He did it quite well. I like the example he used regarding physics. It reminded me when Richard Feynman was asked about magnetism, and Feynman went, paraphrasing “How deep do you want me to go?” Showing example after example the different explanations based on the depth of understanding. That Destiny became so useless as to debate the specifics of Alex’s analogy instead of capturing the overall picture of what he attempted to do for the example shows how narrow minded he is when he tries to win an argument.
@m.caeben2578 It's really weird trying to frame even this as if Destiny was just trying to win an argument. I mean, Alex was literally the one playing devils advocate, defending an idea he disagrees with, and you still try to paint Steven, who was just arguing his own opinion the whole time, as the dishonest one Edit: I'm not saying Alex was dishonest, but in this interaction, the one with the more transparent and straight forward approach was clearly Destiny
@@marekb1556nah, Alex is fully on the “I must not piss off those who may decide I’m not serious and will no longer let me in to the serious club of serious people.” He’s fully into bullshit at this point.
@@marekb1556 Being honest and being trying to win an argument are not mutually exclusive. He is simply hyper-focused in his trying to be right sometimes he brings whatever comes initially to his mind for a quick game of trying to overcome his opponent. I think the following questions might illustrate an example: 1. What do think the message behind Alex’s analogy on physics was?
@bensalemi7783 I did not say that :D I don't see this as Alex vs Destiny, I see what each one was doing here and it worked for me. I just don't understand the "you are just trying to win" allegations thrown at Steven even when it doesn't make any sense
Peterson does this because he wants to avoid making literal truth claims that atheists can refute but he also wants to avoid saying it’s just a metaphor/allegory because then he’d alienate his Christian audience
“I think I’ll get the lobster. Do you know what you want to order, Mr. Peterson?” “Now just a moment! That’s not a straightforward question. You see the menu is more than just a collection of dishes that one can order to consume, and in fact, ‘consumption’ itself a rather complicated notion I can bloody well tell you that. You ask me what do I want to order… there are so many ways to take that idea. What does it mean to want to consume something? So… you might think the beef sandwich sounds lovely, but in the entrees on the back, here, there, there’s a spicy meatball pasta dish. Isn’t that peculiar? Spicy food is not exactly enjoyable in the same way that a beef sandwich is. It’s rather the opposite! And yet here it is and you know that people go for that. Why would they be drawn to such a painful experience? Is it because they *wanted* the discomfort? More than the comfort of the beef sandwich? …”
That question about does he believe god really exists. You give him a yes or no question that goes with his biases and you will get a of for sure or a not at all yes or no type answer.
I love alex i think he did a great job in the conversation but Alex literally asked Peterson "man listen if there was a video camera there, what would the camera show" at one point to get him to answer a question materially If people have to do that it's really on Peterson on being a weasel.
O Connor went all in on that mimicking at the beginning. It was funny. The reason I think Peterson obfuscates on religion is because he doesn't believe it but doesn't want to alienate his predominantly Christian fans. Loyal fans that he shouldn't have.
Alex's incredible good-faith empathy is why he got an answer out of Peterson that Destiny would never be capable of. Alex goes TO the person he wants an answer from, Destiny demands that person conform to HIM.
@@exigency2231 That might be _exactly_ why he pisses me off. Because _I'm_ combative by nature, and I work my ass off to try to understand other people, and change my behavior so I'm not pissing them off. When I see someone behaving in a way I wouldn't allow myself to behave, without any shame, then that just boils my blood.
This is exactly what i was thinking. The words 'argee' and 'disagree' don't really work on the Peterson, O'Connor meta level but when someone like Destiny says 'I fundamentally disagree' to something really abstract and meta then this is a lack of understanding or trying to understand what is really being said. Afterall, it's theology and philosophy we're talking about.
@@HyButchan I would say that Destiny & Peterson have some of the same personality traits that make them annoying to observers. - They're both pedantic when it suits them in the moment & abstract when specificity would harm their case. - They're both overly reliant on superficial rhetorical techniques in service of appearing to, "win," rather than engaging in good-faith discussion. - They both insist on opining on subjects far outside their ken and use aggression to mask their lack of knowledge. - They're both bland, conventionally-minded, grey flannel traditionalists, full of resentment at a world in which they're no longer automatically the centre of interest & attention and convinced they're the only sane voice surrounded by dullards & fools. aka they're both egotists.
I think Destiny just wants a clear and natural conversation without all the bullshit. Aggressively make progress, its what I like about him. He says it, it makes sense, no bullshit.
What I find the most interesting about this conversation is that it not only happened, but it happened in a meta manner. It happened with such importance that its happening transcends mere emperical happening. In fact, one might say it's STILL HAPPENING.
That story of Alex and Destiny has more wisdom in a single paragraph than most books. It’s insane to me. You know, I’ve studied it for a long time and it still reveals things to me.
Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground: “Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”
Good try the only problem is that actually made too much sense to be jordan peterson and you forgot to relate it to dostoevsky or cain and able, other then that it was pretty good :).
There couldn't be a clearer contrast between what it looks like when someone lacks empathy, and projects bad motivations for why people do things he doesn't understand (Destiny) and when someone has empathy and searches for how, when someone does something he doesn't understand, there might be a good faith reason for it (Alex).
@@MrYukawa How so? Like, it was due to Alex's meeting Jordan halfway that, when they met with Richard Dawkins for a long podcast recently, Jordan was able to adjust his argumentation to meet Dawkins halfway, and by the end of it the two were lit up with excitement, finally on the same wavelength.
@AlexReynard Absolutely but that doesn't mean Jordan is no less of a fool. I totally agree that empathising is a good thing and somewhat rare in the online space but it's just wasted on jbp.
@@MrYukawa Please explain why I should believe you when you call him a fool. Because hundreds of geniuses, scientists, and experts of many different fields who have been on his podcast all disagree with you. Like, why should I think you're smarter than O'Connor and Dawkins in judging JP's character? Why are they dumber than you?
I can clearly understand how Alex O'Connor has risen to prominence. He clearly sees complex standpoints, is willing to strongman them, and then work his conversation around them. As a Christian, I have a huge amount of respect for him.
@@tradermann Oh yeah, be as condescending as possible. That'll convert everyone that wants evidence before belief. A comment like that says more about your own insecurities of your Faith- it's a way of putting someone else down for a sense of affirmation for yourself. Makes you feel special.
I appreciate Alex defending Peterson in his absence, but let's also be honest. Peterson is not some super genius who understands the topic so unbelievably well that he just can't fathom how to answer a very simple question when asked. If you have to put THAT much effort into asking a question to prevent playing the semantics game, then you have to wonder why Peterson does what he does. I doubt it's because he's too smart for the question.
I mean nowdays on many many topic JP is talking his ass off, but specifically metanarratives like religion are his expertise, he wrote a book about it Maps of Meaning and thought it in the Uni and gave public lecture You can watch his old videos pre 2016, he literally got famous from his series where he dissect Genesis. Before all the politics and gender stuff.
One of the most notable characteristics that I'm seeing in Alex's engagement with others is he does not get swayed by their emotional energy. His thoughts are actively focused on the context of the verbal exchange, and is drawing logical conclusions and incorporating relevant conceptual data to bolster or refute an argument. This separates him from even Ben Shapiro, where that emotional anchoring appears when discussing certainly closely held beliefs. Alex has been the most impressive at maintaining this neutrality out of anyone I've watched thus far. We can all learn from this. Edit: seeing common misconceptions in the comments the difference between not feeling versus not being entirely controlled by emotions. He’s clearly engaging with others’ emotions appropriately here. I’ve never implied that he’s a sociopath, in fact quite the opposite.
You must be from a younger generation. Some of the "New Atheists" delivered with similar cold calm directness.Alex has had a couple of them on his show (Harris, Dawkins), and I'm pretty sure that Alex is a guest speaker for Dawkins at some of his upcoming tour. Hitchens is still the best for me out of that group though. Although direct and brutal to the point. He also added character and wit when needed.
It really does help you propel certain abstract terms to consciousness though. You are essentially talking about very abstract concepts that exist in multiple dimensions and perspectives. The hand gestures mimic that space and sort of encourage the process, in my experience it definitely helps, its probably completely routed in coping
The fact that JP is world famous for writing a book where 1/12th of the content is dedicated to the importance of ‘being clear in your speech’, is something I find hilarious.
Imagine Jordan Peterson analyzing the Exodus story, and he starts off with, "Now, you see, the Israelites, they're a representation of chaos, right? And Egypt, well, that's order. But it's too much order. It’s like when you clean your room so much that it becomes sterile-that’s tyranny! So Moses, the archetypal hero, you know, he comes along with his staff-that’s a symbol, by the way-and says, ‘Hey, Pharaoh, let my people go!’ Which is essentially like saying, ‘Let’s loosen up a bit here, man, we’re drowning in hierarchies!’ And the Red Sea? Well, that’s just life’s overwhelming potential, ready to crash down on you if you don't get your act together. So crossing it-that’s navigating the chaos. And the Ten Commandments? Those are, like, rules, but not the tyrannical kind. They’re the kind that make you stand up straight with your shoulders back in the face of suffering and say, ‘Alright, bring it on, existence!’”......
but the story is about Moses the hero saving Israelites from Pharoah the villain, therefore he will try forcing chaos onto Egypt and order onto Moses somehow
What gets me about Peterson is that he says that you have to be precise with your language so that people can understand you... and then he talks in the most obfuscating way ever...
i find him very understandable and precise. so much so that once i understood and implemented what i have learned in my life... my life got drastically better. and i think that is how and why he got famous- because his lectures had amazing implications in real life
@@LemonHelmmetexcept when he isn't, which is explicitly what they're addressing with the relevant examples that were center to the entire video. When he isn't obfuscating and intends to be precise, sure, he is good at conveying his ideas in their nuance and expanding on them. This is precisely why Destiny disagreed with Alex's attempt to grant Jordan some leeway where Destiny points out several times you can be creative and contextually expansive while bringing it back to a meaningful center which Jordan refuses to do on certain questions. Jordan knows the question being asked, he's intentionally elusive. He quiet literally dances around certain topics and avoids being precise even if on other topics he is much more clear and precise. Again, they literally cover a point blank example of him doing exactly this. Clearly directing the criticism to the relevant point.
@@LemonHelmmet no one said he wasn't understandable. the comment said he obfuscates It's funny how you claim to understand Peterson but ... don't understand the message conveyed here.
@@wren4077 well... my English might not be perfect but obfuscate means unclear right? ok i will rephrase it: he is as clear as day so that makes it understandable even to the likes of me who learned English by hearing.
Actually, when Jordan Peterson was asked the what is a woman question by Matt Walsh his response was ‘Marry one and find out’. Which is kind of in line with his usual line of reasoning.
Everyman that's married a woman knows how women are and how they are different from men. It's like the married men's FAFO. You know, humor. Plus I think he intentionally did this destiny more than normal, I think the reason for that is that Destiny needs counseling and so Jordan went to work lmao
True, Destiny is very tribal and doesn’t even attempt to accept that others have different views, Pakman is similar. Peterson at least has inspired many people to change their lives.
@@Sepear305 probably you didn't understand Peterson's position. What is not very honest is that Alex and Destiny keep saying that Peterson is unclear but they seem to understand his position. So why they are complaining for? Are they surprised that a professor gives and acedemic answer to a metaphysical question?
It was defininetly better than anyone else has done but the question was not as specific as it could have been and so still leaves lots of wriggle room for Peterson. Alex asked Jordan if he would expect to see a man leaving the tomb and not would he expect to see a previously dead Jesus leaving the tomb unaided.
@@Robb3348 Yes I'm not claiming it's original; just saying it's something that can pin JP down to a specific theory of Christ more than, "Do you think he rose from the dead?"
@@johnwheeler3071 I would disagree with just a small point that you said, I feel the simplicity and lack of detail he asked it in was important. Because if he had said a "previously dead jesus" it would've given Jordan room to start saying "Well it depends what you mean by dead!" And the cycle would repeat.
Where does his obfuscation come from? 1. He does not want to alienate the audience he’s monetized. 2. He believes that a lack of religious belief results in a hellscape world of wanton murder. So, he has to do what he can to foster belief.
