Watch the full episode: • Destiny on Jordan Pete... To support my work and get early access to videos, ad-free, visit / alexoc Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic
“I think I’ll get the lobster. Do you know what you want to order, Mr. Peterson?” “Now just a moment! That’s not a straightforward question. You see the menu is more than just a collection of dishes that one can order to consume, and in fact, ‘consumption’ itself a rather complicated notion I can bloody well tell you that. You ask me what do I want to order… there are so many ways to take that idea. What does it mean to want to consume something? So… you might think the beef sandwich sounds lovely, but in the entrees on the back, here, there, there’s a spicy meatball pasta dish. Isn’t that peculiar? Spicy food is not exactly enjoyable in the same way that a beef sandwich is. It’s rather the opposite! And yet here it is and you know that people go for that. Why would they be drawn to such a painful experience? Is it because they *wanted* the discomfort? More than the comfort of the beef sandwich? …”
He did it quite well. I like the example he used regarding physics. It reminded me when Richard Feynman was asked about magnetism, and Feynman went, paraphrasing “How deep do you want me to go?” Showing example after example the different explanations based on the depth of understanding. That Destiny became so useless as to debate the specifics of Alex’s analogy instead of capturing the overall picture of what he attempted to do for the example shows how narrow minded he is when he tries to win an argument.
@m.caeben2578 It's really weird trying to frame even this as if Destiny was just trying to win an argument. I mean, Alex was literally the one playing devils advocate, defending an idea he disagrees with, and you still try to paint Steven, who was just arguing his own opinion the whole time, as the dishonest one Edit: I'm not saying Alex was dishonest, but in this interaction, the one with the more transparent and straight forward approach was clearly Destiny
@@marekb1556nah, Alex is fully on the “I must not piss off those who may decide I’m not serious and will no longer let me in to the serious club of serious people.” He’s fully into bullshit at this point.
@@marekb1556 Being honest and being trying to win an argument are not mutually exclusive. He is simply hyper-focused in his trying to be right sometimes he brings whatever comes initially to his mind for a quick game of trying to overcome his opponent. I think the following questions might illustrate an example: 1. What do think the message behind Alex’s analogy on physics was?
@bensalemi7783 I did not say that :D I don't see this as Alex vs Destiny, I see what each one was doing here and it worked for me. I just don't understand the "you are just trying to win" allegations thrown at Steven even when it doesn't make any sense
What I find the most interesting about this conversation is that it not only happened, but it happened in a meta manner. It happened with such importance that its happening transcends mere emperical happening. In fact, one might say it's STILL HAPPENING.
That story of Alex and Destiny has more wisdom in a single paragraph than most books. It’s insane to me. You know, I’ve studied it for a long time and it still reveals things to me.
That question about does he believe god really exists. You give him a yes or no question that goes with his biases and you will get a of for sure or a not at all yes or no type answer.
I love alex i think he did a great job in the conversation but Alex literally asked Peterson "man listen if there was a video camera there, what would the camera show" at one point to get him to answer a question materially If people have to do that it's really on Peterson on being a weasel.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him. everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground: “Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”
Good try the only problem is that actually made too much sense to be jordan peterson and you forgot to relate it to dostoevsky or cain and able, other then that it was pretty good :).
I agree with the gentleman on the right. He is not being obscure because he is deep. Rather, there are questions that he simply doesn't want to answer.
To understand Peterson's take on Christianity you have to understand two things - one, that he is a psychologist, and as such he is largely a phenomenologist in his understanding of "real". Secondly, the influence that Pageau has had on his thinking. Pageau's whole angle is that the material questions like "did the Jews really walk out of Egypt" are only asked because modern people have been captured by a forensic, materialist, scientific form of thinking which would have been alien to the people who wrote and edited the texts. To the first point (Peterson being a phenomenologist and psychologist), he judges whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior . For example, he has said that you can't actually tell what someone believes by what they say or claim to believe, but only by how they behave. He's also said that pain might be the most real thing because it has the most powerful grip over behavior. He's also said that whether there is something *more* real than pain (and death) is the fundamental religious question, because anything that could transcend the realest thing we know of would, by default, be the *most* real. So, when you ask Peterson "did it really happen?", yes, he knows what you are asking, but he thinks your whole frame is wrong, because he believes that you are still caught up in the idea that the material, forensic, historical sense is definitively "real", (again, see Pageau), and that's why he doesn't want to answer the question. He doesn't like the question because he dislikes the underlying assumption that the material reality is somehow the most important or most "real" element of the stories. And, to give him his due, it is definitely true that very often when people ask the question "did this really happen?", they are asking it because if he says "no", or "I don't know", they will feel justified in dismissing them as just fictional tales which aren't relevant to contemporary human existence. In short, there is a fundamental disagreement about what "real" means between Peterson/Pageau and people like Alex and Destiny. Alex and Destiny (and many others) are not willing to accept Peterson's view, and Peterson isn't willing to acquiesce to their framing by giving a simple answer to questions which assume it.
If everybody judged whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior, then the flood gates would be open and everything's subjective, with nothing solid to hold on to. Which is ironic, considering his musings on postmodernism.
nicely summised. i get the feeling even in this conversation above that destiny is trying to get peterson to provide yes/no empirical answers to philosophical questions. destiny is a tool. peterson is also a zionist so they both are tools.
The fact that JP is world famous for writing a book where 1/12th of the content is dedicated to the importance of ‘being clear in your speech’, is something I find hilarious.
Imagine Jordan Peterson analyzing the Exodus story, and he starts off with, "Now, you see, the Israelites, they're a representation of chaos, right? And Egypt, well, that's order. But it's too much order. It’s like when you clean your room so much that it becomes sterile-that’s tyranny! So Moses, the archetypal hero, you know, he comes along with his staff-that’s a symbol, by the way-and says, ‘Hey, Pharaoh, let my people go!’ Which is essentially like saying, ‘Let’s loosen up a bit here, man, we’re drowning in hierarchies!’ And the Red Sea? Well, that’s just life’s overwhelming potential, ready to crash down on you if you don't get your act together. So crossing it-that’s navigating the chaos. And the Ten Commandments? Those are, like, rules, but not the tyrannical kind. They’re the kind that make you stand up straight with your shoulders back in the face of suffering and say, ‘Alright, bring it on, existence!’”......
but the story is about Moses the hero saving Israelites from Pharoah the villain, therefore he will try forcing chaos onto Egypt and order onto Moses somehow
What gets me about Peterson is that he says that you have to be precise with your language so that people can understand you... and then he talks in the most obfuscating way ever...
i find him very understandable and precise. so much so that once i understood and implemented what i have learned in my life... my life got drastically better. and i think that is how and why he got famous- because his lectures had amazing implications in real life
@@LemonHelmmetexcept when he isn't, which is explicitly what they're addressing with the relevant examples that were center to the entire video. When he isn't obfuscating and intends to be precise, sure, he is good at conveying his ideas in their nuance and expanding on them. This is precisely why Destiny disagreed with Alex's attempt to grant Jordan some leeway where Destiny points out several times you can be creative and contextually expansive while bringing it back to a meaningful center which Jordan refuses to do on certain questions. Jordan knows the question being asked, he's intentionally elusive. He quiet literally dances around certain topics and avoids being precise even if on other topics he is much more clear and precise. Again, they literally cover a point blank example of him doing exactly this. Clearly directing the criticism to the relevant point.
@@LemonHelmmet no one said he wasn't understandable. the comment said he obfuscates It's funny how you claim to understand Peterson but ... don't understand the message conveyed here.
@@wren4077 well... my English might not be perfect but obfuscate means unclear right? ok i will rephrase it: he is as clear as day so that makes it understandable even to the likes of me who learned English by hearing.
One of the most notable characteristics that I'm seeing in Alex's engagement with others is he does not get swayed by their emotional energy. His thoughts are actively focused on the context of the verbal exchange, and is drawing logical conclusions and incorporating relevant conceptual data to bolster or refute an argument. This separates him from even Ben Shapiro, where that emotional anchoring appears when discussing certainly closely held beliefs. Alex has been the most impressive at maintaining this neutrality out of anyone I've watched thus far. We can all learn from this. Edit: seeing common misconceptions in the comments the difference between not feeling versus not being entirely controlled by emotions. He’s clearly engaging with others’ emotions appropriately here. I’ve never implied that he’s a sociopath, in fact quite the opposite.
You must be from a younger generation. Some of the "New Atheists" delivered with similar cold calm directness.Alex has had a couple of them on his show (Harris, Dawkins), and I'm pretty sure that Alex is a guest speaker for Dawkins at some of his upcoming tour. Hitchens is still the best for me out of that group though. Although direct and brutal to the point. He also added character and wit when needed.
if Alex, who is clearly an exceptionally intelligent person takes him seriously enough to try incredibly hard to understand Jordan's thought process maybe you should think about taking him seriously in some aspects
@@rayaqin Alex does that because it his profession to debate and discuss about others in his field. I can outright reject Jordan Fakerson. I find JP boring.
@@rayaqinPeterson is promoted by billionaires as an "intellectual" due to being a Capitalism apologist and religious conservative though. Alex is an intellectual that discusses religion. The two would inevitably meet but it doesn't mean Peterson has anything of any value to say. I mean, didn't Alex debate D'Souza?
Actually, when Jordan Peterson was asked the what is a woman question by Matt Walsh his response was ‘Marry one and find out’. Which is kind of in line with his usual line of reasoning.
Everyman that's married a woman knows how women are and how they are different from men. It's like the married men's FAFO. You know, humor. Plus I think he intentionally did this destiny more than normal, I think the reason for that is that Destiny needs counseling and so Jordan went to work lmao
Petersons' answers must cater to both his religious and semi/non religious audiences. If he ever gave a straight answer to a religious question he will instantly lose either or both of these audiences, and he knows that. This also explains why he never obfuscates his answers about "anti-left" topics like wokism or socialism or climate change - those are the talking points his audience wants to hear, so he's clear and concise about those. Bottom line - he doesn't care about being intellectually honest. He cares about keeping his audience and the fame/money that come with it.
The guy in the thumbnail...not Jordan, the other guy...he looks both really young, yet old, and yet also like he's from a time period that was like 50 years ago....
I can clearly understand how Alex O'Connor has risen to prominence. He clearly sees complex standpoints, is willing to strongman them, and then work his conversation around them. As a Christian, I have a huge amount of respect for him.
That guy is a classic example of the guy that believed his mum when she said 'Oh you're such a clever boy'; you did well holding your patience with him.
Alex’s answer regarding a physicist answering a question is interesting, but falls flat because we see these types of people all the time, and they DO in fact manage to answer questions. Neil Degrasse Tyson, for example, we could easily imagine him getting a bit over complicated, but he WOULD answer the question unambiguously in the end.
Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that gender is a social construct whist simultaneously claiming that a trans woman is a real woman. If ‘woman’ is a social construct how can one identify as a woman and it be ‘real’? NDT is a well educated moron.
@@rayaqin is your point that you don’t like Neil? Input your favorite smart person. It absolutely does not affect the argument and you know that and you didn’t need to make this comment. You just wanted to let us know you don’t like NDT.
@@rayaqin this is not an opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the name of the physicist. In fact, I made the argument, and said “for example” when I named NDT. So, you either agree with the argument, or you don’t. If you don’t, then, obviously, you think that physicists are unable to answer questions unambiguously, which I just strongly disagree with, having spoke to and watched the content of many physicists. Alex’s point is that even a physicist, when asked a basic question, would behave as JP, and complicate things. I’m claiming that JP fails to bring things back around after the complication, but in general, a professor of physics WOULD EASILY DO THIS. Because there is an answer to these questions and they have it. JP cannot do this, because he claims to have an answer that he does not, so he obfuscates to the point of forgetting what the question was. That is the difference I’m calling attention to, and I use physicists as an example because that’s what Alex used. I don’t think this is a controversial claim.
I forgot where he said it but the reason he once argued to be right was because he admitted to having been allured to his high sense of ego as a young intellectual, it got to him that feeling of pride.
It's what the ancient Greeks called arete, he conceives his (intellectual) excellence as a moral virtue. Peterson is an aristocrat at heart, he believes he has the right to tell people what to do because his excellence makes him best suited to do so. To put it in Peterson terms: he's acting out Plato's philosopher king archetype.
It was defininetly better than anyone else has done but the question was not as specific as it could have been and so still leaves lots of wriggle room for Peterson. Alex asked Jordan if he would expect to see a man leaving the tomb and not would he expect to see a previously dead Jesus leaving the tomb unaided.
