
Hi Pranav. I found your channel after searching for "indian mythology scam?' because I forgot the name Praveen. I find most of view-points very interesting and although I may not agree with all of them, I enjoy the intellectual confusions you force me into. Keeps me thinking and forces an retrospection, which I enjoy. Regarding the topic of JP in this video, I too watch (still) talks of him, Shapiro and such, and I think most of the right wing vs left wing disputes in the west hardly affects us in India; but some points like gender ideology, and the trans issue, do. As far his thoughts on atheism or christianity, I have no thoughts as I simply do not care about them. I take what I want fromhis speeches, and make my own inferences after I have done my own study on the matter, whichever that may be. Apologies as I may have not written everything well, as I think I have difficulty articulating all my thoughts into text.
Peterson is a businessman. He preys on people's insecurities. So its quite accurate to compare him to Jaggi Vasudev who does the same thing
Jordan's argument against Climate, as shown in this video, really made me giggle. Imagine amounting all that to a set of silly numbers. I bet he oversimplifies flood and natural disasters as an unbidden error in set of numbers/research 💀
Natural disasters have been around since time-immemorial. Man has tried to understand it and predict it and control it to protect himself from danger and harness the energies of nature to his advantage. And as long as there has been man, there has been con men trying to capitalize on natural disasters. Yogis, Babas, gurus and the witch doctors have attributed natural disasters to curses that only they can lift. Science was supposed to expose their fraud. But in the 21st century, scientists have usurped the language of science to perpetuate fraud. Scientists are human beings. And human beings can be corrupted. People can lie for money. For grants. It helps them buy big houses and assert great authority. The bigger the crisis, the greater the authority. No lasting solution is ever proposed. For if it works, they lost their cash cow. If it does not, they lose credibility.
Climate change dystopians often cite Pakistan as an example, highlighting devastating floods and a significant number of casualties. However, one important aspect that is often overlooked is the remarkable population growth of 200 million over the past 80 years
@@skumflum3768Overpopulation is a myth
@@mcboat3467 it really depends on what you’re referring to
@@mcboat3467 well did we ever have such population of humans in the past?
Thankfully I missed the first and second waves JP popularity. And only really listened to some of his speeches in 2021 or after (and even then just a few short clips, not whole lectures).
I’m keep myself insulated from sjw debates of the day whatever they may be.
Anyways, when I came across JP, I noticed two things, he claimed to be an academic but would speak with so much authority about any subject in the sun. And I know no human on earth can be a specialist on more than just a few topics. And he spoke with such confidence that my bullshit alarm went off.
The second thing was that if you really just listen to his videos, they’re a whole mess of nothing words. It’s difficult to describe but on a visceral gut instinct, I was like, good or bad, I am going to avoid him.
damn.. loved this one. Keep it going Pranav! excellent episode!
If there's a gender pay gap let's just hire women so we can save 9% of our revenue 😼
Why discrimination against men ?
JP's biggest talent is his charm and that he is a very good speaker. Good language and big words. It impresses people and makes you want to believe him. I have listened to his videos. But me being a feminist found his videos very disappointing after some time. Then i heard him talking about lgbt pronouns but the final nail on the coffin was when he did a q and a with college students on climate change. He just kept talking bullshit, going round and round, nothing that made sense. As you said, he managed to confuse the kids and shut them up and his few supporters were cheering and clapping . But it was obvious that he didn't really know what he was talking about atleast about climate change. But he talked with so much of confidence and advanced vocabulary that i had to rethink all the videos i had seen of him till then. As he has some good general life advice, people tend to take everything he says as advice.
He saw the dollars in weighing in on things he had no academic authority to once he saw those internet view dollar signs.
There are so many ideologies being floated by different speakers. We need to have our inner filters strong to separate chaff from grain.
He is 61, so I think it's safe to assume it took him 50 years to learn how to pronounce "Dostoyevsky", 5 years to read "Crime and punishment", and six years to read 200 pages of "The brothers Karamazov"
There are glaring issues with Peterson, however, this video fails to critic him and does not do justice to him. Genetically Modified Skeptic on the other hand did a wonderful job at his critique, actually countering his points rather than using "he just has complicated wordplay and jargon" fallacy in logic and butchering his viewpoint entirely.
Ciao.
