I am utterly grateful that I found out about Jordan B. Peterson. It was an accident really, stumbling across political type debates on UA-cam. I'm not a well read, educated intellect, although I'm always in the process of seeking more knowledge. I love learning, and logic and common sense are the legs of which I stand on all subjects that I'm subjected, or introduced to. When I watched a JBP lecture for the first time, I was so incredibly impressed. I mean, of course I was, the man is BRILLIANT. I have never been awestruck by someone's intelligence, such as his (yours)- if you ever happen to read this yourself, Jordan. I wish I could afford to have him as a psychologist for, not only myself, but for my son. I recently introduced JBP's lectures to my son and he is in agreement with me about how astounding JBP is. I truly hope he continues to post lectures on UA-cam so that we have access to such intellectual greatness. I also hope, that my son can absorb what he is teaching. I plan to purchase his latest book for us to both read, in an attempt to better our understanding of his advice. Hats off to you, sir. You are really someone to admire, and look up to. Thank you for existing.
0:50 Lecture Start 1:26 Agreeableness, hyper-agreeableness and resentfulness 2:46 Disagreeableness (Antagonism) [also see 21:29] 5:11 [Sidebar] The Normal Distribution in Statistics 20:48 Agreeableness aspects: Compassion and Politeness 22:07 Agreeableness as a Virtue, and limitations of this view 23:46 [Sidebar] Culture, Gender and Egalitarian Countries 26:17 Agreeableness and Gender
These lectures are outstanding, how wonderful that they are all here on You Tube. It is so important to understand these differences between men and women. We are never going to have 50% male airline pilots and 50% female airline pilots. There are simply some things which men are better at, and some things in which women do better. You are never going to change that and nor should you try. I scored 82 for agreeableness. However, I do stick to my moral standards and never do anything just to go along with the crowd. I'd rather be alone than around people who annoy or upset me. The feminists who complain about the lower numbers of women CEOs or women in STEM professions, never complain about the lack of women working on oil rigs or fixing gas pipelines or any of those other tough jobs that men do. Women and men need to fall back in love with each other and stop arguing. Great lecture, thanks Dr Peterson.
At around 22 minutes, Dr. Peterson mentions being able to recognize the agreeable types by which patients bring a coffee for him when they bring one for themselves. But surely that can just as easily be a learned behavior rather than an expression of personality. I first had a client bring a coffee for me some 20 years ago, observed my own reaction to that and immediately recognized it as a great tactic for quickly establishing likeability. So I adopted it for myself, but I doubt that either the recognition or the adoption of the practice changed my basic personality toward greater agreeableness. Buying someone a coffee may be an other-directed action evidencing caring or it may be, in a sense, the opposite - regarding the other as an object to be manipulated.
I don't think he was saying it as concrete evidence or anything, more like a funny little anecdote that he noticed that people who bring coffee tended to be the agreeable ones so he started expecting that if someone brought coffee or something like that.
Also cause probably patients have no intention on manipulation, and if they did, Jordan would realize it anyways by other means. So, you being disagreeable and his patient, probably wouldn't buy a coffee for him. Which is still more or less what he said...
But what is the statistical probability that someone who chooses to bring coffee to someone did that as a function of learned behavior rather than as a function of trait agreeableness? I would hypothesize that those odds are low.
I feel like that really depends on who you are. Jordan is a psychologist so when people come to him with a coffee, they'll just have that coffee to be nice. Therefore I think it does mean the person is agreeable. If Jordan was a CEO of some company and an employee did it, I would agree with you.
I find the majority of the people who repost your content read a lot of meaning into it, and create extremely click-baity and controversial titles to the things they repost in a seeming effort to draw the ire of others and bring in angry views... Finding your actual channel where you are more objective in both title and description is refreshing... I'm a psychologist in training myself, I enjoy listening to your lectures, and think you're quite objective and well reasoned. I enjoy your work, and your speeches, and think for the most part you are a positive influence on the world... What disturbs me the most is that there seems to be a cadre of followers who use your material to create a dialogue that is more adversarial than you yourself ever seem to be in the way you actually speak and present yourself... I believe you are misrepresented by those opposed to you not because of anything you actually say or do, but because many who admire you interpret you in much more cynical ways, and represent your views in those way (On the cover), leading to others simply interpreting you that way without actually listening to what you say and the way you communicate. It would be nice to have the ability to merely discuss issues without it becoming controversial to those who disagree, or being made more controversial by those who agree.
this lecture deserves more attention. it's inspiring. makes me want to hit an old person over the head and take some resources. just because this lecture happened before he was famous does not mean it's any less relevant. whoever manages his social media should repost it.
Thank you for uploading these. I always loved psych. If I didn't have autism and severe anxiety I would've gone for a phd in clinical psychology to work in a lab trying to find a cure for alzheimers. My biological father is a psych teacher, although he has no business being one, because he won't even acknowledge my existence to those in the family and won't say hello to me. Anyway, I'm going to watch your videos.
1:04:00 - I think he's just taking a very long-winded and circuitous route to saying "Men want beautiful women, women want affluent men." Anyone who HASN'T figured that out really hasn't paid attention to the world.
