Brett and Dr. Peterson compliment each other in a way that you don't see often AT ALL. Its a bloody miracle that they put their expertise together, also a beautiful thing.
@@coreyfisher2542 I say fundamentally a lot. It's a good word, but I mainly use it because the things I'm talking about are pretty low resolution. Like selection pressures, a lot of room for the word there, and often I look for a better one, but it just fits. :)
That’s a red herring for why they destroyed him. Truth seems to be he was pushing against policy changes at Evergreen and the president and associated supporters used the student body as a weapon against him. He wasn’t fully forthcoming about this at first because he was still in court with a settlement suit. I actually stuck my nose around Evergreen after his initial fiasco and it was not at all as it seemed. As usual.
A very similar example to Peterson’s lobster example with regards to hierarchy. Even flowers have gender roles, therefore they cannot be blamed on the tyrannical Western patriarchy and capitalism
thalia garcia - you seem to be missing an important point here. The question is : How much does sex determine specific kinds of behaviour ( which takes us closer to gender roles) . If you can detect something like "coyness" in the structure of female parts of plants, then it is a valid argument that female coyness is not simply and wholly a drummed-in model in female minds but it has its origin in biology.For a constructivist all boils down to a social power hierarchy. This needs to be challenged because it is not better than an obsession (to the point of dogma) of victimhood. Women always had power, but their power was more evident in areas of life where men were more awkward, clumsy or not wise enough. The patriarchy of the Muslim world cannot be translated one on one when thinking about the European historical past. Many examples of outstanding women in history, examples of daughters being cherished....and husbands being "henpecked", women choosing a husband from their suitors, managing affairs while the husband was away from home (in wars, in exile or they were widowed.) Turning everything into black and white, when real life with real people is so much more diverse, richer offering not just one explanation is a fallacy. Biology and evolution is another valid argument here.
thalia garcia you’re grasping. Peterson’s example of lobster hierarchy and serotonin shows human hierarchies are not a mere power grab by evil white male capitalists. Hierarchies are as old as lobsters and inevitable. Even in left wing states. That’s the point, and it’s scientifically sound. Brett’s point is that the feminine reproductive structures on the flowers display a cautionary strategy to reproduction (as do human females, on average) and the male structures on the same flowers display a promiscuous strategy (as do human males on average). e.fooking.g. gender roles
Amen, brother! Seriously, these times, I'm not even necessarily applauding people I agree with. I am applauding people, who are sincerely trying to find the truth, willing to have intelligent debate and change their mind, when confronted with valid arguments.
5 років тому+3
Intelligence requires that position, and it's refreshing, to say the least, to hear someone say what you said. I have been way too inside my own head about polarization,etc...what it means, what to do about it, where it's headed...all the hand-wringing. But lately I have trying to get outside that mindset, and concentrate on aligning more with your comments, namely focusing on the authenticity and intent of a given position, rather than dealing in the currency of agreement/disagreement. Easier said than done tho....
I swear I just heard Brett say this prayer right on UA-cam. God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
I like how Bret Weinstein says "the left wing needs a redpilling, but not a right-wing redpilling", this seems to be true in most cases. There are few cases where going to the right is the better option, and because there's a false dichotomy in left vs right propositions, when what we consider the "left" idea fails, there's a gut reaction to then go right, instead of look for another left-wing option. Now, I would say *"when the left-wing idea fails, go further left"* (for example, welfare vs. UBI holds this motif, UBI being further left than welfare), but not all leftwing ideas are further left/right than other leftwing ideas. Some leftwing ideas are about the same in terms of how far left they go, they just simply are different ideas.
You are confusing the "matriarchy" for the "patriarchy". Yes, I know that modern feminists say that there is and has never been a matriarchy. They just happen to be wrong. I do, however, agree with your basic premise that it is women (in particular those who call themselves feminists) who are currently undermining other women. No man has ever called me a traitor to my sex because I had four children and stayed home with them when they were little. If anything, men who know that I chose motherhood as my career, treat me like I'm some sort of superhero for being able to devote over a decade to the flourishing of my offspring over my other, personal interests (unless they are academics or misogynists. Those men treat motherhood as "feminists" do, like it is an overly indulgent hobby). To paraphrase one of their own terms, this undermining of other women (in particular, mothers) is a form of toxic femininity, in that it destroys the very thing that was supposedly brought into being to strengthen.
J Hitchcock - that’s why I noted patriarchy in quotation. The quotations are there to both mock the concept of the patriarchy as well as note that the toxic attitudes I’ve experienced in my life ironically mostly come from women.
Now there's some Bret Weinstein-Jordan Peterson topic to look forward to ! Merging, sorting out, refining, linking, exploring, the knowledge, evidences, experiences, wisdoms, facts and myths of evolutionary biology-evolutionary psychology- Jungian Archetypes- and the realities and human potential of life that were, are, and can be -
Exactly. As Jung, Peterson is somehow at the edge of mysticism and science, allowing both sides to have common ground. I am curious, if it can work out.
Yes, isn't that nice? The one is expert in psycology and interested in evolutionary biology, and the other one the opposite way. For me the main problem in Harris-Peterson talks was, that Harris has not enough expertise in psycology; the only common ground for them was the "yes or no to God and/or religion".
Brian Bob, I’m not sure about that. He and his IDW counterparts are pointing out the extreme dangers of the post-modernists and their foundation altering effects on the human condition. Most people agree with them. If the post-modern thought system is so virulent, then it is certainly possible to bring that same drive to any endeavor. Peterson speaks to the efficacy of the Judeo Christian metaphorical structure in our development. If you agree with that it is another piece of evidence to back Brett’s optimism.
We have already did, woman can go to school, other races are considered people too... What he is correctly pointing out, is amount of change. And even not saying some Single Truth™, just pointing out, we have to have scientific discussion, what is feasible and desirable.
@@sitnarf7804 - Your missing part of the discussion. In the previous video Weinstein described how the atheistic worldview makes a people unfit in an evolutionary sense. Mostly this comes down to extremely low birthrates for atheistic societies, as birthrates play a huge role in evolutionary fitness. There are other issues as well, sending our smartest women into the most difficult careers makes it very unlikely for them to have any kids at all, and if they do, it will be very few. So we are now selecting against the genes for intelligence and hardwork, and consequently our future generations will be dumber and less conscientious. There are a host of other things and even more that we don't fully understand the consequences of. Essentially, atheism as a worldview has made us extremely evolutionarily unfit and the most likely senarious is that we will be replaced by a group with higher fitness. I guess that's where the Muslim come in.
I wonder if Brett has ever commented on the experiments with a species of monkey some years ago. Would really like to get his two cents' worth on this. Researchers kept two groups of monkeys in cages side by side, gave the two groups identical tasks to complete, and rewarded them with food. Except they gave one group twice the amount of food as the other group for completing the same task. The monkeys in the other group reacted with rage. They refused their food rewards, and some actually threw the food back at the researchers. Perceptions of fairness and equity are quite fundamental to wellbeing, and not just for homo sapiens, the researchers concluded. Reminded me of Dr Peterson's example of lobsters and heirarchies.