I agree that Peterson can be difficult to listen to when he dissects every word in great detail. Alex's comparison to quantum physicists was spot on-discussing everyday topics in that way would be highly impractical. I've been following Peterson for years, particularly on religious and psychological topics, and in my opinion he isn't obfuscating anything, he is just really (some say overly) precise. My biggest challenge is simply staying focused, so it's not a content I can go through with a tired mind. There are plenty of people who simplify complex ideas, so why push Peterson to do the same? He takes nuanced topics to the extreme and that's what I like about him. And there's clearly a demand for his style. I also reject the notion that people only listen to him because he uses big words that only sound smart (those people probably just don't understand them).
This is the guy that quibbled over definitions for like 4 hours in a recent debate about insurrection just to avoid ever having to be in the defensive position. He has no right whatsoever to complain about obfuscation. He is one of the most tactical and machiavellian debaters around.
He is too much of a coward and not enough intelect to choose a side. Besides he's milking both sides for money. That's the upper limit of his intelligence.
I have an answer for why Peterson does this - he has an in depth understanding of psychological archetypes.. so he knows what aspect of your psyche wants answers. He also knows that other parts of your psyche need to explore other possibilities. He won’t sacrifice one for the other - just because you’re asking for certainty in one direction.
Alex o'connor: intelligent, honest, epistemically charitable. His comment section: I dislike X guest, so let me draw caricatures and beg the question instead of criticizing with evidence and structured logic. For the record, like most people here, I also dislike Peterson and Destiny. However, I refrain from typing unhinged comments that are factually false (like this one guy saying Peterson is apologetic for Hitler) or that are just adhominem attacks that beg the question (he is a grifter / unintelligent / X because he said this).
Exactly what I was thinking after listening to Alex's fair comments about Peterson and then seeing the absolute opposite in the comments. As someone who generally likes Peterson and agrees with a lot of what he says, I don't think such comments are going to do anything to foster respectful and reasoned debate and discussion.
Peterson has made comments that aren't pro-Hitler, but are.... very bad. Like making comments that seemed to imply that Hitler went the way he did in part because it gave him the crowds rather than Hitler having been that way since before his big speeches. I don't think he intends it to defend Hitler but my God was it a dumb example to use.
Jordan Peterson knows PERFECTLY well what is being asked of him, and he intentionally obfuscates to avoid answering those questions. He is an intelligent person and knows what he's doing when he does this.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him. everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
Its wierd tho, i feel like that question about the jews is perfectly easy to answer, why wouldnt he just say ''yes...'' ''no'...' ''im not sure...'' ''...but i want to focus on the more metatextual aspect of it becuase that certainly happens''. It wasnt some very modern political question were it might be worth it to be weasily, idk why he did that when talking about the ancient past
I am not sure Peterson would even get specefic with his definition even regarding gender. He is actually asked what is woman in Matt Walsh's documentary about this and his answer is "marry one and find out".
I think you're both great thinkers, as well as Dr Peterson. I've engaged in a lot of linguistic study since my time as a linguist for the Air Force, and I believe Peterson is probably very convicted about words. It's difficult to spell out why some words convict you more sharply than others because it isn't really up to you which things beckon. If it bothers that he's more touchy with phrasing in certain areas, I'd encourage you to ask why it's a comparatively harder area.
There are people who take things literally when perhaps they shouldn't, and then there's Jordan Peterson who goes out of his way not to take anything literally when he really should.
Alex OConnor is so admirable for understanding Peterson's approach to analyzing the Bible, philosophy is complicated and so is language, and Alex understands how hard it is to discuss such an abstract concepts. Very introspective and very impressive in his ability to confront Peterson's ideas. One of the best debates I've heard, respect both ways.
In regard to the bouncing rocks answer: I'd say that the charged field is an integral property of the rocks, and thus, yes the rocks do bounce off of one another, people just don't notice the minuscule field that is a part of all rocks. It's like asking if two clones of Abraham Lincoln headbutted one another, with their top hats on, did they bounce off of one another. Edit to add: I know the top hats aren't an integral part of the clones, but they (the clones) did react to the force and mass of each other in a bouncing manner.
But the atoms in the rocks DO touch one another. Their electron clouds bump into each other and the rules for electrons in shells applies to them as they touch. If that isn't touching, then nothing counts. There is no repulsive electromagnetic force between the objects until that moment, but in that moment, they touch tips and electrons might be shared or exchanged. If you do it with metals you might get a bond out of the sharing of free electrons that welds the two pieces together. If one is electron is electron starved in its outer shell and the other has an outer shell with just one or two electrons, you get static electricity. But make no mistake, it isn't really the electromagnetic force that keeps two objects from passing through one another. It is all thanks to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is like the meme that people craved spices in the middle ages to cover up the sour taste and smell from their food going bad. People repeat it a lot, but is is so wrong it isn't even funny.
Peterson did answer the question when Alex asked about the resurrection and putting a Panasonic camera whether or not you would actually see something happen and Peterson said: yes.
Mr. False Equivalence (Stephen) seems to have a chip on his shoulder because of his debate with Peterson. This can be resolved by asking Peterson to debate again. Is that simple.
It wasn't a debate. He has a chip on his shoulder because he was extremely charitable to JP and JP then totally mischaracterised their conversation. But also he is totally correct about JPs sliminess.
@@michaelh878nah, once Destiny try to be oh so intelligent to know fields he didnt even know. So, Destiny has been saying that higher education makes more money and smarter. So by that standard, what degree is destiny?
Jordan speaks about things that are not easy to understand. From what I’ve seen, his detractors seem to confuse the complexity of the issues he addresses with obfuscation on his part. Jordan gets blamed for life being complex
Honestly, haveing listened very closely to Alex'es conversation with Peterson I understand Petersons reluctance to answer the questions directly. I also understand the frustration it causes. All in all Alex did a pretty good job pin pointing Peterson's position on God.
Yeah I don't listen to destiny. I don't allow him into my head space ears any of that. He has been a drama farmer and hypocrite and many other things and I do not understand why anyone gives him the time of day. You don't look better by having him on your show.
Do Peterson and others not propose that the asking of a material question, when that is the antithesis of what is being discussed, is what is truely inappropriate? Why would the answer have to stoop to the question? The obvious answer is obvious that's why it warrants nothing, it's a non-starter to adhere to it other then some quick social nod. Why expect someone too? Especially in the interest of gaining knowledge, which should be the truest aim of a question. Guard-rails on what the answer can be must adjust to the complexity and novelty of what is learned. I don't mean blind acceptance, but if information doesn't coincide with the parameters for the answer the chances are the parameters must widen to even get the point enough to even contextualize the answer. Isn't that the essence of listening to someone extrapolating or abstracting out, to make a point? To try and explain a different dimension of a topic to someone ignorant of it's existence or implications to the question. Like if part of the answer exists outside of the dimensional box the question comes from. Then that still exists wether the acceptable answer must be within the box or not.
This is probably the only time that I agree with Destiny over Alex on anything. If you watch enough of Peterson's content, you must special attention to the differences between how he asks and answers questions when he is talking to people he knows he shares the same viewpoints with and people he does not. You also have to watch enough of his content where he is alone talking to the camera by himself. He absolutely, 100%, undeniably, objectively, obfuscates on purpose. He does not like questions that challenge what he believes to be true. Most of us don't, but most of us would probably just get defensive. He is smart enough to know that getting defensive shows the degree to which your beliefs are actually shakeable and the degree to which you are actually not so sure about which you claim to be certain. So to avoid being defensive and in his mind showing weakness as it relates to the validity of his own assertion of his own position, he obfuscates pointlessly. He does this with climate change and it drives me fucking nuts. When talking about climate models and their efficacy he says the following: "Well what do you mean about climate? Well climate is everything. How can you be so arrogant to think you can model absolutely everything?" This obfuscation, this endless defining, redefining, making sure we agree on the definition of the words we are using, is a tactic to avoid getting defensive about either positions he has in which he knows he knows nothing of authority and is therefore of no authority to hold the position he has with such fervor - or about positions that are meaningful to him where he actually isn't certain despite his continuous assertion of the validity of concreteness of the position he has. So let's go back to the climate model example. He has to obfuscate and attempt to redefine the word "climate" into a context that will legitimize his position. This is why he redefines climate as meaning "everything". Climate in no uncertain terms, does not mean everything. Climate are long term weather cycles and patterns. That's it, and you can model whether or not the climate of a particular biome changes based on no other inputs than that of which has to do with weather. You can account for added pollutants, added water vapor, etc. or a subtraction from all of these, and you don't have to go as detailed as to map every human beings activities that add or subtract from them. We have broad data that is collected that measures precisely how much water vapor gets added to the atmosphere, how much pollutants get added, and we have that data because it's literally measured directly in the atmosphere itself. Again, we don't need to map out and follow the lives of every human being to measure precisely how much CO2 or methane is added to the atmosphere, we just measure the parts per billion concentration and see if it's gone up or down. He does this, particularly on matters of the climate change discussion because he is above everything else, a capitalist. The overwhelming majority of people who are passionate in their demands of government and industry as it relates to the climate crisis are quite obviously anti-capitalist. It is precisely because they make demands of government and industry, demands that threaten the stability of the sort of capitalism that allows capitalists to regulate themselves and do whatever the fuck they want that he holds the position he has on the climate change discussion. So he obfuscates, and tries to make the claim that scientist models are wrong, that it's not that big of a deal, certainly not a crisis, and therefore there is no reason, in his words, for these "Marxist and communist" environmentalists to suggest essentially the destruction of capitalism as it currently exists in favor of some new system, which no matter who you are, he will claim the system you want is communism. So I very much disagree with Alex on this. Peterson is certainly smart enough to know what he's doing, and he does. He purposely and knowingly obfuscates endlessly on matters he knows nothing about, or on positions he portrays as being concrete when he is actually unsure of the validity of his asserted concreteness, in order to avoid getting defensive. He does it in talks with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty all the time. Whenever he is cornered on something he doesn't get defensive, he just says "wait a minute.. what exactly are we talking about here," or "what exactly do you mean by" or "could what we are talking about actually mean this" or "what I was actually trying to say and what I actually meant was". It's all about redefining what is meant by something, whether it be a single word or a whole statement. This tactic is as pathologic to Peterson's engagement in conversation as Trump's lying is to his own.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him. everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
If we prove a model then the extrapolated data that was not tested but is compatible with the model is still likely to be true. I really dislike people who want an empirical proof for everything but alas this is the society we live in. That's why vaccines take so long to test, that's why people are still able to contest every established scientific theory, that's why we waste money on technologies that will not work and delay the ones that will - just because so many people have this particular misunderstanding of science.
I think that Peterson's approach isn't necessarily about obfuscation, but rather a rigorous insistence on clarity and precision in language. Peterson's tendency to question definitions and underlying assumptions stems from his background as a clinical psychologist and his philosophical inclinations, which value deep understanding over superficial agreement. When he challenges terms like "climate," among others, I feel that he's emphasizing the complexity of issues that are often oversimplified in public discourse. This isn't avoidance but a demand for rigorous thinking. Some people often interpret this as deflection because they're accustomed to straightforward, unchallenged exchanges. However, Peterson' aims to uncover the nuances that are essential for meaningful debate, especially on polarizing topics. His stance is not simply capitalist; it's rooted in skepticism about grand narratives and the unintended consequences of societal changes. Far from trying to avoid difficult questions, he seeks more so to elevate the conversation to a level where all assumptions are laid bare, ensuring that any conclusions drawn are based on a comprehensive and honest examination of the facts.
I'm becoming a fan of this Alex O'Connor guy. He strikes me as incredibly intellectually honest, curious, and he also has a strong sense of morality even though he is an atheist. And he is very intelligent so he displays these traits at a very high level. Wonderful, this is what atheism was meant to be!
"Even though he is an atheist" haha theists have an inflated sense of ego and think they have some sort of inherent ownership of morality, despite atrocities done in the name of their gods
@@olivyae3057 True, but most atheists also have an inflated sense of ego that they "don't fall for those childish stories about a man in the sky" and throw away the baby with the bathwater
My thoughts exactly. It wouldn't be the first time an entrepreneur has pretended to adopt certain beliefs as to pander to specific audiences. It feels like Peterson doesn't even believe what he says because he's going out of his way to separate himself from his own conclusions. Disingenuous at worst, and overly convoluted at best. Can I accept that he's just "bad at what he does"? He may tout some goofy rhetoric, but I don't think he's actually unintelligent.
He openly admitted it on Joe Rogan podcast: “I have found a way to monetize SJWs” Now he’s moved on to monetize Christians, which is a far more lucrative field.
Where does his obfuscation come from? 1. He does not want to alienate the audience he’s monetized. 2. He believes that a lack of religious belief results in a hellscape world of wanton murder. So, he has to do what he can to foster belief.
And 3 he was extremely depressed for a decent amount of time, during wich many many many people openly wished for his death. Theres a degree of PTSD here, this man hasnt been confronted in good faith in so long, so he feels that if he gives an inch he will be pushed towards saying that hes the second coming of Hitler, irrational as that may be, its not hard to see were those feelings come from if youre not too emotionally invested in hating him.