No. Listen to his vocal tone when he talks about sex. He's not wrong, but it's not the whole picture. Affluence isn't attractive, attractiveness is attractive. If you ask women where looks rank on importance, they'll say it's 6th or 7th down their list; but when you measure how they act, it's #1. Sure they'll marry & reproduce with an affluent man for his resources & social status, but they'll never love him the way they would a tall, handsome, white & athletic man with a full head of hair. I would say looks (genes) = 90%, wealth & the potential for it = 5%, everything else = 5%. It's a very depressing pill to swallow because women are also choosier. When men rate women's looks you get a standard distribution bell curve. When women rate men's looks, it's a pareto distribution; only 5% of men are considered attractive. Which means if you're not 1 in 20 handsome, you're out.... It's not called love at first personality. Or love at first display of wealth. Or love at first display of dominance. It's called love at first sight. Granted, beauty is subjective, but it's still in the EYE of the beholder.
I can't beleive I found a mistake on Dr. Peterson's lectures. The basketball player he mention is Wilt Chamberlain, not Kareem. My whole world and system of values are falling apart.
But think about it, isn't the real order that there always is at least some little chaos contained? Wouldn't be something completely ordered seem weird and unnatural to the point you would speculate there is some hidden flaw which you just haven't found out about?
I think, and I really do think this, that I have a agreeable-antagonistic personality. I just call it passive-aggressive, but that makes it sound like I'm aggressive, but in a sneaky and petty way, but that's not it at all. When I say I am passive-aggressive, I mean I flip like a switch, between high agreeableness and antagonistic behavior. Though I'd say that my agreeable side is my default mode. I often find men who are confrontational and low in agreeableness to either be my best friends or my worst enemies. Because they are blunt, they're honest, transparent, they have courage, I can trust them to have my back, to tell me what I really need to hear even if it hurts. At the same time, I just cannot easily deal with someone like that in a confrontational setting without either bending the knee or getting violent. Or at least make threats of violence. And it's tough. I will get into a conflict with a guy who is low in agreeableness. Like I can't afford to stay somewhere but I am willing to find a way to make it up to the person, but he wants cold hard cash, or else he will kick my ass to the curb. And I think "Well, fair enough." I never think to negotiate further, I'm just like willing to do whatever to keep the peace. But for some reason afterwards, it feels like my soul died a little, and like I've just been pushed down the social hierarchy and made him look good for the ladies and make myself look like scum. And then another time back in college where I let a guy borrow my book. I kind of already got a vibe from him that he's actually complete fuckin scum and is just pretending to be nice because he sees that I'm extremely nice, generous and agreeable, just so he can get shit from me, even my roommate essentially told me that, but I was so naive then and always wanted to trust people and see the good in them, so I let it go on for a bit. Then I asked for the book back, but he kept coming up with excuses not to give it back until after an exam. At this point, I'm pissed, so the next time we were in class, I demanded the book back with no exceptions. He reluctantly did so, and I called him, I think something like, a snake and a thief, in front of the entire class. He accused ME of being two-faced, saying how I "pretend to be someone's friend but am not", and threatened to show up at my dorm room with his friends that night. I told him to bring them, and that if he shows up, I would bash his head in with a claw hammer. That night I slept with the claw hammer from my tool box under my pillow, half excited, half nervous as fuck. Unsurprisingly, they never showed up, and he never talked to me again. To this day I'm hella proud of myself for that. Almost makes up for the other times when I just acted like a pushover. It's tough. It's like, if I choose to approach a conflict with aggression, I end up doing like what Jordan Peterson said, and it comes out more in the form of cold-blooded aggression, rather than stark assertiveness and defense. Like if I approach a conflict I have with someone in a passive manner and just be like "OK, OK, whatever you say, here's what you want", it's like a piece of my soul dies, and my antagonistic side is just like, CRYING for blood, and then I am bitter and resentful for it for years after. And then I start brooding, and having violent thoughts, and start trying to make up for it by being an asshole to some random person, but only really end up making myself look like a dumbass sociopath that no one takes seriously nor do they want to deal with. And then it's like if it's like I try to be aggressive, I'd probably end up in jail, in all honesty. Because I don't know how to be properly assertive and aggressive, so when I get aggressive, I go all in and fight to kill, rather than argue, THEN fight to subdue and win. And I love and hate both sides of myself. I love the passive side because I really think that there's good and evil in almost everyone and that there's not enough genuine empathy, patience, and understanding with some people in the world. I love my aggressive side because that's the side that I know is going to win fights, protect the things I stand for, and the people I love. I hate my passive side because he's a damn pussy. I hate my aggressive side because he's a complete sociopath who makes and descends into his own hell. It all almost makes me think I'm bipolar or something, though I'm almost certain I'm not.
Interesting story, how is it going for you now? Jordan Peterson talked in his book how agreeable people often get resentful, just like you described 'a piece of your sould dying' so i guess that is something even a completely agreeable person experiences
I'm sitting here thinking I have never brought coffee for any of my therapists, yet I know I'm agreeable to an unhealthy extent. So maybe there's hope? 😂
I find extremely interesting how we live in such a strange society in 2023, that we must study so deeply into psychology only to understand differences that were nothing but obvious some decades ago.