At 6:20, Peterson hasn't said that toxic masculinity isn't a thing. He has either stated that it's difficult to define and separate from toxic behavior overall, or that it's simply a neologism for toxic behavior. The short clip you cited shows a woman asking him to provide an alternative to "toxic masculinity," to which he responded with "responsible masculinity." However, the woman interrupted him and asked for a different answer, prompting Peterson to ask her to define what she means by the phrase.
At 7:17, Peterson never denied the gender pay gap. His argument is that it's a multivariate problem, of which unfair discrimination is a part, as he clearly states. Peterson suggests that personality plays a significant role in the pay gap, as women tend to be more agreeable than men, which makes them less likely to negotiate for a raise.
The NBER study you mentioned didn't take into account several variables in its full specification:
Occupational segregation: Women are more likely to work in lower-paying occupations than men.
Unconscious bias: The tendency to make judgments about people based on their gender, even without realizing it.
Caregiving: Women are more likely to take time off from work to care for family members, resulting in a loss of income and a decrease in their earnings potential.
Negotiation skills: Women are often less likely to negotiate for higher salaries than men.
Work-life balance: Women are more likely to take on the majority of caregiving responsibilities in the home, which can lead to them working fewer hours or taking time off from work, affecting their earnings.
Occupational prestige: Women are more likely to work in occupations that are seen as less prestigious than those dominated by men, resulting in lower pay even for the same work.
At 9:36, Peterson isn't a "practicing" Christian.
At 11:15, this definition of God is a psychological analysis of how humans "perceive" God, based on a value hierarchy. Peterson has written a book called "Maps of Meaning" where he explains religion and its formation solely through an anthropological and psychological lens, not through an ontological lens as you are arguing.
At 13:29, now it's becoming shallow. You shouldn't touch topics you don't understand. This is genuine criticism, not ad hominem. Let me provide a brief introduction: The argument is that the logical end of rationality is based on its definition, which is the "use of knowledge to attain a goal." Therefore, if my goal is immoral, pursuing it would still be considered rational. Atheists claim that their morality comes from rationality, but how? It's technically impossible. How is causing suffering or reducing someone else's well-being for your own benefit irrational? What defines something as wrong? Don't bother trying to explain; you'll fall into circular reasoning. So not only is Matt wrong here, but he also lacks the intellect to comprehend Peterson's simple argument.
Allow me to explain further to avoid any misunderstandings. Here's how it goes:
Harming society is generally considered bad without further explanation. All explanations essentially state that harming society is bad for the individual, implying that the deeper definition of sin is "something that is harmful for the individual."
Crimes have been and can be committed without consequences. Some argue that most successful ends result from immoral means. So, if one avoids self-harm (both short-term and long-term), would any action still be considered a sin?
Let's say you overcome the first two points (which is impossible to do), would it be possible to convince yourself or others, through argumentation, to avoid committing the "sin"? Are people more likely to consider long-term consequences, and how likely is it that people won't be biased in their conclusions?
At 15:32, you're not stupid, but you're ignorant. These topics are difficult to grasp for anyone who lacks context or exposure.
At 16:00, Christ is both an ideal spirit that combines all the biblical stories (personification of it/spirit/something you can imitate) and a historical figure. It's a distinction between mythology and history. There's nothing complicated to understand here.
At 17:40, this concept is challenging to grasp because the definition of supernatural is not ontological but psychological. This means that your subjective experience of the supernatural is the evidence of its existence, as it is the only form of supernatural that exists. I can provide more details if you'd like, but this topic is too complex to explain briefly.
At 18:50, Peterson didn't technically misrepresent the study. He never claimed that the sample size was larger or that you could conclude that magic mushrooms can stop smoking.
At 20:00, yes, preferred pronouns are a part of Bill C-16. The bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. This means that it is now illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression. Misgendering someone, which involves using the wrong pronouns for them, is included in this prohibition. Please read the bill thoroughly.
At 21:00, the problem is technical, and you didn't address it. How do you define hate? The logic of political correctness is that "anything offensive to a group identity is considered hate speech." This definition is subjective. It's not surprising that The Lancet used "bodies with vaginas" instead of "women" since the term "women" is considered offensive by transgender women. So, it's justified. Imagine how much harm this can cause; imagine going to jail for using the term "women." That's the technicality of the issue.
Watch Peterson's MOM lessons from his Harvard lectures in 1999. After that, I promise you'll laugh every time Harris says anything about religion, and as for Dillahunty, you'll simply block him.
Please pin this comment if you truly value criticism.