And 3 he was extremely depressed for a decent amount of time, during wich many many many people openly wished for his death. Theres a degree of PTSD here, this man hasnt been confronted in good faith in so long, so he feels that if he gives an inch he will be pushed towards saying that hes the second coming of Hitler, irrational as that may be, its not hard to see were those feelings come from if youre not too emotionally invested in hating him.
@@aguspuig6615 No doubt, he definitely feels the weight of the dogpile. The visceral way he debates and comes at his counterpart with preloaded baggage of negative expectations and associations is a sign of that. And it’s a pretty common phenomenon for even average people who experience much online discourse. I could only imagine that an elevation in status worsens that on the receiving end and then buffers you against criticism by allowing you to retreat into the protective silo.
The obfuscation has become worse over the years and seems to be directly proportional to his level of fame and how often people try to come at him with constant gotcha questions. Cast your mind back to how often people hone in on one thing someone said, and now that's getting brought up constantly for years. I'd be sick of it too.
@@elusivecamel Sure, that would get annoying. But there’s a reason why this question to him lives on in such profound infamy. It’s because it is one of the most deceptively indirect responses you could possibly have to the question or the topic. And that is coming out of the Man, who pushes himself as a purveyor of truth and intellectual honesty. Meanwhile, he tours the world speaking on the subject and rakes in millions from people who either don’t care that he’s not willing to state his actual opinion or don’t understand that’s what’s happening.
Maps of Meaning is literally where he started, and that is the basis of his debates about religion and how he became famous. Even his personality classes have some religious aspects. His oldest videos are about the nature of evil and his lecture series on Genesis and the psychological significance of those stories are among the oldest videos that Dr Peterson first uploaded. He has been at this for a long time and so many questions have a lifetime of research and thought behind them and therefore require a sophistifated response. In math however, two plus two always equals four.
The way he does Peterson impression is so on point. The shifting in the seat, the gesticulation with the hands, the pained facial expression as if you’re making some kind of bowel movement of wisdom. Petersons cheap theatrics and histrionics do him no service.
@@theQuestion626 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Alex OConnor is so admirable for understanding Peterson's approach to analyzing the Bible, philosophy is complicated and so is language, and Alex understands how hard it is to discuss such an abstract concepts. Very introspective and very impressive in his ability to confront Peterson's ideas. One of the best debates I've heard, respect both ways.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Alex’s answer regarding a physicist answering a question is interesting, but falls flat because we see these types of people all the time, and they DO in fact manage to answer questions. Neil Degrasse Tyson, for example, we could easily imagine him getting a bit over complicated, but he WOULD answer the question unambiguously in the end.
Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that gender is a social construct whist simultaneously claiming that a trans woman is a real woman. If ‘woman’ is a social construct how can one identify as a woman and it be ‘real’? NDT is a well educated moron.
@@rayaqin is your point that you don’t like Neil? Input your favorite smart person. It absolutely does not affect the argument and you know that and you didn’t need to make this comment. You just wanted to let us know you don’t like NDT.
@@rayaqin this is not an opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the name of the physicist. In fact, I made the argument, and said “for example” when I named NDT. So, you either agree with the argument, or you don’t. If you don’t, then, obviously, you think that physicists are unable to answer questions unambiguously, which I just strongly disagree with, having spoke to and watched the content of many physicists. Alex’s point is that even a physicist, when asked a basic question, would behave as JP, and complicate things. I’m claiming that JP fails to bring things back around after the complication, but in general, a professor of physics WOULD EASILY DO THIS. Because there is an answer to these questions and they have it. JP cannot do this, because he claims to have an answer that he does not, so he obfuscates to the point of forgetting what the question was. That is the difference I’m calling attention to, and I use physicists as an example because that’s what Alex used. I don’t think this is a controversial claim.
Petersons' answers must cater to both his religious and semi/non religious audiences. If he ever gave a straight answer to a religious question he will instantly lose either or both of these audiences, and he knows that. This also explains why he never obfuscates his answers about "anti-left" topics like wokism or socialism or climate change - those are the talking points his audience wants to hear, so he's clear and concise about those. Bottom line - he doesn't care about being intellectually honest. He cares about keeping his audience and the fame/money that come with it.
Exactly. People often leave out the $$$ element. He's just a a crass opportunist who follows the money trail. He has no beliefs, no integrity, no personality. Just an empty shell.
@@hooligan9794 But he doesn't avoid those conversations - that's the point. He simply obfuscates endlessly when he engages in them. If he wanted to avoid these topics he could just tell the hosts in advance, or say he thinks these topics are too deep for a two hour conversation and leave it at that. He doesn't do that because he needs to create an impression that he has some unique philosophical view about religion that is counter to both the atheistic worldview (placates his religious fans), but is also more sophisticated than the mainstrean religious worldview (for his non-religious fans that are looking for meaning). If he ever gave a straight answer about his religious philosophy it would be revealed as an empty equivocation fallacy and he would lose a large chunk of his audience, so he never does. Instead, he gives some non-answer so that his audience thinks he actually engaged with the question. That's his game.
The guy in the thumbnail...not Jordan, the other guy...he looks both really young, yet old, and yet also like he's from a time period that was like 50 years ago....
15:06 I feel that Peterson's response to questions regarding whether Biblical accounts are literally true also reflects "what side he is on." He is a champion for many Christian theist fans.
This guest reflects majority of people these days, intentionally rude, and putting people down behind their back. 100% props to Alex for his high standard of respect and integrity in trying to understand complex topics and perspectives without being judgmental. Your humility and honesty inspire me and many people to uphold those standards.
He is too much of a coward and not enough intelect to choose a side. Besides he's milking both sides for money. That's the upper limit of his intelligence.
Honestly, haveing listened very closely to Alex'es conversation with Peterson I understand Petersons reluctance to answer the questions directly. I also understand the frustration it causes. All in all Alex did a pretty good job pin pointing Peterson's position on God.
Alex doesn't want to make Destiny uncomfortable but he knows perfectly well what Peterson means and the theologic tradition is referring to (he had a very interesting conversation with Peterson about gnosticism). The problem is that people nowadays don't understand the concept of transcendence (specifically, the coexistence of real and meta-real). So people now think God in a childish way as a huge ghost or a Marvel's parallel dimension and they boil down the whole debate as literalists VS atheists. Peterson's take is far more mainstream theology than people think. Unfortunately, instead of answering, he tries to give a lecture to a start-from-zero audience.
@@AdamJones381 Peterson wants to have a cordial conversation about god. there’s a lot that he doesn’t know, just like how the god of the Bible’s intentions are not always clear. Peterson to me is humbling himself to explain his reasoning, because he’s not an apologist or a pastor who deal with theology on a regular basis.
@@yungalucard9139I believe you’re overthinking it. Peterson comes off as someone that doesn’t want to alienate his religious monetary base, while not being a complete believer himself.
I think the reason JP does it with these topics specifically is because, even though he likes to frame himself as a believer in Christianity from a more philosophical sense and less literal sense, that philosophical belief is strong enough that it still gives him pause about how to feel about the literal aspect of it. In other words, he may not fully believe the literal accounts in the Bible, but the metaphorical accounts are compelling enough to him that he is actually somewhat frightened to admit that he may not believe it literally, because it feels blasphemous to him. It's a subject that makes him uncomfortable, because it's a seed of doubt that he still wrestles with. He is unable to fully reconcile what it means to have something he believes as philosophically divine also claim itself as literally divine, yet seem to have error. Is it allowed for something to be philosophically divine and still have error? Does it matter? Is there a difference between a divine message encoded in a text and a divine text with an encoded message? I don't think he has fully decided on answers for those questions.
To be fair to Jordan Peterson, not every challenge to the premise of a question clouds the discussion. When he addresses complex concepts like "truth" or "belief," it's useful for him to offer nuanced explanations, especially when engaging with questioners who hold sophisticated, opposing worldviews. For example, if someone asks, "Is the Bible true?" an audience member may wonder whether they should believe in the Bible. In this case, it's helpful to clarify that some biblical stories may hold symbolic truth, even if they are not historically accurate. This shows that while a belief might be grounded in truth, truth doesn't always have to mean historical fact. Although this approach introduces new complexities, Peterson is right to be cautious in his responses, given the diverse audience he addresses. As an atheist, I know that most prominent atheist thinkers restrict their arguments about biblical truth to historical or empirical accuracy. While I personally don't think symbolic truth is enough to treat the Bible as sacred, I do see value in making this perspective clear.
The point is that entire libraries of books have been written about defining what truth, knowledge and belief is, it's called epistemology and is an important part of philosophy. The quickest way to derail any discussion about any topic with the exception of epistemology is to get into epistemology.
You act compassionate because you understand that you're a compassionate being OR because of social contract. Jesus taught about compassion but you've already gained a more accurate understanding about it than the story gives you. Symbolic truth becomes irrelevant when you have rational truth.
Well, if I would offer some good will. I would say he's cautious when it's beneficial to him. Cautious to point where it's extremely detrimental to conversation. I mean you are right, there's value in being nuanced, but this is sliding scale to be used based on context. If you are always 100% nuanced, you are literally not going to be able to progress in conversation ever. Other word for this would be obfuscation, more complicated than needed or diverting conversation. Just because some complexity is good, doesn't mean even more is good. And if it regularly happens to be used as tool in debate to win or divert arguments, we can spy some intent from there. Or he's just extremely bad at conversation and not that smart. Which I can't believe he isn't.
Psalm 137-9, 1 Samuel 15 are verse used to commit genocides as religious injunction from abrahmek gad. Lutheranprotestant Chrstinity is the basis for jw hatred due to which holocaust was committed.
I love how they acknowledge how precise Peterson will become when he’s not trying to dodge a question and do the little song and dance word salad thing.
That guy is a classic example of the guy that believed his mum when she said 'Oh you're such a clever boy'; you did well holding your patience with him.
I forgot where he said it but the reason he once argued to be right was because he admitted to having been allured to his high sense of ego as a young intellectual, it got to him that feeling of pride.
It's what the ancient Greeks called arete, he conceives his (intellectual) excellence as a moral virtue. Peterson is an aristocrat at heart, he believes he has the right to tell people what to do because his excellence makes him best suited to do so. To put it in Peterson terms: he's acting out Plato's philosopher king archetype.
In regard to the bouncing rocks answer: I'd say that the charged field is an integral property of the rocks, and thus, yes the rocks do bounce off of one another, people just don't notice the minuscule field that is a part of all rocks. It's like asking if two clones of Abraham Lincoln headbutted one another, with their top hats on, did they bounce off of one another. Edit to add: I know the top hats aren't an integral part of the clones, but they (the clones) did react to the force and mass of each other in a bouncing manner.
But the atoms in the rocks DO touch one another. Their electron clouds bump into each other and the rules for electrons in shells applies to them as they touch. If that isn't touching, then nothing counts. There is no repulsive electromagnetic force between the objects until that moment, but in that moment, they touch tips and electrons might be shared or exchanged. If you do it with metals you might get a bond out of the sharing of free electrons that welds the two pieces together. If one is electron is electron starved in its outer shell and the other has an outer shell with just one or two electrons, you get static electricity. But make no mistake, it isn't really the electromagnetic force that keeps two objects from passing through one another. It is all thanks to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is like the meme that people craved spices in the middle ages to cover up the sour taste and smell from their food going bad. People repeat it a lot, but is is so wrong it isn't even funny.
"But he's smart enough to say that" = "He won't talk to ME the way *I* want him to, and I don't have enough empathy to meet him halfway, so why doesn't he make everything easier for me?" Destiny's stuck in childhood.
I don’t that that’s fair. I think he is correct, and Alex is correct when he says Peterson could be more clear about it. Whats frustrating about Destiny is always circling back to his negative interpretation of Peterson’s actions - just stating it without saying anymore on it to back it up.