My results were incredibly accurate for the most part but I will need to repeat it as I took it when I came off depo shot after 15yrs and wasn't self aware and spiraling as the depo is realy bad on you exp emotional when u stop using them as it floods your body with ALOT of extra hormones as they were on pause, I'd like to take again soon but it's only been 6months and the recovery of renormalizng from what I'm told can take 2yrs for me easily as I was using it so long It made me come out VERY neuroticism heavy
On Dr. Peterson's big 5 test, my agreeableness was scored as 2% overall. On the politeness aspect, I scored 0%. So....any questions? I'm not a sociopath...I think.
I recommend going through these in 1.25x speed so that he sounds like he's just discovered microdosing in the bathroom down the hall right before the lecture😌👌
In his autobiography, A View From Above, Wilt Chamberlain said he slept with 20,000 women. in say 20 years is 1000 a year is like 3 a day. Or 60 years 1 woman a day. This can't be true. Jordan should have known.
Can't? I'd guess that the Pareto distribution makes it not only possible, but likely. Have you seen the way women throw themselves at some men? Maybe the number is exaggerated, even doubled; still makes no difference to his point.
Blah, blah, blah, standard deviation. Blah, blah... "Men prefer beauty." Girl immediately immediately raises hand. Dr Peterson- "Yes, you had a question?" Lol. Pretty obvious what women are listening to. Which, although I LOVE Dr Peterson and his work, stating that men are dispensable is unhealthy for a generation of women looking for excuses to discard and discredit men. Without men to protect and provide, we wouldn't have made it the last 100k years. Because a giant, pregnant woman can't hunt. Each balances the other out. Hence, I believe, the reason why there is aggression tendencies in women and nurturing characteristics in men. No half of the whole is dispensable.
It's the truth though, males by nature are dispensable in the sense that there might be a better choice, and disposable as they risk and offer their lives to females for the sake of procreation (and at least in us humans and some of our mammal relatives, for recreation.) "Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did." We have to accept the science, by the way, the way you put it might give the wrong impression, control those emotions lad.
I think the correct word is not agreeable but yielding. Yielding people may not just succumb but may have a(hidden) plan to overthrow the one who is blocking your way, I think. Also one can be agreeable cause of persuasion the good or the bad way.
great lecture, I understand statisitics isn't jordan's specialty, but he's wrong when he says the paraeto distribution and normal distribution conflict with each other, they are actually measuring different things, their axes are different.
thanks for the reply. the tests i did were from seemypersonality.com/ and humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp the result from the 1st one shows that my neuroticism was 80 ( i think thats pretty high) and 0 agreeableness. I did was volunteering for elderly in the church for about 2 months. maybe high neuroticism is related to low agreeableness? not sure
Galton's board is not random, all the balls fall from the same place. Where do you expect them to land just because you put few nails on their way? maybe they will bounce away, but the next bounce would also have to be away for them to be farther from starting position x. It's weird everybody believes this is 'random', it has some interference which introduces some randomization like a brownian noise.
I have been trying to find the French-Canadian study with 433 male and 700 female respondents that Dr. Peterson is referring to. Does anybody know? Also I find the assumption strange that fertility rates (number of children if I understand it correctly) correlating with number of partners the previous year as measuring attractiveness. A woman can be very attractive but never have children, and mothers typically have a harder time finding new partners so this seems very strange to me.
-- Women are obviously more emotionally disagreeable, but perhaps more CONVINCEABLE. Jordan even teaches about Yin chaos (female) and Yang order (male). Asking for a raise = strength, risk, responsibility and value, not agreeableness.
-- Facts versus emotions. Males have less need to be agreeable if the desired results is a logical solution. The common knowledge of older men is that females desire the back and forth argument for her EMOTIONAL NEEDS and she gets angry if her husband gives the solution.
-- Truthful people admit that females live off of 'emotional disagreement.' Healthy females might be more 'CONVINCEABLE' eventually after their long emotional disagreements (because facts should win over opinion). In order to get female approval, Jordan claims that females are more agreeable.
Around the 27 or 28 minute mark you mention that around 3 S.D. of agreeableness pretty much they're all women, and you say this probably doesn't matter much. A few years back I read news of a case where a female sitter felt pressured to strip/have sex with the pubescent boy she was sitting (and gave in to these pressures), and she was eventually convicted of statutory rape. I don't know what the absolute facts of the case were, but this may indicate that over-agreeableness *can* lead to prison sentences (and not merely as accomplices).
Yeah of course, that's the typical case in some films where some criminal mind forces a really agreeable person to commit crimes as well, and they do just to please the real criminal
She felt sexually pressured by the child in her care? Female on male rape happens more than you might think, and it's often adult females sexually assaulting male children in their care. The sitter claimed that she felt pressured. She might have even said that the boy was asking for it.
48:12 This supports the hypothesis that one reason for gender differences being less pronounced in less egalitarian societies is artificial inducement. 01:02:30 Might that some men are attracted to Anime characters be in part explained by the preference of neoteny?
