Jordan Peterson | Hierarchies, Inequality, BIG 5
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2024
- Dr. Jordan Peterson is arguably one of the greatest synthesists of ancient spirituality with cutting edge science, uncovering the nature of reality. In this talk we discussed competence hierarchies, wealth inequality, psychometrics, maximizing human potential, and much more. Enjoy.
SHOW NOTES 📝
0:00 Welcome; lobster notice; positive comparison to Tony Robbins
1:25 "Competency hierarchy" discussion, also, "dominance hierarchy"; pure power is an unstable basis; chimpanzee and crustacean examples
9:08 Economic success and IQ; job performance and trait conscientiousness; both saying AND doing the thing
14:10 Hierarchy maintenance includes other hard-working people not in power; "more fat people than starving people"
17:25 Responsibility goes up as you go up the hierarchy; more on competence and its benefits
19:00 Oppression discussion, "wise king and tyrant"; Brothers Karamazov "Grand Inquisitor" story
24:15 Radical left despises competence; the definitive way to make an IQ test and Big 5 model; statistical correlations
28:35 The statistical reality of distributions; listening to the tails
30:26 Career choices by sex, things and/or people
32:28 "There are no right-wing conservatives in psychology; none."
34:36 Confusing theory with fact; more gender difference in occupations
38:15 "Success is disproportionately rewarded"; nonlinear-ness; Google and diversity discussion; "The Great Leveler" by Walter Scheidel mention; Gini coefficients ever-present throughout history
44:34 More on inequality and societal instability and status; "Monopoly", stacking up at zero
48:30 Tech as a resource multiplier; U.S. Armed Forces/83 IQ discussion
51:55 You can't train creativity; MBA screening process; overestimating training
53:50 Liberals and conservatives are BOTH wrong on work; everyone is not the same; "genetic lottery" in Silicon Valley
57:20 Working with cocaine addicts in personal practice; hope for the future
1:01:00 More on inequality, moral burdens, not-simple problems; "Scrooge McDuck money bin" idea; Bill Gates' polio and malaria initiatives mention
1:04:20 Putting money to societal problems; things parents should teach children; positivity across species; Jaak Panksepp research on rats for touch and play questions
1:11:30 More Panksepp, on iterative games, esp. dogs and rats; "emergent reciprocity" points to development of ethics
1:14:18 Universal ethics trading game "brief story"; winning the game vs. winning the set of games; ethics around the game
1:18:46 "Quick dive into science and God"; informed decision-making; Biopreparat story
1:24:01 Ethical direction of scientific query discussion; facts and/or/vs. values; the bomb
1:26:25 Intellectual Dark Web and conversations in society; Carl Rogers mention; "can't force someone to be better"; being intellectually honest is the most interesting
1:30:20 More on having real conversations; "meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts"; life is suffering
1:34:00 State of flow is the primary religious experience; more on religious experiences
1:35:03 Simulation Q1: Are we in a computer simulation? "Is A, B?"
1:37:57 Acknowledgement/thanks for Dr. Peterson
1:38:47 Credits
Welcome ✌🏽 We Uncover The Nature of Reality
1 Interview Smart People
2️ Synthesize First Principles
3️ Elevate Planetary Consciousness
⭐ Our trusted funnel of projects ► allensaakyan.com
💗 Build DAOs for the New Earth. Meet Basic Needs for All and Maximize Our Potential.
We're doing this at HOME DAO, join us if it resonates ► thehomedao.com
🎨 DR. JORDAN PETERSON
Website ► jordanbpeterson.com
Twitter ► / jordanbpeterson
Instagram ► / jordan.b.peterson
12 Rules For Life ► amzn.to/2AgPtZ9
20% OFF DISCOUNT CODE ► SanFran
SELF AUTHORING ► selfauthoring.com
UNDERSTAND MYSELF ► understandmyself.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
SHOW NOTES 📝
0:00 Welcome; lobster notice; positive comparison to Tony Robbins
1:25 "Competency hierarchy" discussion, also, "dominance hierarchy"; pure power is an unstable basis; chimpanzee and crustacean examples
9:08 Economic success and IQ; job performance and trait conscientiousness; both saying AND doing the thing
14:10 Hierarchy maintenance includes other hard-working people not in power; "more fat people than starving people"
17:25 Responsibility goes up as you go up the hierarchy; more on competence and its benefits
19:00 Oppression discussion, "wise king and tyrant"; Brothers Karamazov "Grand Inquisitor" story
24:15 Radical left despises competence; the definitive way to make an IQ test and Big 5 model; statistical correlations
28:35 The statistical reality of distributions; listening to the tails
30:26 Career choices by sex, things and/or people
32:28 "There are no right-wing conservatives in psychology; none."