The entirety of the video exhibited a marked lack of effort. I find it perplexing how Peterson's ideas are deemed difficult to comprehend. While I acknowledge that he does introduce complexities, it is not to the extent that would render one as misinformed as this guy (or most of his critiques). Good job with pointing out the errors.
Great job pointing out the flaws and articulating them so effectively.
@@Analysis.Paralysis I think the problem is that they don't like the term "conservative." Just ask them: are conserving liberal values considered conservative or liberal? It's ironic how they call Peterson a conservative Christian, but then argue for politically correct censorship. I wonder who's actually more liberal in this case.
Wow! So good! I hope he pins it.
@LITHIUM Thank you for your comment. You’ve articulated all of the logical holes in this video. Unfortunately it seems, Pranav is unprepared and too unsophisticated to fully understand and critique these subjects.
I haven't even started the video yet...
But before going through the video, I really want to thank you and whole team of science is dope...
Thanks ☺️ ❤
Calling him an intellectual is like calling Sadguru a scientist.
Cold😱😱
He's way wiser than you will ever be
He is an intellectual, just because you don't agree with him doesn't makes him stupid.
Peterson is definitely not the most problematic intellectual, because in order to be a problematic intellectual, you must first be an intellectual.
I really appreciate you SID, i do see a lot of reactionary sentiments coming from even educated south asian men, i think with the rise of women's rights and lgbt rights, a lot of young men in patriarchal cultures feel threatened, i see this sentiment a lot from indian men, but its reassuring to see some pushing back against that. In fact a lot of like anti "social justice" stuff i see online comes from muslims and south asians, which i think makes sense as in an interconnected world people in these more patriarchal cultures are exposed to more challenges to their assumptions.
not everyone, a lot of us are sick of biased laws, unfair stereotyping and mental gymnastics and strawman to justify discrimination against men. We arent looking to take away womens rights.
Bill c 16 required him to acknowledge not only transgenders but also every other group of people who claimed that they were of a gender that didn't make sense on a biological level ( now i could define what I mean by biological, but i don't want to sound like someone making things unnecessarily complex- hint- sarcasm). It required him as common citizen to not question someone's claim on what their gender is, because that would at some point fall under "discrimination". For a person who actively engages in field of science, with regards to psychology and philosophy, that felt like a direct attack on their ability to think and act as if they are the ones thinking and acting, jorden Peterson himself has said and acted out acknowledging transgender woman on a debate about bill c16 on a Canadian channel
The video on UA-cam is on a channel called 'TheAgenda l Today'.
Hey Pravan great work man.
Prior actually i realized one thing the JP needlessly complicates stuffs.
Now things became more clear.
A request:Actually i am loosing argument on vegetarianism.
can you post a video on vegetarianism and the moral drenched on that?
Lol if you're athiest then how can you win argument over vegetarianism.
@@sonofuniverse6355
I am confused,
could you eleborate?
I really appreciate someone who admits that they have grown and evolved and come from a place where you were less educated and are honest about that
yeah but thats only that. Dont think because of such a claim you can take him for his word for everything.
that is one of the most efficient methods of manipulation, to act as if they have been on the other side, makes their argument seem that much more convincing. its quite funny seeing people watch a video all about Jordan deception and simultaneously falling prey to the same kind of deception.
Just because they’ve changed, doesn’t mean they’ve changed for the better or are somehow more correct now. Sorry.
Thank you for making this! , So many people follow his rhetoric blindly.
And why do you think people follow him blindly? He lays out a pure facts and a logical way of thinking? Simple as that :)
@@boyamitrovic5858yeah 👍
@@boyamitrovic5858 facts paired with specific contexts and absence of other facts cause people to have a bias
I think you are being blindly for saying something so blindly.
People who follow anyone blindly are fools for doing so. Even following this video blindly is dangerous. This video did not even scratch the surface of the topics it touched upon. People in general are biased so the onus is on us to hear views from both side and come to a conclusion.
Wow, the journey you described with your perception of Jp almost 1 to 1 matches mine. How he informed youre opinions on topics in which you werent educatet in since hey he sounds smart surely he's not misrepresenting the facts. I first started to doubt him when I saw a clip of him talking about climate change, which happened to be a topic I knew a bit more about. From that point I started to look more critically at him and realized that he had a lot of problematic takes. I also had to change my opinion on topics like the gender pay gap.
This video is on point. I would love to see you on The Line with Matt Dillahunty at some point!
Peterson isn't an intellectual he's a rank opportunist.