What do you mean with your first point? Less egalitarian societies aren't trying to ewual everyone out, but they typically force men to be workers and women to be mothers, how does this support the thesis that less egalitarian societies would have less gender differences? Intuitively they should be bigger cause society forces them to those differences
@@thomas.thomas It's been a while ago, but if I remember correctly, Peterson was discussing at another point that one reason for the fact that gender differences are even less in "traditional"/unegalitarian societies might that there is motivation to oppose stereotyped roles, which is less pronounced in egalitarian societies. It is correct that one would assume less egalitarian societies to have bigger gender indifferences, as you write, but data shows that the opposite happens.
@@thomas.thomas If you go far enough away from an egalitarian society people do whatever they have to do to survive, regardless of supposed gender roles
Wow... men really do have it better. We can make ourselves attractive just by changing our personality and working hard. It sounds like he was saying women either have it or they don’t. Thats a harsh reality
Not really, because in general women can always find sex partners if they're not picky. Genetic analysis shows that women are twice as likely to pass their genes on as men. On average, most women have children, and about half men do, historically speaking. It may be different in the current generation.
@@AB-ps4ob If we're assuming monogamy, then men and women have it equally good then (since the number of men and women in long term relationships will be equal, assuming same0sex relationships are not statistically significant).
i was told in the third grade that by birthright, i would never have a union job, so better get creative. but at night, people take apart my projects, so why do anything ever?
This hipoteses can be contradicted by race amoung blacks: African American women bear children from unemployed black males given during slavery black women were unable to care for their kids. However it would make more sense for women to have kids from men that can afford to support them n theor kids.
I think a lot of people aren't voting for Jeb Bush because he seems to be a tad too high in agreeableness for the presidency. Whereas Donald Trump on the other hand ... :-)
My iq was found to be ta least 146, found those with iqs down around 100 to 120 seem downright stupid, those in the 120's are the minimum i can talk to,and those with iq's in the 130's seem very ordinary. Am impressed with the math whiz males having iq's up around 150-190.
talking about IQ I have a pretty high Iq but I have to say that some of the nicest people are not so clever and as Ian McEwan said some of the nicest people we meet in our lives have never read a book.Right.
The face of demons that will not be confronted are cast upon the face of the Lord and the Lord is all that is good. So as there is good in you expect to be clothed in the deceit of the fallen, though we are the fallen as well. We will be in this way Until that time when mankind can be whole and holy individual. As only therein can we be assimilated back to the first man and our great Mother. There we can withstand the face of God again and speak, Thankyou Father for we have learned of good and evil. Lucifer will turn back to heaven and the gates of Eden will open back to us. Past the burning cherubim our death will be cleansed leaving us clean to eat of the tree of life and the tree of good and evil will stand having served its fruit excellently. Because the final perfection of mankind is not through mankind but through God and the dead are not forsaken.
I am utterly grateful that I found out about Jordan B. Peterson. It was an accident really, stumbling across political type debates on UA-cam. I'm not a well read, educated intellect, although I'm always in the process of seeking more knowledge. I love learning, and logic and common sense are the legs of which I stand on all subjects that I'm subjected, or introduced to.
When I watched a JBP lecture for the first time, I was so incredibly impressed. I mean, of course I was, the man is BRILLIANT. I have never been awestruck by someone's intelligence, such as his (yours)- if you ever happen to read this yourself, Jordan.
I wish I could afford to have him as a psychologist for, not only myself, but for my son. I recently introduced JBP's lectures to my son and he is in agreement with me about how astounding JBP is. I truly hope he continues to post lectures on UA-cam so that we have access to such intellectual greatness. I also hope, that my son can absorb what he is teaching. I plan to purchase his latest book for us to both read, in an attempt to better our understanding of his advice.
Hats off to you, sir. You are really someone to admire, and look up to.
Thank you for existing.
Giving JBP to your son is a wise idea! As a young man myself, I wouldn’t be nearly as successful as I am today without his lectures.
0:50 Lecture Start
1:26 Agreeableness, hyper-agreeableness and resentfulness
2:46 Disagreeableness (Antagonism) [also see 21:29]
5:11 [Sidebar] The Normal Distribution in Statistics
20:48 Agreeableness aspects: Compassion and Politeness
22:07 Agreeableness as a Virtue, and limitations of this view
23:46 [Sidebar] Culture, Gender and Egalitarian Countries
26:17 Agreeableness and Gender
Good man
damn, Dr. Peterson is one of a kind, I wish I could be his student... A hello from Brazil here.
I think if you are studying him here than you are his student :) but I know what you mean, wish I could experience this in person!
Eu também, kkkkk
Salve!!!
These lectures are outstanding, how wonderful that they are all here on You Tube. It is so important to understand these differences between men and women. We are never going to have 50% male airline pilots and 50% female airline pilots. There are simply some things which men are better at, and some things in which women do better. You are never going to change that and nor should you try. I scored 82 for agreeableness. However, I do stick to my moral standards and never do anything just to go along with the crowd. I'd rather be alone than around people who annoy or upset me. The feminists who complain about the lower numbers of women CEOs or women in STEM professions, never complain about the lack of women working on oil rigs or fixing gas pipelines or any of those other tough jobs that men do. Women and men need to fall back in love with each other and stop arguing. Great lecture, thanks Dr Peterson.