34:36 Confusing theory with fact; more gender difference in occupations
38:15 "Success is disproportionately rewarded"; nonlinear-ness; Google and diversity discussion; "The Great Leveler" by Walter Scheidel mention; Gini coefficients ever-present throughout history
44:34 More on inequality and societal instability and status; "Monopoly", stacking up at zero
48:30 Tech as a resource multiplier; U.S. Armed Forces/83 IQ discussion
51:55 You can't train creativity; MBA screening process; overestimating training
53:50 Liberals and conservatives are BOTH wrong on work; everyone is not the same; "genetic lottery" in Silicon Valley
57:20 Working with cocaine addicts in personal practice; hope for the future
1:01:00 More on inequality, moral burdens, not-simple problems; "Scrooge McDuck money bin" idea; Bill Gates' polio and malaria initiatives mention
1:04:20 Putting money to societal problems; things parents should teach children; positivity across species; Jaak Panksepp research on rats for touch and play questions
1:11:30 More Panksepp, on iterative games, esp. dogs and rats; "emergent reciprocity" points to development of ethics
1:14:18 Universal ethics trading game "brief story"; winning the game vs. winning the set of games; ethics around the game
1:18:46 "Quick dive into science and God"; informed decision-making; Biopreparat story
1:24:01 Ethical direction of scientific query discussion; facts and/or/vs. values; the bomb
1:26:25 Intellectual Dark Web and conversations in society; Carl Rogers mention; "can't force someone to be better"; being intellectually honest is the most interesting
1:30:20 More on having real conversations; "meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts"; life is suffering
1:34:00 State of flow is the primary religious experience; more on religious experiences
1:35:03 Simulation Q1: Are we in a computer simulation? "Is A, B?"
1:37:57 Acknowledgement/thanks for Dr. Peterson
1:38:47 Credits
Thanks for tuning in everyone! What do you think is the nature of reality? Let us know in the comments below! :)
Would you mind explaining to me why in some views they seem to switch sides? Like some of the camera angles are viewed through a mirror and others appear to show them directly??
Jordan Peterson Starter Pack:
Generally Speaking
The Data On That Is Crystal Clear
And That's That
So Yeah
“Yeah, no”
“how about no”
“that’s wrong, it’s not just a little bit wrong, it’s mindboggingly/unbelievably/[insert adjective] wrong”
😂😂😂
OK buckoo
Roughly speaking
Lobster
The interviewer was not well prepared for the conversation but it was fantastic anyways. Thank you for posting
carlotapuig oddly that might be why it was a bit more interesting then some others, usually the short interviews seem to parrot each other.
Leftist "thinking" does not prepare people for an intelligent life
I agree Peterson is a great interview subject. I found the poor interviewer. camera work, sound and editing distracting.
I felt angry every time he was interrupting him to say some dull shit
Agreed. The tone seemed to be set immediately from the seeming accidental admission that he didn't know where to start at the beginning, to which Dr. Peterson jokingly reminded him, "You're the interviewer." He seemed to repeatedly use buzz words as a crutch to sound intelligent, but many of the questions were confusing or incoherent. Dr. Peterson kindly extracted a useful question out of them (rephrasing them to clarify or outright asking the interviewer at least once to explain what he meant) before moving forward. Like another commenter said, I found myself wishing the interviewer would stop trying to poorly engage in discussion or to interrupt with his bad ideas or useless comments, so that he would instead just let Dr. Peterson lecture, as that was considerably more interesting and less awkward.
This is the best Jordan Peterson talk I've heard. All of the others focus on the politics, left vs right, arguments but here we see him discussing the other problems and phenomena in nuance and detail. I wish it was much longer.
Thank you Ahmad, that was our intention, lots more to discuss with Jordan hopefully soon!
Yeah well people get distracted by the politics but the same issues and concerns exist regardless of who is in office. Truths are truths and people respond differently to situations depending on their own experiences or personality.
Listening to this guy gives me hope for humanity, for life, for civilization.
I wish I could say the same... Not really
Hes the best.
It depends on what you mean by hope, humanity and civilization.
That didnt age well.
Same as Jordans examples of Bill Gates and bio weapons.
In all honesty m8, humanity has run its course.
Jordan actually says here (and ive been saying the same for some 15 years) that its yet to be proven that science is a blessing. As things are and again, as ive been saying, it is science that brings all our deaths. You want me to give examples or do you happily want to believe what you believe untill its there?
The only piece of light is that it may actually be so that there is a god. And smth after death. But i cannnot fathom what that is or means even. But if you want to believe that, there is no science that can refute it.
I am absolutely thrilled to see silicon valley give the brilliant Dr. Jordan Peterson a platform to speak. It's about bloody time.
These are people who wanted to see him, not your typical silicon valley radical leftist.
Just when you thought JBP was on the right, BAM!, he's on the left.
Secret Agent Paul ....seemingly.
@Articulate Management yes
@Articulate Management How is he a libertarian?
The wit in this comment is highly underestimated. It refers to both the camera work and politics AND it's funny. Cheers to you.
Who tf cares
Confusing camera work. Doesn't produce a coherent view of the room. Left-right switched between shots etc.
Looks like that is supposed to accentuate the 'simulation' theme of this channel. However, it takes away from the intended content. I see what they were trying to do, but its ineffective.
Agreed. I noticed this right away and was like, "what the fuck?". Whoever did that editing broke a cardinal rule of camera work and presentation. Doing that would be acceptable (I guess) in an art-piece, but doing it for an interview is flat-out stupid.