@@whynot217 My other comments have conceded that he has a point. Jordan is avoiding answering the question. But Destiny chooses to see this as an offensive move; an insult. Jordan sees it as defensive. Like, give me a straight answer to the question, "When did you stop setting house fires?" That's an old courthouse trap, where the whole point is a false presumption and trying to force you to go along with it. If you respond, "I've never set any house fires" the response is, "Look, none of that convoluted crap, just give us an answer." Jordan doesn't want to give a simple answer because he knows people will clip it, take it out of context, and nitpick it. He doesn't want to give a simple 2D flat answer on a subject where his real belief is 3D multifaceted complicated.
@@AlexReynard It’s not a trap. As Alex says toward the end of the video, it’s a fairly straightforward question where the meanings of the words are fairly straight forward too.
@@whynot217 But only if the person asking them has good intentions. If a stranger approaches you and asks, "How're you doing tonight?", that's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. But your reflexive reading of his body language will tell you whether this is a friendly inquiry, or a predator sizing up potential prey.
The problem is its not kids asking basic physics questions, its adults asking basic questions and rejecting deeper analysis when they are perfectly capable of it but just want to simplify things so they can fight about it stupidly.
One good rule for life is to not idolize anyone, but try to learn from everyone. Dig for gold that’s useful for you. It’s okay to agree or disagree on topics that you have adequate knowledge on.
Alex, I’m a new fan. JP’s refusal to provide definitive responses drives me absolutely insane. But I listened to your full conversation with him and you’ve helped me to understand where he’s coming from and why he speaks in such a seemingly evasive manner. You’re an incredible communicater and I want to say I appreciate your translating JP’s ideas for those of us who don’t have the patience to.
You cant debate JP anymore. All talks with JP are like whoever has a position and a given argument say something and then JP cant answer or give a proper logical argument. He just evades the question with semantics, fancy words and just drives the conversation to somewhere else.
Totally agree. Having once liked JP I now find him utterly unbearable and a shockingly awful debater. He does everything possible to keep things as abstract as possible and says the dumbest things imaginable like "I don't understand the question". Well everyone else does! Maybe he doesn't want to answer? To me, he completely lost the plot when he found religion. Rational thought went awol.
@@DavidMishchukDM Explain Pisco. A lawyer who disagrees with destiny on so many things eg. Biden pardoning his kid. Yet, they're good friends. You just wanna be rlly mad and thats ok
If you're talking about Destiny then idk about "practice" but that man streams like 6-7 hours every day talking about these things over and over. Arguably one of the people with the most amount of video content on themselves out on the internet. So what you're seeing is a polished version. If it's alex you're talking about, that boy is incredibly articulate and well spoken.
As a good debater you study your opponent so you can anticipate their answers. How do you think he came up with the video camera question (even specifying the brand and type)?
I agree with the gentleman on the right. He is not being obscure because he is deep. Rather, there are questions that he simply doesn't want to answer.
But could it be because it is very deep? Make me wonder why he doesn't want to answer. He does a good job answering a lot of other questions really but religious questions make him more vunerable.
I don’t recall Peterson becoming famous for being a psychologist. The way I remember it he was making a big deal about a law about using pronouns incorrectly.
He was slightly famous before that for putting his lectures on TH-cam, so he had something of a fanbase. But yeah Alex is just being too kind. JP is famous for one thing: Getting into the culture war early on and with a doctorate, so he could represent the anti-feminists in academic settings and get onto the news by trading on his legitimacy
Even his psychological advice boils down to little more than common folk-wisdom about taking self-responsibility. The only reason he ever got famous was his contrarian row over refusing to respect people by using their preferred pronouns. His books are just pedestrian self-help screeds that peddle common sense about the need to introduce order into one's life. They would never have received any broad attention without the fooforaw he cooked up in defying university policy around transgender issues.
He became famous by opposing authoritarianism. His overall argument is that one must not allow themselves to become a slave to lesser things except that which is the highest possible ideal, aka God, and that the only way to pursue that ideal is by telling the truth no matter the consequence.
This appeared in my feed randomly and I didn't know this channel. I want to go on the record saying that I LITERALLY watched this video for six minutes and not being quite sure if these were two people or that this was some sort of meta-Jordan-Peterson-interviewing-himself-thing, where you see the same guy talking to himself. I resisted the urge to check. At some point I decided the guy on the left had a bit less beard going on so I went with 'two guys'.
I think you're both great thinkers, as well as Dr Peterson. I've engaged in a lot of linguistic study since my time as a linguist for the Air Force, and I believe Peterson is probably very convicted about words. It's difficult to spell out why some words convict you more sharply than others because it isn't really up to you which things beckon. If it bothers that he's more touchy with phrasing in certain areas, I'd encourage you to ask why it's a comparatively harder area.
Peterson made me grateful for having read an introduction to philosophy when young which meant it felt immediately clear to me that he was constantly bloviating and gishgalloping. It does seem illustrative that he can be clear and concise on some subjects but apparently not others, wonder which kind of answer he would have given if asked about his sponsors.
*"Jordan, before we start the debate. Did you DRIVE all the way here?"* Jordan "What do mean by "drive?" I was behind the wheel, but I had cruise control enabled part of the time so did "I" drive and was it "all the way here?" And by "way" did you mean the Highway or my style of driving? Because if you meant my style of driving, then I just emulate my teacher. So is it really "my" style of driving? So I might have to reject the premise of your question. Now back in Egypt where they "drove" cattle, if you'd asked about the macro-economic intepretation of someone who had the disease "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" we might look at the statistics of..."
Most philosophy involves a lot of pontification and dancing around a subject or concept for an extended period until an idea/theory is nailed down sufficiently. Is conversation wasn't really philosophy though. It was a discussion about Jordan Peterson between two people who are philosophically inclined.
I remember Enoch Powell defining a question during an interview with David Frost, and the audience began to boo, but Powell was right, the question was vague and open to misinterpretation, it needed to be defined first before an answer could be given.
A guy who can't understand the meaning of "you" despite context but is perfectly happy to use the very ambiguous and subjective metaphorical phrase "moral substrate".
I think it's quite simple: Peterson is doing this because he is unsure about some issues himself. Avoiding to answer a question is a plain sign of insecurity. Still, I don't understand why he doesn't just say it. His „argument“ would still work if he did. Maybe it's an ego thing. Maybe he can't admit he doesn't know something.
That’s my suspicion. Peterson doesn’t want to admit that he is tackling something that he knows very little about. I would have more respect for him if he was more honest about his approach to topics. But it certainly is as you say “an ego thing“: he loves presenting himself as the smartest man in the room. Do you ever notice in interviews when he is contradicted or in debates when he was contradicted? Watch how angry he gets, he fidgets, he breathes heavily, he plays with his wedding ring, his hand gesticulations become more theatrical. It’s just very odd to me that a man that tries to present himself as some kind of “seeker of truth“ seems to present himself as a man who has already discovered “truth“ and is trying to present it as concrete fact.
@@theQuestion626I heard recently the discussion he had with destiny and he said I'm sceptical about it and explained why. Isn't that admitting doubt? Or should he just admitted fully the climate narrative.
@@klb9672 skepticism is not automatically doubt. So now, that is not an omission of doubt. But it also doesn’t change that Pearson does not present any counter argument with any type of evidence against climate science.
@@theQuestion626 in the Dawkins interview, JP was pushed precisely on this questions to give a straightforward answer and his final answer was "I don't know". Which is a position that is not very strange among modern believers. His last book title is "we who wrestle with god". He expressed the concept of struggling with faith in many occasions. So frankly I am not surprised if he doesn't have a straightforward answer to a universally unanswerable question like "do God exists" or similar
Peterson is an MBTI INTP personality type. Even though it's akin to astrology, his being INTP explains why he explains so much. I like that he has that flaw - nice to have confirmation that he's human. At our best, INTP's are the professors with an extreme passion for our field of study. Or your university friend who talks about coursework over coffee and makes you wonder, "How does he know more than me when he's hardly in class?". We can be good public speakers due to the Extroverted Intuition which focuses on exchange of ideas and intuitively understands a crowd's mental receptivity of ideas = the stereotype of the professor. We also have Introverted Thinking, which is laden with heavy details. We understand that crowds need to be treated differently, but we're always hoping that someone can fulfil the role of our dream conversationalist - willing to dive into the detail, the myriad detours, have a similar passion to unearth the untainted truth of the topic no matter how long it takes. Even though it's pseudo-psychology, Peterson fits the INTP type.
I am not sure Peterson would even get specefic with his definition even regarding gender. He is actually asked what is woman in Matt Walsh's documentary about this and his answer is "marry one and find out".
And honestly I thought Peterson‘s response wasn’t as clever as he thought it was. It was a Dodge. Admittedly it was a humorous Dodge but was a Dodge nonetheless.
@@theQuestion626 that's why they are said as jokes because they are obvious. And honestly why it's so important for you guys to find faults in everything . He's still a human being. Of course he's not going to 100% honest and perfect in everything. Are you that way? Do you anybody that way? Come on stop being such a drag.
@@theQuestion626 that's why this things are said as jokes because thwy are stupid. And come on do you really know anybody who's perfect and doesn't make mistakes or has views that you consider stupid? Can't you see also the good side of a person or only the bad resonates.?
So both of these guys mock Jorson Peterdan ..and we can all agree he is a celebrity clown ...but if you ask both of these guys, specifically "destininy or, as Nornan Finkelstein might call him " Mr Tortellini" , if you ask them about the ongoing genocide of palestinians commited by the zio state ..they would ABSOLUTELY start evading the same way Peterson does. That's what intelectual dishonesty and incoherence is. I am saying Dredstiny because O'Connor not only has remained ABSOLUTELY silent since the begining of the zionist genocide of palestinians but he kept hosting and "debating" genocide supporters like shabibo, dawkins, sam harris , peterson .. Power, money but also celebrity corrupt the mind.
The irony about Peterson talking about religions is that he's really bad at it. I watched many of his lectures, and it's all wishy-washy nonsense. There are no red threads about what he's teaching, and A LOT of false claims that are just wrong. It's a while since I watched it, but having studied religion full time, I remember just finding so many claims that were untrue. The reason is that he doesn't use many "uncertain" words. Instead of going "I haven't found many who would claim X exists." he says things like "It's an impossibility for X to exist!" and then he trails off about lobsters or something. He'll say stuff like "No other religion but the religions that came out of Judea describes Y." when I'm like "Hold on. There are many. Hinduism describes Y more in depth. Even Buddhism and Shintoism describe Y." The worst part is that his lectures don't even seem to have a topic. They're just rants. What are people supposed to take from a lecture that mixed psychology, religion, human culture, and lobster culture. There's no value there. I think I'd raise my hand every time he trails off on a new tangent and ask "Is this going to be on the exam? Do I need to note that there's a scientific consensus that human culture needs mold itself after deep-sea lobster culture in order to thrive so that we can use their great teachings in the treatment of depression?"
This is the guy that quibbled over definitions for like 4 hours in a recent debate about insurrection just to avoid ever having to be in the defensive position. He has no right whatsoever to complain about obfuscation. He is one of the most tactical and machiavellian debaters around.
Excuse me what? he made clear his definition of insurrection, with example, and it was his opponents which refused to accept a common definition and engage
@@tentickterror8308 I'm referring to his 1v1 debate with Rob Noerr which was like over 5 hours. The reason it was over 5 hours is because Rob agreed to give his own definition of insurrection so long as they could eventually get to Destiny's. What followed was literally like 4 hours of Destiny doing the most pedantic and pointless quibbling over Rob's definition to stall for time and then when they finally got around to going over Destiny's, he rage quit. In other words, Andrew was *completely vindicated* in not providing his own definition because he knew this is exactly what Destiny would do.
@@silversalmon9909 there is no singular "legal definition." But also since the way it's being used is colloquially in the discourse, what should be discussed is how people tend to think of the word, not a "legal" definition even if it existed.
Completely agree, Destiny is the human equivalent of a dumpster; helps you take out the trash but when you look into it you see how disgusting and gross it really is after being filled with garbage so many times.
When Destiny was 12 he blew out the candles on his birthday cake and wished he was like Rain Man… unfortunately he missed half the candles and ended up like this…
I met Jordan Peterson on the street with his wife and child , I exclaimed loudly "Mr Peterson " grinning from ear to ear , he mistook me for a fan but I swiftly told him my real thoughts , it was a most gratuitous experience !