At around 22 minutes, Dr. Peterson mentions being able to recognize the agreeable types by which patients bring a coffee for him when they bring one for themselves. But surely that can just as easily be a learned behavior rather than an expression of personality.
I first had a client bring a coffee for me some 20 years ago, observed my own reaction to that and immediately recognized it as a great tactic for quickly establishing likeability. So I adopted it for myself, but I doubt that either the recognition or the adoption of the practice changed my basic personality toward greater agreeableness.
Buying someone a coffee may be an other-directed action evidencing caring or it may be, in a sense, the opposite - regarding the other as an object to be manipulated.
I would agree with you, I’m pretty skeptical myself but I don’t see much use in making someone like you who’s job is to help you
I don't think he was saying it as concrete evidence or anything, more like a funny little anecdote that he noticed that people who bring coffee tended to be the agreeable ones so he started expecting that if someone brought coffee or something like that.
Also cause probably patients have no intention on manipulation, and if they did, Jordan would realize it anyways by other means. So, you being disagreeable and his patient, probably wouldn't buy a coffee for him. Which is still more or less what he said...
But what is the statistical probability that someone who chooses to bring coffee to someone did that as a function of learned behavior rather than as a function of trait agreeableness? I would hypothesize that those odds are low.
I feel like that really depends on who you are. Jordan is a psychologist so when people come to him with a coffee, they'll just have that coffee to be nice. Therefore I think it does mean the person is agreeable.
If Jordan was a CEO of some company and an employee did it, I would agree with you.
I would only like to add how much I appreciate your posting them on you tube. Thanks again.
Timeless knowledge that we will always found helpful. Thank You Jordan Peterson!
I am a simple man. I wake up, I watch a class of personality traits with Mr. Peterson. I'm a fan man, this dude is awesome!
I find the majority of the people who repost your content read a lot of meaning into it, and create extremely click-baity and controversial titles to the things they repost in a seeming effort to draw the ire of others and bring in angry views... Finding your actual channel where you are more objective in both title and description is refreshing...
I'm a psychologist in training myself, I enjoy listening to your lectures, and think you're quite objective and well reasoned. I enjoy your work, and your speeches, and think for the most part you are a positive influence on the world... What disturbs me the most is that there seems to be a cadre of followers who use your material to create a dialogue that is more adversarial than you yourself ever seem to be in the way you actually speak and present yourself...
I believe you are misrepresented by those opposed to you not because of anything you actually say or do, but because many who admire you interpret you in much more cynical ways, and represent your views in those way (On the cover), leading to others simply interpreting you that way without actually listening to what you say and the way you communicate.
It would be nice to have the ability to merely discuss issues without it becoming controversial to those who disagree, or being made more controversial by those who agree.
Yes I agree such as the channels like
Bite-sized Philosophy
THE BESTS
TheArchangel911
this lecture deserves more attention. it's inspiring. makes me want to hit an old person over the head and take some resources. just because this lecture happened before he was famous does not mean it's any less relevant. whoever manages his social media should repost it.
Thank you for uploading these. I always loved psych. If I didn't have autism and severe anxiety I would've gone for a phd in clinical psychology to work in a lab trying to find a cure for alzheimers. My biological father is a psych teacher, although he has no business being one, because he won't even acknowledge my existence to those in the family and won't say hello to me. Anyway, I'm going to watch your videos.
i'm proud of you and i love you
You can do it anyways. :)
This might be one of his most important lectures scientifically coordinated with social mores
1:04:00 - I think he's just taking a very long-winded and circuitous route to saying "Men want beautiful women, women want affluent men." Anyone who HASN'T figured that out really hasn't paid attention to the world.
No. Listen to his vocal tone when he talks about sex. He's not wrong, but it's not the whole picture. Affluence isn't attractive, attractiveness is attractive. If you ask women where looks rank on importance, they'll say it's 6th or 7th down their list; but when you measure how they act, it's #1. Sure they'll marry & reproduce with an affluent man for his resources & social status, but they'll never love him the way they would a tall, handsome, white & athletic man with a full head of hair. I would say looks (genes) = 90%, wealth & the potential for it = 5%, everything else = 5%. It's a very depressing pill to swallow because women are also choosier. When men rate women's looks you get a standard distribution bell curve. When women rate men's looks, it's a pareto distribution; only 5% of men are considered attractive. Which means if you're not 1 in 20 handsome, you're out.... It's not called love at first personality. Or love at first display of wealth. Or love at first display of dominance. It's called love at first sight. Granted, beauty is subjective, but it's still in the EYE of the beholder.
theres no class on thurs????
Jenn Peenuts aaaaahhhh yèeeaahhh! oh I'm working already....
Yooooooooo no class on Thursday!!!!!!!
You guys wanna visit the beach Thursday?
Thank you so much for this lecture series. Will be sharing with the people around me
I've been in the water utility for for 15 years. I definitely understand first hand that men are usually stronger than the average woman.
God Bless you Dr Peterson 👍
I can't beleive I found a mistake on Dr. Peterson's lectures. The basketball player he mention is Wilt Chamberlain, not Kareem. My whole world and system of values are falling apart.