This is not confusing camera or even editing work. Someone literally flipped (mirrored) the image repeatedly in post, for some unknown reason. It's totally disorienting and serves no purpose I can see except to interrupt the coherence of the interview.
1 minute in and I thought I was tripping. Haha
The host going on about the lobster was a lot more annoying to me than the camera work.
I grew up in a time where we knew men and woman are different and it didn't take billions of dollars to prove it
Luka K. Wow very lucky to grow up like that and how very sad that children do not know kind of loving family
It became a great intellectual revolution to through away all the old ideas. So now we must discover them again.
Dius276 basically don’t blindly believe shit
You also grew up in the time that ALLOWED this to happen, so stop trying to act like you had no part to play in the changes in society, your generation WAS the change.
There are a lot of good reasons to understand the differences. I found "The Female Brain" to be very informative and usefful. John Gray's work is useful as well.
"If you tickle rats with an eraser, they laugh ultrasonically." -J.B.P.
1:10:16
th-cam.com/video/d-84UJpYFRM/w-d-xo.html
[Laughing ultrasonically]
The editor just broke the 180 degree rule 3000 times 😂💔 I’m listening to this like a podcast because it’s visually killing me 😶
It’s killing me, what side is Peterson sitting on?? Lol
😂😂😂😂
I feel like the Joaquin Phoenix Character meeting the Robert De Niro Character in The Joker right now. The Jordan Peterson Character is a Self written Architect. Something to aspire towards in many respects a very good g.o.d or global operative descriptor
Peterson never fails to impress. The whole Tony Robbins into could’ve been done without but Peterson wins. He’s a tonic in a world where empathy has eclipsed reality
It was a great privilege to be here. Thank you Simulation for hosting. Thanks a million for coming Jordan. You have no idea what a blessing you are, well, I suppose you must know by now. I hear you’re coming back to SF in May!!
I think the ‘reciprocity with generosity’ moment was a fine one. I wanted to hold up my book as an example of that. Buy a ticket, get a free book thrown in. Next time I won’t be so timid.
I’m almost done with self-authoring. Its a great tool and I have benefitted from it in many ways (at age 59). I always chuckle when I read it on the instructions that it may take up to five hours. How about a year????
How does Peterson align reciprocity to the big five personality traits? I'm a fan of reciprocity theory, particuarly Adam Grant's work. And I'm a fan of Peterson, so I know he maps many things back to the big five, such as emotional intelligence which he says doesn't exist, along with many others that are absorbed by the big five and/or IQ. How is reciprocity connected to or distinct from the big five and general IQ?
👍 @@TheRadicalCentrist.1776, interesting comment.
It seems that reciprocity would map on to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness from the Big 5.
@@platoscavealum902 Good observation. Adam Grant, one of the authorities on reciprocity specifically addresses agreeableness. th-cam.com/video/YyXRYgjQXX0/w-d-xo.html. I agree with your observation, but Grant also differentiates it. Thanks for giving me something to ponder.
"You remind me of Tony Robbins"
"I think he's taller..."
"....okay. 'Tiny' Robbins."
Im sorry but.... Jordan >>>> Robbins. And Robbins is a 90% all-time speaker/philosopher.
28:00 multiple intelligence, personality
32:49 career choice are based on personality & interest, gender difference
49:45 wealth inequality and iq
Peterson is a fascinating human being.
I can't get enough of his lectures.
Thank you.
It was great to see you in person Dr Peterson!
From kenya one of those from subsaharan africa watching this
Hello! Happy to hear that you found our content! What was your favorite topic from this talk?
Emergence of ethic
If you're interested we have a curated playlist with many guests we have featured on the show discussing the topic of ethics! We would love to hear your thoughts on those talk if you feel so inclined!
1:34:37 "trying to see if everyone is engaged in the conversation" - aaand the camera finds the one sleeping woman in the audience.
To be fair I think it is actually two teenage girls perhaps sisters, bored to exhaustion...
This is one of the best JP interviews out there.
ARE THEY ROTATING THE VIDEO ON PURPOSE?
Johnny Gootz I noticed that too.
Makes you wonder which way it's supposed to be.
Is Jordan left or right handed? If he’s right handed then his watch would be on his left wrist. If so Jordan is on stage left. My God this is annoying.
its mirroring, not rotating, that's why It hurts the brain.
If anyone can see which side of the suit the buttons are on, you could figure the original mirror; men's suits have the buttons on the right, which means Peterson's watch is on his right hand and he's to the left of the host.
Unless he's wearing a woman's suit...
Question dude: "so.. do you think..."
Peterson: "No."
Grumpy Peterson
😹 yeah i noticed this often !
The absolute removal of sound in-between pauses is really off putting. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
LostinChina I think it's for coyright purposes. I might be wrong
I didn't notice, but audio equipment can do this automatically.
As a bad producer i know that they put the gater on their sound on to high a setting. It's a tool that removes sound below a certain level.
Might be to save time. Many podcast apps have this as a feature.