This is a very respectful criticism of Jordan Peterson, and I have a lot of respect for the conversation. That said, I will offer a small defense of Peterson, because he really does do his rambling, "challenging assumptions" thing with EVERYONE. Yes, he doesn’t do it with every topic, but he does do it with people who are his friends, not just his opponents.
What pissed me off about dr Jordan is he’s 100% sure that psychology is legitimate and based on science and evidence but climate science is bs. Like how can some science be good and some science is bad. Isnt all science based on evidence and the scientific method? He picks and chooses the science he likes.
"Isn't all science based on evidence and the scientific method?" Yes, by definition, but not everything that we are told is science, actually is. We (Brits) were told during lockdown that our rights were being taken away only because they were "following the science", and the science dictated their actions. Of course, those of us with working, adult brains knew that these were simply human beings throwing the unassailable banner of science in front of their battering ram as they approached the keep of freedom. Many people believe that the same is happening with climate science, and that this obsession with net zero etc. is simply a method of control. For me, the question is not whether the climate is changing (it always has), but who or what is causing the changes. Science is great. Human beings are a mixed bag.
To be completely fair, Peterson isn't wrong to criticize and question the validity of certain fields, because there is a sliding scale as far as what we refer to as a science. Now having said that, he's a complete and utter hypocrite and moron for even using this argument, and I can guarantee, he will never give an accurate or honest response when asked to define these things, because he knows that psychology is at the very, tippy top of the list, when it comes to fields that should not be referred to as a science. At its best, psychology is really nothing more, than the statistical study and analysis of human behavior. Beyond that, most of it's just, supposition upon supposition and assumption upon assumption. Maybe refer to is as a social science, and lump it in with sociology, anthropology and archaeology. But not wanting to contribute to the bastardization and diluting of the term science, they should be referred to as social studies or the humanities. By contrast, meteorological and atmospheric science, while not perfect, or the weather man would always be right and no farmer would ever lose another crop to floods, cold snaps, droughts etcetera; but at least it's all based on quantifiable and measurable, natural phenomenon.
I really appreciate Alex's steelmaning here. I think the biggest flaw with the lense with which Destiny wants to look at Peterson's discussions on religion is that Destiny cannot acknowledge the epistemology on which Peterson operates when he speaks about it and he is pedantically unwilling to give and take on it. The issue lies in what ''truth'' means in context. Peterson's epistemology (and he has covered it many times in the past) is just not typical rationalism and empiricism when he speaks about religion. He is operating on a more phenomenological epistemological framework and this framework doesn't allow the same objective rigidity regarding historical events. The reason this epistemological framework is used in this context (at least if we try to follow Peterson's view) and not in other contexts is because the religious and historical touches more than just the purely physical. Peterson seems to try to understand history and religion through subjective psychology rather than objective materialism and it appeared quite clear during the Peterson/O'Connor discussion. I remember him mentioning that it's not obvious through which lense someone *should* read the Bible or a lot of history. The reasoning (still following Peterson's logic) is that historical writings carry lots of subjectivity that doesn't purely capture the material (if at all) but rather capture the subjective experience of its participants and the archetypes through which they psychologically view the world. It's a bit like asking if Marie Antoinette *really* said ''let them eat cake'', the materialist answer is likely no, but the phenomenological answer is more along the lines of ''it carries the archetypes through which the historical writers viewed the situation which is an oblivious elitist ruler detached from the reality of her kingdom, the archetype was probably an accurate portrayal''. Asking ''do you believe there really was a person named Jesus who died and was resurrected?'' falls in the same vein where he seems to think the writing around the character portrays the archetypes through which the writers viewed the world around an event that may or may not have been the exact materialistic way in which they are described. To some extent, I think Peterson views God along the same epistemological frame. It may be a powerful archetype through which people have viewed the world for millenia and that impacts physical events through the psychological effects it carries regardless of its materialistic existence. In essence, the fact that people believe is what makes it real to them. The bigger point is : Peterson has a very phenomenological understanding of the world and many of his discussions are held within this epistemological context, not within an objectivist and materialistic context. This makes sense because.. the man was a psychologist, his whole job for years has been to listen to people and try to understand how they view the world, not necessarily if their views are materialistically accurate to describe their own circumstances which, many times, they likely weren't.
@@Kitaec1494 His stance doesn't make me think one bit that he either understands this or wants to acknowledge it if he does. To some extent, I've never even seen the man talk about phenomenology at all so I'd even question if he knows what it is as a philosophical concept.
That might be true, but Destiny’s point here is that for many questions, his phenomenological approach is irrelevant. If I ask “Was Jesus resurrected from the tomb” I am not asking on an epistemological level or in terms of higher order logic. I am asking in terms of a material account of historical facts. This is the obvious discussion to be had, you can’t just make everything into a subjective abstraction otherwise, there is no ground the be covered. You shouldn’t need to ask “What do you mean by happened” because there it should be entirely obvious in the context. When someone asks “What does Jesus’ resurrection mean” then it makes sense to result to higher order theories of meaning. But the no intelligent person with good intent would try to decontextualize the conversation when it’s not necessary.
@@davidkong8493 I will continue to play devil's advocate here and follow up with : what makes you think the every day materialistic interpretation of facts should even be the prioritized epistemological framework to view this specific question through? Not to say it shouldn't, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why one should even be prioritized over the other here, only a presumption that it should based on nothing more than a strong subjective attachment to it. You say ''this is the obvious discussion to be had'' but all this is is a rhetorical game of framing, there is no reason not to deviate from what you consider obvious and there is no reason to think the obvious even carries a more interesting discussion with it. The question also carries a lot of meta-discussions and assumptions to it that are not as trivial as the question makes it appear, it's a very loaded question. I would also agree with Peterson when he specifically said to Alex that the materialistic framing of the question : ''did Jesus really resurect from the dead?'' is often employed by people with hostile intentions towards the whole discussion and that it only serves to rhetorically kill a discussion and discredit someone pre-emptively through a double bind. It's essentially the atheist's grandstanding of ''see, I believe in reality and not my interlocutor'' mixed with a ''damned if you do, damned if you don't'' question leading to nowhere. It's a cornering tactic to try to either make someone say something that sounds crazy at face value without more explanation or to try to distance themselves from their religion and therefore losing face in the process of defending it. None of those are interesting discussions on the topic and Peterson is absolutely right about this. It's a small man's idea of what a real discussion looks like.
@@Not.a.bird.Person meworks to use; but that wasn’t the implication of Alex’s questioning. If I ask you “did jesus walk out of the grave” You could say “Yes/no he did(n’t), but whether he did or not is irrelevant” or something. What peterson does isn’t transforming the discussion on an intellectual basis. He is clearly intending to avoid answering directly. What Destiny is referring to is the tendency of Peterson to take what is said out of context and make it into a higher order question with out providing justified basis for it. Any reasonable person knows that the questions Asked are grounded in the physical because that’s the whole point of the Christian Apologist: arguing God exists and that the bible is a reasonable historical record. In Peterson’s language, Alex’s question asks whether the bible is a material truth (a lower order truth). Jordan tried to avoid a concrete answer with a bunch of unnecessary words. When the answer was either “Yes, the bible is literal”, ”no it is not literal, it is metaphorical”, or “it is both”, or “it is neither” (the atheist view).
It would be great if someone said to Peterson, "What do you mean by 'he' and 'she'? Are these metaphorical claims of designational differences but in truth these words don't accurately convey a deeper, spiritual designation that is embedded in what any human may recognize about themselves as true? There's a bloody-good reason to recognize that truths about existence cannot be distilled down to physical characteristics alone when describing 'what is right and wrong' or 'true and false' and to do so is to miss a greater knowledge of our very existence as humans."
I don’t know that the parallel between the question “what is a woman” and “did a man leave a tomb 2000 years ago” lands. One of them is a conflict between descriptivist and prescriptivist philosophy and the other is a question of history with religious implications. I think it’s possible to be pedantic on one but not the other. Man and woman being biologically distinct is a real and present observable condition, there is no obscurity about it. And while the tagline might be “what is a woman?” the real question is “what is a female” and “who gets to define language.” The proposal is being made that a certain female subclass (woman) can be redefined to include certain males. It’s subversion. C’mon, Alex. I’m not a fraction as smart as you and I can wrap my head around this with fairly little effort.
For me the problem is rather with the anwer 'Adult human female', the question itself is fine to ponder about. The answer I think is lazy because: 1. If person belives in differences between "gender" and "sex", then I don't see how why wouldn't they believe in difference between "woman" and "female" or rather why is this supposed to be the definition. 2. If they don't believe in such a difference then the answer doesn't actually mean anything. It's equal to saying "Woman is an adult human woman".
No, not at all. There is no need to make recourse to philosophical jargon to decide that the term "woman" has varied usages and that these have become polarized within an ideological war between the transphobic hate cult and everyone else. By the way, transphobic imbecile, neither man nor woman is a biological term.
He did this to Sam Harris for like 10 hours str8 before Sam called him on it the peterson Doubled down on the nonsense and insulted the audience because "Their internal beliefs arent transparent to them in any meaningful sense, so why should what I BELIEVE BE ACCESSIBLE TO ME????" Which was maybe the most intelligent cope of all time.
I think it helps to compare asking an early 20th century physicists if a photon acts like a wave or a particle. In the same way a physicist would have had a very difficult time explaining wave-particle duality before they completely understood it or before the general public was ready to accept it, Dr. Peterson is also wrestling with and trying to figure out answers to these difficult religious and philosophical questions. It’s us, the general public, who are not able to accept the answer of “well it’s both” at this time. I think it’s completely fair for him to answer the way that he does. We have come to accept wave-particle duality as a fact of quantum physics, but we do not accept this duality in other areas or subjects of study. Now that we have moved away from the rudimentary “man in the sky” understanding of God over the last century, we are beginning to ask some extremely cutting edge questions about religion - questions that often overlap with philosophy, quantum physics, evolutionary biology, origins of the universe, etc. and we need to be patient with the leading thinkers in the field as they try to wrap their heads around concepts that have yet to be explored or understood.
There are people who take things literally when perhaps they shouldn't, and then there's Jordan Peterson who goes out of his way not to take anything literally when he really should.
I think part of Peterson’s obfuscation when questioned is his contempt for the questioner, it is a way he can demonstrate that without openly saying how hd feels.
That was extremely enjoyable. ❤😂 who else wants to see Destiny, Alex and Sam Harris on a panel together? Somebody please set this up. One topic that I would love to hear is the moral landscape, that is-ought distinction, consciousness, abortion, and objective ethics and emotivism of the various flavors held by Destiny and Alex. Hell, make my day why don’t you?, include some commentary on Alan Watts.
To the question alex asks at 7 minutes why does jordan peterson do that. I think I have the answer. Its long but I have fit it into one YT comment and it still needs some work but just seeing about getting the idea out there to hear what others think as well. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter. A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost? You might have an answer of ten cents flash in your head right away with bias inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time. The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it. The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation. Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones. Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long. Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it. The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used. So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point. Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even. So was this understandable or confusing? if you understand it, do you think its possibly true? Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
I didn't find your comment confusing, I understood your comment. I think "it's" (which I loosely interpreted as all the claims in your comment) have a higher likelihood of accuracy beyond "possibly true". Of all the claims in your comment, I think this claim; "I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while seemingly angry is think is think another really good example of denial... and projection." is what the rest of your comment builds up to support. Upon reflecting on your comment (having not invested much contemplation into Peterson's behaviour prior), I also think that specific behaviour you identified of Peterson is a" good example of denial... and projection" (I'm agnostic on the "really" component because I don't have an established reference system of examples of denial and projection). The only question I might have is about the ball and the bat thing. I still don't get it, but don't bother, after years of carelessness, I'm finally going to invest time and energy looking that up and attempt to understand the information. I have no tips (I mean I have $20, but your not getting it, sorry).