Chaos emerges D:
But think about it, isn't the real order that there always is at least some little chaos contained? Wouldn't be something completely ordered seem weird and unnatural to the point you would speculate there is some hidden flaw which you just haven't found out about?
I think, and I really do think this, that I have a agreeable-antagonistic personality. I just call it passive-aggressive, but that makes it sound like I'm aggressive, but in a sneaky and petty way, but that's not it at all. When I say I am passive-aggressive, I mean I flip like a switch, between high agreeableness and antagonistic behavior. Though I'd say that my agreeable side is my default mode. I often find men who are confrontational and low in agreeableness to either be my best friends or my worst enemies. Because they are blunt, they're honest, transparent, they have courage, I can trust them to have my back, to tell me what I really need to hear even if it hurts. At the same time, I just cannot easily deal with someone like that in a confrontational setting without either bending the knee or getting violent. Or at least make threats of violence.
And it's tough. I will get into a conflict with a guy who is low in agreeableness. Like I can't afford to stay somewhere but I am willing to find a way to make it up to the person, but he wants cold hard cash, or else he will kick my ass to the curb. And I think "Well, fair enough." I never think to negotiate further, I'm just like willing to do whatever to keep the peace. But for some reason afterwards, it feels like my soul died a little, and like I've just been pushed down the social hierarchy and made him look good for the ladies and make myself look like scum.
And then another time back in college where I let a guy borrow my book. I kind of already got a vibe from him that he's actually complete fuckin scum and is just pretending to be nice because he sees that I'm extremely nice, generous and agreeable, just so he can get shit from me, even my roommate essentially told me that, but I was so naive then and always wanted to trust people and see the good in them, so I let it go on for a bit. Then I asked for the book back, but he kept coming up with excuses not to give it back until after an exam. At this point, I'm pissed, so the next time we were in class, I demanded the book back with no exceptions. He reluctantly did so, and I called him, I think something like, a snake and a thief, in front of the entire class. He accused ME of being two-faced, saying how I "pretend to be someone's friend but am not", and threatened to show up at my dorm room with his friends that night. I told him to bring them, and that if he shows up, I would bash his head in with a claw hammer.
That night I slept with the claw hammer from my tool box under my pillow, half excited, half nervous as fuck. Unsurprisingly, they never showed up, and he never talked to me again. To this day I'm hella proud of myself for that. Almost makes up for the other times when I just acted like a pushover. It's tough. It's like, if I choose to approach a conflict with aggression, I end up doing like what Jordan Peterson said, and it comes out more in the form of cold-blooded aggression, rather than stark assertiveness and defense.
Like if I approach a conflict I have with someone in a passive manner and just be like "OK, OK, whatever you say, here's what you want", it's like a piece of my soul dies, and my antagonistic side is just like, CRYING for blood, and then I am bitter and resentful for it for years after. And then I start brooding, and having violent thoughts, and start trying to make up for it by being an asshole to some random person, but only really end up making myself look like a dumbass sociopath that no one takes seriously nor do they want to deal with. And then it's like if it's like I try to be aggressive, I'd probably end up in jail, in all honesty. Because I don't know how to be properly assertive and aggressive, so when I get aggressive, I go all in and fight to kill, rather than argue, THEN fight to subdue and win.
And I love and hate both sides of myself. I love the passive side because I really think that there's good and evil in almost everyone and that there's not enough genuine empathy, patience, and understanding with some people in the world. I love my aggressive side because that's the side that I know is going to win fights, protect the things I stand for, and the people I love. I hate my passive side because he's a damn pussy. I hate my aggressive side because he's a complete sociopath who makes and descends into his own hell. It all almost makes me think I'm bipolar or something, though I'm almost certain I'm not.
Interesting story, how is it going for you now?
Jordan Peterson talked in his book how agreeable people often get resentful, just like you described 'a piece of your sould dying' so i guess that is something even a completely agreeable person experiences
Thank you for posting this!
Thank you, Jordan. ✝️❤️
The opening dialogue of this lecture is probably the most university thing that can be said. Hahaha
No class on Thursday, whatever will I do?
I love these lectures.
im pretty agreeable but i cant afford coffee so i would come without coffee for anyone lol
I could see how clientele of JBP would cash out more money for his premium services so that might entail they have a bigger wallet.
I'm sitting here thinking I have never brought coffee for any of my therapists, yet I know I'm agreeable to an unhealthy extent. So maybe there's hope? 😂
Yes. Nature rules over nurture.
Didn't Tony Soprano always buy Dr. Malfi a cup of coffee before their sessions?
God Bless you Jordan and your wonderful family your such beauty ❤ love from eire
I find extremely interesting how we live in such a strange society in 2023, that we must study so deeply into psychology only to understand differences that were nothing but obvious some decades ago.
god i wish jordan videos had subtitles
everyone needs to know of the pareto distribution!
I would love to know what his students from these lectures think about his new stardom. I wonder if they knew what amazing his lectures are.