The microphone of the interviewer, at least, seems to be sound activated.
1:32:15 "… To see if everyone is engaged in the conversation."
[Cut to audience member who is fast asleep]
At least the editor has a sense of humour.
hhaaha.. true
To anyone wondering: I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd during this talk, and I can confirm that JBP and the interviewer switched places many times mid-sentence
It is such a joy to watch Jordan Peterson on TH-cam!
Yes Daniel! :) Appreciate you watching & commenting
Thanks for watching! What do you guys think about competence hierarchies, big 5 personality traits, wealth inequality, and the art of having outstanding conversations? We'd love to hear your thoughts below. There are tons of other incredible interviews on our channel, check them out & Join Our Public Telegram: t.me/simulationseries
Where are the replies below?
Jesus please get another host, the one you have right know seems kinda fake
SeparadoresAtecon
I think the host will read this comments and take a lot of feedback from it. I'm sure he will improve. Probably new to this role.
Peterson just peddles in pseudoscience, his "hierarchies" theory has been debunked over and over by real evolutionary biologists, he is a charlatan.
Competence hierarchies... im afraid for mankind that is mostly wishfull thinking.
In optimum situation, it probably is about competence, but we've never had such an optimum and it doesnt look like we ever will.
The sole fact that the most brilliant minds are in 3 categories equally, proves that. 1/3 are captains of industry and so, top notch functions. 1/3 is barely hanging on at the lowest segment in western societies. And 1/3 is institutionalized. Not counting the ones that committed suicide, bc their rate is very high.
There are many factors that far more determine success. Ancestry, looks, manipulative skills (which is moral), etc.
Jordan defends hierarchy and the brightest getting to top, by pointing out his audience is 120 iq or higher. But that is already a selection. It doesnt mean anything. If you want to measure iq (competence) and succes, you have to measure all of society. And then you will find its not competence.
But yes, create that. Its too late for me, but id like to see it happen. It never will, so good luck with it.
Remember, its about WHO you know. Not WHAT you know.
Peterson is a good debater and a wise man, high iq, quick thinker. I like him, but he can also be wrong. And sometimes he is and still make a good case for something. Problem is that his interviewers are not half as fast as he is, so they cant think of a counter argument. Not when hes right and not when hes wrong.
Not so smart after all...
How to reduce inequality: We need to encourage successful people to be more generous in providing opportunities and resources for others. I like that-That is a win-win. And what goes around comes around too.
At least that's a better approach than trying to force people to just give up their earned money (aka. stealing it).
They already pay for all of society as is (with taxes alone).
It may take a few more rough decades before at least, the countries that have modernized by then can afford something like basic income. If the research Peterson is citing on IQ is that strong, the best a sufficiently wealthy society might be able to do is afford such people a moderately comfortable existence.
sole21000
That's a lazy way of thinking.
Firstly, it makes a huge difference where you live - in rural areas or in big cities.
Costs of living vary extremely, from $120/month to $2000+/month just for rent.
So, you can't pay a waitress in a small town the same wage (due to lower traffic/earnings of the business) as one in a big city.
And you wouldn't have to, since costs of living are also cheaper.
So, in that sense, equality already exists there.
Secondly, I believe that people with an IQ of 85 & below affects about 15% of the US population.
That is about 50mil people.
Which means, everyone else has to either voluntarily (or forced, like the left wants it) take care of those people.
And that's just based on IQ.
Imagine other factors like health/disabilities.
"Comfortable existence" is *way* too vague, in the same way as "living wage" is.
GT83 Yeah, but we're funding that with a healthy capitalist system that optimizes for meritocracy otherwise, and giving it _decades_ (who knows what's going to be invented in this century). In the mean time, violence will increase inevitably as we lack _any_ good solution and homicide rate invariably increases in any population-dense area (I'm not worried about the country outside of absolute poverty, which obviously also has an affect on well-being).
Peterson's basic point is:
-The Left is naive about the difficulty of inequality, handling money is hard bureaucratically and by individual people at the bottom.
-The Right is also naive because training doesn't work/people on the bottom tend to have low IQ & conscientiousness, that is nearly immune to remedial efforts.
-The link between inequality and violence is as strong as any other correlation he cited.
-Capitalism is excellent at abolishing poverty. It also produces inequality exponentially to scale.
-We implicitly don't want the poor (and unfortunately, basically useless economically) to starve or rob everyone else.
-People at the top work hard. They also won a genetic lottery. People at the bottom are those who lost the lottery to the extent _they couldn't join the army_ if they wanted to because nothing they could do is useful.
I would say that's an argument that if moderate redistribution isn't the answer, you better pray for some future tech to solve the problem.
Edit: The specifics of something like basic income would definitely need to be weighted on the state of the economy by then, it's impossible to know that far ahead. Maybe condition it on moving to a low-density area to keep costs low? That's pretty much the plot of Ready Player One.
Either way, if Peterson is correct, it's a stark problem with no painless solution. It's either figure out effective redistribution (which is clearly extremely difficult) or let social instability increase unchecked except by potential repression. You think politics are bad now...
sole21000
You're absolutely correct & I agree with everything.