@@aguspuig6615 No doubt, he definitely feels the weight of the dogpile. The visceral way he debates and comes at his counterpart with preloaded baggage of negative expectations and associations is a sign of that. And it’s a pretty common phenomenon for even average people who experience much online discourse. I could only imagine that an elevation in status worsens that on the receiving end and then buffers you against criticism by allowing you to retreat into the protective silo.
The obfuscation has become worse over the years and seems to be directly proportional to his level of fame and how often people try to come at him with constant gotcha questions. Cast your mind back to how often people hone in on one thing someone said, and now that's getting brought up constantly for years. I'd be sick of it too.
@@elusivecamel Sure, that would get annoying. But there’s a reason why this question to him lives on in such profound infamy. It’s because it is one of the most deceptively indirect responses you could possibly have to the question or the topic. And that is coming out of the Man, who pushes himself as a purveyor of truth and intellectual honesty. Meanwhile, he tours the world speaking on the subject and rakes in millions from people who either don’t care that he’s not willing to state his actual opinion or don’t understand that’s what’s happening.
I like how Alex’s interview tactic when talking a public intellectual like Peterson is “How can I ask this man a question while preventing him from being able to change the topic and avoid answering”
To be fair to Jordan Peterson, not every challenge to the premise of a question clouds the discussion. When he addresses complex concepts like "truth" or "belief," it's useful for him to offer nuanced explanations, especially when engaging with questioners who hold sophisticated, opposing worldviews. For example, if someone asks, "Is the Bible true?" an audience member may wonder whether they should believe in the Bible. In this case, it's helpful to clarify that some biblical stories may hold symbolic truth, even if they are not historically accurate. This shows that while a belief might be grounded in truth, truth doesn't always have to mean historical fact. Although this approach introduces new complexities, Peterson is right to be cautious in his responses, given the diverse audience he addresses. As an atheist, I know that most prominent atheist thinkers restrict their arguments about biblical truth to historical or empirical accuracy. While I personally don't think symbolic truth is enough to treat the Bible as sacred, I do see value in making this perspective clear.
The point is that entire libraries of books have been written about defining what truth, knowledge and belief is, it's called epistemology and is an important part of philosophy. The quickest way to derail any discussion about any topic with the exception of epistemology is to get into epistemology.
You act compassionate because you understand that you're a compassionate being OR because of social contract. Jesus taught about compassion but you've already gained a more accurate understanding about it than the story gives you. Symbolic truth becomes irrelevant when you have rational truth.
Well, if I would offer some good will. I would say he's cautious when it's beneficial to him. Cautious to point where it's extremely detrimental to conversation. I mean you are right, there's value in being nuanced, but this is sliding scale to be used based on context. If you are always 100% nuanced, you are literally not going to be able to progress in conversation ever. Other word for this would be obfuscation, more complicated than needed or diverting conversation. Just because some complexity is good, doesn't mean even more is good. And if it regularly happens to be used as tool in debate to win or divert arguments, we can spy some intent from there. Or he's just extremely bad at conversation and not that smart. Which I can't believe he isn't.
Psalm 137-9, 1 Samuel 15 are verse used to commit genocides as religious injunction from abrahmek gad. Lutheranprotestant Chrstinity is the basis for jw hatred due to which holocaust was committed.
What pissed me off about dr Jordan is he’s 100% sure that psychology is legitimate and based on science and evidence but climate science is bs. Like how can some science be good and some science is bad. Isnt all science based on evidence and the scientific method? He picks and chooses the science he likes.
"Isn't all science based on evidence and the scientific method?" Yes, by definition, but not everything that we are told is science, actually is. We (Brits) were told during lockdown that our rights were being taken away only because they were "following the science", and the science dictated their actions. Of course, those of us with working, adult brains knew that these were simply human beings throwing the unassailable banner of science in front of their battering ram as they approached the keep of freedom. Many people believe that the same is happening with climate science, and that this obsession with net zero etc. is simply a method of control. For me, the question is not whether the climate is changing (it always has), but who or what is causing the changes. Science is great. Human beings are a mixed bag.
To the question alex asks at 7 minutes why does jordan peterson do that. I think I have the answer. Its long but I have fit it into one YT comment and it still needs some work but just seeing about getting the idea out there to hear what others think as well. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter. A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost? You might have an answer of ten cents flash in your head right away with bias inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time. The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it. The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation. Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones. Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long. Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it. The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used. So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point. Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even. So was this understandable or confusing? if you understand it, do you think its possibly true? Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
I didn't find your comment confusing, I understood your comment. I think "it's" (which I loosely interpreted as all the claims in your comment) have a higher likelihood of accuracy beyond "possibly true". Of all the claims in your comment, I think this claim; "I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while seemingly angry is think is think another really good example of denial... and projection." is what the rest of your comment builds up to support. Upon reflecting on your comment (having not invested much contemplation into Peterson's behaviour prior), I also think that specific behaviour you identified of Peterson is a" good example of denial... and projection" (I'm agnostic on the "really" component because I don't have an established reference system of examples of denial and projection). The only question I might have is about the ball and the bat thing. I still don't get it, but don't bother, after years of carelessness, I'm finally going to invest time and energy looking that up and attempt to understand the information. I have no tips (I mean I have $20, but your not getting it, sorry).
@@thequietintrovert8605 Excellent, thank you for taking the time to read it and give a response. You are right as that behavior that is shown in that example with peterson is the main point and how sometimes simple questions can expose that. And you are the second person to answer the questions at the end of it. I can give you some questions that have a high rate of avoidance so you can see some examples or I can show you TONS of of my questions being avoided in YT comments. I have a set of judge questions that has only a 3% answer rate by christians and muslims in YT comment. Been trying it lately in discord and the percentage went up a lot so far, but my sample size is still small at 32. The judge questions I have probably 20,000. Took 6 years. Got some simple moral questions that many christians and muslims avoid that I have been asking lately too. Is it that you dont know the answer to the bat and ball question OR you dont know what my point was with that? 20$ does not even come close to the value I find in your response, you give me some hope for humanity LOL.
@@thequietintrovert8605 If the ball was 10 cents, the bat would be 1.10 on its own and the ball would add 0.10 more making the total 1.20. If you write it X +(X + 1.00)=1.10 or 2x + 1.00= 1.10 people seem to get it. I do include ad hom/personal attack responses that I do not think are a troll but I do not include troll responses nor do I include no response. I only include people that I do not think are trolls that give a response that does not answer the questions. Let me give an example. People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent? I will ask these and the most common response I get is how do I know right from wrong?. Or I will ask just #3 and they will say no one is innocent. Or for #5 they will say that is not analogous to the adam and eve story, and they are not really wrong BUT that does not really answer the question. #5 Is the one that causes the most problems as if I wanted to study this behavior I needed to cause it to happen. I dont use it in the follow up questions. So the stats on those questions is atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering. Christians are less then 18% and muslims less then 7% in YT comments.
I enjoyed this comment; it was worthwhile to actually read through it. Not all comments rise to that level of value lol. I don't have much of a background in psychology or Jungian anything, but your theory makes sense to me on first glance. It matches well with what I've seen in my personal experience, where I struggle to understand how a given person is misunderstanding what seems to me to be fairly obvious. Sometimes, said person is myself, and it's only obvious in hindsight, with the benefit of a change in scenery and emotional state. I would maybe try to consolidate your ideas to make them more presentable to general audiences if the goal is to get your ideas out there, but the actual substance of your comment seems solid in my opinion, whatever that's worth. Keep thinking, you clearly have something going for you!
@@whishfulthinkinging Thank you, it means a lot. From some people I get responses like these and from others I get things like TLDR or if you want to write a thesis dont do it in a YT comment, sometimes just this is all gibberish. What I would really like to do is try and say all that but only using questions. I have some ideas on how to do it but I just dont know how understood it would be. There is really only one way to know and that is to try it out I. I think the fast mind just gets in the way and in a sense blocks out the conscious mind what is being said in the first place. That is why I like questions as you can sum up a syllogistic argument in a question or 2 but your asking them to think about it to give their answer so you not really telling them. But when the question gets avoided what can you do other then just ask it again. I offered to pay a guy 5 bucks just so he would answer my judge questions after about 5 response that he did not answer them with. He did answer them and he told me I could keep my money. Some people I had a week long back and forth trying to get them to answer the questions and they never ever did.
I think it helps to compare asking an early 20th century physicists if a photon acts like a wave or a particle. In the same way a physicist would have had a very difficult time explaining wave-particle duality before they completely understood it or before the general public was ready to accept it, Dr. Peterson is also wrestling with and trying to figure out answers to these difficult religious and philosophical questions. It’s us, the general public, who are not able to accept the answer of “well it’s both” at this time. I think it’s completely fair for him to answer the way that he does. We have come to accept wave-particle duality as a fact of quantum physics, but we do not accept this duality in other areas or subjects of study. Now that we have moved away from the rudimentary “man in the sky” understanding of God over the last century, we are beginning to ask some extremely cutting edge questions about religion - questions that often overlap with philosophy, quantum physics, evolutionary biology, origins of the universe, etc. and we need to be patient with the leading thinkers in the field as they try to wrap their heads around concepts that have yet to be explored or understood.
Alex is so good, he's too polite to Destiny. The massive difference between Alex and Destiny is Alex genuinely seeks to understand, not seek to belittle.
I don’t recall Peterson becoming famous for being a psychologist. The way I remember it he was making a big deal about a law about using pronouns incorrectly.
He was slightly famous before that for putting his lectures on UA-cam, so he had something of a fanbase. But yeah Alex is just being too kind. JP is famous for one thing: Getting into the culture war early on and with a doctorate, so he could represent the anti-feminists in academic settings and get onto the news by trading on his legitimacy
Even his psychological advice boils down to little more than common folk-wisdom about taking self-responsibility. The only reason he ever got famous was his contrarian row over refusing to respect people by using their preferred pronouns. His books are just pedestrian self-help screeds that peddle common sense about the need to introduce order into one's life. They would never have received any broad attention without the fooforaw he cooked up in defying university policy around transgender issues.
He became famous by opposing authoritarianism. His overall argument is that one must not allow themselves to become a slave to lesser things except that which is the highest possible ideal, aka God, and that the only way to pursue that ideal is by telling the truth no matter the consequence.
Jordan Peterson discounting climate science because of minor statistical deviations, but ignoring any in psychological studies regarding personality types, behavior or gender preferences is beyond insane.
Yeah dude he makes sweeping statements about psychological concepts, especially around personality types, as if they are a biological fact of life. It is wild
@@Woodsarasthere are a ton of studies about the various effects of gender - in this case it seems like OC is probably referencing trans people, though. And there is literally a mountain of data/studies on the effects of transitioning socially, medically, in different environments etc.
My grifter alarms are going off every time I see Peterson. I would like to be more optimistic, but it doesn't sit right. Wouldn't be the first time an entrepreneur has pretended to adopt certain beliefs as to pander to specific audiences. It feels like Peterson doesn't even believe what he says because he's going out of his way to separate himself from his own conclusions. Disingenuous at worst, and overly convoluted at best. Can I accept that he's just "bad at what he does"? He may tout some goofy rhetoric, but I don't think he's actually unintelligent.
I think the main piece that keeps me optimistic is that he has been sort of consistent on his beliefs since forever, i doubt he was grifting for 50 fkin years, its easier to belive that he is traumatised and therefore has let some cognitive dissonance go unchecked, i dont think he has it in him to be fully dishonest, his ego and sense of self couldnt take that, becuase his identity seems to be built on being honest and morally upright. Not in a public persona manner, in a personal manner, i think he would go crazy if he genuenly thought he was being dishonest, i think hes just not strong enough right now to admit fault, wich is still a big failing, but its not a grift, i think he belives what he says, and i think we could unironically save him if we got him to feel comfortable, and we confronted him with such good faith that he cant bring himself to get defensive, its gonna be hard, becuase he has gotten so much hate that he now probably has a very hard time thinking any criticism is good faith, when hes always either glazed by the right, or relentlessly mocked by the left, but i think its possible. Maybe Alex could be the one to do it, and god i hope it happens
The things that piss Destiny off the most, are when he feels like his own game is being played on him, and he's losing the battle with his own game, that is ACTUALLY NOT being played on him.
I appreciate the grace that Alex has. He is genuine in wanting to know someone he has relationships with. Destiny tries to fit you into a box for his own gain.
15:06 I feel that Peterson's response to questions regarding whether Biblical accounts are literally true also reflects "what side he is on." He is a champion for many Christian theist fans.