Bret is a genius. Great to hear him speak. I wish Dr Doug Lisle could get in on these conversations. He’s an evolutionary psychologist. His podcast is called beat your genes. He deals with more pedestrian issues but its easy to take the proposed evolutionary functions and extrapolate them to society at large.
"When we look at evolution and biology we are looking at a completely amoral landscape ... evolution is responsible for all of our best characteristics and our worst"
Brilliant! I hope more biologists will find courage to speak about what is evident with in their own field of science. To have a fruitful discussion about what ought to be, we need to first agree on what actually is.
Evolutionary Astrology is a tool to look deeper at the persona and the soul's trajectory. Seems we are all souls in a body here to evolve via our consciousness. Many are in consensus state but many are individuated. It is through objectifying self that we evolve. We all have themes and much will be dependant on beliefs. Roles are evolving. I think sex is meant to be and is a sacred act but not puritan. We have a way to go us human beings.
My major question is this - if the ultimate goal in 2019 that our evolutionary heritage has given us is to seek to overcome or re-orient it, what the hell even is evolution in the first place?!
Look I'm ususally a Weinstein defender but holy shit the conversation around 5:30 onwards. "...to pass on our genetic spellings at the exclusion of alternative genetic spellings to the extent possible" he says that's mot a very interesting game. It's the only game that matters. And he mentions our toolkit, well let it do its job, it evolved to do stuff, and any attempt you make to encourage the decline of my genes, I'm going to take as an act of evolutionary aggression, because it is. And Weinstein knows this. If I do then he does, he using the same lines of reasoning I do, and alludes to it a lot.
Agreed. One time he said something to the extent of "I'm not a believer in utopia, but..." and then went on to explain his goal for a utopia. Reproduction might be an objectively uninteresting game, but it cannot be transcended. Thinkers like Bret are more dangerous than we realize.
By "not interesting", i think he means more that it shouldn't be our main priority. As a species who is aware that we are in the game, we can (and should) strive to do better than just spreading genes.
Whatever interests us. Any person can look into themselves and ask themselves "what do I enjoy?". Whether it be sports, martial arts, video games, or just simply spending time with friends/family. You could toss these under a common umbrella of "well-being". Also, along with promoting well-being, reducing/eliminating suffering is an equally useful goal.
The Fuzzician . What you have to realize is that everything we know as good, wellbeing if you must, is only so because it's either directly or indirectly supportive of survival and reproduction.
My my, thank you ever so much to Rebel Wisdom and also to Evergreen College for firing Bret; humanity now gets to share his profound insight. Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, Lucifer and the father of all lies must despise Bret Weinsten. The dignity of the human person, as the first of Creation, is front, back and centre, Ne Timeas.
Plainly? Jordan Peterson is the quintessential purveyor of word salad. Any criticism of Peterson is always met with "you need to watch every video, read everything ever written" in order to understand him. Peterson is the opposite of plainly as his supporters admit by demanding all his work be consumed. The fact that Brett calls Peterson plain speaking speak volumes to how out of touch with "plainly" Brett is.
I watched Peterson at the recent talk he gave at Cambridge University in the UK. He was asked about whether he thought the impending climate change driven disasters might pull people together. His response was to get angry and roll out several already debunked climate change denial tropes. What was a real shame was that he missed the point. In the UK there is the collective memory of the Blitz and WWII when people were brought together under difficult conditions of war. The suggestion was that the difficult coditions which climate change is already bringing might serve to unite people and yet Peterson just got angry about it and essentially said there was no point in trying to do anything about it & renewable energy couldn't do the job. That was really odd and went against his own philosophy that action and inaction both have 'consequences'. And getting 'angry' about the question, also exposed a nerve in his own character, which he would do well to look at more closely. He's always banging on about how he's a scientist with expert knowledge of his subject - so it's odd that he can't extend the same respect to the 98% of scientists in the multiple disciplines which cover the field of climate change.
People always requires attention so Eric has challenged Peterson's to understand why they differ why they would connect ultimately Jordan Peterson's timeless archetype approach can be debunked I'm sure and just a couple of sentences by Eric Weinstein so nurturing that a mythological story might give to a crowd needing inspiration or an individual can simply be looked upon in a more reasonable and less unfamiliar attempts. FUWWW
Seems to me that the red pill issue comes down to the indoctrination one. The meme as indoctrination (such as religion) and thus viral, is such that once introduced, it is extremely hard for the host to rid itself of it. The reason for multiple ideologies/religions/even foods I would argue, is that each can be life-sustaining, yet have differing attraction to subsets within those groups. This means that although it may make sense that 'all religions' can be logical from an order and sustenance equivalency (as long as members adhere to the doctrines there is order and stability), that order breaks down when options are introduced. The more people are introduced to how varient life's options are, the more they recognize how much they have been classified and have classified themselves and the recognition of this causes concern when they are also introduced to how difficult it is to dismantle a systematized thought process or behavior (10,000 hr rule). I agree that there is a post-modernist problem when the culture identifies with classlessness (no pun intended) as seeing the seahorse/platypus/unicorn as attempts to individuate by borderless classes (including fantasy in unicorn). What I do feel is missing in the convo and that Bret could bring much light to, is the logical way these cultural affects are emerging when seen through the lens of evolutionary psychology. So far, we don't try to make the seahorse male become female to legitimize it carrying offspring, or edit the biology of the platypus so that it gives live birth. We should see the cultural shifts as something to be studied and understood as well. And by no means am I advocating the idea that there are no boundries...and think there is a great disservice that is taking place by those who see PM as espousing that position. It certainly is a dangerous thing that so many only hear talking points on many things, myself included.
Why is the basal mission "pass on our genetic spellings *to the exclusion of others*"? Does that assume a zero sum game? Isn't that a bad assumption? Isn't diversity in genes actually necessary for the propagation of genomes?
How could psychologist not take biology and evolution seriously? Humans are biological and everything that we are is the result of biological and evolutionary processes.
Bret is the specialist in evolution, so I take his interpretations of evolutionary biology far more seriously than Peterson, who is more looking for evidence of his opinions on psychology and in no way an expert in that field. I like Bret's approach, it is more scientific than the other IDW people.
women in military....well i had two of them in my squad (18 guys, 2 gals) they were nice and jesus smokeing hot and not only because of the guns. but hey, both got their shit together. no strange visits in the night but i heard stories from the single gal in the other squad. oh boy
It's a bit frustrating to hear the interviewer so focussed on Bret's opinions about Peterson's ideas. Luckily, Bret is very intelligent and gives interesting answers.