Can you make a vidio about why most of the indians brag about things that had never happend?
Idk man unnecessary nationalism
instant sub. as an american i appreciate the work you're doing in bringing attention to the right wing idealogues and how harmful they rly are. if you want to know a little more about jp's ideology, some more news has an excellent video that explains it all. and most of all i appreciate you debinking the misinfo with your science content. thank you so much
i think it is the topic more people should talk about jordan peterson's speech is very influential and normal youth can't really diffrentiate between stupidity and statistics.
Dude you are so underrated
And tbh I want you to be that !!
Good work Pranav! JP is a big influence among young Indian men in a negative way. I see a lot of young men becoming misogynists these days.
Thank you!!
so watching jp is misogyny? in what context? wtf is wrong with you bro
@Kai 🏳️🌈 ⃠卍 😢you are so naive and cute
My Alpha boi 🤭
@Kai 🏳️🌈 ⃠卍 you are so alpha
That you need to be misandrist to gain attention
In what way does Jp advise(not his politics) making Indian men misogynist ????
Maybe you watched those out of context clips of him and anyways enjoy your eco chamber.
I never knew you until I watched this video. Thank you for your point of view. Very enlightening.
Conclusion of the study that you referenced to at the 7th minute as follows [I have downloaded and went through it briefly since I am a physician & understand statistics a bit, not an expert & went through the tables] - " We have shown that the gender pay gap in the United States fell dramatically from 1980 to 1989, with slower convergence continuing through 2010. Using PSID microdata, we documented the improvements over the 1980-2010 period in women’s education, experience, and occupational representation, as well as the elimination of the female shortfall in union coverage, and showed that they played an important role in the reduction in the gender pay gap. Particularly notable is that, by 2010, conventional human capital variables (education and labor-market experience) taken together explained little of the gender wage gap in the aggregate. This is due to the reversal of the gender difference in education, as well as the substantial reduction in the gender experience gap. On the other hand, gender differences in location in the labor market-distribution by occupation and industry-continued to be important in explaining the gap in 2010. A decrease in the unexplained gap over the 1980s contributed to the robust convergence in the gender wage gap over that decade, with the unexplained gap falling sharply from 21-29 percent in 1980 to 8-18 percent by 1989. However, the unexplained gap did not fall further subsequently, remaining in this range over the succeeding twenty years. We also found that both the raw and the unexplained gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution that at the middle or the bottom. By 2010, the raw and unexplained female shortfalls in wages, which had been fairly similar across the wage distribution in 1980, were larger for the highly skilled than for others, suggesting that developments in the labor market for executives and highly skilled workers especially favored men.
JORDAN PETERSON was always a right wing Christian proponent BUT that does not mean that he was wrong in the interview. He worded it wrong but you took his statement out of context also.
The right statement would have scientifically been - The gender pay gap existed because of prior societal standards differentiating the roles of male and female which was forced to be equated due to the World Wars & women's suffrage. When women started having the right to vote [I think USA women were allowed to vote only from 1956, nearly decade after women in the subcontinent were allowed to vote] and the results of women gradually proving their abilities and competing with men over the decades after these movements is proven by this study.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT STATEMENT.
AND CATHY NEWMAN WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG BECAUSE SHE ACTUALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE STUDY IN THE SCIENTIFIC SENSE. GENDER PAY GAP EXISTED BUT IS IMPROVING IS WHAT THE STUDY SHOWS BUT SHE IS NOT SAYING THAT RIGHT?
And many feminist & woke ideologues in USA & CANADA are ACTUALLY SAYING GENDER PAY GAP has worsened and mostly, they never show any evidence of it.
THERE ARE ALWAYS CERTAIN PROFESSIONS WHICH ARE HIGH PAYING, which avoid hiring women for specific completely logical reasons like biological differences required for the jobs. Examples include saturation divers, merchant & armed navy, submariners, oil rigs, frontline infantry as well as special forces and many more because the physical standards required of those professions can only be satisfied with least risk by men.
All these are very high paying jobs, far more than doctors/lawyers/scientists/engineers [fields in which that difference is irrelevant because there are no physical standards] and this, when included in scientific studies and statistical studies WILL SKEW the results to show the gender pay gap exists and for the same reasons, WILL ALWAYS EXIST AS LONG AS THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN.
IT IS ACTUALLY NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.
