Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein: When Galaxy Brains Collide!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- When the towering minds of Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein converge, containing them becomes an impossible feat. Buckle up for a galaxy-brained journey through the intellectual expanse as we explore the latest revolutions in the Peterson-Weinstein-verse.
Support the Show:
If you like the show and want to support us, you can find us on Patreon, where we have a bunch of extra stuff.
► Patreon: / decodingthegurus
Find Us Elsewhere:
► Twitter: @GurusPod
► The Podcast: decoding-the-g...
► Patreon: / decodingthegurus
► Reddit: / decodingthegurus
"When galaxy brains collide" is one of the best titles I've ever seen. And I'm 9 so I've seen a lot
It's hilarious lol
Decoding the Gurus really need to put out all their work in UA-cam, even if there is no video and it’s just recordings.
Yes. This is where the engagement is.
I'd definitely listen more if it was here. They'd have to be careful, though, maybe use a second channel. The Almighty Algorithm would probably punish audio-only videos here.
@@robf5230 just have some video game gameplay as the video. That's what certain people do.
Agreed. I'm a Patreon subscriber, and I can't even keep track of what gets posted where.
They get views n money by criticizing famous person. They don't their own.
Delighted to find this gem of a podcast. You guys rock!
Northern Irish science academic here. Jordan Peterson reminds me of when I had to write my first literature review. I flooded my text with complex jargon to make myself sound smarter and appear that I knew what I was talking about, when in reality, I was a first year PhD student with no clue whatsoever.
It's all about word count the higher you go in level of education.
Best summation of Peterson ive heard is: "..... half of what he says is obvious, the rest is made up.".
It sounds so smart. That's a fundamental aspect of the nonsense. Share this far and wide, folks.
Jordan Peterson : 15 page manual on how to change a lightbulb … don’t forget to make your bed 🤡
What do you mean by 'make', what do you mean by 'your' and what do you mean by 'bed'?
@@ED-TwoZeroNineit’s complicated
“I’ve been thinking about this for a while now…”
It would take four hours to explain how to change a lightbulb. You're forgetting about the metaphorical substrata of 'screwing."
If you take the concepts bed, you and make and analyze those in their respective semantic spaces each concept maps on to a concatenation of related concepts which are more or less synonymous. You can then take these related concepts, substitute them into the original concept of "making your bed" and make various permutations and come up with something approximating analogous exercises you can engage in to come closer to the essential idea of having made your bed in all areas of your life. Now what this analysis is missing, and this if what I've been struggling with, is the fact that all of these semantic relationships are based on a groundwork of Judeo-Christian value structures that the radical-left types are trying to demolish with no regard to their essentiality to the feasibility of our collective iterative relationships. They have no idea what they are doing, no idea at all!
Galaxies are mostly empty space.
So are atoms.
@@BlacksmithTWD so are farts.
@@Theactivepsychos Farts are made of atoms just like galaxies.
@@BlacksmithTWD not mine. Dark matter with a hint of flesh decomposition.
@@Theactivepsychos You should fill a bag with them and have them researched.
I like how Chris and Matt both look exactly the way I expected they would.
Not me, I expected them to look like clowns..... or teenage girls considering how much they giggle at their own conversation
Why do you like that?
@@x0rn312 well giggling is a natural reaction when listening to word salad producing idiots like Peterson
"Cairo" .........[exhales deeply whilst looking pensive]...."that's in Egypt!" [looks self-congratulatory]
😂
These are the type of people that in the 19th century would've been the social darwinists and the phrenologists.
I’ve been listing to decoding the gurus on my podcast app for at least two years and never seen a video. Now I discover that you don’t look at all as you do in my head and I’m still not sure which one is the real you!
I think the reason JP blows certain people's minds is because its people who have never had existential musings in their life watch someone do 3 am existential musings about everything in a somewhat articulate manner
Bingo
Hey guys, I originally started out listening to your podcasts, but recently have kind of fallen into just watching content on UA-cam... So it's really great that you're posting to your UA-cam channel more often, because I find I'm not keeping up with podcast episodes.
"what do you think of .. that" my new line in meetings
I hate the way Brett communicates. Especially on twitter. It’s convoluted, highfalutin nonsense and so obviously trying to give an impression that he’s super intelligently make some profound point. Usually it just nonsense when you break it down.
I suspect he feels guilty about sending that email while his wife was away, the one that ended up forcing her to quit a job she loved.