Do women feel any protective instinct toward men who aren't their children? This is an actual question because it just occurred to me that it would explain quite a lot of what I perceive to be issues in society today.
much easier to replicate a factor model than an experimental design... also just because the factor model is replicable does not mean it is invariant - such that the number of factors that comes out is the lowest form of evidence one needs to suggest the model is valid
I love the movement that he started also can openly question him as well and be published openly in the same space. I question some of his assumptions on gender identity from the narrow definition that professional at the time of Carl Jung would have been exposed to. But to calming discuss these growing differences in cultural / diversity groups and very much increased levels on anger in society is encouraging. We really do risk isolating whole groups of people. As much as Facebook is accused of conditioning the young people of today. I do wonder if society as a whole is push disenfranchised groups onto these platforms as a way to escape the reality society doesn’t “respect” them, e.g. many millennial on minimum wage or even zero hour contracts. I think it wrong to think of “buying into” Carl Jung’s work or not, simply that it highlights something not yet fully explained otherwise. Like any concept, it is a tool of understanding and needs to be considered along side any other model. The truth is, the moment a model exists, it is in some way limited. Recognising limitations however does not make in “irrelevant”, just need critical thinking applied to it.
In a lot of ways you can see the fringe groups operating as competing subscription based business which use the term "capture" when they get someone to subscribe. Someone gets tired of mainstream and goes looking around for other social networks. They find one they somewhat like and the next thing you know that social network is telling them the mainstream and other alternative networks will never accept them not for their ideas, but because of something they can't change about themselves like race.
I don't see any need to spend too much time on myths . There are much more valuable and productive areas of enquiry to pursue. However the first part about Peterson being authentic honest and brave and the necessity for others to be is is an exciting and hopeful endeavour.
Yeah, I've heard him propose that twice now, and my question was the same. It seems like it has to start with a tyrannical utopian imposition either way, since you'd never get everyone to agree on a common purpose in the first place.
Temporal Tomato it's either how it begins or how it inevitably ends. I love Bret but just as Harris and the rest (Dillahaunty, Dawkins etc) they seem to think from a perspective of an intellectual that has forgotten that 90% of the population is not intellectual in the slightest. And the problem of morality/ethics has to be considered as something eternal hence cannot be grounded in something as illusive as facts. I mean by that that scientific facts do and will change just by the nature of the discipline - you'll uncover new facts due to technological advances etc. By this logic will we revise our moral code every time the facts get adjusted/changed/corrected? It is way more stable and reliable to ground it in universal narratives that had been with us for whoever knows how long. And it really can be detached from religion as we traditionally understand it.
@@slatanek I'm surprised to see someone whose perspective parallels mine so closely. I'd only ask you to expand on your last sentence. Do you mean, by stripping the literalism from existing religions? By using universal parables instead of ones tied to a particular religious canon? I don't disagree with you, I genuinely wonder where you think a universal ethic would be derived from if not from traditional religion. I feel that I, myself am informed ethically in a way that isn't traditionally religious, but then the issue of how to get the same ethics through to children and to less intelligent people comes up, like it has already in the debates involving the people you mentioned. Or maybe you just meant that it's possible for individuals to divorce ethics from traditional religion, in which case I obviously agree.
Side note: I'd find it hard to believe that Bret isn't smart enough to have realized how typical the characteristics of his utopic vision actually are. You only have to take a second to try and imagine its implementation to figure it out. Maybe he has more to say to a response like that, or maybe he's already received his acceptance letter from the Illuminati and all this is going to take place via subtle societal manipulation lol.
Temporal Tomato I simply mean: let's keep the stories, the mythos say(with some adjustments if needed), making the requirements of belief in God irrelevant. I feel like the atheists correctly point out this insistence on God and I see how the preaching can be off putting. I myself went from believing HARD but not in any classical sense, to basically denying anything connected with religions, treating it like a virus in short, to where I am now, which is to say I highly value Biblical stories or any mythological stories from a historical and evolutionary perspective and I think they are fundamental in understanding who we are as conscious beings. You could imagine Christianity in its modern benign form would be a good base for a ethical system. I mean you already have billions of people who believe in it anyway, our Western valueas for the most part align with it, so I feel like we're already half way there. Unfortunately the Church isn't sophisticated intellectually enough to see this and instead of jumping on the occasion they insist on preaching which is a no-no to the secular folks.
Behavior modification is precisely what therapy is usually about, and it's done not to compromise identity but to strengthen the aspects of identity that the person most values. Not choosing to modify your behavior to better suit your goals, aspirations and values is to not be using your human potential.
Please please please, as you have a way to Weinstein, suggest to him to have him and Peterson and Robert Sapolsky do a talk together. In my opinion this has to happen at some point to take their discussions to a new level.
Underneath this discussion, but not mentioned, may be the coming maximum in human population. After a 3x increase in the past ~70 years it is logical and perhaps physically necessary that our population peak and then decline. Our culture has been so shaped by our drive to increase that perhaps part of the "gender wars" is an unconscious recognition for a major reversal in direction.
What I appreciate about Dr. Peterson is that he doesn’t proselytize, he takes you on a journey of discovery. He’s fumbling around like we all are but is something of a pathfinder ..”Hey, look what I found ! Come check this out “
I have a couple of pet peeves about the popular understanding of evolution. One, even if not religious, people almost can't help but refer to evolution in anthropomorphic terms. They speak about it as if it is some disembodied force that has a plan for constant improvement. This naive assumption, that people don't really take literally but it never the less colors their understanding, has lead to the idea that humans are some pinnacle or final goal of evolution, or at least close to one. Evolution has no final goal. It is population level response to changing environments, period. Even more simply (and accurately), it is change in genetic frequency in populations over time. That's it. It produces all sorts of amazing characteristics that seem as though they are products of foresight. But they aren't. All of our traits are qualities that the environments of our ancestors demanded. I digress. The second pet peeve I have regarding the popular understanding of evolution is the assumption that "genetic" = fixed and immutable. This is largely, from a practicality stand point, true in terms of genetic diseases, which may be where the assumption comes from because probably the vast majority of conversations about something being "genetic" are in the context of medical conditions. But we're finding that genetic traits are more plastic than once thought. Some genes are only expressed under specific environmental pressures, for example. Also, Darwin thought that all evolution very slow and gradual. But we've found cases in which it happens rather fast. Along with the idea of the immutability of genetics comes the nature versus nurture debate. I've long believed that to be a false dichotomy. They can be thought of separately for ease of conceptualization of certain phenomena, but they inform one another. They are part of the same process. Evolution informs how we nurture. And how we are nurtured, in the long run, can effect our evolution. I think evolution trips people up because the basic concept is so deceptively simple (one of the hall marks of a good theory). But the dynamics of it in specific instances are much more complex than we currently understand.
I feel the phrase "Peterson has detected this need, has tapped into it", gives it a unjustified side touch. I would describe it as "he is and always been have motivated to help individuals, and how it unfolded that his 140+ suggestions were so much welcomed/appreciated on Quora, and how it went from that, just happened". If anyone, he is not primarily "money driven", compared to e.g. Tony Robbins.