Nope. Newman was right. Your post has little to do with the conversation that was actually had, and much of it is simply wrong. It does not accurately reflect that analysis of the USA GPG and it's findings.
Having leapt from a passage about the 'unexplained' gap - which still exists and remains unexplained - you then give a wholly inaccurate summary 'scientific' statement about the study and even give it an inaccurate historical background, ultimately arriving at a totally inaccurate conclusion,
There are few professions where biological differences between men and women preclude equality in opportunity. Women are working in ALL the ones you cite: 'saturation divers, merchant & armed navy, submariners, oil rigs, frontline infantry as well as special forces'.
That they are not doing so in great numbers is likely due to attitudes such as yours and if you knew anything about the GPG analysis, you would know that is a knife which cuts both ways.
A few points at random:
Cathy Newman accurately cited UK GPG figure of 9% in 2018. This went up to 12.9% in 2019, 15.9% in 2019, and down again to 10.8% in 2021. It now stands at 9.71% for 2022. (Source: UK DIT)
The Equal Pay Movement started in the 1860's and one of the earliest strikes for equal pay in the UK dates back to *1918*
Women won the right to vote in the USA with the 19th Amendment, in 1920
Originally known as the Gender WAGE Gap, it has been calculated for many many years - which is how we know that the gap shrank significantly during the second world war.
Cathy Newman also correctly cited the FACT that only 7 of the FTSE 100 are led by women. *And I suggest the C-Suite is where you will actually find the highest earners.*
To the conversation between Newman and Peterson:
Peterson denied the GPG exists... changed his mind... .then denied saying what he had said minutes earlier. And that's just for starters: (timestamps from the actual interview)
PETERSON 5:43: ...multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist
NEWMAN 5: 50: .. but that's not true...
PETERSON 5:51: .... it's absolutely true...
Followed by:
PETERSON at 6:40: I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to s3$ is wrong and it is wrong.
PETERSON at 8:20: ...also I didn't deny it existed I denied it existed because of gender, okay because I'm very very very careful with my words
1 *Newman was right* what he said is not true. There's NO 'multivariate analysis of the pay gap' which 'indicate that it doesn't exist'
The GPG IS a multivariate analysis and countries across the world produce it.
They ALL demonstrate - prove - that it exists... used to help analyse the reasons...and any efforts/policies etc., that might help correct disparities.
2. After being presented with UK GPG figures and pertinent facts, his view changed. It DOES exist after all, its just not all down to s3&. How does that work? Its the GENDER Pay Gap, for pity's sake!
3. He DID deny it existed... AND he denied it because of some spurious and invented multivariate analysis, not gender.
*Again, Newman was100% right.*
4. Dependent on how you interpret what he said at 8:20 - and it does require interpretation - its possible he is contradicting what he said at 6:40 AND 5:43!
.... and he really wasn't very, very careful with his words at all.
*In less than three minutes he lied twice and pulled non-existent analysis out of his A in the doing of it*
It got worse:
PETERSON 6:06: ...you say, well women in aggregate are paid less than men. okay well then we break it down by age we break it down by occupation we break it down by interest we break it down by personality...
*No. 'We' don't* ... but he goes further:
PETERSON 7:19 ..there's a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite and agreeable people get paid less than less agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
PETERSON 7:45 I'm saying that that's one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary it accounts for maybe five percent of the variance something like that
What 'multivariate equation'?
More analysis pulled out of his A. You won't find ANY GPG related analysis which speaks to personality in this manner
'Agreeableness' featured repeatedly in the conversation after this exchange. This is a big five (or big six) personality measure.
Peterson knows this stuff - the big five of personality has been the subject of his research since 2003.
But, *just because he knows this stuff, doesn't mean he is honest about it*
When you look at big five/six research, women DO score marginally higher in this trait. So do outstandingly successful male CEO's.
See 'Nice CEOs do finish first': by James Saft' This IS based on actual research.
In any event, neither personality in general or any particular trait, is identified as a 'cause' of disparity in any GPG analysis. Anywhere.
See 'Extent, trends, and explanations 2017' Authors Francine D Blau, Lawrence M Kahn - it gives some insight into WHY.
This is the report this guy references. It includes a look at personality traits in its analysis of the US GPG.
It points out that past research into personality is insufficient and unsuitable for the purposes of analysing the GPG - limited in scope and ambiguous. It simply cannot be used to explain any part of the GPG and is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of deriving any conclusions or outcomes - certainly not to support any remedial suggestions/recommendations.