Which is why I have such a problem with simplified statements/demands for "living wage" or "comfortable existence".
The fact of the matter is, that there is already one specific demographic that finances most of the state to begin with.
Rich people, which are usually also males.
So, I find it very dangerous to try to absolutely exploit those even more, just because they worked harder/better; which is basically punishing excellence.
And that's why there will have to be had *many* conversations, & difficult ones at that.
"Easy solutions" are no solutions at all.
But yea, who knows where we will go from here.
I wish that more people would actually think about the problems that exist, as much as Dr. Peterson does.
Instead of just making empty & useless utopian promises, that the communist/socialist types are purporting.
Equally, things can't stay the same for too long either, as it is the basis of conservatism.
Need many more dialogues & actual information & viable solutions.
Which is why I love listening to Dr. Peterson so much as well.
*Edit* : Didn't address the state economics part but in my opinion it would have 3 major outcomes.
1) Someone evaluates lower wages for an area & employees make less money.
2) Wages stay the same & taxpayer money is wasted on nothing.
3) Wages increase but businesses can't make it up in revenue & have to let people go and/or close.
So, to me it's not a viable approach at all.
The market usually handles that itself & if one doesn't like the wages, go elsewhere.
I had a great time at this event, seeing JBP has been a goal of mine for awhile so I'm glad the Simulation Series was able help me achieve that!
This is one of my favorite JP discussions
Jordan Peterson always talks in forms of, let me give you and example. A simple analogy to the problem, that makes it easy to understand. Thank you.
Very enjoyable interview with the best kinds of topics to talk about. Thank you
Brilliant! Really enjoyed hearing Jordan Peterson operationally phrase, in such a precise manner, the inescapable contextual input needed to be able to understand language. PC is wrong in equating nouns or noun-phrases with bounded concepts per se. Imposing normative speech and thus normative thought is the death of both. Lots of other good content as well. JP is intellectually brilliant. Thanks for the conversation.
It was amazing! Thank you!
Thank you for making this video. The problems, though there, are not insurmountable and I believe that this format is worth continuing. Keep up the hard work man.
Incredibly potent! Thank you gentlemen.
I’ve heard if you say “dominance hierarchy” 3 times in the mirror, Jordan Peterson will appear behind you.
underrated comment
It was great to see Dr Peterson Live, thankfully the host had questions for him that I have not heard him discuss before.
Unfortunately there is slight microphone distortion in the video and also the camera angles keeps inverting in the video which is a bit confusing as it constantly shows Dr Peterson sitting on the left and then on the right. Thank you for posting the discussion on TH-cam, keep it up!
Yay glad you saw it live. It's so important to ask challenging questions our world is facing that leaders haven't answered before on TH-cam. That's a main goal of our vodcast and live event series. We will get better with A/V!
The camera flipping effect is really quite bad.
Thank god, I thought I was tripping balls!
@@SimulationSeries related to the camera angles... I am curious how the camera produced such an effect? (not complaining, just curious)
I love this. Ive been lpoking for the thoughts and knowledge from intelligent and trustable experts like Jordan Peterson.
Facinating discussion! Camera mirroring changes is a tad distracting, but the discussion was very profitable! This is how we find solutions!
You can go for an hour straight listening to this man and still not losing interest not even for a single moment. Watching him speaking is like watching an artist doing his job (dancing, painting, singing etc) live.
This man is a gift from GOD for our insane immoral times he is totally fascinating I cannot get enough of his mind and the goodness of his heart
I love this comment
I had a feminist UCSC student get miffed at me last week because I told her I was reading a book, "The Female Brain" written by a feminist woman MD, who also wrote a book, "The Male Brain", nothing would satisfy her. Feminism is disgusting.
Thoroughly enjoyed this important conversation. Looking forward to going to the next live Simulation show!
one of my favorite interviews! thank you!
So glad you enjoyed it!
Jordan would make an excellent Presidential advisor.
I'm going to listen to this over and over in some times to catch and digest the mere wisdom of it. it's so much to eat in one time.
Thanks Jordan Peterson for these remarkable knowledge spreading.
I had to look this one up:
a fly in the ointment
phrase of fly
noun: fly in the ointment
1.
a minor irritation that spoils the success or enjoyment of something.
synonyms: snag, hitch, catch, drawback, difficulty, problem, weakness, defect, pitfall, complication; More
obstacle, hurdle, barrier, stumbling block, bar, hindrance, impediment, handicap, disadvantage, restriction, limitation;
disbenefit;
informalhiccup, facer;
informalspanner in the works;
informalmonkey wrench in the works
"the only fly in the ointment was Adrian"
Translate fly in the ointment to
This is awesome-one of my favorite interviews of JP!!! My favorite is when he absolutely unequivocally supports the science. That is how you save the world. Objective Truth first, and everything else later… but only if you like people, peace, harmony and stuff like that. 🤷♀️ 😂 best interview ever.