After that, his thinking had to become increasingly convoluted to avoid reality.
There are times where I feel that Bret Could communicate better, but in general what he's saying makes sense most of the time. Whether you agree with it or not is a different issue, but this idea that Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are just talking gibberish is patently false.
Once again you might not agree with them but I never have trouble following what they're trying to say
I have a background in some specific disciplines that might make me more familiar with their particular choices of vocabulary - but I encourage people to take the time to figure out what they're saying...... because if you're just dismissing it as nonsense you're not actually hearing them (i.e. the communication problem is with all the people in this comment section and their inability to understand - not jbp and Bret Weinstein)
@@x0rn312
You’re so smart.
@monkeybudge you're not
@@joshb6993
Yeah, let’s have conversations that are so needlessly convoluted that they can be interpreted multiple ways, and allow for denial or confirmation of any interpretations of what’s being said. Let’s not pretend that there’s value in communicating clearly and concisely.
And guess what, our fans will love us for it. They’ll read into what we’re saying exactly what they want, while feeling self assured that they’re so very smart. What a bunch of rubes. Please enter the gift shop before you leave.
But yes, I’m sure the real issue is I’m just not smart enough to keep up with these intellectual power houses.
'kin hell jordan.
Excellent clip. Excellent rebuttals to PF Jung from Matt in his recent talk with him. Looking forward to the Dr. K episode. And seeing how whatever portion of Destiny's audience that watches it will respond to seeing Dr. K criticized. Because Dr. K has made a lot of people's favorite streamers cathartically cry, fans of streamers are very fond and defensive of Dr. K. 😨
Matt's face when JPB was speaking is amazing.
Jordan acts and talks as if he is just begging for a biopic to be made about him
Love the part where Matt backs up and puts his hands on his eyes cause JBP is just so fucking ridiculous!! Gold
Everything is interconnected... so what. But I did find it funny that Jordan's face is within his hand gesture while arguing God is in the centre of his metaphorical clouds. What was his actual research when an academic? Oh, that is right alcohol is bad. Then whinged like a bitch when they took his funding away.
Listening to Jordan Peterson is tiring.
I wonder if Bret ever misses his days at Evergreen when he didn't have to dress uncomfortably, was surrounded by fresh young minds, and could enjoy our sleepy woke town of Olympia.
I could not stop laughing while looking at Chris's face during the 'semantic network of the concept of god' thing Jordan was talking about.
What an absolutely glorious spurt of nonsense!
Peterson and Weinstein, not Chris and Matt. They're sensible.
I did enjoy that.
I'm sure everyone who watched the whole clip is much better off for it.
The level of Jazz Hand Projection Emphasis was quite exquisite as was the Sage Head Nodding.
ua-cam.com/video/3MWpHQQ-wQg/v-deo.htmlsi=VPQ3_ldvntsYSMtl
No I think it's Chris and Matt who are spurting nonsense.
"I don't understand this so it must be gibberish" is a good argument. It's not even an argument.
@@x0rn312
That isn't what Chris and Matt said is it?
What they did say is both Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein use superfluous words and pretentious language in order to bolster themselves and cover the paucity of their arguments.
Everything they said could have been said in a much more concise and succinct manner.
The word salad is a good way of hiding just how empty their rhetoric is.
Pointing that out is obviously a good thing to do.
Andy: you are a helluva editor ❤
this is an epic channel
I always have a hard time understanding what jordan Peterson is talking about. Glad to know I’m not the only one
I love this podcast and am a Patreon supporter. But you guys are just a-holes sometimes. At least make an effort to steelman the position of the people you're criticizing. Peterson especially has his quirks, and loves flowery language. But despite that, he's genuine in his intent of the concepts he's exploring in the clips you showed here. It isn't the same BS in the way Eric Weinstein likes to use jargon to make himself sound smarter than he is.
Completely misrepresented what point bret and jp were making.
Your statement might resonate if you attempted to clear it up. Otherwise, you are portraying exactly what everyone expects from Peterson sycophants.
Anyone who finds meaning or intellectual substance in JBP's rant @ 10:00 deserves an award. Big words about literal nonsense. Truly impressive bullshittery
You have enough awards to hand out or are you as full of shit as you sound ?