I don't see where Weinstein and Peterson disagree , in terms of biology/evolution in the male-female debate - this is according to Weinstein himself (also Weinstein didn't mention any points of disagreement). But regarding what He refers to as what we "should" , what is "fair", and what we "can" do , I think Peterson has the upper hand. For Weinstein (as for Peterson and everyone else) the "what should be" is a reflection of their word view, and in Bret's case its his very liberal, progressive view of the world. But Psychological research - which is also what Petersons refers to, shows us that what "is" , is also what we fundamentally want and what makes us happy and content in the end of the day (and how the social engineering we have been engaging in, in big parts of our post modern western society, makes us unhappy and frustrated). So I think we shouldn't ask "should we?", but but rather "why should we?". Due to te fact Bret , as a biologist, doesn't explore psychological research, he ignores the fact that we already found out that we *can't* change our fundumental nature as males and females, and that engagment in eccesive social "egalitarian" engineering even if achieved, will not only make most people unhappy, but will not benifit society, due to the difference in competence between the sexes. Because of that, I think Weinstein fails to see the end result of artificial altering of what we are, and it's impact on the future of human kind. I thinks both psychological and historical research show these progressive ideas are destructive (Although I am sure Weinstein means well).
Its simply that women and men have different roles in the making as function. One exists to nurture growth of the born child and their picky and more personally relative attributes compliment that, where as another one exists to externally provide it support and acts as a decision maker from a not so relative or personal point but circumstancial point. While one is inclined.towards internal and individual factors and its concer in a life, another would be concerned balancing the external factors and common similarities. If we try switching the roles then another set of newer imbalances, which is not meant to be there metaphysically would end up coming for humanity as a whole. The problem with relativeness is that it cannot blend with existantial ways and the problem with existantial ways is that it cannot escape from the situational circumstancial concerns which is there so its forced to prioritize. Genders and their roles are real in terms of characteristics. Feminine gives importance to the actions emotions and attributes of something when it expresses but masculinity is more focused on the way it sees the expressions emotions and actions towards it. Whilst one is focused on preservation and desire of expansion of its individual self, another one is focused on preservation and expansion of the objective part of the aspect which depends on the identity of the objectivity it takes
Would love to see Rebel Wisdom interview David Deida on this topic. His views on Integral Spirituality and Integral Sexuality could make a meaningful contribution.
David, another great interview. I really appreciate the depth of your questions and the fact that you then allow the other person to speak without interruption. Interviewing is an art in mental acrobatics where you guide a conversation but are willing to let go if needs be and watch it channel another course. Your questions show that you have really integrated so much of what you have heard and read. This is very rare and desirable. Your camera set up and attention to light and audio are excellent...well...cinematic. Keep up this good work and ride the wave onto a thousand beaches! Maybe it is time for me to interview you!!!
Great video, I would really love to see Bret, Jordan, and Eric to have an extended discussion, no set time limit, and no audience so they can really flesh out these ideas particularly in regards to mythology, evolutionary biology, and religion.
Iain McGilchrist (on the brain) “The whole problem is that we are obsessed, because of what I argue is our affiliation to left-hemisphere modes of thought, with ‘what’ the brain does -after all, isn't the brain a machine, and like any machine, the value of it lies in what it does? I happen to think this machine model gets us only some of the way; and like a train that drops one in the middle of the night far from one's destination, a train of thought that gets one only some of the way is a liability.” I think Bret is rather left brained
its not true, and their is a disconnect, so as you try to setup the question to suggest a preformed narrative, that bret would say they are mapped falls down, he explains as a good scientist should, that they are part of the processes of something that has a value in evolution theory, not a value that has some direct and meaningful expectation as you want it to, as to show a god, or religiosity as the fundamental layer of meaning or cause of human purpose and creation.
I'd love to see Jordan debate Bret on Jungian psychology. Bret says it's a myth in itself and maybe 20% of it is but for the most part it seems to map onto how our brain works.
@@raymeester7883 He avoided the question about Jung the first time and when he was pressed a second time he gave a very concise and quick response - this is what people do when they don't want to speak too much from ignorance and reveal themselves as not knowing what they're talking about. He clearly knows very little about Jung otherwise he'd realize his own ideas about memes correspond to archetypes.
Once again the frame created is that the interviewer and interviewee have already solved the hard problem and merely need to figure out how to Red-pill the other, on left etc. But both interviewer and interviewee display all the classic hallmarks of being an individual expression of the very problem they imagine they already solved.
Bret says we need to recognize our unfortunate “nature” (in evolutionary terms) and chose to abandon that course. How is this different than the idea that man is flawed and needs to give himself to, and model “A Christ” figure?
Brett and Dr. Peterson compliment each other in a way that you don't see often AT ALL. Its a bloody miracle that they put their expertise together, also a beautiful thing.
The unofficial Brett Weinstein drinking game: take a drink every time he says "toolkit"
Ded.
Or every time his brother Eric says, “fundamentally.”
He alwayyys says it during his interviews, too... he even has a _particular_ (another favorite word of his) way of enunciating it.
@@coreyfisher2542 I say fundamentally a lot. It's a good word, but I mainly use it because the things I'm talking about are pretty low resolution. Like selection pressures, a lot of room for the word there, and often I look for a better one, but it just fits. :)
1110 1011000 Indeed! Thanks so much for your work, my man. You guys (IDW) are clearly changing the world for the better. Fundamentally, of course.😁
I hope that Bret dude gets his career back on track soon 👊 ... Still don't understand how anyone could possibly think that this bloke is hateful.
@little Toe have a Kit-Kat dude!
i think he kind of explained it in this interview a lil bit
Why take back a job in bad environment when all doors are open?
Istvan Toth …
That’s a red herring for why they destroyed him. Truth seems to be he was pushing against policy changes at Evergreen and the president and associated supporters used the student body as a weapon against him. He wasn’t fully forthcoming about this at first because he was still in court with a settlement suit. I actually stuck my nose around Evergreen after his initial fiasco and it was not at all as it seemed. As usual.
A very similar example to Peterson’s lobster example with regards to hierarchy. Even flowers have gender roles, therefore they cannot be blamed on the tyrannical Western patriarchy and capitalism
lol we need to stop validating bad arguments by responding to them with good arguments
@@thaliagarcia9684 How do you gender yourself?
thalia garcia - you seem to be missing an important point here. The question is : How much does sex determine specific kinds of behaviour ( which takes us closer to gender roles) . If you can detect something like "coyness" in the structure of female parts of plants, then it is a valid argument that female coyness is not simply and wholly a drummed-in model in female minds but it has its origin in biology.For a constructivist all boils down to a social power hierarchy. This needs to be challenged because it is not better than an obsession (to the point of dogma) of victimhood. Women always had power, but their power was more evident in areas of life where men were more awkward, clumsy or not wise enough. The patriarchy of the Muslim world cannot be translated one on one when thinking about the European historical past. Many examples of outstanding women in history, examples of daughters being cherished....and husbands being "henpecked", women choosing a husband from their suitors, managing affairs while the husband was away from home (in wars, in exile or they were widowed.)