@@thequietintrovert8605 Excellent, thank you for taking the time to read it and give a response. You are right as that behavior that is shown in that example with peterson is the main point and how sometimes simple questions can expose that. And you are the second person to answer the questions at the end of it. I can give you some questions that have a high rate of avoidance so you can see some examples or I can show you TONS of of my questions being avoided in YT comments. I have a set of judge questions that has only a 3% answer rate by christians and muslims in YT comment. Been trying it lately in discord and the percentage went up a lot so far, but my sample size is still small at 32. The judge questions I have probably 20,000. Took 6 years. Got some simple moral questions that many christians and muslims avoid that I have been asking lately too. Is it that you dont know the answer to the bat and ball question OR you dont know what my point was with that? 20$ does not even come close to the value I find in your response, you give me some hope for humanity LOL.
@@thequietintrovert8605 If the ball was 10 cents, the bat would be 1.10 on its own and the ball would add 0.10 more making the total 1.20. If you write it X +(X + 1.00)=1.10 or 2x + 1.00= 1.10 people seem to get it. I do include ad hom/personal attack responses that I do not think are a troll but I do not include troll responses nor do I include no response. I only include people that I do not think are trolls that give a response that does not answer the questions. Let me give an example. People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent? I will ask these and the most common response I get is how do I know right from wrong?. Or I will ask just #3 and they will say no one is innocent. Or for #5 they will say that is not analogous to the adam and eve story, and they are not really wrong BUT that does not really answer the question. #5 Is the one that causes the most problems as if I wanted to study this behavior I needed to cause it to happen. I dont use it in the follow up questions. So the stats on those questions is atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering. Christians are less then 18% and muslims less then 7% in YT comments.
I enjoyed this comment; it was worthwhile to actually read through it. Not all comments rise to that level of value lol. I don't have much of a background in psychology or Jungian anything, but your theory makes sense to me on first glance. It matches well with what I've seen in my personal experience, where I struggle to understand how a given person is misunderstanding what seems to me to be fairly obvious. Sometimes, said person is myself, and it's only obvious in hindsight, with the benefit of a change in scenery and emotional state. I would maybe try to consolidate your ideas to make them more presentable to general audiences if the goal is to get your ideas out there, but the actual substance of your comment seems solid in my opinion, whatever that's worth. Keep thinking, you clearly have something going for you!
@@whishfulthinkinging Thank you, it means a lot. From some people I get responses like these and from others I get things like TLDR or if you want to write a thesis dont do it in a YT comment, sometimes just this is all gibberish. What I would really like to do is try and say all that but only using questions. I have some ideas on how to do it but I just dont know how understood it would be. There is really only one way to know and that is to try it out I. I think the fast mind just gets in the way and in a sense blocks out the conscious mind what is being said in the first place. That is why I like questions as you can sum up a syllogistic argument in a question or 2 but your asking them to think about it to give their answer so you not really telling them. But when the question gets avoided what can you do other then just ask it again. I offered to pay a guy 5 bucks just so he would answer my judge questions after about 5 response that he did not answer them with. He did answer them and he told me I could keep my money. Some people I had a week long back and forth trying to get them to answer the questions and they never ever did.
One of the most amusing parts of the interview was that you had to constantly reassure Jordan Peterson that the questions you were asking him aren’t as complicated as he wanted them to seem.
I mean you say "obfuscated" or "wishy washy" but it's his fear of saying something and being inaccurate which holds him back so much. When he's speaking about vaccines, it's quite a level topic, but when you speak of God and the Bible and you haven't exactly reached the conclusions you'd want to reach, he's going to try and say only as much as he'd know and no more. Suppose that has something to do with how much pressure he has from the public to say the things which actually end up being constructive and not misleading. Either do not try to politically argue a psychologist or just be patient with his answers. Destiny talking about "it's just tactics" exposes the narrow view he holds; as if everyone debated just for the sake of debating. I bet if Destiny tried to talk to me in real life whilst I were in a hurry and I told him I had to show up for work, he'd scoff and say I'm just using avoidance tactics. In these scenarios truly think to yourself - who is trying to help who?
Destiny's scepticism is based on evidence and experience with people in the public space. If you (not a politician/debater/agitator/interviewer etc.) would say that you have to go to work it would be likely that you're not lying. If someonee is in a debate and then suddenly says "well I have to go feed my hamster" - then yes it is an avoidance tactic. It is naive to think about conversations in verbal sense only rather than on multiple levels. As for Peterson - I don't know how can you spread falsehoods about legislation (c-16), vaccines, climate change, IQ and history (nazism, but also inventing/twisting stories about ancient civs) while being "scared of saying something inaccurate". I also loved his interview with Cathy Newman where he talks about component analysis - which he never uses again, in any other topic - like womens choice of jobs, sexuality etc. He knows what the standards are but he only uses them when it fits him. So either he's extremely delusional or just dishonest.
You’re entirely too charitable. First, it’s Peterson himself that has delved into religious discussions. It is not too much to ask that a person who volunteers to speak on a subject have a few opinions and definitions at hand. Second, I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he said out right “that is complicated and I don’t know because X Y Z”. Instead he departs on adventures down definition avenue without ever hinting that he’s going to arrive at a point. That, to me, is either an obvious obfuscation tactic or a shortcoming of conversational literacy that means he should not be invited to chat on the topics where he does that sort of thing. He brought the baseball and the bat and invited the kids in the neighborhood; he can’t get away with saying “I don’t want to play”
@@wiczus6102 You either miraculously managed to only read a part of my comment or just didn't give a shit on what I said at all. Why even reply if you don't give a shit about what I say? Are you challenged? And everything you said after "As for Peterson -" seems like you either never really truly listened to what Peterson said or you truly truly hate the notion of there being an objective truth that exists in the world we live in. The lack of concrete examples to your rant about his views isn't helping at all.
@@TheShortStory Yes I see your frustration towards Peterson lacking an unclear conclusion to some topics he has discussed about with say; Destiny. However an obfuscation tactic is a far reach for sure. You're assuming he's trying to change your mind by debate prowess and obfuscating once "caught". Quite to the contrary I've seen the complete opposite in Peterson, he doesn't seem to care at all about what the opposition sees or hears, he's extracting value for his own followers in each of his talks. This is what I'm getting at with the "going to work" reference, Destiny is trying to meet Peterson at the battlefield and Peterson is trying to meet Destiny at the library. Although there was quite some spark in Peterson during their talk, and even taking of notes which is common in debates, I hardly view that as a political debate than more so a deeper philosophical exchange. Peterson isn't trying to win votes.
@@merchrich9758 oh, I think we agree to some degree. Peterson gets paid, directly or indirectly, from being seen to debate. He is not trying to convince, only to create clips he can share with his followers. The best thing would be for everyone else to ignore him entirely and not give him grist for the mill. I say “obfuscation tactic” because I believe all he’s trying to do is not get cornered into a firm opinion that someone can leverage against him later (except for on culture issues, where his audience get to hear what they want). And he’s very good at avoiding corners.
I agree that Peterson can be difficult to listen to when he dissects every word in great detail. Alex's comparison to quantum physicists was spot on-discussing everyday topics in that way would be highly impractical. I've been following Peterson for years, particularly on religious and psychological topics, and in my opinion he isn't obfuscating anything, he is just really (some say overly) precise. My biggest challenge is simply staying focused, so it's not a content I can go through with a tired mind. There are plenty of people who simplify complex ideas, so why push Peterson to do the same? He takes nuanced topics to the extreme and that's what I like about him. And there's clearly a demand for his style. I also reject the notion that people only listen to him because he uses big words that only sound smart (those people probably just don't understand them).
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're not smart, ya idiot. I don't like the man either but I know he's smart. A smart idiot but smart nonetheless
He’s a performer, as much as anybody out there caught up in the sound of his own voice. He can be very elegant and clear in his thoughts and at other times he’s just ridiculous. I’ll never forget that moment, when he was in his first debate with Sam Harris, where he’s going on about something, and he’s walking back-and-forth towards the front of the stage, maybe kind of looking up into the lights with his hand out, expostulating on something, and he in a dramatically plaintive voice saying “I’m working at the edge of my understanding here…” just spinning away from the question that Sam was trying to get him to respond clearly to - just very indicative
I also remember during a debate with Sam Harris one Harris was expressing how he still was not sure what Peterson actually believed, and then Peterson, sitting in his overly dramatic way with his legs crossed his hands folded on his knee staring at the floor instead of looking at Harris, goes off on some tangent about how people are not transparent to themselves. So much to the point that he even asks the audience if they are capable of articulating what they believe and they laugh and then he snaps of them and says that they aren’t capable of articulating themselves. It was just such cheap theater that even Harris from self said that it was an obvious Dodge. Sometimes I think it’s theater, but I think it’s just a more dramatic way of his presentation. He’s attempting to present himself as a kind of “deep thinker“ and that we are getting a glimpse into his “thought process“. It all just comes off as cheap theatrics as well as stream of consciousness that you would see from someone who is mentally ill.
Sometimes I can appreciate him can appreciate where his thoughts go, Even in some instances with Sam Harris, speaking of maybe the last time that he and Harris were on stage together. People who fascinate him can bring out the best in him, when he’s in actual conversation with folks who can counter him in a way that he doesn’t find that is directly critical or antagonistic to him. Sometimes he can be maddeningly full of shit. And then when he steps into territory that he has no real substantial sense of, you just want to grab him by the collar and give him a good slap. And for those people that he overwhelms, he often comes off is just an angry bully. The dude is at best a very mixed bag.
@@markcollins1497 I can’t really value him as any kind of positive element. It’s my opinion that he is a man that is desperate to make some kind of mark in history. I am of the opinion that he has some kind of messiah complex. He believes that he is smarter than he actually is. He’s so quick to make it seem that he has uncovered some kind of wisdom that others have not, yet when it comes to presenting such “wisdom” and supporting it with evidence… He falls flat on his face. I believe the man is truly sick. He needs help. He doesn’t need a microphone shoved in his face. He needs a therapist. But he will never get help, he will never get the help that he desperately needs because he is too valuable to the far right. It is also my theory that Jordan Peterson is on the verge of another mental breakdown. I believe him to be an alcoholic that is drinking again and I think it’s only a matter of time until we find out that he’s had another mental collapse. But what is worse is that he is allied with people that will run public relations nonsense I try to make it as if he has some kind of martyr when in reality he’s just a very sick man that never got help and had nothing but delusions of grandeur and nothing else to offer.
13:50: You guys do make a point ... but then you go too far at the mockery... you are trying to nail him down to see if he believes in miracles or is Christian...
@@silversalmon9909 Sorry, it's been a while since I watched the video and made the comment, but I think at the time I would've felt that mockery was present and what I feel mockery reveals bias and doesn't attempt to understand another's perspective.
As a black man I feel comfortable knowing Alex is willing to converse with a black woman like Destiny.
Fun 😂
Is this a meme?
@@blascantu7221 it's a dead meme that destiny has asked to stop
Mista Bonerchelli !!!
@@andrewc406 OH NO HE DIDN'T 💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿
I love that Alex genuinely attempts to defend Peterson's position in his absence, on principle.
He did it quite well. I like the example he used regarding physics. It reminded me when Richard Feynman was asked about magnetism, and Feynman went, paraphrasing “How deep do you want me to go?” Showing example after example the different explanations based on the depth of understanding.
That Destiny became so useless as to debate the specifics of Alex’s analogy instead of capturing the overall picture of what he attempted to do for the example shows how narrow minded he is when he tries to win an argument.
@m.caeben2578 It's really weird trying to frame even this as if Destiny was just trying to win an argument. I mean, Alex was literally the one playing devils advocate, defending an idea he disagrees with, and you still try to paint Steven, who was just arguing his own opinion the whole time, as the dishonest one
Edit: I'm not saying Alex was dishonest, but in this interaction, the one with the more transparent and straight forward approach was clearly Destiny
@@marekb1556nah, Alex is fully on the “I must not piss off those who may decide I’m not serious and will no longer let me in to the serious club of serious people.” He’s fully into bullshit at this point.