I get the impression that Jordan Peterson is trying to rationalize his religious beliefs. I think his reasoning goes like this: “I have the right opinions about things. If Jesus is right, He must have the same opinions as me. Therefore, churches should teach my opinions.” In other words, Jordan Peterson thinks Christians should be more like Jordan Peterson.
Love love love the humor!!!
Concatenation clouds, wowzers
Jordan Peterson is like a horrible amalgam of The Mock Turtle and Gilbert Osmond.
Bewildering how you can't see that you're doing the same thing, just in plain English. I agree that Mr. Peterson almost always uses far more complicated words than are necessary, but the content often tackles legitimate ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things he says and I don't agree with most of what I've heard Weinstein say, but you're delegitimizing the honest exploration of ideas. In an age where you can easily find completely different sets of data concerning the same question but leading to wildly different conclusions. Where verifying that data becomes ever harder, this might be the only way everyone can decide what to belief in. At least until we find a way to verify that data in a truly impartial way (that doesn't require everyone to become a scientist and/or expert).
No, JP constantly misrepresents studies and scientific papers to cherry pick “facts” to weave into word salad that always arrives at “1950 social hierarchies in the US can not be improved on.”
Also he constantly oversells his understanding of multiple fields.
Just watch his exchange with Joe Rogan about climate science and tell me again how smart and how he is tackling important issues.
This channel is an experiment in how hard two traditional academics can double down on simply not getting it.
What are they not getting?
How to perform truly intellectually creative discourse. They start with a conclusion and are making tons of inappropriate assumptions to work backwards to it.
Well put.
@@T_Fizzle excuse me, traditional is a bit generous, I would revise that to say ‘orthodox’
@@pimbu936 Yup, I agree that's a good clarification.
I remember when everyone was marking out to JP in 2017-2019, I didn't have a clue wtf he was talking about and couldn't decide if it was because he was chatting breeze or I wasn't bright enough for it.
This may be hard to believe, but you aren’t bright enough. But to be fair, that’s not your fault; you have to have an IQ of 160 to get this stuff. Major problem with their philosophy.
You're more than bright enough and can tell he is all breeze
Hey, where's your amazing thene music?
Someone found it offensive
@@RandomAussieGuy87 please tell me you're joking. 🙏
@VesnaVK Someone commented that they thought the music stereotyped south-asian spiritual culture and that ''you guys should know better''. Next video the theme music changed, so seems like too much of a coincidence.
@@RandomAussieGuy87wow. If that's the case, they're going to have to change their branding art. And the name of the podcast. Also, if that's the case, it's ridiculous.
Interesting, it always sounded similar to The Cats In The Caddle song
18:20
It's not psychobabble, Peterson is very clearly saying that societies have hierarchies of value. In other words there's a hierarchy of things they value....... we all know this, think of how often people complain about how everyone places too much of an emphasis on money or status or whatever...... we very much understand intuitively that we can put the wrong things at the top of our value hierarchy most of us would probably say the appropriate thing to put at the top of the value hierarchy would be something like our family or for a scientist that might be the pursuit of scientific truth....... those are healthier.
So that said I hope we can all agree that at least the concept of a value hierarchy is uncontroversial and easy to grasp.
When Peterson is talking about this, and I understand that the religious language uses can throw a lot of people off and turn a lot of people off, but what he's saying is that throughout history people have used mythology and what we might call religion as a way of organizing the value hierarchies of their cultures.
And then he's saying that because we don't have anything like that, after the Nietzschean death of God if you will, are values are all fucked up because we don't have an agreed-upon value hierarchy because we don't have a unified culture on what you might call the mythological or religious layer.
It isn't rocket science - it's just history, psychology, and philosophy.
I think the religious language is so unfamiliar to people, and they're so used to only hearing it from charlatans like TV preachers that they're not able to get past that and hear what Peterson is really trying to say.
you can make a legitimate criticism that this has weakened his argument because, you might argue, he could communicate better with more people if he didn't use the religious language, but I'm not sure that's right because so many people are responding to what he's saying.... and by using the religious language while remaining grounded in the scientific he's demonstrating to people like me, who are not religious, that our social sciences have a real blind spot when it comes to the role religion has played in cultural development historically.
Peterson should be taken seriously.
again you don't have to agree with him, but just claiming he's not making sense because YOU dont understand it, is not an argument.
It is psychobabble.
@ginofranco4216 which part? Do you disagree that societies/cultures are partially defined by what they value?