Turning everything into black and white, when real life with real people is so much more diverse, richer offering not just one explanation is a fallacy. Biology and evolution is another valid argument here.
thalia garcia you’re grasping. Peterson’s example of lobster hierarchy and serotonin shows human hierarchies are not a mere power grab by evil white male capitalists. Hierarchies are as old as lobsters and inevitable. Even in left wing states. That’s the point, and it’s scientifically sound. Brett’s point is that the feminine reproductive structures on the flowers display a cautionary strategy to reproduction (as do human females, on average) and the male structures on the same flowers display a promiscuous strategy (as do human males on average).
e.fooking.g. gender roles
@@honestjohn6418 so evil doesn't exist?
you are performing a wonderful service. Keep up your good work. Such a joy to watch your videos
Amen, brother! Seriously, these times, I'm not even necessarily applauding people I agree with. I am applauding people, who are sincerely trying to find the truth, willing to have intelligent debate and change their mind, when confronted with valid arguments.
Intelligence requires that position, and it's refreshing, to say the least, to hear someone say what you said. I have been way too inside my own head about polarization,etc...what it means, what to do about it, where it's headed...all the hand-wringing. But lately I have trying to get outside that mindset, and concentrate on aligning more with your comments, namely focusing on the authenticity and intent of a given position, rather than dealing in the currency of agreement/disagreement. Easier said than done tho....
František Sabovčik
Yes! Anyone who says that they know something has closed the mind off. And to their own detriment.
Key to everything.
I swear I just heard Brett say this prayer right on UA-cam.
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
You gotta go where the money is
dude this blew my mind, the fact that the analogy is so accurate is almost unreal
There's no Wisdom
Wow
Saw it in a fortune cookie.🥠
Rebel Wisdom, you're so awesome!
@The Fool ok fool
damn....you guys are coming off now as the new "pangburn philosophy". you know a respectable, honourable version of it at least.
I like how Bret Weinstein says "the left wing needs a redpilling, but not a right-wing redpilling", this seems to be true in most cases. There are few cases where going to the right is the better option, and because there's a false dichotomy in left vs right propositions, when what we consider the "left" idea fails, there's a gut reaction to then go right, instead of look for another left-wing option.
Now, I would say *"when the left-wing idea fails, go further left"* (for example, welfare vs. UBI holds this motif, UBI being further left than welfare), but not all leftwing ideas are further left/right than other leftwing ideas. Some leftwing ideas are about the same in terms of how far left they go, they just simply are different ideas.
Interestingly, the "patriarchy" I've experienced actually most often comes from women forcing other women to act a certain way.
You are confusing the "matriarchy" for the "patriarchy". Yes, I know that modern feminists say that there is and has never been a matriarchy. They just happen to be wrong. I do, however, agree with your basic premise that it is women (in particular those who call themselves feminists) who are currently undermining other women. No man has ever called me a traitor to my sex because I had four children and stayed home with them when they were little. If anything, men who know that I chose motherhood as my career, treat me like I'm some sort of superhero for being able to devote over a decade to the flourishing of my offspring over my other, personal interests (unless they are academics or misogynists. Those men treat motherhood as "feminists" do, like it is an overly indulgent hobby). To paraphrase one of their own terms, this undermining of other women (in particular, mothers) is a form of toxic femininity, in that it destroys the very thing that was supposedly brought into being to strengthen.
J Hitchcock - that’s why I noted patriarchy in quotation. The quotations are there to both mock the concept of the patriarchy as well as note that the toxic attitudes I’ve experienced in my life ironically mostly come from women.
Now there's some Bret Weinstein-Jordan Peterson topic to look forward to !
Merging, sorting out, refining, linking, exploring, the knowledge, evidences, experiences, wisdoms, facts and myths of evolutionary biology-evolutionary psychology- Jungian Archetypes- and the realities and human potential of life that were, are, and can be -
Exactly. As Jung, Peterson is somehow at the edge of mysticism and science, allowing both sides to have common ground. I am curious, if it can work out.
Yes, isn't that nice? The one is expert in psycology and interested in evolutionary biology, and the other one the opposite way. For me the main problem in Harris-Peterson talks was, that Harris has not enough expertise in psycology; the only common ground for them was the "yes or no to God and/or religion".
I like the shooting, very nice relaxed setting for the content!
Bret may be over confident in our ability to reprogram ourselves
Brian Bob, I’m not sure about that. He and his IDW counterparts are pointing out the extreme dangers of the post-modernists and their foundation altering effects on the human condition. Most people agree with them. If the post-modern thought system is so virulent, then it is certainly possible to bring that same drive to any endeavor. Peterson speaks to the efficacy of the Judeo Christian metaphorical structure in our development. If you agree with that it is another piece of evidence to back Brett’s optimism.
I agree.
Agreed. Way overconfident
We have already did, woman can go to school, other races are considered people too... What he is correctly pointing out, is amount of change. And even not saying some Single Truth™, just pointing out, we have to have scientific discussion, what is feasible and desirable.
@@sitnarf7804 - Your missing part of the discussion. In the previous video Weinstein described how the atheistic worldview makes a people unfit in an evolutionary sense. Mostly this comes down to extremely low birthrates for atheistic societies, as birthrates play a huge role in evolutionary fitness.
There are other issues as well, sending our smartest women into the most difficult careers makes it very unlikely for them to have any kids at all, and if they do, it will be very few. So we are now selecting against the genes for intelligence and hardwork, and consequently our future generations will be dumber and less conscientious. There are a host of other things and even more that we don't fully understand the consequences of.
Essentially, atheism as a worldview has made us extremely evolutionarily unfit and the most likely senarious is that we will be replaced by a group with higher fitness. I guess that's where the Muslim come in.
Rebel Wisdom is awesome 👍
I wonder if Brett has ever commented on the experiments with a species of monkey some years ago. Would really like to get his two cents' worth on this.
Researchers kept two groups of monkeys in cages side by side, gave the two groups identical tasks to complete, and rewarded them with food.
Except they gave one group twice the amount of food as the other group for completing the same task. The monkeys in the other group reacted with rage. They refused their food rewards, and some actually threw the food back at the researchers.
Perceptions of fairness and equity are quite fundamental to wellbeing, and not just for homo sapiens, the researchers concluded.
Reminded me of Dr Peterson's example of lobsters and heirarchies.
Bret is a genius. Glad I found your channel.
David totally agree
I keep feeling like I'm watching an interview with Tom Hanks, playing Brett.
Hahahahaha
One of the most interesting intellectuals on a broad spectrum of topic in my opinion. and he never loses quality in what he says.
Really nice work.
Is it part of our evolution to change the way we evolve ..... Wowwwww mind blown
Bret is a genius. Great to hear him speak. I wish Dr Doug Lisle could get in on these conversations. He’s an evolutionary psychologist. His podcast is called beat your genes. He deals with more pedestrian issues but its easy to take the proposed evolutionary functions and extrapolate them to society at large.
Great interview, really well done! And absolutely clear, good and relevant questions and superb answers ...
"When we look at evolution and biology we are looking at a completely amoral landscape ... evolution is responsible for all of our best characteristics and our worst"
What great lens, what great photography!