@@marekb1556 Being honest and being trying to win an argument are not mutually exclusive. He is simply hyper-focused in his trying to be right sometimes he brings whatever comes initially to his mind for a quick game of trying to overcome his opponent. I think the following questions might illustrate an example:
1. What do think the message behind Alex’s analogy on physics was?
@bensalemi7783 I did not say that :D I don't see this as Alex vs Destiny, I see what each one was doing here and it worked for me. I just don't understand the "you are just trying to win" allegations thrown at Steven even when it doesn't make any sense
Peterson does this because he wants to avoid making literal truth claims that atheists can refute but he also wants to avoid saying it’s just a metaphor/allegory because then he’d alienate his Christian audience
exactly
Bingo!!!
Not knowing it's the literal truth is the whole argument
DING DING DING DING DING
This is definitely at least part of it.
so I misread the video title as ‘My experience dating Jordan Peterson’
😂😂😂😂
Yep
“I think I’ll get the lobster. Do you know what you want to order, Mr. Peterson?”
“Now just a moment! That’s not a straightforward question. You see the menu is more than just a collection of dishes that one can order to consume, and in fact, ‘consumption’ itself a rather complicated notion I can bloody well tell you that. You ask me what do I want to order… there are so many ways to take that idea. What does it mean to want to consume something? So… you might think the beef sandwich sounds lovely, but in the entrees on the back, here, there, there’s a spicy meatball pasta dish. Isn’t that peculiar? Spicy food is not exactly enjoyable in the same way that a beef sandwich is. It’s rather the opposite! And yet here it is and you know that people go for that. Why would they be drawn to such a painful experience? Is it because they *wanted* the discomfort? More than the comfort of the beef sandwich? …”
@@hebgbz4121 it bothers me that Jordan Peterson's gay lover, Alex Oconnor, calls him Mr. Peterson out to dinner.
Still.. Pretty accurate.
The tongue always turns to the aching tooth :)
I feel vaguely aroused
Alex got as close as anyone has ever gotten to making Peterson answer a question. Well done, sir 👏
That question about does he believe god really exists. You give him a yes or no question that goes with his biases and you will get a of for sure or a not at all yes or no type answer.
Someone tricked him to answer "no" to the question "Was Jesus born from a virgin birth", so Alex can only get the 2nd spot in this regard.
I love alex
i think he did a great job in the conversation
but Alex literally asked Peterson
"man listen if there was a video camera there, what would the camera show" at one point
to get him to answer a question materially
If people have to do that it's really on Peterson on being a weasel.
O Connor really sold that first answer as well.
O Connor went all in on that mimicking at the beginning. It was funny.
The reason I think Peterson obfuscates on religion is because he doesn't believe it but doesn't want to alienate his predominantly Christian fans. Loyal fans that he shouldn't have.
Alex's incredible good-faith empathy is why he got an answer out of Peterson that Destiny would never be capable of. Alex goes TO the person he wants an answer from, Destiny demands that person conform to HIM.
like destiny winds me so much up. He is a combative person and he doesn’t really understand why that annoys people
@@exigency2231 That might be _exactly_ why he pisses me off. Because _I'm_ combative by nature, and I work my ass off to try to understand other people, and change my behavior so I'm not pissing them off. When I see someone behaving in a way I wouldn't allow myself to behave, without any shame, then that just boils my blood.
This is exactly what i was thinking. The words 'argee' and 'disagree' don't really work on the Peterson, O'Connor meta level but when someone like Destiny says 'I fundamentally disagree' to something really abstract and meta then this is a lack of understanding or trying to understand what is really being said. Afterall, it's theology and philosophy we're talking about.
@@HyButchan I would say that Destiny & Peterson have some of the same personality traits that make them annoying to observers.
- They're both pedantic when it suits them in the moment & abstract when specificity would harm their case.
- They're both overly reliant on superficial rhetorical techniques in service of appearing to, "win," rather than engaging in good-faith discussion.
- They both insist on opining on subjects far outside their ken and use aggression to mask their lack of knowledge.
- They're both bland, conventionally-minded, grey flannel traditionalists, full of resentment at a world in which they're no longer automatically the centre of interest & attention and convinced they're the only sane voice surrounded by dullards & fools. aka they're both egotists.
I think Destiny just wants a clear and natural conversation without all the bullshit. Aggressively make progress, its what I like about him. He says it, it makes sense, no bullshit.
What I find the most interesting about this conversation is that it not only happened, but it happened in a meta manner. It happened with such importance that its happening transcends mere emperical happening. In fact, one might say it's STILL HAPPENING.
😂😂
That story of Alex and Destiny has more wisdom in a single paragraph than most books. It’s insane to me. You know, I’ve studied it for a long time and it still reveals things to me.
Indeed
Hahaha!
😂😂😂
Jordan Peterson explaining why gum sticks to the ground:
“Gum sticking to the ground, you know, it's a fascinating collision of human behavior and the tenacious qualities of urban materials. The gum, it's like a symbol of our society's desires, trying to stay connected, but then you have the pavement, so determined to hold onto it. When someone discards that gum, it's like a piece of their identity hitting the pavement, and the ground, it's not just passive, it's an active player in this whole drama. The struggle between the gum's stickiness and the ground's grip, well, it's a bit like the struggle we all face in life - between our dreams and the unyielding realities we encounter. So, next time you step on gum, just remember, it's a reminder of the delicate dance we do with the world around us.”
Good try the only problem is that actually made too much sense to be jordan peterson and you forgot to relate it to dostoevsky or cain and able, other then that it was pretty good :).
I agree! Well written, but was let down by actually making sense 🤣
You forgot to mention that the analogy has to do with something approximating the subconscious human desire for sticky relationships.
Praise Lord Bubble-Yum!
Where did you pause to cry about how bloody tough it is to be pavement
There couldn't be a clearer contrast between what it looks like when someone lacks empathy, and projects bad motivations for why people do things he doesn't understand (Destiny) and when someone has empathy and searches for how, when someone does something he doesn't understand, there might be a good faith reason for it (Alex).
Maybe true but Alex is cutting Jordan waaaaay too much slack here 😂
@@MrYukawa How so? Like, it was due to Alex's meeting Jordan halfway that, when they met with Richard Dawkins for a long podcast recently, Jordan was able to adjust his argumentation to meet Dawkins halfway, and by the end of it the two were lit up with excitement, finally on the same wavelength.
@AlexReynard Absolutely but that doesn't mean Jordan is no less of a fool. I totally agree that empathising is a good thing and somewhat rare in the online space but it's just wasted on jbp.
@@MrYukawa Please explain why I should believe you when you call him a fool. Because hundreds of geniuses, scientists, and experts of many different fields who have been on his podcast all disagree with you.
Like, why should I think you're smarter than O'Connor and Dawkins in judging JP's character? Why are they dumber than you?
@AlexReynard I'm not trying to say I'm smarter than anyone. I simply don't like jbp thats all
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salery depends his not understanding it". Upton Sinclair
Salary or celery?
@Ybby999 I'd rather not be paid in watery hair, if it's all the same 😂
@@Ybby999both.
Wouldn't be surprised if Destiny was getting paid by Russia too.
@@Ybby999 Peterson only eats beef, so salary lmao.
I can clearly understand how Alex O'Connor has risen to prominence. He clearly sees complex standpoints, is willing to strongman them, and then work his conversation around them. As a Christian, I have a huge amount of respect for him.
he’s just a lost child
@@tradermann Oh yeah, be as condescending as possible. That'll convert everyone that wants evidence before belief. A comment like that says more about your own insecurities of your Faith- it's a way of putting someone else down for a sense of affirmation for yourself. Makes you feel special.
@@gonufc cope
@@tradermann So you're happy to confirm that you really are just a child. Amazing.
@@johnnypopstar cope
I appreciate Alex defending Peterson in his absence, but let's also be honest. Peterson is not some super genius who understands the topic so unbelievably well that he just can't fathom how to answer a very simple question when asked. If you have to put THAT much effort into asking a question to prevent playing the semantics game, then you have to wonder why Peterson does what he does. I doubt it's because he's too smart for the question.
I mean nowdays on many many topic JP is talking his ass off, but specifically metanarratives like religion are his expertise, he wrote a book about it Maps of Meaning and thought it in the Uni and gave public lecture You can watch his old videos pre 2016, he literally got famous from his series where he dissect Genesis. Before all the politics and gender stuff.
One of the most notable characteristics that I'm seeing in Alex's engagement with others is he does not get swayed by their emotional energy. His thoughts are actively focused on the context of the verbal exchange, and is drawing logical conclusions and incorporating relevant conceptual data to bolster or refute an argument. This separates him from even Ben Shapiro, where that emotional anchoring appears when discussing certainly closely held beliefs. Alex has been the most impressive at maintaining this neutrality out of anyone I've watched thus far. We can all learn from this.
Edit: seeing common misconceptions in the comments the difference between not feeling versus not being entirely controlled by emotions. He’s clearly engaging with others’ emotions appropriately here. I’ve never implied that he’s a sociopath, in fact quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree.
tl;dr dude remains the coolest of cucumbers no matter the discussion at hand
I'm not sure if that's good. I wouldn't wanna be a robot.
@@wiczus6102 Self-control =/= robotic
You must be from a younger generation. Some of the "New Atheists" delivered with similar cold calm directness.Alex has had a couple of them on his show (Harris, Dawkins), and I'm pretty sure that Alex is a guest speaker for Dawkins at some of his upcoming tour.
Hitchens is still the best for me out of that group though. Although direct and brutal to the point. He also added character and wit when needed.
1:10 Momentarily channelling Peterson's hand energy.
He was imitating Jordan Peterson.
Totally noticed that too.
peterson thinks he is a spiritual wizard
It really does help you propel certain abstract terms to consciousness though. You are essentially talking about very abstract concepts that exist in multiple dimensions and perspectives. The hand gestures mimic that space and sort of encourage the process, in my experience it definitely helps, its probably completely routed in coping
@@requiemOde2Black What utter nonsensical babble.
The fact that JP is world famous for writing a book where 1/12th of the content is dedicated to the importance of ‘being clear in your speech’, is something I find hilarious.
Precise*
@@sinchex595
Indeed. My bad.
Then again, JP is neither.
You are a dismal cxxt. Clear enough?
@@TsunamiNRdoubt you’ll find anyone as well-spoken
@@SpencerTwiddy the guy is internationally known for his word salads
Imagine Jordan Peterson analyzing the Exodus story, and he starts off with, "Now, you see, the Israelites, they're a representation of chaos, right? And Egypt, well, that's order. But it's too much order. It’s like when you clean your room so much that it becomes sterile-that’s tyranny! So Moses, the archetypal hero, you know, he comes along with his staff-that’s a symbol, by the way-and says, ‘Hey, Pharaoh, let my people go!’ Which is essentially like saying, ‘Let’s loosen up a bit here, man, we’re drowning in hierarchies!’ And the Red Sea? Well, that’s just life’s overwhelming potential, ready to crash down on you if you don't get your act together. So crossing it-that’s navigating the chaos. And the Ten Commandments? Those are, like, rules, but not the tyrannical kind. They’re the kind that make you stand up straight with your shoulders back in the face of suffering and say, ‘Alright, bring it on, existence!’”......
Did you write this yourself or is it an actual thing peterson said 😂
this is perfect LOL
but the story is about Moses the hero saving Israelites from Pharoah the villain, therefore he will try forcing chaos onto Egypt and order onto Moses somehow
I read this while hearing Peterson’s Kermit voice lmao
Holy shit, you really captured his essence.
What gets me about Peterson is that he says that you have to be precise with your language so that people can understand you... and then he talks in the most obfuscating way ever...
i find him very understandable and precise. so much so that once i understood and implemented what i have learned in my life... my life got drastically better. and i think that is how and why he got famous- because his lectures had amazing implications in real life
@@LemonHelmmet
Citation needed
@@LemonHelmmetexcept when he isn't, which is explicitly what they're addressing with the relevant examples that were center to the entire video. When he isn't obfuscating and intends to be precise, sure, he is good at conveying his ideas in their nuance and expanding on them. This is precisely why Destiny disagreed with Alex's attempt to grant Jordan some leeway where Destiny points out several times you can be creative and contextually expansive while bringing it back to a meaningful center which Jordan refuses to do on certain questions. Jordan knows the question being asked, he's intentionally elusive.