It actually speaks to his example of 'agreeableness' and 'negotiation'.
Past research shows that women are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' engage in salary negotiations - by virtue of discriminatory attitudes in the labour market. HOWEVER, there are other significant factors at play - for both men and women.
Ergo a program that might develop assertiveness or negotiation skills in women is inappropriate
Specific research is required into the 'psyche' element of the GPG for personality to be relevant in any way. Not only is discrimination a potential factor here, too, personality traits - ALL of them - clearly work BOTH WAYS. Hence this, in the abstract of the paper:
"Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted"
This was a year before Petersons interview with Newman.
*Peterson CHOSE to misrepresent - distort - what he KNOWS about personality, and simply MADE STUFF UP as it suited him*
It seems he is not alone in doing that, either.
@@dmob881 I have not seen the interview AND you have not read my whole comment which is actually in 3 different parts since it was lengthy. I will try to answer point by point.
First, the conclusion I had posted was NOT MY CONCLUSION. It was the conclusion of the study itself, making it obvious that you had not read the study itself and I posted it after making a cursory reading of the study with my medical profession understanding of the statistics. This clearly shows your own prejudices when you said that it was MY CONCLUSION.
Second, the conclusion DID SAY that a gender pay gap exists and is unexplained for which there are two reasons which I clearly mentioned in my comment. The reason is the study's conclusion since it is scientific in nature can only draw conclusions from its own research. BUT, IF an editorial were done taking the study in context with a larger perspective, then you will find that first, women entering labour force is a recent phenomenon and equating will take time & second, certain high paying jobs are out of their purview because of the rigorous physical criteria involved for selection and I have also listed several high paying jobs where women are not hired. This larger perspective and understanding was not taken into account and that is what Jordan should have presented in the interview but the research study conclusion was RIGHT because ethically, it can only limit itself to its study findings. That is how scientific research is done and conclusions drawn. I did not pay much attention to an interview because an interview is NOT the same standard of rigorous scientific research. Thus, you just proved that you have NOT read the study as well as executed a fallacy of equivalency by equating an interview to scientific study. The continuing gender pay gap should require another study to demonstrate the two OTHER FACTORS not included in the study.
Third, the study quoted from the JOUNRAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE was from based on USA data NOT UK DATA. Your reply is based on UK data. Again, you are comparing two different societies altogether. This video as well as the interview discussed only this study, which in its conclusion is actually saying that the gap is improving. You can go and read it yourself. That will apply to USA not the UK. As far as UK is concerned, the GPG study you are mentioning, I have not read and I don't know whether it corrected for the variables like the US study did. Hence, cannot comment and since, you have not even read the US study we are discussing and bringing in UK report [by government I believe rather than a scientific study], I would take your understanding of the UK study with a HUGE PINCH OF SALT.
Fourth, if you believe attitudes like mine are what prevent women from joining the jobs that I mention, then you can go study how many women actually apply for those jobs. I am from India where women had voting rights even before UK or USA. On religious dogma basis, we are more similar to UK than USA. Women in UK & USA entered the work forces BECAUSE the world wars were the catalysts as labour force was required to supplement the war effort. NOT because there was a equal pay movement. That is why, your EQUAL PAY MOVEMENT literally did NOT achieve anything in its first 50 years. Thus, objectively speaking, it was desperation that brought women into the work force rather than a movement. Also, note that even highly successful Nobel laureates like Marie Curie, still had to toe the line of societal restrictions BUT many women still made in scientific fields in those days because there are no physical standards for a doctor or a scientists. If you cannot make out the difference in these two conditions, then it is your attitude that is irrational and prejudiced, NOT MINE.
Finally, the rest of your comment repeats the same mistake again. If you wish to extrapolate UK data to the whole world, that itself shows that you are arguing with an agenda and a bias, since anyone who knows the basics of science and statistics understands that that is NOT how science is understood or research is conducted. To counter your UK study, I can simply present INDIAN studies that show the same narrowing gender wage gap as in the USA study corrected for the variables. If I am an infantry soldier, then I would be okay if a woman of physical stature like Karnam Malleswari [olympic medallist in weightlifting], who will be physically capable of carrying heavy loads and rescuing me if I am incapacitated.
Of course, some men might be uncomfortable with a women helping them out in danger BUT that is the similar BUT opposite prejudice that you yourself have. Second, other than physical capabilities, the emotional as well as thought processes are different for men & women, which has been proven scientifically over and over again. These are different because their evolutionary & biological roles are different and those same roles make the two genders suitable for different jobs.