1:05:10 Jordan Peterson describing himself for like a minute straight
My results were incredibly accurate for the most part but I will need to repeat it as I took it when I came off depo shot after 15yrs and wasn't self aware and spiraling as the depo is realy bad on you exp emotional when u stop using them as it floods your body with ALOT of extra hormones as they were on pause, I'd like to take again soon but it's only been 6months and the recovery of renormalizng from what I'm told can take 2yrs for me easily as I was using it so long
It made me come out VERY neuroticism heavy
I scored 98th percentile in agreeableness. Even by female standards it's completely insane. At least I have insight on what to pay attention to now!
People who get 0 in Agreeableness be like: I disagree with that assessment.
On Dr. Peterson's big 5 test, my agreeableness was scored as 2% overall. On the politeness aspect, I scored 0%. So....any questions? I'm not a sociopath...I think.
Same!
I actually took the test a few days ago I scored 71 and 96 so on the average 83% on agreeableness
I recommend going through these in 1.25x speed so that he sounds like he's just discovered microdosing in the bathroom down the hall right before the lecture😌👌
1:07-1:15 utterly profound
He should've published that study at 1:13:23
In his autobiography, A View From Above, Wilt Chamberlain said he slept with 20,000 women.
in say 20 years is 1000 a year is like 3 a day. Or 60 years 1 woman a day. This can't be true. Jordan should have known.
Can't? I'd guess that the Pareto distribution makes it not only possible, but likely. Have you seen the way women throw themselves at some men? Maybe the number is exaggerated, even doubled; still makes no difference to his point.
Yeah it just is unrealistic, but even 5000 women would be extreme
That was interesting and it's not like you can argue the point because he's just spitting facts lol.
I would never bring cup of coffee to anything. I find it rude, but I am not from US/CA so it could be cultural.
Why is that rude in you're view?
Blah, blah, blah, standard deviation. Blah, blah... "Men prefer beauty." Girl immediately immediately raises hand. Dr Peterson- "Yes, you had a question?" Lol.
Pretty obvious what women are listening to. Which, although I LOVE Dr Peterson and his work, stating that men are dispensable is unhealthy for a generation of women looking for excuses to discard and discredit men. Without men to protect and provide, we wouldn't have made it the last 100k years. Because a giant, pregnant woman can't hunt. Each balances the other out. Hence, I believe, the reason why there is aggression tendencies in women and nurturing characteristics in men. No half of the whole is dispensable.
It's the truth though, males by nature are dispensable in the sense that there might be a better choice, and disposable as they risk and offer their lives to females for the sake of procreation (and at least in us humans and some of our mammal relatives, for recreation.)
"Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."
We have to accept the science, by the way, the way you put it might give the wrong impression, control those emotions lad.
I think the correct word is not agreeable but yielding. Yielding people may not just succumb but may have a(hidden) plan to overthrow the one who is blocking your way, I think. Also one can be agreeable cause of persuasion the good or the bad way.
@@PeopleHealthTru so approach at times disputes standing?
@@PeopleHealthTru better the man focus on his quality rather than tricks, although tricks may spare you for a moment.
great lecture, I understand statisitics isn't jordan's specialty, but he's wrong when he says the paraeto distribution and normal distribution conflict with each other, they are actually measuring different things, their axes are different.
Where are lectures 18 and 19 from 2014? :(
i did the test and my agreeableness is 0. i want to improve it
thanks for the reply. the tests i did were from seemypersonality.com/ and humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
the result from the 1st one shows that my neuroticism was 80 ( i think thats pretty high) and 0 agreeableness. I did was volunteering for elderly in the church for about 2 months. maybe high neuroticism is related to low agreeableness? not sure
i guess if u are angry all the time it is harder for u to say yes to anything
No it wasn't
Are you high in conscientiousness?
Galton's board is not random, all the balls fall from the same place. Where do you expect them to land just because you put few nails on their way? maybe they will bounce away, but the next bounce would also have to be away for them to be farther from starting position x. It's weird everybody believes this is 'random', it has some interference which introduces some randomization like a brownian noise.
I have been trying to find the French-Canadian study with 433 male and 700 female respondents that Dr. Peterson is referring to. Does anybody know?
Also I find the assumption strange that fertility rates (number of children if I understand it correctly) correlating with number of partners the previous year as measuring attractiveness. A woman can be very attractive but never have children, and mothers typically have a harder time finding new partners so this seems very strange to me.
Link to the studies ?!
-- Women are obviously more emotionally disagreeable, but perhaps more CONVINCEABLE. Jordan even teaches about Yin chaos (female) and Yang order (male). Asking for a raise = strength, risk, responsibility and value, not agreeableness.
-- Facts versus emotions. Males have less need to be agreeable if the desired results is a logical solution. The common knowledge of older men is that females desire the back and forth argument for her EMOTIONAL NEEDS and she gets angry if her husband gives the solution.
-- Truthful people admit that females live off of 'emotional disagreement.' Healthy females might be more 'CONVINCEABLE' eventually after their long emotional disagreements (because facts should win over opinion). In order to get female approval, Jordan claims that females are more agreeable.
1:04:06 Where is this study from?
I think it's that one : link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02692154
Around the 27 or 28 minute mark you mention that around 3 S.D. of agreeableness pretty much they're all women, and you say this probably doesn't matter much.