He quiet literally dances around certain topics and avoids being precise even if on other topics he is much more clear and precise. Again, they literally cover a point blank example of him doing exactly this. Clearly directing the criticism to the relevant point.
@@LemonHelmmet no one said he wasn't understandable.
the comment said he obfuscates
It's funny how you claim to understand Peterson but ... don't understand the message conveyed here.
@@wren4077 well... my English might not be perfect but obfuscate means unclear right? ok i will rephrase it: he is as clear as day so that makes it understandable even to the likes of me who learned English by hearing.
Actually, when Jordan Peterson was asked the what is a woman question by Matt Walsh his response was ‘Marry one and find out’. Which is kind of in line with his usual line of reasoning.
Ya the “I don’t know you tell me” line, so profound 😂
Everyman that's married a woman knows how women are and how they are different from men. It's like the married men's FAFO. You know, humor. Plus I think he intentionally did this destiny more than normal, I think the reason for that is that Destiny needs counseling and so Jordan went to work lmao
This was a very good comment.
"To marry a woman, I would first need to identify one. To do that, I would need to know what a woman is."
Ah, arguement by demonstration. Like when diogenes held a plucked chicken and said behold a man!
I still can't get past the little chair they gave him here 😂
that is a little trick a certain type of host plays with the intention for the guest to feel small... snake oil
@@leegrant7333clearly this was filmed in a hotel room...
@@leegrant7333 steven is small, though
Hard same
It’s half the size 😂😂😂
i really dont understand how people respect Destiny. He so full of anger and just gets so emotional all the time giving no logical answers whatsoever
You think Peterson's word salads are logical?
You can be better in addressing. While right a lot of the time, he doesn't come across particularly well. @Sepear305
True, Destiny is very tribal and doesn’t even attempt to accept that others have different views, Pakman is similar. Peterson at least has inspired many people to change their lives.
@@Sepear305 probably you didn't understand Peterson's position. What is not very honest is that Alex and Destiny keep saying that Peterson is unclear but they seem to understand his position. So why they are complaining for? Are they surprised that a professor gives and acedemic answer to a metaphysical question?
@@banjobro64 It's because Peterson obfuscates on purpose. Peterson is a liar.
I loved Alex’s question about the camera outside the tomb. Perfect way to try to nail it down.
It was wonderful phrased question
It was defininetly better than anyone else has done but the question was not as specific as it could have been and so still leaves lots of wriggle room for Peterson. Alex asked Jordan if he would expect to see a man leaving the tomb and not would he expect to see a previously dead Jesus leaving the tomb unaided.
With all respect, the video camera question is a well-worn trope in discussing the historicity of the resurrection. Decades old.
@@Robb3348 Yes I'm not claiming it's original; just saying it's something that can pin JP down to a specific theory of Christ more than, "Do you think he rose from the dead?"
@@johnwheeler3071 I would disagree with just a small point that you said, I feel the simplicity and lack of detail he asked it in was important. Because if he had said a "previously dead jesus" it would've given Jordan room to start saying "Well it depends what you mean by dead!" And the cycle would repeat.
Where does his obfuscation come from?
1. He does not want to alienate the audience he’s monetized.
2. He believes that a lack of religious belief results in a hellscape world of wanton murder. So, he has to do what he can to foster belief.
And 3 he was extremely depressed for a decent amount of time, during wich many many many people openly wished for his death. Theres a degree of PTSD here, this man hasnt been confronted in good faith in so long, so he feels that if he gives an inch he will be pushed towards saying that hes the second coming of Hitler, irrational as that may be, its not hard to see were those feelings come from if youre not too emotionally invested in hating him.
@@aguspuig6615
No doubt, he definitely feels the weight of the dogpile. The visceral way he debates and comes at his counterpart with preloaded baggage of negative expectations and associations is a sign of that. And it’s a pretty common phenomenon for even average people who experience much online discourse. I could only imagine that an elevation in status worsens that on the receiving end and then buffers you against criticism by allowing you to retreat into the protective silo.
The obfuscation has become worse over the years and seems to be directly proportional to his level of fame and how often people try to come at him with constant gotcha questions.
Cast your mind back to how often people hone in on one thing someone said, and now that's getting brought up constantly for years. I'd be sick of it too.
@@elusivecamel
Sure, that would get annoying. But there’s a reason why this question to him lives on in such profound infamy. It’s because it is one of the most deceptively indirect responses you could possibly have to the question or the topic. And that is coming out of the Man, who pushes himself as a purveyor of truth and intellectual honesty. Meanwhile, he tours the world speaking on the subject and rakes in millions from people who either don’t care that he’s not willing to state his actual opinion or don’t understand that’s what’s happening.
no quite right, he's interested in the realm of the religious and what that says about, and to, the human that exists within their solitude.
Maps of Meaning is literally where he started, and that is the basis of his debates about religion and how he became famous. Even his personality classes have some religious aspects. His oldest videos are about the nature of evil and his lecture series on Genesis and the psychological significance of those stories are among the oldest videos that Dr Peterson first uploaded. He has been at this for a long time and so many questions have a lifetime of research and thought behind them and therefore require a sophistifated response. In math however, two plus two always equals four.
He is completely oblivious to East Asian religion and philosophy. On top of that, he is very ignorant about real Bible scholarship
0:45 Alex's impersonation of JP is so apt. I'm howling
The way he does Peterson impression is so on point. The shifting in the seat, the gesticulation with the hands, the pained facial expression as if you’re making some kind of bowel movement of wisdom.
Petersons cheap theatrics and histrionics do him no service.
@@theQuestion626 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Alex OConnor is so admirable for understanding Peterson's approach to analyzing the Bible, philosophy is complicated and so is language, and Alex understands how hard it is to discuss such an abstract concepts. Very introspective and very impressive in his ability to confront Peterson's ideas. One of the best debates I've heard, respect both ways.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
1:00 to 1:20 JBP impression is amazing (gestures, "let's say", "what would you say")! Gold.
Alex’s answer regarding a physicist answering a question is interesting, but falls flat because we see these types of people all the time, and they DO in fact manage to answer questions. Neil Degrasse Tyson, for example, we could easily imagine him getting a bit over complicated, but he WOULD answer the question unambiguously in the end.
Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that gender is a social construct whist simultaneously claiming that a trans woman is a real woman. If ‘woman’ is a social construct how can one identify as a woman and it be ‘real’?
NDT is a well educated moron.
naming a populist joke of a physicist there was not the best way to give credit to your argument
@@rayaqin is your point that you don’t like Neil? Input your favorite smart person. It absolutely does not affect the argument and you know that and you didn’t need to make this comment. You just wanted to let us know you don’t like NDT.
@@elmomierz it does in this case imo
@@rayaqin this is not an opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the name of the physicist. In fact, I made the argument, and said “for example” when I named NDT. So, you either agree with the argument, or you don’t. If you don’t, then, obviously, you think that physicists are unable to answer questions unambiguously, which I just strongly disagree with, having spoke to and watched the content of many physicists.
Alex’s point is that even a physicist, when asked a basic question, would behave as JP, and complicate things. I’m claiming that JP fails to bring things back around after the complication, but in general, a professor of physics WOULD EASILY DO THIS. Because there is an answer to these questions and they have it. JP cannot do this, because he claims to have an answer that he does not, so he obfuscates to the point of forgetting what the question was.
That is the difference I’m calling attention to, and I use physicists as an example because that’s what Alex used.
I don’t think this is a controversial claim.
Petersons' answers must cater to both his religious and semi/non religious audiences. If he ever gave a straight answer to a religious question he will instantly lose either or both of these audiences, and he knows that.
This also explains why he never obfuscates his answers about "anti-left" topics like wokism or socialism or climate change - those are the talking points his audience wants to hear, so he's clear and concise about those.
Bottom line - he doesn't care about being intellectually honest. He cares about keeping his audience and the fame/money that come with it.
I have come to the conclusion too that this is what is happening.
audience capture + benzos can really do a number on your ability to be articulate.
Exactly. People often leave out the $$$ element. He's just a a crass opportunist who follows the money trail. He has no beliefs, no integrity, no personality. Just an empty shell.
@PrinceKima_12 That is definitely going too far. I think he started out quite sincere and I don't think he lies, he just avoids certain conversations
@@hooligan9794
But he doesn't avoid those conversations - that's the point. He simply obfuscates endlessly when he engages in them.
If he wanted to avoid these topics he could just tell the hosts in advance, or say he thinks these topics are too deep for a two hour conversation and leave it at that. He doesn't do that because he needs to create an impression that he has some unique philosophical view about religion that is counter to both the atheistic worldview (placates his religious fans), but is also more sophisticated than the mainstrean religious worldview (for his non-religious fans that are looking for meaning).
If he ever gave a straight answer about his religious philosophy it would be revealed as an empty equivocation fallacy and he would lose a large chunk of his audience, so he never does. Instead, he gives some non-answer so that his audience thinks he actually engaged with the question.
That's his game.
As a psychological professional, it’s either reckless or malicious to assign motive to people that you’ve only talked to in a casual setting.
Hi, I am interested in the psychological perspective on this. If you have time, could you elaborate a little on why? Thank you.
The guy in the thumbnail...not Jordan, the other guy...he looks both really young, yet old, and yet also like he's from a time period that was like 50 years ago....
That's being British
50 years ago was about the last time Britain was a pretty good place to be.
That's what atheist virgins look like bro.
@@jupitermoongauge4055 The 1970s?
Are you crazy or just under educated?
Excuse you, that's Mr. Bonnelli.
15:06 I feel that Peterson's response to questions regarding whether Biblical accounts are literally true also reflects "what side he is on." He is a champion for many Christian theist fans.
he gives some benefit of doubt to theism but from what he says his position is more like deism imho
This guest reflects majority of people these days, intentionally rude, and putting people down behind their back.
100% props to Alex for his high standard of respect and integrity in trying to understand complex topics and perspectives without being judgmental. Your humility and honesty inspire me and many people to uphold those standards.
Behind their back? Kid, he literally said these things to Petersons face in their debate
Alex has become a fairly masterful arbiter. His ability to walk the fine line in the middle of 2 worldviews is excellent.
He is too much of a coward and not enough intelect to choose a side. Besides he's milking both sides for money. That's the upper limit of his intelligence.
Honestly, haveing listened very closely to Alex'es conversation with Peterson I understand Petersons reluctance to answer the questions directly. I also understand the frustration it causes. All in all Alex did a pretty good job pin pointing Peterson's position on God.
When you say understand Peterson reluctance, what do you mean?
WHAT? is a woman. … rather WHO is a woman ?
Alex doesn't want to make Destiny uncomfortable but he knows perfectly well what Peterson means and the theologic tradition is referring to (he had a very interesting conversation with Peterson about gnosticism). The problem is that people nowadays don't understand the concept of transcendence (specifically, the coexistence of real and meta-real). So people now think God in a childish way as a huge ghost or a Marvel's parallel dimension and they boil down the whole debate as literalists VS atheists. Peterson's take is far more mainstream theology than people think. Unfortunately, instead of answering, he tries to give a lecture to a start-from-zero audience.
@@AdamJones381 Peterson wants to have a cordial conversation about god. there’s a lot that he doesn’t know, just like how the god of the Bible’s intentions are not always clear. Peterson to me is humbling himself to explain his reasoning, because he’s not an apologist or a pastor who deal with theology on a regular basis.
@@yungalucard9139I believe you’re overthinking it. Peterson comes off as someone that doesn’t want to alienate his religious monetary base, while not being a complete believer himself.
I think the reason JP does it with these topics specifically is because, even though he likes to frame himself as a believer in Christianity from a more philosophical sense and less literal sense, that philosophical belief is strong enough that it still gives him pause about how to feel about the literal aspect of it. In other words, he may not fully believe the literal accounts in the Bible, but the metaphorical accounts are compelling enough to him that he is actually somewhat frightened to admit that he may not believe it literally, because it feels blasphemous to him. It's a subject that makes him uncomfortable, because it's a seed of doubt that he still wrestles with. He is unable to fully reconcile what it means to have something he believes as philosophically divine also claim itself as literally divine, yet seem to have error. Is it allowed for something to be philosophically divine and still have error? Does it matter? Is there a difference between a divine message encoded in a text and a divine text with an encoded message? I don't think he has fully decided on answers for those questions.