If you are going to call that bias, then my conclusion is you are a WOKE idealogue who wants to use science to support your own prejudices and DON'T CARE WHAT SCIENCE ACTUALLY IS or for that matter, even rational behaviour.
YOUR REPLY TO MY COMMENT JUST PROVED EVERYTHING I MENTIONED IN THE COMMENT. WOKE IDEOLOGY IS UNSCIENTIFIC, IRRATIONAL, DESTRUCTIVE & WILL NEVER BE PROGRESSIVE OR REGRESSIVE, ONLY DESTRUCTIVE.
MEDICALLY SPEAKING, IT IS A PSYCHIATRIC DISEASE JUST LIKE COMMUNISM BUT SINCE IDEOLOGIES CANNOT BE CALLED A DISEASE, THEN THE PEOPLE ESPOUSING THOSE IDEOLOGIES WILL BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH BY RATIONAL PEOPLE.
GOODBYE.
Please do dubunking of dinosaur in hindusium
😅😅😅😅😂
ah yes the dino-asur
Dinosaur in Hinduism 🤯🤣
Kaha Suna bhai?
What 😂😂 dinosaurs in hinduism??
I like JP, even after acknowledging every point you made in the video. Humans are very complex, you don't have to accept each of their belief. You can pick and choose what you want to takeaway or not. You mentioned in the video that you will not take JP by his word after some incident. Well you should not take anyone by word. Its very important to come at your own conclusion. People have beliefs and groups normalize them.
Agree
They Idolize Peterson, and when he then appears to be a flawed human being, suddenly they blame him for not being god like anymore?
Thats silly
I think the main reason Jordan Peterson was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
@@max-cs9ko if he wishes to argue that this is happening, he needs evidence
This idea that children are being transitioned at a young age is a very common one, but it's not something that reflects reality(no, puberty blockers don't count, they were used way before their implementation in trans healthcare to prevent onset of early puberty in women, they have been studied extensively since then)
Moreover, he's a Christian right
So he must've known about the common surgery of circumcision, something done involuntarily on babies without their consent(no, it being harmless is not reason enough, at least with puberty blockers the aim is to minimize any psychological stress and then to stop when the future path becomes clear to progress as per usual)
That's worse than puberty blockers, at least there the children need to be both diagnosed with some kind of condition, and even then they're at least given some choice(especially when they reach an age where they can indeed consent for a surgery if they have retained those tendencies)
Let's not sugarcoat this, it's mutilation
And if he does care about 'irreversible changes that kids go through because of their parents', then he should at least mention his own Christianity's failing in this regard
@@max-cs9ko that's not true at all. None is west is doing gender transition surgery on minors. Heck he even attacked Elliott Paige for having a breast reduction surgery.
@@broeklien3817 Exactly! I think most people hating on JP are actually having also their own demons that cause them to pay attention to things that shouldnt really matter in the long run. You take the positive things out of your surroundings and ignore the negative things. I think that's the best outcome for every human to be able to do so.
I would like to know your thoughts on Acharya prashant...
Man you opened a lot of prepective in me ..... though this guy helped me during a very dark phase in my life.
Never knew Peterson was this silly 😂😂
Oh from this video you got to understand he's silly and from previous one's you saw you had different idea? Guess where the issue is?
@@abdulwarees840 i didn't saw all the previous ones Abdul. Plus I had a puncture in my bike.
Because he's not.
@@vaibhavkaushik2966 This is what I don't like about you arrogant liberal atheist types. You call Peterson a Racist/Transphobe/whatnot and feel good about yourselves and then you proceed to make bad taste communal jokes like that you made to Abdul, hypocrite much?
@@vaibhavkaushik2966I get that reference 😂.
this video was really great. videos like these are hard to come by from Indian creators. it really made me happy seeing you talking about this topic so eloquently.
waiting for more contents like this ... please keep posting @science is dope
Jordan Peterson got famous off a slippery slope fallacy of his own design. I can’t imagine a more embarrassing thrust into the limelight for a “public intellectual” than that
This is brilliant Pranav..I have watched both Peterson and Sadhguru back in 2018-20. They helped me in my darkest phases but somehow once I was in a bit of clarity and opened myself up for different views or more holistic perspectives, I found their flaws and their manipulation. Thanks a lot for debunking in a civilised manner ✌️👍🏻🫡