Great interview and interviewee, ofc!
Good interview amazing
Brilliant! I hope more biologists will find courage to speak about what is evident with in their own field of science. To have a fruitful discussion about what ought to be, we need to first agree on what actually is.
Evolutionary Astrology is a tool to look deeper at the persona and the soul's trajectory. Seems we are all souls in a body here to evolve via our consciousness. Many are in consensus state but many are individuated. It is through objectifying self that we evolve. We all have themes and much will be dependant on beliefs. Roles are evolving. I think sex is meant to be and is a sacred act but not puritan. We have a way to go us human beings.
My major question is this - if the ultimate goal in 2019 that our evolutionary heritage has given us is to seek to overcome or re-orient it, what the hell even is evolution in the first place?!
NEW QUESTIONS. This is going to be great.
Is there a full interview for this?
Look I'm ususally a Weinstein defender but holy shit the conversation around 5:30 onwards. "...to pass on our genetic spellings at the exclusion of alternative genetic spellings to the extent possible" he says that's mot a very interesting game. It's the only game that matters. And he mentions our toolkit, well let it do its job, it evolved to do stuff, and any attempt you make to encourage the decline of my genes, I'm going to take as an act of evolutionary aggression, because it is. And Weinstein knows this. If I do then he does, he using the same lines of reasoning I do, and alludes to it a lot.
Agreed. One time he said something to the extent of "I'm not a believer in utopia, but..." and then went on to explain his goal for a utopia. Reproduction might be an objectively uninteresting game, but it cannot be transcended. Thinkers like Bret are more dangerous than we realize.
By "not interesting", i think he means more that it shouldn't be our main priority. As a species who is aware that we are in the game, we can (and should) strive to do better than just spreading genes.
The Fuzzician . And what might that be?
Whatever interests us. Any person can look into themselves and ask themselves "what do I enjoy?". Whether it be sports, martial arts, video games, or just simply spending time with friends/family.
You could toss these under a common umbrella of "well-being".
Also, along with promoting well-being, reducing/eliminating suffering is an equally useful goal.
The Fuzzician . What you have to realize is that everything we know as good, wellbeing if you must, is only so because it's either directly or indirectly supportive of survival and reproduction.
My my, thank you ever so much to Rebel Wisdom and also to Evergreen College for firing Bret; humanity now gets to share his profound insight. Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, Lucifer and the father of all lies must despise Bret Weinsten. The dignity of the human person, as the first of Creation, is front, back and centre, Ne Timeas.
Plainly? Jordan Peterson is the quintessential purveyor of word salad. Any criticism of Peterson is always met with "you need to watch every video, read everything ever written" in order to understand him. Peterson is the opposite of plainly as his supporters admit by demanding all his work be consumed. The fact that Brett calls Peterson plain speaking speak volumes to how out of touch with "plainly" Brett is.
I watched Peterson at the recent talk he gave at Cambridge University in the UK.
He was asked about whether he thought the impending climate change driven disasters might pull people together. His response was to get angry and roll out several already debunked climate change denial tropes.
What was a real shame was that he missed the point. In the UK there is the collective memory of the Blitz and WWII when people were brought together under difficult conditions of war.
The suggestion was that the difficult coditions which climate change is already bringing might serve to unite people and yet Peterson just got angry about it and essentially said there was no point in trying to do anything about it & renewable energy couldn't do the job.
That was really odd and went against his own philosophy that action and inaction both have 'consequences'. And getting 'angry' about the question, also exposed a nerve in his own character, which he would do well to look at more closely.
He's always banging on about how he's a scientist with expert knowledge of his subject - so it's odd that he can't extend the same respect to the 98% of scientists in the multiple disciplines which cover the field of climate change.
People always requires attention so Eric has challenged Peterson's to understand why they differ why they would connect ultimately Jordan Peterson's timeless archetype approach can be debunked I'm sure and just a couple of sentences by Eric Weinstein so nurturing that a mythological story might give to a crowd needing inspiration or an individual can simply be looked upon in a more reasonable and less unfamiliar attempts. FUWWW
Seems to me that the red pill issue comes down to the indoctrination one. The meme as indoctrination (such as religion) and thus viral, is such that once introduced, it is extremely hard for the host to rid itself of it.
The reason for multiple ideologies/religions/even foods I would argue, is that each can be life-sustaining, yet have differing attraction to subsets within those groups. This means that although it may make sense that 'all religions' can be logical from an order and sustenance equivalency (as long as members adhere to the doctrines there is order and stability), that order breaks down when options are introduced.
The more people are introduced to how varient life's options are, the more they recognize how much they have been classified and have classified themselves and the recognition of this causes concern when they are also introduced to how difficult it is to dismantle a systematized thought process or behavior (10,000 hr rule).
I agree that there is a post-modernist problem when the culture identifies with classlessness (no pun intended) as seeing the seahorse/platypus/unicorn as attempts to individuate by borderless classes (including fantasy in unicorn). What I do feel is missing in the convo and that Bret could bring much light to, is the logical way these cultural affects are emerging when seen through the lens of evolutionary psychology.
So far, we don't try to make the seahorse male become female to legitimize it carrying offspring, or edit the biology of the platypus so that it gives live birth. We should see the cultural shifts as something to be studied and understood as well. And by no means am I advocating the idea that there are no boundries...and think there is a great disservice that is taking place by those who see PM as espousing that position.
It certainly is a dangerous thing that so many only hear talking points on many things, myself included.
Why is the basal mission "pass on our genetic spellings *to the exclusion of others*"? Does that assume a zero sum game? Isn't that a bad assumption? Isn't diversity in genes actually necessary for the propagation of genomes?
How could psychologist not take biology and evolution seriously? Humans are biological and everything that we are is the result of biological and evolutionary processes.
If Peterson and Harris had a love child that capitalized on their strengths it would be Bret.
Bret is the specialist in evolution, so I take his interpretations of evolutionary biology far more seriously than Peterson, who is more looking for evidence of his opinions on psychology and in no way an expert in that field. I like Bret's approach, it is more scientific than the other IDW people.
women in military....well i had two of them in my squad (18 guys, 2 gals) they were nice and jesus smokeing hot and not only because of the guns. but hey, both got their shit together. no strange visits in the night but i heard stories from the single gal in the other squad. oh boy
FASCINATING!
I cannot wait to listen to more about this from Mr Weinstein!
Thanks Rebel Wisdom!
(Fascinating fascinating fascinating...)
Flowers are prayers. They tell us about the structure and importance of things in the universe.
7:38 Owl hoot
Is that an owl? I've heard that sound before. Good to know. Thank you.
It's a bit frustrating to hear the interviewer so focussed on Bret's opinions about Peterson's ideas. Luckily, Bret is very intelligent and gives interesting answers.
I often wondered whether the "gender is a social construct" camp, whether they had ever considered any time scales for when it was allegedly imposed.
Do women feel any protective instinct toward men who aren't their children? This is an actual question because it just occurred to me that it would explain quite a lot of what I perceive to be issues in society today.