I stopped being able to take Jordan Peterson seriously after the first excruciating conversation with Sam Harris. His credibility was already shaky enough since his original schtick was essentially a re-branding of basic concepts of self responsibility. I was astonished that his earliest messages seemed revolutionary in the first place.
Excatly. I don't think people understand the gravity of this conversation and the claim Peterson made that truth is what leads to survival and not what is factually true.
I stopped taking JP seriously on the first video I watched by him. I've succeeded and have stood out in all kinds of college courses. I can carry a debate and can bring subject matter. JP avoids subjects altogether. He wants to hear himself talk, and be an attention ho' and eat up all the time so other people can't have time to speak. Basically, he pushes his luck and is a jerk that can't say anything and can't formulate a cohesive direct statement about anything.
Don’t agree with Alex here on his analysis of Peterson being good faith. The man got thousands of atheists on-side by giving the Bible a psychological and metaphorical meaning and he can’t now alienate them with claims of genuine and historical reality of the stories but nor can he stand on the _metaphor only_ leg because he’s also captured by the actual religious audience too. It’s the perfect position for an actual schizophrenic.
@@Theactivepsychos lol I remember him once saying he's a vicious capitalist. I guess he didn't lie😁. I still agree with some of the things he says tho.
@@oluwolechaviro9937 imagine back in 80s / 90s we were told that in the future there would be millions of right wingers cowed into not admitting they were right-wing by a bunch of student on the internet 😂
Peterson is the epitome of a sophist acting in bad faith. It's all about the $$$ with him. Early on in his transition from Professor to Grifter he made the mistake of some very gentle criticisms of Trump and his customers punished him and he learned his lesson. The thing about these 2 and Sam Harris and Kyle Kulinski and the TYT crowd, especially Cenk is whether you agree with their positions on policy or not, at least you know they're not grifters. I'd argue PBD is another grifter, not only on his internet biz, but his previous biz where he ran an MLM scam. So many grifters on the right.
Destiny’s strategy can be summed up in one word: exaggeration. If you pay attention and simply observe over time, most of his positions depend on him exaggerating the positions of people he’s arguing against. And this has a compounding effect. So that once he’s made a few points it’s impossible to be in any sort of honest dialogue. It is also noticeable that whenever his position begins to weaken or falter, he will quickly and aggressively take hold of one or another exaggeration to bring things back into that advantageous and impossible dialogue. It might be understood as an outcome of his StarCraft brain. He has to maintain a rule set for everyone in order to move the game forward to his advantage. So he is constantly re-framing the discussion so that everyone is within a convenient and exaggerated caricature.
If you're talking about Destiny then idk about "practice" but that man streams like 6-7 hours every day talking about these things over and over. Arguably one of the people with the most amount of video content on themselves out on the internet. So what you're seeing is a polished version. If it's alex you're talking about, that boy is incredibly articulate and well spoken.
As a good debater you study your opponent so you can anticipate their answers. How do you think he came up with the video camera question (even specifying the brand and type)?
*"Jordan, before we start the debate. Did you DRIVE all the way here?"* Jordan "What do mean by "drive?" I was behind the wheel, but I had cruise control enabled part of the time so did "I" drive and was it "all the way here?" And by "way" did you mean the Highway or my style of driving? Because if you meant my style of driving, then I just emulate my teacher. So is it really "my" style of driving? So I might have to reject the premise of your question. Now back in Egypt where they "drove" cattle, if you'd asked about the macro-economic intepretation of someone who had the disease "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" we might look at the statistics of..."
Nah Destiny is the polar opposite of this. He will start making extremely concrete, sometimes deranged claims on a dime His willingness to commit to an idea, to bite the bullet on a topic to further his point, is one of his defining traits. Sometimes it is a huge weakness but there is no irony here
@@aguspuig6615 listen to him talk about jan 6 and the "coup". He immediately dodges the actual meaning of these terms (explicit schemes to overthrow the government) because he has 0 evidence to pin Trump on those definitions and instead yaps about similar sounding but ultimately irrelevant things that aren't explicit schemes to overthrow the govt (but he implies they are).
I'm a quantum physicist and i would say that the outside of objects are negatively charged so when they get close enough to eachother they act the same way magnets do when they repell eachother. Depending on the level there is no reason to get into the structure of atoms.
I always felt like the reason Peterson struggled to answer the question even though he knows what is meant by it, is because he's trying to navigate the implications of the answer. Like if someone says "do you think jesus was resurrected", if he says "no", the risk there is that he is misunderstood as saying that he is an atheist, or "yes" and the implication is that he is a christian. So he tries to frame his answer in a way that addresses what he interprets as the reason for the question. Although I think Destiny saying that you can still try to navigate that landscape while actually answering the question, even with "I don't know" or "it doesn't matter", was valid.
Most philosophy involves a lot of pontification and dancing around a subject or concept for an extended period until an idea/theory is nailed down sufficiently. Is conversation wasn't really philosophy though. It was a discussion about Jordan Peterson between two people who are philosophically inclined.
Let's put this question to JP: do penguins fly? JP: it is complicated! First what do you mean by penguins and fly? If you mean the penguins of Madagascar can fly airplane. Alex You're reading JP very charitably. Yet, when he was famously debating the Canadian parliament about the gender pronoun, JP didn't go pondering or stating any complications. He just gave a straight forward rejection without a flinch. I thin JP resorts to these techniques to avoid being ridiculed and/or being countered. For, most of academia and elite thinkers are ether atheist or they do not care about religion, or even see it as good tool for some ends.
He did this to Sam Harris for like 10 hours str8 before Sam called him on it the peterson Doubled down on the nonsense and insulted the audience because "Their internal beliefs arent transparent to them in any meaningful sense, so why should what I BELIEVE BE ACCESSIBLE TO ME????" Which was maybe the most intelligent cope of all time.
I really appreciate Alex's steelmaning here. I think the biggest flaw with the lense with which Destiny wants to look at Peterson's discussions on religion is that Destiny cannot acknowledge the epistemology on which Peterson operates when he speaks about it and he is pedantically unwilling to give and take on it. The issue lies in what ''truth'' means in context. Peterson's epistemology (and he has covered it many times in the past) is just not typical rationalism and empiricism when he speaks about religion. He is operating on a more phenomenological epistemological framework and this framework doesn't allow the same objective rigidity regarding historical events. The reason this epistemological framework is used in this context (at least if we try to follow Peterson's view) and not in other contexts is because the religious and historical touches more than just the purely physical. Peterson seems to try to understand history and religion through subjective psychology rather than objective materialism and it appeared quite clear during the Peterson/O'Connor discussion. I remember him mentioning that it's not obvious through which lense someone *should* read the Bible or a lot of history. The reasoning (still following Peterson's logic) is that historical writings carry lots of subjectivity that doesn't purely capture the material (if at all) but rather capture the subjective experience of its participants and the archetypes through which they psychologically view the world. It's a bit like asking if Marie Antoinette *really* said ''let them eat cake'', the materialist answer is likely no, but the phenomenological answer is more along the lines of ''it carries the archetypes through which the historical writers viewed the situation which is an oblivious elitist ruler detached from the reality of her kingdom, the archetype was probably an accurate portrayal''. Asking ''do you believe there really was a person named Jesus who died and was resurrected?'' falls in the same vein where he seems to think the writing around the character portrays the archetypes through which the writers viewed the world around an event that may or may not have been the exact materialistic way in which they are described. To some extent, I think Peterson views God along the same epistemological frame. It may be a powerful archetype through which people have viewed the world for millenia and that impacts physical events through the psychological effects it carries regardless of its materialistic existence. In essence, the fact that people believe is what makes it real to them. The bigger point is : Peterson has a very phenomenological understanding of the world and many of his discussions are held within this epistemological context, not within an objectivist and materialistic context. This makes sense because.. the man was a psychologist, his whole job for years has been to listen to people and try to understand how they view the world, not necessarily if their views are materialistically accurate to describe their own circumstances which, many times, they likely weren't.
When I worked as a sound engineer at Swedish Television the idea was to have a good sound without any microphones being front and center. . . not to mention microphone stands. Well done, Sir, I say to the sound engineer that in one stroke made his work much easier and at the same time manage to make the employer look really stupid.
As a black man I feel comfortable knowing Alex is willing to converse with a black woman like Destiny.
Fun 😂
Is this a meme?
@@blascantu7221 it's a dead meme that destiny has asked to stop
Mista Bonerchelli !!!
@@andrewc406 OH NO HE DIDN'T 💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿
so I misread the video title as ‘My experience dating Jordan Peterson’
😂😂😂😂
Yep
“I think I’ll get the lobster. Do you know what you want to order, Mr. Peterson?”
“Now just a moment! That’s not a straightforward question. You see the menu is more than just a collection of dishes that one can order to consume, and in fact, ‘consumption’ itself a rather complicated notion I can bloody well tell you that. You ask me what do I want to order… there are so many ways to take that idea. What does it mean to want to consume something? So… you might think the beef sandwich sounds lovely, but in the entrees on the back, here, there, there’s a spicy meatball pasta dish. Isn’t that peculiar? Spicy food is not exactly enjoyable in the same way that a beef sandwich is. It’s rather the opposite! And yet here it is and you know that people go for that. Why would they be drawn to such a painful experience? Is it because they *wanted* the discomfort? More than the comfort of the beef sandwich? …”
@@hebgbz4121 it bothers me that Jordan Peterson's gay lover, Alex Oconnor, calls him Mr. Peterson out to dinner.
Still.. Pretty accurate.
The tongue always turns to the aching tooth :)
I feel vaguely aroused
I love that Alex genuinely attempts to defend Peterson's position in his absence, on principle.
He did it quite well. I like the example he used regarding physics. It reminded me when Richard Feynman was asked about magnetism, and Feynman went, paraphrasing “How deep do you want me to go?” Showing example after example the different explanations based on the depth of understanding.
That Destiny became so useless as to debate the specifics of Alex’s analogy instead of capturing the overall picture of what he attempted to do for the example shows how narrow minded he is when he tries to win an argument.
@m.caeben2578 It's really weird trying to frame even this as if Destiny was just trying to win an argument. I mean, Alex was literally the one playing devils advocate, defending an idea he disagrees with, and you still try to paint Steven, who was just arguing his own opinion the whole time, as the dishonest one
Edit: I'm not saying Alex was dishonest, but in this interaction, the one with the more transparent and straight forward approach was clearly Destiny
@@marekb1556nah, Alex is fully on the “I must not piss off those who may decide I’m not serious and will no longer let me in to the serious club of serious people.” He’s fully into bullshit at this point.
@@marekb1556 Being honest and being trying to win an argument are not mutually exclusive. He is simply hyper-focused in his trying to be right sometimes he brings whatever comes initially to his mind for a quick game of trying to overcome his opponent. I think the following questions might illustrate an example:
1. What do think the message behind Alex’s analogy on physics was?
@bensalemi7783 I did not say that :D I don't see this as Alex vs Destiny, I see what each one was doing here and it worked for me. I just don't understand the "you are just trying to win" allegations thrown at Steven even when it doesn't make any sense
What I find the most interesting about this conversation is that it not only happened, but it happened in a meta manner. It happened with such importance that its happening transcends mere emperical happening. In fact, one might say it's STILL HAPPENING.
😂😂
That story of Alex and Destiny has more wisdom in a single paragraph than most books. It’s insane to me. You know, I’ve studied it for a long time and it still reveals things to me.
Indeed
Hahaha!
😂😂😂
Alex got as close as anyone has ever gotten to making Peterson answer a question. Well done, sir 👏
That question about does he believe god really exists. You give him a yes or no question that goes with his biases and you will get a of for sure or a not at all yes or no type answer.
Someone tricked him to answer "no" to the question "Was Jesus born from a virgin birth", so Alex can only get the 2nd spot in this regard.
I love alex
i think he did a great job in the conversation
but Alex literally asked Peterson
"man listen if there was a video camera there, what would the camera show" at one point
to get him to answer a question materially
If people have to do that it's really on Peterson on being a weasel.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him.
everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
O Connor really sold that first answer as well.
Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground:
“Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”
Good try the only problem is that actually made too much sense to be jordan peterson and you forgot to relate it to dostoevsky or cain and able, other then that it was pretty good :).
I agree! Well written, but was let down by actually making sense 🤣
You forgot to mention that the analogy has to do with something approximating the subconscious human desire for sticky relationships.
Praise Lord Bubble-Yum!
Where did you pause to cry about how bloody tough it is to be pavement
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salery depends his not understanding it". Upton Sinclair
Salary or celery?
@Ybby999 I'd rather not be paid in watery hair, if it's all the same 😂
@@Ybby999both.
Wouldn't be surprised if Destiny was getting paid by Russia too.
@@Ybby999 Peterson only eats beef, so salary lmao.
I agree with the gentleman on the right. He is not being obscure because he is deep. Rather, there are questions that he simply doesn't want to answer.