A few years back I read news of a case where a female sitter felt pressured to strip/have sex with the pubescent boy she was sitting (and gave in to these pressures), and she was eventually convicted of statutory rape.
I don't know what the absolute facts of the case were, but this may indicate that over-agreeableness *can* lead to prison sentences (and not merely as accomplices).
Yeah of course, that's the typical case in some films where some criminal mind forces a really agreeable person to commit crimes as well, and they do just to please the real criminal
She felt sexually pressured by the child in her care?
Female on male rape happens more than you might think, and it's often adult females sexually assaulting male children in their care.
The sitter claimed that she felt pressured. She might have even said that the boy was asking for it.
No closed captions :(
Awesome
1:07:15 - I'm sure he meant Wilt Chamberlain instead of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
20.000 woman in say 20 years is 1000 a year is like 3 a day. Or 60 years 1 woman a day. This can't be true. Jordan should have known.
I was told NOT to watch videos with cat logos!
48:12 This supports the hypothesis that one reason for gender differences being less pronounced in less egalitarian societies is artificial inducement.
01:02:30 Might that some men are attracted to Anime characters be in part explained by the preference of neoteny?
What do you mean with your first point? Less egalitarian societies aren't trying to ewual everyone out, but they typically force men to be workers and women to be mothers, how does this support the thesis that less egalitarian societies would have less gender differences? Intuitively they should be bigger cause society forces them to those differences
@@thomas.thomas It's been a while ago, but if I remember correctly, Peterson was discussing at another point that one reason for the fact that gender differences are even less in "traditional"/unegalitarian societies might that there is motivation to oppose stereotyped roles, which is less pronounced in egalitarian societies. It is correct that one would assume less egalitarian societies to have bigger gender indifferences, as you write, but data shows that the opposite happens.
@@thomas.thomas If you go far enough away from an egalitarian society people do whatever they have to do to survive, regardless of supposed gender roles
Ok, so he doesn't understand that culture and environment will have an effect on the personality a child will grow up to have.
What course is this part of? Psychology??Undergrad? Hope you get well soon JP!
Post-Grad think it's 4th years
It is psy230, so second year undergrad
What is the name of the paper at the beginning?
40:56 so you’re saying women are fat?!!
I disagree with many of his statements.
Which and why?
Wow... men really do have it better. We can make ourselves attractive just by changing our personality and working hard. It sounds like he was saying women either have it or they don’t. Thats a harsh reality
Not really, because in general women can always find sex partners if they're not picky. Genetic analysis shows that women are twice as likely to pass their genes on as men. On average, most women have children, and about half men do, historically speaking. It may be different in the current generation.
@@jrd33 we're not talking about sex partners, we're talking about long term marital relationships.
@@AB-ps4ob If we're assuming monogamy, then men and women have it equally good then (since the number of men and women in long term relationships will be equal, assuming same0sex relationships are not statistically significant).
But we can't assume monogamy. Just look at emperors or rulers like ghingis kahn who impregnated thousands of women
i was told in the third grade that by birthright, i would never have a union job, so better get creative. but at night, people take apart my projects, so why do anything ever?
Portuguese Subtitle please...
I would love to buy you a Starbucks coffee.
Galton Board = plinko
Does anyone have the source study he's referring to at 1:04:27?
I believe it is this: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02692154
Everything about the Big Five: ua-cam.com/video/zYTeT07Z6qw/v-deo.html
This hipoteses can be contradicted by race amoung blacks: African American women bear children from unemployed black males given during slavery black women were unable to care for their kids. However it would make more sense for women to have kids from men that can afford to support them n theor kids.
I think a lot of people aren't voting for Jeb Bush because he seems to be a tad too high in agreeableness for the presidency. Whereas Donald Trump on the other hand ... :-)
jeb is a WASTE
28:30
My iq was found to be ta least 146, found those with iqs down around 100 to 120 seem downright stupid, those in the 120's are the minimum i can talk to,and those with iq's in the 130's seem very ordinary. Am impressed with the math whiz males having iq's up around 150-190.
48:00
talking about IQ I have a pretty high Iq but I have to say that some of the nicest people are not so clever and as Ian McEwan said some of the nicest people we meet in our lives have never read a book.Right.
Okay but you could also have a high IQ and still never have read a book if you just never got thougt how to read
1:07
Looks tired and stoned af.
Why do pot heads always think everyone is stoned? I here this a lot too from colleagues who are potheads.
The face of demons that will not be confronted are cast upon the face of the Lord and the Lord is all that is good. So as there is good in you expect to be clothed in the deceit of the fallen, though we are the fallen as well. We will be in this way Until that time when mankind can be whole and holy individual. As only therein can we be assimilated back to the first man and our great Mother. There we can withstand the face of God again and speak, Thankyou Father for we have learned of good and evil. Lucifer will turn back to heaven and the gates of Eden will open back to us. Past the burning cherubim our death will be cleansed leaving us clean to eat of the tree of life and the tree of good and evil will stand having served its fruit excellently. Because the final perfection of mankind is not through mankind but through God and the dead are not forsaken.