I have known JP for 20 years and the thing he did with the context of meaning in words for the simulation question at the end is the example I gave him when I was starting my work on meaning as the key to everything 20 years ago ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😎 He still uses it. Because we are long lost brothers. 😂 plus we’re both hella smart… except I live in my car now. Because I am too busy thinking to have a career. I left school to write books and stuff. Stay in school kids. Don’t be too revolutionary. I even figured out what gravity is along the way but no one is listening because they don’t have the gear to cross that river.
1:17:00 "let's play a Trading game"; JBP Brilliantly explains Ethics.
What a wonderful conversation! On a side note, I found it amusing that Peterson enjoys Trailer Park Boys.
He's very very Canadian, which makes all this much more fun!
A Little Nonsense Now and Then is Relished by the Wisest Men
I wish they would have shown the crowd more, or just for a bit longer on each of the cuts. Their snub reactions are priceless.
Tony Robbins? Seriously? Beyond that tho...another seriously enlightening conversation. And no protests, bullshit, etc...good to know the Bay Area isn't as daft as the stereotype.
T Clark If I were Jordan, that would have been an insult to me.
I view him as a modern, inspired, brilliant version of Joseph Campbell.
36:30 Woman in the audience is in women's studies and is insulted! 😂
she must be a snowflake......
Excellent discussion, thanks for coming to California!
Amazing talk Jordan Peterson is brilliant
💯 🙏 exactly super looking forward to more of JBP coming alive & inspiring us
This is Peterson at his absolute best.
Love jordan peterson and the LOBSTER stores
Well done, Allen!
Thank you 😊 💓
Ok Peterson just increased my respect for him. Well done very interessting topics and awesome presentation
Great job Allen! I've interviewed dozens of people on my radio show and know how challenging it can be. I would have been nervous as hell interviewing him and it was great to hear him talk about science this way. One of the best interviews with him anywhere on the net.
When JBP said "Well, you're the interviewer", he should've answered "SO YOU'RE SAYING you cannot start a conversation yourself?"
That would be epic.
Very insightful knowledge i learnt there ..thank u x❤❤
Just subscribed because of this; thanks!
I like those chairs lol. I'm shopping for chairs
Jordan is so brilliant here. I always learn something from him, even when he keeps covering similar topics. The final piece, in my view, is not only that those with more than enough have a morality about helping others who cannot (not will not) lift themselves out of poverty, is to set the free market on this problem. Why? Because we have ample evidence that this is the most effective ways to solve this kind of problem, rather than the massive waste inherent it trying to delegate this to the state. Therefore, the solution to the problem Jordan claims "we don't know how to solve" is to make private charities that actually get results a focus. This means the state limiting their competition in this area, and also building a culture that deeply reveres charity... not for "religious" reasons, but... for lack of a better term... for a shared sense that finding meaning is important.
The pace at which this will happen depends mostly on the sticky fingers of the state getting out of the way, and perhaps to give tax incentives to charity.... there are some of these, but they are difficult and limited. The true leftist instinct is a very good one, when it is channeled towards running charities that are actually and provably helpful. You can't run compassion through the law, which is ultimately about force.
I don't understand how a charity is more effective than using the state to distribute money. Governments design specific programs to encourage people to seek employment or what have you. Charities gather cash from people who are nice enough to bother donating it, and do various things...but in the end isn't a 'hand out" a hand out?
The reason is that government is a monolithic entity that attempts to apply one solution and has no incentives to succeed, and no real penalties when it fails. The free market, on the other hand, allows for experimentation with hundreds of different approaches, where the approaches that work can advertise the statistics on how efficient they are and thereby get more donations, where those that do a poor job get quickly de-funded. This is vastly more efficient, and is the efficiency argument, which should be very high priority for anyone who cares about those who are struggling.
Then there is the moral argument. Let's look at abortion. If I think it is murder, and you think it is compassion to help someone who can't afford one but wants to do it, then how do we have a state welfare system that doesn't either force me to fund what I consider to be murder (could there be a greater injustice?) or denies what you see as compassion? With private charities, I can fund an organization that helps to promote bringing the baby to term and adoption, and you can fund one that pays for abortions.
Then there is the honeypot argument, where because the state is so large and can put billions of dollars into a project, the temptation to abuse power to get control over those fund is very large. So we have identity politics being funded to push things like affirmative action, and this sort of problem is often caused by vying for the pile of money available through state power. In free markets while you do indeed have a vying for funding, it is all out in the open when you come home with 10 brochures on various charities you are considering funding, and choose the ones you think will do the most good. So the diffuse (and peaceful!) nature of the problem solving mechanism makes abuse of power more difficult.
These are very strong arguments, and I have never seen any kind of refutation for them. People will say things like, "What if there aren't enough donations?" But my question is, "Enough for what?" Enough to make sure that every struggling person has a iPhone? Who decides if handing money out to someone is better than helping them to find a job? People dying of curable diseases? My own view is that this would be among the first sorts of things to be funded (see Bill Gates), however, in my own case, I would choose to fund a charity that focused on prevention, and indeed do things like deny saving someone who keeps going back to booze after their liver was replaced once. But you might want to keep helping pay for endless livers. Therefore, by definition there will always be "enough" where enough is exactly as much as people feel truly good about giving in ways they care about giving. The good news is that we already know that this is a huge amount based on looking at donations to charities. These donations would rise dramatically if people didn't have the hope/excuse that "the state is handling that".