To understand Peterson's take on Christianity you have to understand two things - one, that he is a psychologist, and as such he is largely a phenomenologist in his understanding of "real".
Secondly, the influence that Pageau has had on his thinking. Pageau's whole angle is that the material questions like "did the Jews really walk out of Egypt" are only asked because modern people have been captured by a forensic, materialist, scientific form of thinking which would have been alien to the people who wrote and edited the texts.
To the first point (Peterson being a phenomenologist and psychologist), he judges whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior . For example, he has said that you can't actually tell what someone believes by what they say or claim to believe, but only by how they behave. He's also said that pain might be the most real thing because it has the most powerful grip over behavior. He's also said that whether there is something *more* real than pain (and death) is the fundamental religious question, because anything that could transcend the realest thing we know of would, by default, be the *most* real.
So, when you ask Peterson "did it really happen?", yes, he knows what you are asking, but he thinks your whole frame is wrong, because he believes that you are still caught up in the idea that the material, forensic, historical sense is definitively "real", (again, see Pageau), and that's why he doesn't want to answer the question.
He doesn't like the question because he dislikes the underlying assumption that the material reality is somehow the most important or most "real" element of the stories. And, to give him his due, it is definitely true that very often when people ask the question "did this really happen?", they are asking it because if he says "no", or "I don't know", they will feel justified in dismissing them as just fictional tales which aren't relevant to contemporary human existence.
In short, there is a fundamental disagreement about what "real" means between Peterson/Pageau and people like Alex and Destiny. Alex and Destiny (and many others) are not willing to accept Peterson's view, and Peterson isn't willing to acquiesce to their framing by giving a simple answer to questions which assume it.
No JP's view of what is real is pure hogwash, Harris pulled it apart years ago
Well put
If everybody judged whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior, then the flood gates would be open and everything's subjective, with nothing solid to hold on to. Which is ironic, considering his musings on postmodernism.
nicely summised. i get the feeling even in this conversation above that destiny is trying to get peterson to provide yes/no empirical answers to philosophical questions. destiny is a tool. peterson is also a zionist so they both are tools.
This is an exceptional explanation
The fact that JP is world famous for writing a book where 1/12th of the content is dedicated to the importance of ‘being clear in your speech’, is something I find hilarious.
Precise*
@@sinchex595
Indeed. My bad.
Then again, JP is neither.
You are a dismal cxxt. Clear enough?
Imagine Jordan Peterson analyzing the Exodus story, and he starts off with, "Now, you see, the Israelites, they're a representation of chaos, right? And Egypt, well, that's order. But it's too much order. It’s like when you clean your room so much that it becomes sterile-that’s tyranny! So Moses, the archetypal hero, you know, he comes along with his staff-that’s a symbol, by the way-and says, ‘Hey, Pharaoh, let my people go!’ Which is essentially like saying, ‘Let’s loosen up a bit here, man, we’re drowning in hierarchies!’ And the Red Sea? Well, that’s just life’s overwhelming potential, ready to crash down on you if you don't get your act together. So crossing it-that’s navigating the chaos. And the Ten Commandments? Those are, like, rules, but not the tyrannical kind. They’re the kind that make you stand up straight with your shoulders back in the face of suffering and say, ‘Alright, bring it on, existence!’”......
Did you write this yourself or is it an actual thing peterson said 😂
this is perfect LOL
but the story is about Moses the hero saving Israelites from Pharoah the villain, therefore he will try forcing chaos onto Egypt and order onto Moses somehow
I read this while hearing Peterson’s Kermit voice lmao
Holy shit, you really captured his essence.
What gets me about Peterson is that he says that you have to be precise with your language so that people can understand you... and then he talks in the most obfuscating way ever...
i find him very understandable and precise. so much so that once i understood and implemented what i have learned in my life... my life got drastically better. and i think that is how and why he got famous- because his lectures had amazing implications in real life
@@LemonHelmmet
Citation needed
@@LemonHelmmetexcept when he isn't, which is explicitly what they're addressing with the relevant examples that were center to the entire video. When he isn't obfuscating and intends to be precise, sure, he is good at conveying his ideas in their nuance and expanding on them. This is precisely why Destiny disagreed with Alex's attempt to grant Jordan some leeway where Destiny points out several times you can be creative and contextually expansive while bringing it back to a meaningful center which Jordan refuses to do on certain questions. Jordan knows the question being asked, he's intentionally elusive.
He quiet literally dances around certain topics and avoids being precise even if on other topics he is much more clear and precise. Again, they literally cover a point blank example of him doing exactly this. Clearly directing the criticism to the relevant point.
@@LemonHelmmet no one said he wasn't understandable.
the comment said he obfuscates
It's funny how you claim to understand Peterson but ... don't understand the message conveyed here.
@@wren4077 well... my English might not be perfect but obfuscate means unclear right? ok i will rephrase it: he is as clear as day so that makes it understandable even to the likes of me who learned English by hearing.
One of the most notable characteristics that I'm seeing in Alex's engagement with others is he does not get swayed by their emotional energy. His thoughts are actively focused on the context of the verbal exchange, and is drawing logical conclusions and incorporating relevant conceptual data to bolster or refute an argument. This separates him from even Ben Shapiro, where that emotional anchoring appears when discussing certainly closely held beliefs. Alex has been the most impressive at maintaining this neutrality out of anyone I've watched thus far. We can all learn from this.
Edit: seeing common misconceptions in the comments the difference between not feeling versus not being entirely controlled by emotions. He’s clearly engaging with others’ emotions appropriately here. I’ve never implied that he’s a sociopath, in fact quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree.
tl;dr dude remains the coolest of cucumbers no matter the discussion at hand
I'm not sure if that's good. I wouldn't wanna be a robot.
@@wiczus6102 Self-control =/= robotic
You must be from a younger generation. Some of the "New Atheists" delivered with similar cold calm directness.Alex has had a couple of them on his show (Harris, Dawkins), and I'm pretty sure that Alex is a guest speaker for Dawkins at some of his upcoming tour.
Hitchens is still the best for me out of that group though. Although direct and brutal to the point. He also added character and wit when needed.
Cant believe Jordan Peterson js taken this seriously.
if Alex, who is clearly an exceptionally intelligent person takes him seriously enough to try incredibly hard to understand Jordan's thought process maybe you should think about taking him seriously in some aspects
@@rayaqin Alex does that because it his profession to debate and discuss about others in his field. I can outright reject Jordan Fakerson. I find JP boring.
@@rayaqinPeterson is promoted by billionaires as an "intellectual" due to being a Capitalism apologist and religious conservative though. Alex is an intellectual that discusses religion. The two would inevitably meet but it doesn't mean Peterson has anything of any value to say.
I mean, didn't Alex debate D'Souza?
@@SpiceAndSauce he explicitly says that he thinks Jordan is smart and sincere in this video, what are you on
I still can't get past the little chair they gave him here 😂
that is a little trick a certain type of host plays with the intention for the guest to feel small... snake oil
@@leegrant7333clearly this was filmed in a hotel room...
@@leegrant7333 steven is small, though
Hard same
It’s half the size 😂😂😂
Actually, when Jordan Peterson was asked the what is a woman question by Matt Walsh his response was ‘Marry one and find out’. Which is kind of in line with his usual line of reasoning.
Ya the “I don’t know you tell me” line, so profound 😂
Everyman that's married a woman knows how women are and how they are different from men. It's like the married men's FAFO. You know, humor. Plus I think he intentionally did this destiny more than normal, I think the reason for that is that Destiny needs counseling and so Jordan went to work lmao
This was a very good comment.
"To marry a woman, I would first need to identify one. To do that, I would need to know what a woman is."
Ah, arguement by demonstration. Like when diogenes held a plucked chicken and said behold a man!
1:10 Momentarily channelling Peterson's hand energy.
Petersons' answers must cater to both his religious and semi/non religious audiences. If he ever gave a straight answer to a religious question he will instantly lose either or both of these audiences, and he knows that.
This also explains why he never obfuscates his answers about "anti-left" topics like wokism or socialism or climate change - those are the talking points his audience wants to hear, so he's clear and concise about those.
Bottom line - he doesn't care about being intellectually honest. He cares about keeping his audience and the fame/money that come with it.
I have come to the conclusion too that this is what is happening.
The guy in the thumbnail...not Jordan, the other guy...he looks both really young, yet old, and yet also like he's from a time period that was like 50 years ago....
That's being British
50 years ago was about the last time Britain was a pretty good place to be.
That's what atheist virgins look like bro.
@@jupitermoongauge4055 The 1970s?
Are you crazy or just under educated?
Excuse you, that's Mr. Bonnelli.
I can clearly understand how Alex O'Connor has risen to prominence. He clearly sees complex standpoints, is willing to strongman them, and then work his conversation around them. As a Christian, I have a huge amount of respect for him.
That guy is a classic example of the guy that believed his mum when she said 'Oh you're such a clever boy'; you did well holding your patience with him.
Alex’s answer regarding a physicist answering a question is interesting, but falls flat because we see these types of people all the time, and they DO in fact manage to answer questions. Neil Degrasse Tyson, for example, we could easily imagine him getting a bit over complicated, but he WOULD answer the question unambiguously in the end.
Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that gender is a social construct whist simultaneously claiming that a trans woman is a real woman. If ‘woman’ is a social construct how can one identify as a woman and it be ‘real’?
NDT is a well educated moron.
naming a populist joke of a physicist there was not the best way to give credit to your argument
@@rayaqin is your point that you don’t like Neil? Input your favorite smart person. It absolutely does not affect the argument and you know that and you didn’t need to make this comment. You just wanted to let us know you don’t like NDT.
@@elmomierz it does in this case imo
@@rayaqin this is not an opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the name of the physicist. In fact, I made the argument, and said “for example” when I named NDT. So, you either agree with the argument, or you don’t. If you don’t, then, obviously, you think that physicists are unable to answer questions unambiguously, which I just strongly disagree with, having spoke to and watched the content of many physicists.
Alex’s point is that even a physicist, when asked a basic question, would behave as JP, and complicate things. I’m claiming that JP fails to bring things back around after the complication, but in general, a professor of physics WOULD EASILY DO THIS. Because there is an answer to these questions and they have it. JP cannot do this, because he claims to have an answer that he does not, so he obfuscates to the point of forgetting what the question was.
That is the difference I’m calling attention to, and I use physicists as an example because that’s what Alex used.
I don’t think this is a controversial claim.
"when balls touch each other..." "whoa whoa!" 😅😅
When your opponent is dressed like a colorblind pimp, you're starting with a major advantage.
I forgot where he said it but the reason he once argued to be right was because he admitted to having been allured to his high sense of ego as a young intellectual, it got to him that feeling of pride.
It's what the ancient Greeks called arete, he conceives his (intellectual) excellence as a moral virtue. Peterson is an aristocrat at heart, he believes he has the right to tell people what to do because his excellence makes him best suited to do so. To put it in Peterson terms: he's acting out Plato's philosopher king archetype.
Are you talking about Peterson or Destiny?
I loved Alex’s question about the camera outside the tomb. Perfect way to try to nail it down.
It was wonderful phrased question
It was defininetly better than anyone else has done but the question was not as specific as it could have been and so still leaves lots of wriggle room for Peterson. Alex asked Jordan if he would expect to see a man leaving the tomb and not would he expect to see a previously dead Jesus leaving the tomb unaided.
I agree that Peterson can be difficult to listen to when he dissects every word in great detail. Alex's comparison to quantum physicists was spot on-discussing everyday topics in that way would be highly impractical.
I've been following Peterson for years, particularly on religious and psychological topics, and in my opinion he isn't obfuscating anything, he is just really (some say overly) precise. My biggest challenge is simply staying focused, so it's not a content I can go through with a tired mind.
There are plenty of people who simplify complex ideas, so why push Peterson to do the same? He takes nuanced topics to the extreme and that's what I like about him. And there's clearly a demand for his style. I also reject the notion that people only listen to him because he uses big words that only sound smart (those people probably just don't understand them).
This is the guy that quibbled over definitions for like 4 hours in a recent debate about insurrection just to avoid ever having to be in the defensive position. He has no right whatsoever to complain about obfuscation. He is one of the most tactical and machiavellian debaters around.
Alex has become a fairly masterful arbiter. His ability to walk the fine line in the middle of 2 worldviews is excellent.
He is too much of a coward and not enough intelect to choose a side. Besides he's milking both sides for money. That's the upper limit of his intelligence.
I have an answer for why Peterson does this - he has an in depth understanding of psychological archetypes.. so he knows what aspect of your psyche wants answers. He also knows that other parts of your psyche need to explore other possibilities. He won’t sacrifice one for the other - just because you’re asking for certainty in one direction.
Alex o'connor: intelligent, honest, epistemically charitable.