Do you disagree that the way cultures were organized historically was often around some sort of Mythos or religious structure? for example the various temples and festivals in ancient Greece which were essential to how the society as a whole with structured?
Or is it the conclusions he draws from this that you have a problem with?
I'm legitimately trying to figure out which part you think is gibberish.
[ and just to be clear I'm not arguing about whether he's "right" or not - I'm merely contending that his arguments are comprehensible ]
They're not debating the content of his ideas, they're discussing the way he dresses up his language to seem more erudite and more profound than it actually is. It's a study in rhetoric is all. JP dances with his words, he likes to kill or stun with Syllables.
You're analysis is correct. There's a load of problems with Jordan peterson aswell but these guys are just circle jerking themselves without engaging in the hard intellectual work
It’s not the religious language. It’s the muddled concepts, the deliberately obfuscating language (mistaken for profundity), and the utter banality of his uninteresting and tedious conclusions. What gets me is that Petersen hates the poststructuralist theorists (who, it’s clear, he’s never read), but he sounds just as garbled as Derrida or Foucault, who were actually way more articulate and accessible in their interviews if not their writings. Petersen is a non-educated person’s idea of an intellectual. He’s a mealy-mouth fake.
Analyzing 2 men who are masters of saying very little with as many words as possible.
The wisdom of the ancients happens to be a set of well disguised tautologies😭😭😭
Noticed: the problems stated with JBP are all things that they think he’s implying that he’s just not
The intellectual sloppiness of this channel is wild
19:40 this is just not accurate. Peterson, in general, is constantly referencing psychometric data, various studies, experiences with his clinical patients, the work of other thinkers, etc...
Decoding the Gurus maybe the laziest show I've ever seen.
Take the time to understand what JBP is saying so that you can argue with what he is actually presenting instead of the strawman that you have constructed in your minds.
They're good at this because they've convinced themselves that they're engaged in meaningful dialogue. It's a wildly inflated sense of self-importance, combined with pedantism and Herculean efforts to protect themselves (through careful venue, topic, and interlocutor selection) from informed critique.
You should really listen to them more. You might not agree with them, but they're not just talking out of their ass.... what they're saying makes sense.
Don't be one of these people who instead of looking up words you don't understand says - oh look they're trying to sound smart using big words.... no there's something in science and philosophy called precision and that requires specific and precise language. If you can't handle that then you're not ready to think with the big boys
this doesn't mean that Peterson and Weinstein are right about everything or anything, it just means they're not talking gibberish and if you think they are the problem is with you,
not them
I would say your comment applies more to the decoding the guru guys
@@x0rn312 Ah the rubber-and-glue strategy of debate. Good stuff. Not defending the content creator, but how exactly is a critical UA-cam channel like these multi-millionaire, quasi-intellectuals?
@@x0rn312 I have watched dozens of hours of both men, including many of Peterson's lecture recordings. From my perspective, neither is engaged in rational or logical discourse in their public lives, although they borrow the lingo and the affectations. Here, like in most discussions, they do not engage with actual real-world examples; everything is hypothetical. As soon as actual examples are interjected into the discussion, the weakness of their arguments is usually pretty obvious. Check out the interview JP did with the comedian Jim Jeffries when Jim brings up specific examples of the civil rights movement and whether bakers should be allowed to deny gay people service. JP had to admit, within seconds, that the broad ideological brush he was painting with was "probably wrong."
You’re way off. I suspect because they hit a raw nerve: they critique someone you uncritically admire. Truth is, these two are the most humble, honest, and accomplished academics out there doing to good work of defending truth, reason, and academic integrity. They truly are, as is possible for anyone to be, non-partisan. I teach their podcast in my critical thinking courses.
Anything new on the Covid origin front?
It's Chris's World! It's Chris's World! Party time! Excellent! Matt: "Party on, Chris." Chris: "Party on, Matt. These videos are using popular figures as click bait.
These type of Gurus have spent so many hours talking, and all they really want to say is 'The West is best'
More
It's 'concatenation' though
Dr Chopra Peterson? 😂
Truisms discussed psuedointellectually
They are just behaving like academics often do. Go read the avg academic journal...
Funny how only people who don't like them call them gurus 😂
Id be more critical of Jbp (and used to think he's a hack) but he absolutely has more originality of thought than most and seems to understand the role he plays as a public thinker/speaker, which is incompatible with being a philosopher. He seems to understand these fine lines.