As a final note, there is one more argument that is my personal favorite: the pleasure argument. When I help someone in an effective manner it is more than just meaningful, it is pleasurable. When taxes are run through a state mechanism, I don't get this pleasurable feeling at all. I do get it when I have donated to a charity that I know is being effective. This is a sort of connecting with meaning/loving that is something that I feel is a great tragedy to deny people.
Kon Berner
clown pampered millenial sheet.
@@konberner170 I definitely agree with most of what you're saying. But for the last part, the unfortunate part is that the big government progressives DO receive the pleasure. They think casting their vote every 2-4 years is the same as getting involved in a charity. And not only do they get the pleasurable (but false) sense that they're actually helping, they also get the social kudos from their virtue signaling.
This is why conservatives and libertarians should take the lead on solving problems outside of the government and then throwing them (gently) into the lefties' faces and shaming them for accomplishing nothing of value. They need to be shamed for their false virtue. If they actually put their empathy to good use, who knows how many problems could have been completely resolved by now.
Also, end Drug Prohibition.
@@gussampson5029 I agree. But in the spirit of Jordan's overall message, the real answer is for people to grow up and realize that real responsibility is a good thing and not a burden all things considered. Such people will realize that the virtue signals are not meaningful and will start to see the importance of liberty and justice.
Great interview. On point!
good talk.
This host fellow seems extremely pleased with and proud of himself, for not very much reason that I can see. But hey, any excuse to hear JBP say things, I'll take it and tolerate the silly hosts.
I disagree, i think thats put on. He seems extremely nervous to me, you can see his unease when he started the conversation.
He kept debating without fully listening at some points...it was irritating.
He’s trying to put an arrogant face cuz he’s insecure, despite being dominated by JP.
This is all the hosts production so I could see him being proud that he got someone this interesting to do something with him, I'd certainly be pleased if I got to speak with Jordan Peterson and got him to do a show with me or whatever. I get what you're saying though, he needs to accept people are watching for Mr. Peterson and shut up, affirming everything Jordan says and breathing into his mic is only detracting from the presentation. I would literally rather have had Peterson up there by himself with a list of questions than have this guy host it, his stupid little laugh sounds like he's slowly dying and exhaling his last.
Should give you pause. Obviously very few people would platform such a pseudo-thinker as Peterson.
At 9:15 the cameraman went "What are those!?"
state of flow blew my mind
Amazing !!
Am I the only one who doesn't have an issue with the video and audio? Yeah, it's not a movie, but the visuals are effectively pointless and the audio is completely understandable. At least, I've had absolutely 0 issues understanding what anyone says. Most of you seem to care more about production than content, and I just cannot understand why you'd watch this. I mean, I feel privileged just to be able to get this for free.
Also, a lot of comments seem to say the host's introduction is weird. You guys know you can toggle and skip it? I don't know if the intro is weird, didn't watch it. Idk, listening to the introduction of a podcast or lecture always kinda seemed pointless to me. I read the title, I know what I'm in for.
I didn't have a problem with the audio at all. Absolutely clear enough for an interview. But I did have a problem with the video because half the video was mirrored and it was kind of disorienting. Even though I prefer watching lectures and interviews wherever I can, I eventually stopped watching and just listened. And everything was okay again.
Excelent talk by Dr. Peterson, despite the awkward moderator...
best host ever
San Francisco needs WAY MORE of this.
I like the moon landing socks :)
Love this Allen! Although you should talk to your editor, because it looks like some of the shots have been mirrored.
It's so disorienting and annoying.
When people's misplaced creativity attack! Either that or a lack of competence of legendary proportions.
Thanks Luke! We had our PTZ robo cams hanging upside down from magic arms off the wall and forgot to flip the image. We'll keep getting better over time. Sorry for the annoyance it may be causing on this video.
You mean you simply flipped the video vertically instead of just rotating it, right?
Gary Parker 1 in 10 people huh
this is a dope show man.
Jordan laces his talk with more humour now. He gets speedier and wiser. He addresses many of the big questions as we progress into the 21st century, following in the footsteps of earlier geniuses like Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, etc. and his contemporary worldwide colleagues and associates. He and his family have to sacrifice some things to do this. Keep it up, man!
peterson claims the hierarchies of capitalism are based on competence.
he is "demonstrably" WRONG.
the hierarchies of capitalism are /\ pyramid shaped, while every natural hierarchy of competence is a bell curve, with few at the top and bottom and the majority in the MIDDLE.
/\ pyramid hierarchies are artificial and integral to capitalism/profit, there has to be a very large base in a capitalist hierarchy in order for profit to be generated, profit is not possible in a natural bell curve hierarchy.
capitalism is UNNATURAL and abusive because of that fact.
That was beyond fascinating.