They got it wrong because it is actually wrong! Imho.
Bret seams to have grown his facial hair back in a single day.
much easier to replicate a factor model than an experimental design... also just because the factor model is replicable does not mean it is invariant - such that the number of factors that comes out is the lowest form of evidence one needs to suggest the model is valid
The practice of courage and authenticity in pursuit of excellence is worth aspiring to.
I love the movement that he started also can openly question him as well and be published openly in the same space. I question some of his assumptions on gender identity from the narrow definition that professional at the time of Carl Jung would have been exposed to. But to calming discuss these growing differences in cultural / diversity groups and very much increased levels on anger in society is encouraging. We really do risk isolating whole groups of people. As much as Facebook is accused of conditioning the young people of today. I do wonder if society as a whole is push disenfranchised groups onto these platforms as a way to escape the reality society doesn’t “respect” them, e.g. many millennial on minimum wage or even zero hour contracts. I think it wrong to think of “buying into” Carl Jung’s work or not, simply that it highlights something not yet fully explained otherwise. Like any concept, it is a tool of understanding and needs to be considered along side any other model. The truth is, the moment a model exists, it is in some way limited. Recognising limitations however does not make in “irrelevant”, just need critical thinking applied to it.
In a lot of ways you can see the fringe groups operating as competing subscription based business which use the term "capture" when they get someone to subscribe. Someone gets tired of mainstream and goes looking around for other social networks. They find one they somewhat like and the next thing you know that social network is telling them the mainstream and other alternative networks will never accept them not for their ideas, but because of something they can't change about themselves like race.
Accomplish something other than gene-spreading is religion, dawg.
Why is everyone so against saying that people should default to their gender rolls?
I don't see any need to spend too much time on myths . There are much more valuable and productive areas of enquiry to pursue. However the first part about Peterson being authentic honest and brave and the necessity for others to be is is an exciting and hopeful endeavour.
concerning Bret's eagerness to change our purpose here's one uncomfortable question: Who decides?
Yeah, I've heard him propose that twice now, and my question was the same. It seems like it has to start with a tyrannical utopian imposition either way, since you'd never get everyone to agree on a common purpose in the first place.
Temporal Tomato it's either how it begins or how it inevitably ends. I love Bret but just as Harris and the rest (Dillahaunty, Dawkins etc) they seem to think from a perspective of an intellectual that has forgotten that 90% of the population is not intellectual in the slightest. And the problem of morality/ethics has to be considered as something eternal hence cannot be grounded in something as illusive as facts. I mean by that that scientific facts do and will change just by the nature of the discipline - you'll uncover new facts due to technological advances etc. By this logic will we revise our moral code every time the facts get adjusted/changed/corrected? It is way more stable and reliable to ground it in universal narratives that had been with us for whoever knows how long. And it really can be detached from religion as we traditionally understand it.
@@slatanek I'm surprised to see someone whose perspective parallels mine so closely. I'd only ask you to expand on your last sentence. Do you mean, by stripping the literalism from existing religions? By using universal parables instead of ones tied to a particular religious canon? I don't disagree with you, I genuinely wonder where you think a universal ethic would be derived from if not from traditional religion. I feel that I, myself am informed ethically in a way that isn't traditionally religious, but then the issue of how to get the same ethics through to children and to less intelligent people comes up, like it has already in the debates involving the people you mentioned. Or maybe you just meant that it's possible for individuals to divorce ethics from traditional religion, in which case I obviously agree.
Side note: I'd find it hard to believe that Bret isn't smart enough to have realized how typical the characteristics of his utopic vision actually are. You only have to take a second to try and imagine its implementation to figure it out. Maybe he has more to say to a response like that, or maybe he's already received his acceptance letter from the Illuminati and all this is going to take place via subtle societal manipulation lol.
Temporal Tomato I simply mean: let's keep the stories, the mythos say(with some adjustments if needed), making the requirements of belief in God irrelevant. I feel like the atheists correctly point out this insistence on God and I see how the preaching can be off putting.
I myself went from believing HARD but not in any classical sense, to basically denying anything connected with religions, treating it like a virus in short, to where I am now, which is to say I highly value Biblical stories or any mythological stories from a historical and evolutionary perspective and I think they are fundamental in understanding who we are as conscious beings.
You could imagine Christianity in its modern benign form would be a good base for a ethical system. I mean you already have billions of people who believe in it anyway, our Western valueas for the most part align with it, so I feel like we're already half way there. Unfortunately the Church isn't sophisticated intellectually enough to see this and instead of jumping on the occasion they insist on preaching which is a no-no to the secular folks.
Good to see Brett is a sex and race realist. Now lets debate race and IQ.
Behavior modification is a losing proposition. Not possible in the individual without compromising identity and possession with reward.
Behavior modification is precisely what therapy is usually about, and it's done not to compromise identity but to strengthen the aspects of identity that the person most values. Not choosing to modify your behavior to better suit your goals, aspirations and values is to not be using your human potential.
Please please please, as you have a way to Weinstein, suggest to him to have him and Peterson and Robert Sapolsky do a talk together. In my opinion this has to happen at some point to take their discussions to a new level.
This guys add so much credibility to the IDW. Him and his brother, both left-leaning scientists, bringing so much useful and valuable info.
Oh little did they know in 2018
Underneath this discussion, but not mentioned, may be the coming maximum in human population. After a 3x increase in the past ~70 years it is logical and perhaps physically necessary that our population peak and then decline. Our culture has been so shaped by our drive to increase that perhaps part of the "gender wars" is an unconscious recognition for a major reversal in direction.
What I appreciate about Dr. Peterson is that he doesn’t proselytize, he takes you on a journey of discovery. He’s fumbling around like we all are but is something of a pathfinder ..”Hey, look what I found ! Come check this out “
I have a couple of pet peeves about the popular understanding of evolution. One, even if not religious, people almost can't help but refer to evolution in anthropomorphic terms. They speak about it as if it is some disembodied force that has a plan for constant improvement. This naive assumption, that people don't really take literally but it never the less colors their understanding, has lead to the idea that humans are some pinnacle or final goal of evolution, or at least close to one. Evolution has no final goal. It is population level response to changing environments, period. Even more simply (and accurately), it is change in genetic frequency in populations over time. That's it. It produces all sorts of amazing characteristics that seem as though they are products of foresight. But they aren't. All of our traits are qualities that the environments of our ancestors demanded. I digress. The second pet peeve I have regarding the popular understanding of evolution is the assumption that "genetic" = fixed and immutable. This is largely, from a practicality stand point, true in terms of genetic diseases, which may be where the assumption comes from because probably the vast majority of conversations about something being "genetic" are in the context of medical conditions. But we're finding that genetic traits are more plastic than once thought. Some genes are only expressed under specific environmental pressures, for example. Also, Darwin thought that all evolution very slow and gradual. But we've found cases in which it happens rather fast. Along with the idea of the immutability of genetics comes the nature versus nurture debate. I've long believed that to be a false dichotomy. They can be thought of separately for ease of conceptualization of certain phenomena, but they inform one another. They are part of the same process. Evolution informs how we nurture. And how we are nurtured, in the long run, can effect our evolution. I think evolution trips people up because the basic concept is so deceptively simple (one of the hall marks of a good theory). But the dynamics of it in specific instances are much more complex than we currently understand.