His comment section: I dislike X guest, so let me draw caricatures and beg the question instead of criticizing with evidence and structured logic.
For the record, like most people here, I also dislike Peterson and Destiny. However, I refrain from typing unhinged comments that are factually false (like this one guy saying Peterson is apologetic for Hitler) or that are just adhominem attacks that beg the question (he is a grifter / unintelligent / X because he said this).
Good comment
Truly so. Also, analogy with physics from Alex was briliant
Exactly what I was thinking after listening to Alex's fair comments about Peterson and then seeing the absolute opposite in the comments. As someone who generally likes Peterson and agrees with a lot of what he says, I don't think such comments are going to do anything to foster respectful and reasoned debate and discussion.
I like most of what JP says, but your comment is still 👌
Peterson has made comments that aren't pro-Hitler, but are.... very bad. Like making comments that seemed to imply that Hitler went the way he did in part because it gave him the crowds rather than Hitler having been that way since before his big speeches. I don't think he intends it to defend Hitler but my God was it a dumb example to use.
Jordan Peterson knows PERFECTLY well what is being asked of him, and he intentionally obfuscates to avoid answering those questions. He is an intelligent person and knows what he's doing when he does this.
It's not often that one of these guys are smart enough that we can call them out on purposely being dumb.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him.
everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
Obviously. The question is why.
Spot on !! JBP is very intelligent and smart. He is extremely careful about what he says.
Its wierd tho, i feel like that question about the jews is perfectly easy to answer, why wouldnt he just say ''yes...'' ''no'...' ''im not sure...'' ''...but i want to focus on the more metatextual aspect of it becuase that certainly happens''. It wasnt some very modern political question were it might be worth it to be weasily, idk why he did that when talking about the ancient past
nothing more uncomfortable than watching Destiny try to be relatable.
There should be clarification that when Jordan was asked what a woman is his reply was, "marry one and find out".
I am not sure Peterson would even get specefic with his definition even regarding gender. He is actually asked what is woman in Matt Walsh's documentary about this and his answer is "marry one and find out".
I think you're both great thinkers, as well as Dr Peterson. I've engaged in a lot of linguistic study since my time as a linguist for the Air Force, and I believe Peterson is probably very convicted about words. It's difficult to spell out why some words convict you more sharply than others because it isn't really up to you which things beckon. If it bothers that he's more touchy with phrasing in certain areas, I'd encourage you to ask why it's a comparatively harder area.
These guys saying Jordan Peterson is "smart enough" is like Rhonda Rousey saying Mike Tyson is "tough enough".
Destiny isn't that bright, but alex is a much stronger thinker than peterson, lol.
@@oibruv3889A seven year old reading the book before writing a report on it is smarter than Peterson as he doesn't even do that basic.
No he is not. He is just a snotty kid, obviously smart but syiu are giving him extra points for the accent
"I hate that Jordan Peterson does this"
Proceeds to explain JPs position on stories almost perfectly 🤣 he clearly brings it around
There are people who take things literally when perhaps they shouldn't, and then there's Jordan Peterson who goes out of his way not to take anything literally when he really should.
Alex OConnor is so admirable for understanding Peterson's approach to analyzing the Bible, philosophy is complicated and so is language, and Alex understands how hard it is to discuss such an abstract concepts. Very introspective and very impressive in his ability to confront Peterson's ideas. One of the best debates I've heard, respect both ways.
Alex, the President of our time, now He reach Millions of followers. Alex is a Star already. The future is bright
Destiny is vapid, cynical is maddening.
In regard to the bouncing rocks answer: I'd say that the charged field is an integral property of the rocks, and thus, yes the rocks do bounce off of one another, people just don't notice the minuscule field that is a part of all rocks.
It's like asking if two clones of Abraham Lincoln headbutted one another, with their top hats on, did they bounce off of one another.
Edit to add: I know the top hats aren't an integral part of the clones, but they (the clones) did react to the force and mass of each other in a bouncing manner.
But the atoms in the rocks DO touch one another. Their electron clouds bump into each other and the rules for electrons in shells applies to them as they touch. If that isn't touching, then nothing counts. There is no repulsive electromagnetic force between the objects until that moment, but in that moment, they touch tips and electrons might be shared or exchanged. If you do it with metals you might get a bond out of the sharing of free electrons that welds the two pieces together. If one is electron is electron starved in its outer shell and the other has an outer shell with just one or two electrons, you get static electricity.
But make no mistake, it isn't really the electromagnetic force that keeps two objects from passing through one another. It is all thanks to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is like the meme that people craved spices in the middle ages to cover up the sour taste and smell from their food going bad. People repeat it a lot, but is is so wrong it isn't even funny.
Peterson did answer the question when Alex asked about the resurrection and putting a Panasonic camera whether or not you would actually see something happen and Peterson said: yes.
Destiny really just wants to slag JP off and thought he found a mate in Alex. Didn’t pay off
good summary of what happened
Peterson doesn't want to say "I don't know" but he really doesn't want to say "I don't want to say I don't know."
Mr. False Equivalence (Stephen) seems to have a chip on his shoulder because of his debate with Peterson. This can be resolved by asking Peterson to debate again. Is that simple.
It wasn't a debate. He has a chip on his shoulder because he was extremely charitable to JP and JP then totally mischaracterised their conversation. But also he is totally correct about JPs sliminess.
@@michaelh878 then....., let's have them together again.
@@michaelh878nah, once Destiny try to be oh so intelligent to know fields he didnt even know. So, Destiny has been saying that higher education makes more money and smarter. So by that standard, what degree is destiny?
Jordan speaks about things that are not easy to understand. From what I’ve seen, his detractors seem to confuse the complexity of the issues he addresses with obfuscation on his part. Jordan gets blamed for life being complex
Honestly, haveing listened very closely to Alex'es conversation with Peterson I understand Petersons reluctance to answer the questions directly. I also understand the frustration it causes. All in all Alex did a pretty good job pin pointing Peterson's position on God.
When you say understand Peterson reluctance, what do you mean?
I think it's worrying that Jordan Peterson gets so much attention. That goes for Destiny, too.
Yeah I don't listen to destiny. I don't allow him into my head space ears any of that. He has been a drama farmer and hypocrite and many other things and I do not understand why anyone gives him the time of day. You don't look better by having him on your show.
Do Peterson and others not propose that the asking of a material question, when that is the antithesis of what is being discussed, is what is truely inappropriate? Why would the answer have to stoop to the question? The obvious answer is obvious that's why it warrants nothing, it's a non-starter to adhere to it other then some quick social nod. Why expect someone too? Especially in the interest of gaining knowledge, which should be the truest aim of a question. Guard-rails on what the answer can be must adjust to the complexity and novelty of what is learned. I don't mean blind acceptance, but if information doesn't coincide with the parameters for the answer the chances are the parameters must widen to even get the point enough to even contextualize the answer. Isn't that the essence of listening to someone extrapolating or abstracting out, to make a point? To try and explain a different dimension of a topic to someone ignorant of it's existence or implications to the question. Like if part of the answer exists outside of the dimensional box the question comes from. Then that still exists wether the acceptable answer must be within the box or not.
This is probably the only time that I agree with Destiny over Alex on anything. If you watch enough of Peterson's content, you must special attention to the differences between how he asks and answers questions when he is talking to people he knows he shares the same viewpoints with and people he does not. You also have to watch enough of his content where he is alone talking to the camera by himself. He absolutely, 100%, undeniably, objectively, obfuscates on purpose. He does not like questions that challenge what he believes to be true. Most of us don't, but most of us would probably just get defensive. He is smart enough to know that getting defensive shows the degree to which your beliefs are actually shakeable and the degree to which you are actually not so sure about which you claim to be certain. So to avoid being defensive and in his mind showing weakness as it relates to the validity of his own assertion of his own position, he obfuscates pointlessly.
He does this with climate change and it drives me fucking nuts. When talking about climate models and their efficacy he says the following: "Well what do you mean about climate? Well climate is everything. How can you be so arrogant to think you can model absolutely everything?" This obfuscation, this endless defining, redefining, making sure we agree on the definition of the words we are using, is a tactic to avoid getting defensive about either positions he has in which he knows he knows nothing of authority and is therefore of no authority to hold the position he has with such fervor - or about positions that are meaningful to him where he actually isn't certain despite his continuous assertion of the validity of concreteness of the position he has. So let's go back to the climate model example.
He has to obfuscate and attempt to redefine the word "climate" into a context that will legitimize his position. This is why he redefines climate as meaning "everything". Climate in no uncertain terms, does not mean everything. Climate are long term weather cycles and patterns. That's it, and you can model whether or not the climate of a particular biome changes based on no other inputs than that of which has to do with weather. You can account for added pollutants, added water vapor, etc. or a subtraction from all of these, and you don't have to go as detailed as to map every human beings activities that add or subtract from them. We have broad data that is collected that measures precisely how much water vapor gets added to the atmosphere, how much pollutants get added, and we have that data because it's literally measured directly in the atmosphere itself. Again, we don't need to map out and follow the lives of every human being to measure precisely how much CO2 or methane is added to the atmosphere, we just measure the parts per billion concentration and see if it's gone up or down.
He does this, particularly on matters of the climate change discussion because he is above everything else, a capitalist. The overwhelming majority of people who are passionate in their demands of government and industry as it relates to the climate crisis are quite obviously anti-capitalist. It is precisely because they make demands of government and industry, demands that threaten the stability of the sort of capitalism that allows capitalists to regulate themselves and do whatever the fuck they want that he holds the position he has on the climate change discussion. So he obfuscates, and tries to make the claim that scientist models are wrong, that it's not that big of a deal, certainly not a crisis, and therefore there is no reason, in his words, for these "Marxist and communist" environmentalists to suggest essentially the destruction of capitalism as it currently exists in favor of some new system, which no matter who you are, he will claim the system you want is communism.
So I very much disagree with Alex on this. Peterson is certainly smart enough to know what he's doing, and he does. He purposely and knowingly obfuscates endlessly on matters he knows nothing about, or on positions he portrays as being concrete when he is actually unsure of the validity of his asserted concreteness, in order to avoid getting defensive. He does it in talks with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty all the time. Whenever he is cornered on something he doesn't get defensive, he just says "wait a minute.. what exactly are we talking about here," or "what exactly do you mean by" or "could what we are talking about actually mean this" or "what I was actually trying to say and what I actually meant was". It's all about redefining what is meant by something, whether it be a single word or a whole statement. This tactic is as pathologic to Peterson's engagement in conversation as Trump's lying is to his own.
peterson is the perp that turns over trash cans to slow down the cop chasing him.
everyone knows what belief means, everyone knows what we mean by truth, and everyone knows what we mean by God.
If we prove a model then the extrapolated data that was not tested but is compatible with the model is still likely to be true. I really dislike people who want an empirical proof for everything but alas this is the society we live in. That's why vaccines take so long to test, that's why people are still able to contest every established scientific theory, that's why we waste money on technologies that will not work and delay the ones that will - just because so many people have this particular misunderstanding of science.
actual skitzo
@@wiczus6102 still waiting for those quantum computers though !
I think that Peterson's approach isn't necessarily about obfuscation, but rather a rigorous insistence on clarity and precision in language. Peterson's tendency to question definitions and underlying assumptions stems from his background as a clinical psychologist and his philosophical inclinations, which value deep understanding over superficial agreement. When he challenges terms like "climate," among others, I feel that he's emphasizing the complexity of issues that are often oversimplified in public discourse. This isn't avoidance but a demand for rigorous thinking.
Some people often interpret this as deflection because they're accustomed to straightforward, unchallenged exchanges. However, Peterson' aims to uncover the nuances that are essential for meaningful debate, especially on polarizing topics. His stance is not simply capitalist; it's rooted in skepticism about grand narratives and the unintended consequences of societal changes. Far from trying to avoid difficult questions, he seeks more so to elevate the conversation to a level where all assumptions are laid bare, ensuring that any conclusions drawn are based on a comprehensive and honest examination of the facts.
Destiny is always so disingenuous and smug, he has to be the single most grating adolescent on the net.
I'm becoming a fan of this Alex O'Connor guy. He strikes me as incredibly intellectually honest, curious, and he also has a strong sense of morality even though he is an atheist. And he is very intelligent so he displays these traits at a very high level. Wonderful, this is what atheism was meant to be!
"Even though he is an atheist" haha theists have an inflated sense of ego and think they have some sort of inherent ownership of morality, despite atrocities done in the name of their gods
@@olivyae3057
I'm sure there weren't any infamous atheist leaders in the 20th century that committed the worst atrocities in history...
@@olivyae3057 True, but most atheists also have an inflated sense of ego that they "don't fall for those childish stories about a man in the sky" and throw away the baby with the bathwater
"Even though"
@@olivyae3057exactly my thinking
8:05 "Most people don't have a very thorough understanding of the Biblical Canon." Do you mean the Bible? This is pure Peterson.