* the intellectual speak does drive me mad though😂 ive sworn a blood oath to never use that unnecessary lingo in my classroom.
When everyone around you talks like this it becomes second nature. You have to be really really good to make it all sound simple
The concatenation of the society kin based hyper dimensional mapping didactic semantic swirling blurghlwlrurghle
Great video, more people need to know that Joseph Rogan something gets things wrong
Listening to JP talk about the psychopath problem when he IS the psychopath problem is top-notch irony
galaxy brain? Peterson?????
I think Dr. Peterson has lost it with his " idea of God. " As if there is only one god and only one concept of god. Clearly and obviously not so. Many religions = many gods. And many different concepts of what and who god is. Also the bible tells of at least three gods in one. Each with different characteristics. Geez !!!! Talk about oversimplification. Wake up Dr. Peterson. Theology is not your strong point. But the notion of using algorithms to organize ideas about God and gods may not be a bad idea. Let's see what AI (Artificial Intelligence) comes up with when we feed it all we can know about "God." And let's include theories of physics such as quantum entanglement, the god particle, and other relevant metaphysical teachings. What a salad !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am wondering when this channel will get serious about Jordan Peterson and publish a few of his many pro-Nazi statements. But then, if the hosts fail to mention that Peterson has said that multiculturalism is a bad idea - while discussing him talking about multiculturalism - I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.
Jordan Peterson...Dr. Sphinctermouth.
Concatenation is a very common word.... maybe I'm only used to it from computer programming but we use this word all the time
It blows my mind that these guys really think that these words are hard - and instead of realizing that it's just that they don't have a very strong vocabulary, they assume at some attempt to look smart.
I don't think so - serious thinkers used precise language. The problem is the decoding the gurus hosts are not serious thinkers
They don’t think the words are “hard.” They think they are being strung together in nonsensical ways that sound impressive, but is ultimately smoke and mirrors.
As the old childhood rhyme goes, Jordan and Bret ... two religious masters of obfuscation sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g.
11:15 no that's just the very beginning of what he was saying. You can't say what he said in a couple sentences. I get so sick of all of you thinking that the problem is jbp
he's making sense, whether or not you agree with him
I'm sorry that they use too many big words for your little brains but this podcast is an embarrassment to both of you.
The way you giggle like teenage girls through every episode is unbearable.
You guys are grifters of the highest order.
Some people simply talk in a more complicated idiom. Stephen Fry wrote an excellent essay on that very topic. Perhaps you are just envious that you don’t understand what they’re saying. Do fancy words threaten your precarious egos?
Ideas should be challenged. But in your case it appears you’re simply out to discredit people rather than their espoused thoughts. Jordan Peterson speaks with precision and while I do not always agree with him, his word choices are very specific to those ends. I’m not sure a ‘dumber’ word on your level would work with the ideas he is putting forth.
You should change the channel name to “Discrediting the People With Whom We Do Not Agree” Both of you give the impression that you have never read a book. May your mean spirited channel remain small or wither on the vine.
Such bitterness.
Ideajaculate?
Oh you guys ...youve missed the extraordinarily deep profundity of Brett and Jordans desire to be taken seriously and cash in ..LOL..probably not, but that is the obvious conclusion and the fact that neither of them for all their brilliance have never reached any actual conclusions or theories. That would lay them open to real scrutiny, and they wouldn't be able to continue churning out youtube content, books, or appear as guests spouting their never ending constantly evolving bullshit. Thankyou for at least attempting to decode them even though its a futile endeavour at least you do so we dont have to 🙂
You guys are completely clueless about Jordan. When he was talking about mapping the meaning of kin based God syntaxes, you know, he was actually talking about the large language model he's developing. And, you know, Jordan loaded up the language model, and by god it was like he was talking to God himself? Was it God? Well, how do you define God, you know? If you consider that God is the underlying values of the language model, then maybe it is God. But where do those values come from? It's like, you know, putting forth the best version of yourself and by god it means something, you know.
Psychobabble
@@ginofranco4216 That's what jordan's best at
the nazis were left wing in many respects, Hitler abolished private property, same anti capitalist rhetoric that you find on the left, Hitler was huge fan boy of Stalin who copied his economic policy, Hitler in his last will stated that he was very bleak that Italy had spoiled their chances to act as a liberating force for the Muslim world in ME and North Africa