"I see wishful thinking everywhere." That's a nice way of putting it.
holy shit i am loving these videos
I feel the phrase "Peterson has detected this need, has tapped into it", gives it a unjustified side touch. I would describe it as "he is and always been have motivated to help individuals, and how it unfolded that his 140+ suggestions were so much welcomed/appreciated on Quora, and how it went from that, just happened". If anyone, he is not primarily "money driven", compared to e.g. Tony Robbins.
I don't see where Weinstein and Peterson disagree , in terms of biology/evolution in the male-female debate - this is according to Weinstein himself (also Weinstein didn't mention any points of disagreement). But regarding what He refers to as what we "should" , what is "fair", and what we "can" do , I think Peterson has the upper hand. For Weinstein (as for Peterson and everyone else) the "what should be" is a reflection of their word view, and in Bret's case its his very liberal, progressive view of the world. But Psychological research - which is also what Petersons refers to, shows us that what "is" , is also what we fundamentally want and what makes us happy and content in the end of the day (and how the social engineering we have been engaging in, in big parts of our post modern western society, makes us unhappy and frustrated). So I think we shouldn't ask "should we?", but but rather "why should we?". Due to te fact Bret , as a biologist, doesn't explore psychological research, he ignores the fact that we already found out that we *can't* change our fundumental nature as males and females, and that engagment in eccesive social
"egalitarian" engineering even if achieved, will not only make most people unhappy, but will not benifit society, due to the difference in competence between the sexes.
Because of that, I think Weinstein fails to see the end result of artificial altering of what we are, and it's impact on the future of human kind. I thinks both psychological and historical research show these progressive ideas are destructive (Although I am sure Weinstein means well).
Bret is clearly one of the best minds we have ever had. Love listening to him.
Rebel Wisdom, the title needs an Oxford comma. Please fix accordingly!
Bret, do a workshop series in Hawaii and I'll come, we will all come, charge us $$ and that's your new career.
very good interview. I don't understand how someone so smart can be a communist. maybe I'm missing something.
Darn, now I'm hungry
who witnessed the bug?
Its simply that women and men have different roles in the making as function. One exists to nurture growth of the born child and their picky and more personally relative attributes compliment that, where as another one exists to externally provide it support and acts as a decision maker from a not so relative or personal point but circumstancial point. While one is inclined.towards internal and individual factors and its concer in a life, another would be concerned balancing the external factors and common similarities. If we try switching the roles then another set of newer imbalances, which is not meant to be there metaphysically would end up coming for humanity as a whole. The problem with relativeness is that it cannot blend with existantial ways and the problem with existantial ways is that it cannot escape from the situational circumstancial concerns which is there so its forced to prioritize. Genders and their roles are real in terms of characteristics. Feminine gives importance to the actions emotions and attributes of something when it expresses but masculinity is more focused on the way it sees the expressions emotions and actions towards it. Whilst one is focused on preservation and desire of expansion of its individual self, another one is focused on preservation and expansion of the objective part of the aspect which depends on the identity of the objectivity it takes
owl hoot @7.38 To wit is to woo ...
Jung is "solid ground?"
Well put, addressing specific issues with specific answers, and balancing the conundrum of two opposing sets of facts
Very good interview
Would love to see Rebel Wisdom interview David Deida on this topic. His views on Integral Spirituality and Integral Sexuality could make a meaningful contribution.
David, another great interview. I really appreciate the depth of your questions and the fact that you then allow the other person to speak without interruption. Interviewing is an art in mental acrobatics where you guide a conversation but are willing to let go if needs be and watch it channel another course. Your questions show that you have really integrated so much of what you have heard and read. This is very rare and desirable. Your camera set up and attention to light and audio are excellent...well...cinematic. Keep up this good work and ride the wave onto a thousand beaches! Maybe it is time for me to interview you!!!
Try not to soil your pants
Great video, I would really love to see Bret, Jordan, and Eric to have an extended discussion, no set time limit, and no audience so they can really flesh out these ideas particularly in regards to mythology, evolutionary biology, and religion.
Did not quite get what was in the darkins talk, but this one bret explained more clearly
Excellent quality video and audio. Thanks for the great content!
Iain McGilchrist (on the brain)
“The whole problem is that we are obsessed, because of what I argue is our affiliation to left-hemisphere modes of thought, with ‘what’ the brain does -after all, isn't the brain a machine, and like any machine, the value of it lies in what it does? I happen to think this machine model gets us only some of the way; and like a train that drops one in the middle of the night far from one's destination, a train of thought that gets one only some of the way is a liability.”
I think Bret is rather left brained
Aloha from Maui!!
I love listening to Bret Weinstein. He is a fabulous teacher. What a privilege.
its not true, and their is a disconnect, so as you try to setup the question to suggest a preformed narrative, that bret would say they are mapped falls down, he explains as a good scientist should, that they are part of the processes of something that has a value in evolution theory, not a value that has some direct and meaningful expectation as you want it to, as to show a god, or religiosity as the fundamental layer of meaning or cause of human purpose and creation.
Finally some reason.
He has really great observations about Dr. Peterson.
I'd love to see Jordan debate Bret on Jungian psychology. Bret says it's a myth in itself and maybe 20% of it is but for the most part it seems to map onto how our brain works.
Brett cannot really go deep into Jungian psychology.
@@raymeester7883 It sounds to me like he hasn't really read any.
@@ZacksMetalRiffs He's read a fair amount.
@@raymeester7883 He avoided the question about Jung the first time and when he was pressed a second time he gave a very concise and quick response - this is what people do when they don't want to speak too much from ignorance and reveal themselves as not knowing what they're talking about.
He clearly knows very little about Jung otherwise he'd realize his own ideas about memes correspond to archetypes.
I think it is the lack of falsifiability is what Bret means in the "truth" sense.
He shaved half way through intervievs?
this was the day after. Bret's so manly he can grow a beard overnight
Now that's manly. I bet his beard has a beard.
If I had to pick a handful of people to recolonize the human race, Bret would be my first selection.
Please continue with these excellent conversations!
a J Peterson vs B Weinstein debate would be sweet
Once again the frame created is that the interviewer and interviewee have already solved the hard problem and merely need to figure out how to Red-pill the other, on left etc. But both interviewer and interviewee display all the classic hallmarks of being an individual expression of the very problem they imagine they already solved.
Benjamin Rood I'd be happy to if you could expand on what you find interesting and what in regards to that you would like me to explain further.
Bret says we need to recognize our unfortunate “nature” (in evolutionary terms) and chose to abandon that course.
How is this different than the idea that man is flawed and needs to give himself to, and model “A Christ” figure?
In very general sense, not. But, religion is rigid.
🔥🔥🔥