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
Jordan don’t do it for the gram, he do it for grifting
Since he got his chemically induced coma he might not even be grafting, he may actually be so cooked he thinks he makes sence.
My thoughts exactly. It wouldn't be the first time an entrepreneur has pretended to adopt certain beliefs as to pander to specific audiences. It feels like Peterson doesn't even believe what he says because he's going out of his way to separate himself from his own conclusions. Disingenuous at worst, and overly convoluted at best. Can I accept that he's just "bad at what he does"? He may tout some goofy rhetoric, but I don't think he's actually unintelligent.
@@hatientacetlen4246 sense*
@@hatientacetlen4246when you judge someone's intellect, but can't even even spell simple words. 😂
He openly admitted it on Joe Rogan podcast: “I have found a way to monetize SJWs”
Now he’s moved on to monetize Christians, which is a far more lucrative field.
1:00 destiny’s smile like ‘oh my god he’s doing it’ not fussing about with it but it’s just so funny
Where does his obfuscation come from?
1. He does not want to alienate the audience he’s monetized.
2. He believes that a lack of religious belief results in a hellscape world of wanton murder. So, he has to do what he can to foster belief.
And 3 he was extremely depressed for a decent amount of time, during wich many many many people openly wished for his death. Theres a degree of PTSD here, this man hasnt been confronted in good faith in so long, so he feels that if he gives an inch he will be pushed towards saying that hes the second coming of Hitler, irrational as that may be, its not hard to see were those feelings come from if youre not too emotionally invested in hating him.
@@aguspuig6615
No doubt, he definitely feels the weight of the dogpile. The visceral way he debates and comes at his counterpart with preloaded baggage of negative expectations and associations is a sign of that. And it’s a pretty common phenomenon for even average people who experience much online discourse. I could only imagine that an elevation in status worsens that on the receiving end and then buffers you against criticism by allowing you to retreat into the protective silo.
The obfuscation has become worse over the years and seems to be directly proportional to his level of fame and how often people try to come at him with constant gotcha questions.
Cast your mind back to how often people hone in on one thing someone said, and now that's getting brought up constantly for years. I'd be sick of it too.
@@elusivecamel
Sure, that would get annoying. But there’s a reason why this question to him lives on in such profound infamy. It’s because it is one of the most deceptively indirect responses you could possibly have to the question or the topic. And that is coming out of the Man, who pushes himself as a purveyor of truth and intellectual honesty. Meanwhile, he tours the world speaking on the subject and rakes in millions from people who either don’t care that he’s not willing to state his actual opinion or don’t understand that’s what’s happening.
no quite right, he's interested in the realm of the religious and what that says about, and to, the human that exists within their solitude.
I like how Alex’s interview tactic when talking a public intellectual like Peterson is “How can I ask this man a question while preventing him from being able to change the topic and avoid answering”
To be fair to Jordan Peterson, not every challenge to the premise of a question clouds the discussion. When he addresses complex concepts like "truth" or "belief," it's useful for him to offer nuanced explanations, especially when engaging with questioners who hold sophisticated, opposing worldviews. For example, if someone asks, "Is the Bible true?" an audience member may wonder whether they should believe in the Bible. In this case, it's helpful to clarify that some biblical stories may hold symbolic truth, even if they are not historically accurate. This shows that while a belief might be grounded in truth, truth doesn't always have to mean historical fact. Although this approach introduces new complexities, Peterson is right to be cautious in his responses, given the diverse audience he addresses.
As an atheist, I know that most prominent atheist thinkers restrict their arguments about biblical truth to historical or empirical accuracy. While I personally don't think symbolic truth is enough to treat the Bible as sacred, I do see value in making this perspective clear.
The question at this point should be, I suppose, "what could be enough to hold anything sacred?"
The point is that entire libraries of books have been written about defining what truth, knowledge and belief is, it's called epistemology and is an important part of philosophy. The quickest way to derail any discussion about any topic with the exception of epistemology is to get into epistemology.
You act compassionate because you understand that you're a compassionate being OR because of social contract. Jesus taught about compassion but you've already gained a more accurate understanding about it than the story gives you. Symbolic truth becomes irrelevant when you have rational truth.
Well, if I would offer some good will. I would say he's cautious when it's beneficial to him. Cautious to point where it's extremely detrimental to conversation. I mean you are right, there's value in being nuanced, but this is sliding scale to be used based on context. If you are always 100% nuanced, you are literally not going to be able to progress in conversation ever.
Other word for this would be obfuscation, more complicated than needed or diverting conversation. Just because some complexity is good, doesn't mean even more is good. And if it regularly happens to be used as tool in debate to win or divert arguments, we can spy some intent from there. Or he's just extremely bad at conversation and not that smart. Which I can't believe he isn't.
Psalm 137-9, 1 Samuel 15 are verse used to commit genocides as religious injunction from abrahmek gad. Lutheranprotestant Chrstinity is the basis for jw hatred due to which holocaust was committed.
What pissed me off about dr Jordan is he’s 100% sure that psychology is legitimate and based on science and evidence but climate science is bs. Like how can some science be good and some science is bad. Isnt all science based on evidence and the scientific method? He picks and chooses the science he likes.
"Isn't all science based on evidence and the scientific method?"
Yes, by definition, but not everything that we are told is science, actually is.
We (Brits) were told during lockdown that our rights were being taken away only because they were "following the science", and the science dictated their actions. Of course, those of us with working, adult brains knew that these were simply human beings throwing the unassailable banner of science in front of their battering ram as they approached the keep of freedom. Many people believe that the same is happening with climate science, and that this obsession with net zero etc. is simply a method of control.
For me, the question is not whether the climate is changing (it always has), but who or what is causing the changes.
Science is great. Human beings are a mixed bag.
To the question alex asks at 7 minutes why does jordan peterson do that. I think I have the answer. Its long but I have fit it into one YT comment and it still needs some work but just seeing about getting the idea out there to hear what others think as well.
I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer of ten cents flash in your head right away with bias inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
I didn't find your comment confusing, I understood your comment. I think "it's" (which I loosely interpreted as all the claims in your comment) have a higher likelihood of accuracy beyond "possibly true".
Of all the claims in your comment, I think this claim; "I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while seemingly angry is think is think another really good example of denial... and projection." is what the rest of your comment builds up to support. Upon reflecting on your comment (having not invested much contemplation into Peterson's behaviour prior), I also think that specific behaviour you identified of Peterson is a" good example of denial... and projection" (I'm agnostic on the "really" component because I don't have an established reference system of examples of denial and projection).
The only question I might have is about the ball and the bat thing. I still don't get it, but don't bother, after years of carelessness, I'm finally going to invest time and energy looking that up and attempt to understand the information. I have no tips (I mean I have $20, but your not getting it, sorry).
@@thequietintrovert8605 Excellent, thank you for taking the time to read it and give a response. You are right as that behavior that is shown in that example with peterson is the main point and how sometimes simple questions can expose that. And you are the second person to answer the questions at the end of it.
I can give you some questions that have a high rate of avoidance so you can see some examples or I can show you TONS of of my questions being avoided in YT comments. I have a set of judge questions that has only a 3% answer rate by christians and muslims in YT comment. Been trying it lately in discord and the percentage went up a lot so far, but my sample size is still small at 32. The judge questions I have probably 20,000. Took 6 years. Got some simple moral questions that many christians and muslims avoid that I have been asking lately too.
Is it that you dont know the answer to the bat and ball question OR you dont know what my point was with that? 20$ does not even come close to the value I find in your response, you give me some hope for humanity LOL.
@@thequietintrovert8605 If the ball was 10 cents, the bat would be 1.10 on its own and the ball would add 0.10 more making the total 1.20. If you write it X +(X + 1.00)=1.10 or 2x + 1.00= 1.10 people seem to get it.
I do include ad hom/personal attack responses that I do not think are a troll but I do not include troll responses nor do I include no response. I only include people that I do not think are trolls that give a response that does not answer the questions. Let me give an example.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
I will ask these and the most common response I get is how do I know right from wrong?. Or I will ask just #3 and they will say no one is innocent. Or for #5 they will say that is not analogous to the adam and eve story, and they are not really wrong BUT that does not really answer the question. #5 Is the one that causes the most problems as if I wanted to study this behavior I needed to cause it to happen. I dont use it in the follow up questions. So the stats on those questions is atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering. Christians are less then 18% and muslims less then 7% in YT comments.
I enjoyed this comment; it was worthwhile to actually read through it. Not all comments rise to that level of value lol.
I don't have much of a background in psychology or Jungian anything, but your theory makes sense to me on first glance. It matches well with what I've seen in my personal experience, where I struggle to understand how a given person is misunderstanding what seems to me to be fairly obvious. Sometimes, said person is myself, and it's only obvious in hindsight, with the benefit of a change in scenery and emotional state. I would maybe try to consolidate your ideas to make them more presentable to general audiences if the goal is to get your ideas out there, but the actual substance of your comment seems solid in my opinion, whatever that's worth.
Keep thinking, you clearly have something going for you!
@@whishfulthinkinging Thank you, it means a lot. From some people I get responses like these and from others I get things like TLDR or if you want to write a thesis dont do it in a YT comment, sometimes just this is all gibberish. What I would really like to do is try and say all that but only using questions. I have some ideas on how to do it but I just dont know how understood it would be. There is really only one way to know and that is to try it out I.
I think the fast mind just gets in the way and in a sense blocks out the conscious mind what is being said in the first place. That is why I like questions as you can sum up a syllogistic argument in a question or 2 but your asking them to think about it to give their answer so you not really telling them. But when the question gets avoided what can you do other then just ask it again. I offered to pay a guy 5 bucks just so he would answer my judge questions after about 5 response that he did not answer them with. He did answer them and he told me I could keep my money. Some people I had a week long back and forth trying to get them to answer the questions and they never ever did.
I think it helps to compare asking an early 20th century physicists if a photon acts like a wave or a particle. In the same way a physicist would have had a very difficult time explaining wave-particle duality before they completely understood it or before the general public was ready to accept it, Dr. Peterson is also wrestling with and trying to figure out answers to these difficult religious and philosophical questions. It’s us, the general public, who are not able to accept the answer of “well it’s both” at this time. I think it’s completely fair for him to answer the way that he does. We have come to accept wave-particle duality as a fact of quantum physics, but we do not accept this duality in other areas or subjects of study. Now that we have moved away from the rudimentary “man in the sky” understanding of God over the last century, we are beginning to ask some extremely cutting edge questions about religion - questions that often overlap with philosophy, quantum physics, evolutionary biology, origins of the universe, etc. and we need to be patient with the leading thinkers in the field as they try to wrap their heads around concepts that have yet to be explored or understood.
Alex is like...yea I know....ive made 30 minute long video essays on these exact points
Alex is so good, he's too polite to Destiny.
The massive difference between Alex and Destiny is Alex genuinely seeks to understand, not seek to belittle.
I don’t recall Peterson becoming famous for being a psychologist. The way I remember it he was making a big deal about a law about using pronouns incorrectly.
He was slightly famous before that for putting his lectures on UA-cam, so he had something of a fanbase. But yeah Alex is just being too kind. JP is famous for one thing: Getting into the culture war early on and with a doctorate, so he could represent the anti-feminists in academic settings and get onto the news by trading on his legitimacy
Even his psychological advice boils down to little more than common folk-wisdom about taking self-responsibility. The only reason he ever got famous was his contrarian row over refusing to respect people by using their preferred pronouns. His books are just pedestrian self-help screeds that peddle common sense about the need to introduce order into one's life. They would never have received any broad attention without the fooforaw he cooked up in defying university policy around transgender issues.
He became famous by opposing authoritarianism. His overall argument is that one must not allow themselves to become a slave to lesser things except that which is the highest possible ideal, aka God, and that the only way to pursue that ideal is by telling the truth no matter the consequence.
If you watched TVO back in the day, you would have seen him on a few discussion panels.
0:45 Alex's impersonation of JP is so apt. I'm howling
Jordan Peterson discounting climate science because of minor statistical deviations, but ignoring any in psychological studies regarding personality types, behavior or gender preferences is beyond insane.
"gender preferences"? Brother, the fk are you on about :D what STUDIES AHHAHA
did you miss your therapist appointment again?
Yeah dude he makes sweeping statements about psychological concepts, especially around personality types, as if they are a biological fact of life. It is wild
@@Woodsarasthere are a ton of studies about the various effects of gender - in this case it seems like OC is probably referencing trans people, though.
And there is literally a mountain of data/studies on the effects of transitioning socially, medically, in different environments etc.
Yeah psychology is 100% accurate science and you cannot question it but climate science is bunk. 😂 he picks and chooses the science he likes.