He is right on about the reason men are far more represented in STEM. I have been saying this for years.
i can't stress how important this whole interview is. . . i cannot even explain why to anyone that refuse to listen to facts....otherwise, listen carefully :)
I always love Jordan Peterson's views and insights on many issues. One question. Why does this video periodically flip the image? Is it some sort of social experiment?
Great to hear JBP answer questions we haven't heard him answer before. As the interviewer develops his own unique style of asking questions, I look forward to seeing more thought provoking conversations such as these. Perhaps Sam Harris could be next? ;)
Thanks Max! We have inquired about Sam and will keep you all posted.
As part of my job, I write virtually all day and I often review other people's writing. One of the hardest things I had to learn was to separate style from error during that review process. Similarly, when I first started listening to this video, I found myself judging Allen Saakyan's style rather than his ability, or the content of the video. I see that now as unjust. He is clearly an intelligent young man, and that he does things differently than I might is likely a good thing. He helped guide JP into territories that were new for the audience, and me, and helped bring us new perspectives. I will certainly be listening to him again.
Wow Mikedeela! Warmly received & very well said. We strive to see things similarly with other creators! Thank you!
1:16:57 most powerful insight
Imagine having the opportunity to Listen to Jordan Peterson and sleeping through out!!
I've been friends with this guy since the end of high school and he has been going to university for the last 12 years or so settling in the area of cognitive science and neuro science etc. He's doing his PHD this year and part of his thesis involves a scientific paper written by Peterson which took my friend by surprise. He didint even realise at first. This is cutting edge science on the brain. On consciousness. Not some pseudo science or doctrine to support political ideas of his. Its ridiculous people try reduce him to whatever suits them
Thank you for your comment, what paper by Peterson was your friend working on for his thesis?
Simulation www.jacobhirsh.com/Hirsh,%20Mar,%20&%20Peterson%20-%20Psychological%20Entropy.pdf
Simulation let me know what u think
9:45 - A wild Paul VanderKlay appears!
And Eric Weinstein about 2 rows behind him too
You are an artist.Thank you for your work!
Alexander Freeman you can hear his distinctly loud jolly laugh a number of times too!!
Alexander Freeman paul is awesome, post petersonian theology : )
LOL - this brought me much belly laugh.
1:38:38 absolutely brilliant!
Completely off topic, but I really love those chairs! Wish I knew where to get some. Maybe a nice dark mustard yellow or burnt orange...
Tony Robbins ???????? Wooooooooow...
Dear God, Peterson likes Trailer Park Boys... I'M SO FRIGGIN' IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!
He is Canadian
The comment about the behavioral psychologist and the dog was epic!!!
I've not seen anybody more assertive than JP
Speaking of "multiple intelligences", I think the idea of "emotional intelligence" is nothing more than the agreeable projecting their paradigm onto all humans.
Their metric contends that I am terribly emotionally unintelligent, yet I can still recognize that the agreeable types are operating on nothing more than "I personally don't like it = bad", and "It doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities = good", and that that is exceptionally emotionally unintelligent/undeveloped.
It's actually the agreeable version of narcissim aka BPD that causes people to think like that.
EQ was launched by Salovay and Mayer, somewhere round 1990. They picked it up from a student that invented the term. They launched it, but the first definition they gave was completely nonsensical, so they had to change their definition a year later. It still was utter nonsense.
Nonetheless media picked up on it and ofc, all the no brain fools used it to try to gain same status as real high IQ people, saying it was just as important to be high EQ. And they also automatically assumed that someone with high IQ, would have low EQ. I did nothing but counter those fools in the 90ies and early 2000's. Was almost a day job. Thank god its mostly gone now. There is no such thing as EQ.
great interview! new channel? glad to be in on this early :)
Thanks! Yes channel is a couple months old. We are designing the test track for the world's most brilliant minds. Asking questions about things like wealth inequality, consciousness, space colonization, global ruling elite, genetic engineering, maximizing human potential, neural laces, nuclear fusion, clean meat, and the most beautiful things in the world. Tune in more often to our almost daily vodcast and comment/share the content you find to be most profound/useful in your life!! This is in addition to the four massive live events we plan to throw each year with high-caliber speakers. We are the next major platform for scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs, and game-changers, because we've had enough of the entertainers in Los Angeles and athletes across the world getting most of the media spotlight. The future of humanity is in the hands of those willing to put their necks out there to build a better world. We are moving into a new studio in San Francisco, any help to keep us going is much appreciated. www.patreon.com/simulationseries
One of his more important talks I feel because he really drives home the notion that people aren't equal and that measurements of this in the social sciences are actually solid mainstream science of which there's surprisingly little disagreement or debate in the field itself. A huge amount of the social justice movement is predicated on people being equal and social constructivism (blank slate theory) that humans can be programmed to do whatever you like, if you have a strict enough environment. Not only are those ideas wrong but they're also extremely divisive because when you assume equality and what you measure is inequality then it turns into a witch hunt to weed out all these negative social pressures, which don't actually exist. Everyone just ends up chasing their tail and becoming increasingly divided over whose fault it is.
Me at 10 minutes before going to bed: this seems interesting.