Never trust anyone who voluntarily chooses for herself a name from an aged-out truck stop pole dancer.
My grifter alarms are going off every time I see Peterson. I would like to be more optimistic, but it doesn't sit right. Wouldn't be the first time an entrepreneur has pretended to adopt certain beliefs as to pander to specific audiences. It feels like Peterson doesn't even believe what he says because he's going out of his way to separate himself from his own conclusions. Disingenuous at worst, and overly convoluted at best. Can I accept that he's just "bad at what he does"? He may tout some goofy rhetoric, but I don't think he's actually unintelligent.
I think the main piece that keeps me optimistic is that he has been sort of consistent on his beliefs since forever, i doubt he was grifting for 50 fkin years, its easier to belive that he is traumatised and therefore has let some cognitive dissonance go unchecked, i dont think he has it in him to be fully dishonest, his ego and sense of self couldnt take that, becuase his identity seems to be built on being honest and morally upright.
Not in a public persona manner, in a personal manner, i think he would go crazy if he genuenly thought he was being dishonest, i think hes just not strong enough right now to admit fault, wich is still a big failing, but its not a grift, i think he belives what he says, and i think we could unironically save him if we got him to feel comfortable, and we confronted him with such good faith that he cant bring himself to get defensive, its gonna be hard, becuase he has gotten so much hate that he now probably has a very hard time thinking any criticism is good faith, when hes always either glazed by the right, or relentlessly mocked by the left, but i think its possible. Maybe Alex could be the one to do it, and god i hope it happens
GRIFTER!
The things that piss Destiny off the most, are when he feels like his own game is being played on him, and he's losing the battle with his own game, that is ACTUALLY NOT being played on him.
I appreciate the grace that Alex has. He is genuine in wanting to know someone he has relationships with. Destiny tries to fit you into a box for his own gain.
15:06 I feel that Peterson's response to questions regarding whether Biblical accounts are literally true also reflects "what side he is on." He is a champion for many Christian theist fans.
I stopped being able to take Jordan Peterson seriously after the first excruciating conversation with Sam Harris. His credibility was already shaky enough since his original schtick was essentially a re-branding of basic concepts of self responsibility. I was astonished that his earliest messages seemed revolutionary in the first place.
Excatly. I don't think people understand the gravity of this conversation and the claim Peterson made that truth is what leads to survival and not what is factually true.
"How is this for an answer: almost certainly not. What's wrong with that answer?" 😅
What do you mean by Jor, what do you mean by dan and what do you mean by Peterson ?
@@jupitermoongauge4055 What do you mena by "J", "o", "r", "d", "a", "n", " ", "P", "e", "t", "e", "r", "s", "o" and "n"?
I stopped taking JP seriously on the first video I watched by him. I've succeeded and have stood out in all kinds of college courses. I can carry a debate and can bring subject matter. JP avoids subjects altogether. He wants to hear himself talk, and be an attention ho' and eat up all the time so other people can't have time to speak. Basically, he pushes his luck and is a jerk that can't say anything and can't formulate a cohesive direct statement about anything.
Destiny: high intelligence, low wisdom
Alex: high intelligence, moderate wisdom
Peterson: high intelligence, high wisdom
Bollocks
Don’t agree with Alex here on his analysis of Peterson being good faith. The man got thousands of atheists on-side by giving the Bible a psychological and metaphorical meaning and he can’t now alienate them with claims of genuine and historical reality of the stories but nor can he stand on the _metaphor only_ leg because he’s also captured by the actual religious audience too. It’s the perfect position for an actual schizophrenic.
Well, my man’s gotta eat😂. A proper businessman lol. I am not even mad at him😅.
@@oluwolechaviro9937 can’t be mad at a madman 😂
@@Theactivepsychos lol I remember him once saying he's a vicious capitalist. I guess he didn't lie😁. I still agree with some of the things he says tho.
@@oluwolechaviro9937 imagine back in 80s / 90s we were told that in the future there would be millions of right wingers cowed into not admitting they were right-wing by a bunch of student on the internet 😂
It’s almost like he’s… wrestling with his faith in God.
Peterson is the epitome of a sophist acting in bad faith. It's all about the $$$ with him. Early on in his transition from Professor to Grifter he made the mistake of some very gentle criticisms of Trump and his customers punished him and he learned his lesson. The thing about these 2 and Sam Harris and Kyle Kulinski and the TYT crowd, especially Cenk is whether you agree with their positions on policy or not, at least you know they're not grifters. I'd argue PBD is another grifter, not only on his internet biz, but his previous biz where he ran an MLM scam. So many grifters on the right.
When you see Peterson doing this in a debate then you know he's getting his ass kicked.
Destiny is slimey.
Destiny’s strategy can be summed up in one word: exaggeration.
If you pay attention and simply observe over time, most of his positions depend on him exaggerating the positions of people he’s arguing against. And this has a compounding effect. So that once he’s made a few points it’s impossible to be in any sort of honest dialogue.
It is also noticeable that whenever his position begins to weaken or falter, he will quickly and aggressively take hold of one or another exaggeration to bring things back into that advantageous and impossible dialogue.
It might be understood as an outcome of his StarCraft brain. He has to maintain a rule set for everyone in order to move the game forward to his advantage. So he is constantly re-framing the discussion so that everyone is within a convenient and exaggerated caricature.
@@loganross1861 what id do to go back to the simpler times of competitive Starcraft....
@@loganross1861I have 100* starcraft brain destiny has. I don't see corellation.
I think he simply lacks humility.
To be able to defend your opponent from being criticized... you gained a fan.
My god did he practice that before hand ? He freaking nailed it!
If you're talking about Destiny then idk about "practice" but that man streams like 6-7 hours every day talking about these things over and over. Arguably one of the people with the most amount of video content on themselves out on the internet. So what you're seeing is a polished version.
If it's alex you're talking about, that boy is incredibly articulate and well spoken.
As a good debater you study your opponent so you can anticipate their answers. How do you think he came up with the video camera question (even specifying the brand and type)?
If you're talking about imitating JP, the answer is that they idolise the man. There's your answer.
Everyone in the chat took my question far too seriously 😂
Why did Destiny "not want" to answer Jordan's Question to begin with? That is the real question.
The rest is semiotics.
*"Jordan, before we start the debate. Did you DRIVE all the way here?"*
Jordan "What do mean by "drive?" I was behind the wheel, but I had cruise control enabled part of the time so did "I" drive and was it "all the way here?" And by "way" did you mean the Highway or my style of driving? Because if you meant my style of driving, then I just emulate my teacher. So is it really "my" style of driving? So I might have to reject the premise of your question. Now back in Egypt where they "drove" cattle, if you'd asked about the macro-economic intepretation of someone who had the disease "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" we might look at the statistics of..."
It's amazing how often religion and the Dunning-Kruger effect go hand-in-hand heh
If a woman is not an adult human female, then what is it?
The gender roles to which a person identifies with
What is a female?
@theobservarator6424 the short answer is a being that can typically bear offspring
a woman is what dominates me in bed 🥵
@@brandon6461 What is the role of a women?
“You’re smart enough to know what’s being asked”
You’re smart enough to know he wasn’t there and so answer I don’t know doesn’t need to be said.
The irony of Destiny judging someones ability to answer a question in a direct manner needs to be acknowledged imo
I have a hard time getting that, hes about as direct as it gets, no? Please genuenly help me see it
The criticism Destiny gets is that he usually answers questions TOO directly lol what
Nah Destiny is the polar opposite of this. He will start making extremely concrete, sometimes deranged claims on a dime
His willingness to commit to an idea, to bite the bullet on a topic to further his point, is one of his defining traits. Sometimes it is a huge weakness but there is no irony here
@@aguspuig6615 listen to him talk about jan 6 and the "coup". He immediately dodges the actual meaning of these terms (explicit schemes to overthrow the government) because he has 0 evidence to pin Trump on those definitions and instead yaps about similar sounding but ultimately irrelevant things that aren't explicit schemes to overthrow the govt (but he implies they are).
@@Extracreditttttyou have 2 digit iq and destiny is manipulating your ass
Destiny is what you get when tribalism overrides intelligence.
I respect that Alex is trying to give Jordan credit, but I agree with Destiny. Jordan does this stuff intentionally.
I'm a quantum physicist and i would say that the outside of objects are negatively charged so when they get close enough to eachother they act the same way magnets do when they repell eachother.
Depending on the level there is no reason to get into the structure of atoms.
This entire conflict stems from Jordan having fallen in love with wordplay primarily around the word "happen" concerning religious text and study.
I always felt like the reason Peterson struggled to answer the question even though he knows what is meant by it, is because he's trying to navigate the implications of the answer. Like if someone says "do you think jesus was resurrected", if he says "no", the risk there is that he is misunderstood as saying that he is an atheist, or "yes" and the implication is that he is a christian. So he tries to frame his answer in a way that addresses what he interprets as the reason for the question.
Although I think Destiny saying that you can still try to navigate that landscape while actually answering the question, even with "I don't know" or "it doesn't matter", was valid.
I've always loved philosophy. My dad thought it was a waste of time. Seeing conversations like these, I'm starting to agree with him
Most philosophy involves a lot of pontification and dancing around a subject or concept for an extended period until an idea/theory is nailed down sufficiently. Is conversation wasn't really philosophy though. It was a discussion about Jordan Peterson between two people who are philosophically inclined.
Let's put this question to JP: do penguins fly? JP: it is complicated! First what do you mean by penguins and fly? If you mean the penguins of Madagascar can fly airplane.
Alex You're reading JP very charitably. Yet, when he was famously debating the Canadian parliament about the gender pronoun, JP didn't go pondering or stating any complications. He just gave a straight forward rejection without a flinch.
I thin JP resorts to these techniques to avoid being ridiculed and/or being countered. For, most of academia and elite thinkers are ether atheist or they do not care about religion, or even see it as good tool for some ends.
He did this to Sam Harris for like 10 hours str8 before Sam called him on it the peterson Doubled down on the nonsense and insulted the audience because "Their internal beliefs arent transparent to them in any meaningful sense, so why should what I BELIEVE BE ACCESSIBLE TO ME????"
Which was maybe the most intelligent cope of all time.
I really appreciate Alex's steelmaning here. I think the biggest flaw with the lense with which Destiny wants to look at Peterson's discussions on religion is that Destiny cannot acknowledge the epistemology on which Peterson operates when he speaks about it and he is pedantically unwilling to give and take on it.
The issue lies in what ''truth'' means in context. Peterson's epistemology (and he has covered it many times in the past) is just not typical rationalism and empiricism when he speaks about religion. He is operating on a more phenomenological epistemological framework and this framework doesn't allow the same objective rigidity regarding historical events. The reason this epistemological framework is used in this context (at least if we try to follow Peterson's view) and not in other contexts is because the religious and historical touches more than just the purely physical. Peterson seems to try to understand history and religion through subjective psychology rather than objective materialism and it appeared quite clear during the Peterson/O'Connor discussion. I remember him mentioning that it's not obvious through which lense someone *should* read the Bible or a lot of history. The reasoning (still following Peterson's logic) is that historical writings carry lots of subjectivity that doesn't purely capture the material (if at all) but rather capture the subjective experience of its participants and the archetypes through which they psychologically view the world.
It's a bit like asking if Marie Antoinette *really* said ''let them eat cake'', the materialist answer is likely no, but the phenomenological answer is more along the lines of ''it carries the archetypes through which the historical writers viewed the situation which is an oblivious elitist ruler detached from the reality of her kingdom, the archetype was probably an accurate portrayal''. Asking ''do you believe there really was a person named Jesus who died and was resurrected?'' falls in the same vein where he seems to think the writing around the character portrays the archetypes through which the writers viewed the world around an event that may or may not have been the exact materialistic way in which they are described. To some extent, I think Peterson views God along the same epistemological frame. It may be a powerful archetype through which people have viewed the world for millenia and that impacts physical events through the psychological effects it carries regardless of its materialistic existence. In essence, the fact that people believe is what makes it real to them.
The bigger point is : Peterson has a very phenomenological understanding of the world and many of his discussions are held within this epistemological context, not within an objectivist and materialistic context. This makes sense because.. the man was a psychologist, his whole job for years has been to listen to people and try to understand how they view the world, not necessarily if their views are materialistically accurate to describe their own circumstances which, many times, they likely weren't.
Peterson is the type of person who would say he doesn't know what a photocoppying machine is during a deposition
this was…. ridiculous
When I worked as a sound engineer at Swedish Television the idea was to have a good sound without any microphones being front and center. . . not to mention microphone stands. Well done, Sir, I say to the sound engineer that in one stroke made his work much easier and at the same time manage to make the employer look really stupid.
If Peterson was to answer straight-out as Destiny expects him to, he would lose more than 50 percent of his audience.