To be fair to Jordan Peterson, not every challenge to the premise of a question clouds the discussion. When he addresses complex concepts like "truth" or "belief," it's useful for him to offer nuanced explanations, especially when engaging with questioners who hold sophisticated, opposing worldviews. For example, if someone asks, "Is the Bible true?" an audience member may wonder whether they should believe in the Bible. In this case, it's helpful to clarify that some biblical stories may hold symbolic truth, even if they are not historically accurate. This shows that while a belief might be grounded in truth, truth doesn't always have to mean historical fact. Although this approach introduces new complexities, Peterson is right to be cautious in his responses, given the diverse audience he addresses.
As an atheist, I know that most prominent atheist thinkers restrict their arguments about biblical truth to historical or empirical accuracy. While I personally don't think symbolic truth is enough to treat the Bible as sacred, I do see value in making this perspective clear.
The question at this point should be, I suppose, "what could be enough to hold anything sacred?"
The point is that entire libraries of books have been written about defining what truth, knowledge and belief is, it's called epistemology and is an important part of philosophy. The quickest way to derail any discussion about any topic with the exception of epistemology is to get into epistemology.
You act compassionate because you understand that you're a compassionate being OR because of social contract. Jesus taught about compassion but you've already gained a more accurate understanding about it than the story gives you. Symbolic truth becomes irrelevant when you have rational truth.
Well, if I would offer some good will. I would say he's cautious when it's beneficial to him. Cautious to point where it's extremely detrimental to conversation. I mean you are right, there's value in being nuanced, but this is sliding scale to be used based on context. If you are always 100% nuanced, you are literally not going to be able to progress in conversation ever.
Other word for this would be obfuscation, more complicated than needed or diverting conversation. Just because some complexity is good, doesn't mean even more is good. And if it regularly happens to be used as tool in debate to win or divert arguments, we can spy some intent from there. Or he's just extremely bad at conversation and not that smart. Which I can't believe he isn't.
Psalm 137-9, 1 Samuel 15 are verse used to commit genocides as religious injunction from abrahmek gad. Lutheranprotestant Chrstinity is the basis for jw hatred due to which holocaust was committed.
I love how they acknowledge how precise Peterson will become when he’s not trying to dodge a question and do the little song and dance word salad thing.
That guy is a classic example of the guy that believed his mum when she said 'Oh you're such a clever boy'; you did well holding your patience with him.
hahaha
The gap between Alex and Destiny is so pronounced here, it's quite interesting to see it play out. Much respect to Alex.
Hope Alex can catch up one day
I forgot where he said it but the reason he once argued to be right was because he admitted to having been allured to his high sense of ego as a young intellectual, it got to him that feeling of pride.
It's what the ancient Greeks called arete, he conceives his (intellectual) excellence as a moral virtue. Peterson is an aristocrat at heart, he believes he has the right to tell people what to do because his excellence makes him best suited to do so. To put it in Peterson terms: he's acting out Plato's philosopher king archetype.
Are you talking about Peterson or Destiny?
In regard to the bouncing rocks answer: I'd say that the charged field is an integral property of the rocks, and thus, yes the rocks do bounce off of one another, people just don't notice the minuscule field that is a part of all rocks.
It's like asking if two clones of Abraham Lincoln headbutted one another, with their top hats on, did they bounce off of one another.
Edit to add: I know the top hats aren't an integral part of the clones, but they (the clones) did react to the force and mass of each other in a bouncing manner.
But the atoms in the rocks DO touch one another. Their electron clouds bump into each other and the rules for electrons in shells applies to them as they touch. If that isn't touching, then nothing counts. There is no repulsive electromagnetic force between the objects until that moment, but in that moment, they touch tips and electrons might be shared or exchanged. If you do it with metals you might get a bond out of the sharing of free electrons that welds the two pieces together. If one is electron is electron starved in its outer shell and the other has an outer shell with just one or two electrons, you get static electricity.
But make no mistake, it isn't really the electromagnetic force that keeps two objects from passing through one another. It is all thanks to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is like the meme that people craved spices in the middle ages to cover up the sour taste and smell from their food going bad. People repeat it a lot, but is is so wrong it isn't even funny.
"But he's smart enough to say that" = "He won't talk to ME the way *I* want him to, and I don't have enough empathy to meet him halfway, so why doesn't he make everything easier for me?" Destiny's stuck in childhood.
I don’t that that’s fair. I think he is correct, and Alex is correct when he says Peterson could be more clear about it.
Whats frustrating about Destiny is always circling back to his negative interpretation of Peterson’s actions - just stating it without saying anymore on it to back it up.
@@whynot217 My other comments have conceded that he has a point. Jordan is avoiding answering the question. But Destiny chooses to see this as an offensive move; an insult. Jordan sees it as defensive.
Like, give me a straight answer to the question, "When did you stop setting house fires?" That's an old courthouse trap, where the whole point is a false presumption and trying to force you to go along with it. If you respond, "I've never set any house fires" the response is, "Look, none of that convoluted crap, just give us an answer."
Jordan doesn't want to give a simple answer because he knows people will clip it, take it out of context, and nitpick it. He doesn't want to give a simple 2D flat answer on a subject where his real belief is 3D multifaceted complicated.
@@AlexReynard It’s not a trap. As Alex says toward the end of the video, it’s a fairly straightforward question where the meanings of the words are fairly straight forward too.
@@whynot217 But only if the person asking them has good intentions.
If a stranger approaches you and asks, "How're you doing tonight?", that's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. But your reflexive reading of his body language will tell you whether this is a friendly inquiry, or a predator sizing up potential prey.
What is this projection lmao. Yk Alex 100% agrees with Destiny on this right? This is too good
"when balls touch each other..." "whoa whoa!" 😅😅
The problem is its not kids asking basic physics questions, its adults asking basic questions and rejecting deeper analysis when they are perfectly capable of it but just want to simplify things so they can fight about it stupidly.
One good rule for life is to not idolize anyone, but try to learn from everyone. Dig for gold that’s useful for you. It’s okay to agree or disagree on topics that you have adequate knowledge on.
Peterson talks like he's trying to hit a word count on an essay
🤣😂
Alex, I’m a new fan. JP’s refusal to provide definitive responses drives me absolutely insane. But I listened to your full conversation with him and you’ve helped me to understand where he’s coming from and why he speaks in such a seemingly evasive manner. You’re an incredible communicater and I want to say I appreciate your translating JP’s ideas for those of us who don’t have the patience to.
What is unclear to you about JP's position?
You cant debate JP anymore. All talks with JP are like whoever has a position and a given argument say something and then JP cant answer or give a proper logical argument. He just evades the question with semantics, fancy words and just drives the conversation to somewhere else.
Totally agree. Having once liked JP I now find him utterly unbearable and a shockingly awful debater. He does everything possible to keep things as abstract as possible and says the dumbest things imaginable like "I don't understand the question". Well everyone else does! Maybe he doesn't want to answer? To me, he completely lost the plot when he found religion. Rational thought went awol.
Destiny really just wants to slag JP off and thought he found a mate in Alex. Didn’t pay off
good summary of what happened
Destiny loathes every influencer or personality that doesn't completely agree with him. And he is physically incapable of hiding those emotions.
@@DavidMishchukDMwhich is almost every reasonable person because I've never heard destiny say anything I believe to be true
@@Hmmyeah2019 you dont believe in vaccines? You're a flat earther? Not surprising
@@DavidMishchukDM Explain Pisco. A lawyer who disagrees with destiny on so many things eg. Biden pardoning his kid. Yet, they're good friends. You just wanna be rlly mad and thats ok
My god did he practice that before hand ? He freaking nailed it!
If you're talking about Destiny then idk about "practice" but that man streams like 6-7 hours every day talking about these things over and over. Arguably one of the people with the most amount of video content on themselves out on the internet. So what you're seeing is a polished version.
If it's alex you're talking about, that boy is incredibly articulate and well spoken.
As a good debater you study your opponent so you can anticipate their answers. How do you think he came up with the video camera question (even specifying the brand and type)?
If you're talking about imitating JP, the answer is that they idolise the man. There's your answer.
Everyone in the chat took my question far too seriously 😂
Beautiful analogy with the bouncing objects question to a physicist! Exquisite!
I agree with the gentleman on the right. He is not being obscure because he is deep. Rather, there are questions that he simply doesn't want to answer.
But could it be because it is very deep? Make me wonder why he doesn't want to answer. He does a good job answering a lot of other questions really but religious questions make him more vunerable.
I don’t recall Peterson becoming famous for being a psychologist. The way I remember it he was making a big deal about a law about using pronouns incorrectly.
He was slightly famous before that for putting his lectures on TH-cam, so he had something of a fanbase. But yeah Alex is just being too kind. JP is famous for one thing: Getting into the culture war early on and with a doctorate, so he could represent the anti-feminists in academic settings and get onto the news by trading on his legitimacy
Even his psychological advice boils down to little more than common folk-wisdom about taking self-responsibility. The only reason he ever got famous was his contrarian row over refusing to respect people by using their preferred pronouns. His books are just pedestrian self-help screeds that peddle common sense about the need to introduce order into one's life. They would never have received any broad attention without the fooforaw he cooked up in defying university policy around transgender issues.
He became famous by opposing authoritarianism. His overall argument is that one must not allow themselves to become a slave to lesser things except that which is the highest possible ideal, aka God, and that the only way to pursue that ideal is by telling the truth no matter the consequence.
If you watched TVO back in the day, you would have seen him on a few discussion panels.
Because there's no way he could have been famous before you got to know him, right?
This appeared in my feed randomly and I didn't know this channel.
I want to go on the record saying that I LITERALLY watched this video for six minutes and not being quite sure if these were two people or that this was some sort of meta-Jordan-Peterson-interviewing-himself-thing, where you see the same guy talking to himself. I resisted the urge to check. At some point I decided the guy on the left had a bit less beard going on so I went with 'two guys'.
I think you're both great thinkers, as well as Dr Peterson. I've engaged in a lot of linguistic study since my time as a linguist for the Air Force, and I believe Peterson is probably very convicted about words. It's difficult to spell out why some words convict you more sharply than others because it isn't really up to you which things beckon. If it bothers that he's more touchy with phrasing in certain areas, I'd encourage you to ask why it's a comparatively harder area.
Peterson made me grateful for having read an introduction to philosophy when young which meant it felt immediately clear to me that he was constantly bloviating and gishgalloping. It does seem illustrative that he can be clear and concise on some subjects but apparently not others, wonder which kind of answer he would have given if asked about his sponsors.
I never realized that my like of Peterson directly declined as I started taking uni philosophy 😅
Let me gueas the reason is because you have started reading philosophy that he criticises. Am I right?
@@klb9672 No, read any introduction to philosophy if you want to find out.
Alex has a phenomenal ability to not take things personally. We need more people like him.
*"Jordan, before we start the debate. Did you DRIVE all the way here?"*
Jordan "What do mean by "drive?" I was behind the wheel, but I had cruise control enabled part of the time so did "I" drive and was it "all the way here?" And by "way" did you mean the Highway or my style of driving? Because if you meant my style of driving, then I just emulate my teacher. So is it really "my" style of driving? So I might have to reject the premise of your question. Now back in Egypt where they "drove" cattle, if you'd asked about the macro-economic intepretation of someone who had the disease "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" we might look at the statistics of..."
I've always loved philosophy. My dad thought it was a waste of time. Seeing conversations like these, I'm starting to agree with him
Most philosophy involves a lot of pontification and dancing around a subject or concept for an extended period until an idea/theory is nailed down sufficiently. Is conversation wasn't really philosophy though. It was a discussion about Jordan Peterson between two people who are philosophically inclined.
I remember Enoch Powell defining a question during an interview with David Frost, and the audience began to boo, but Powell was right, the question was vague and open to misinterpretation, it needed to be defined first before an answer could be given.
A guy who can't understand the meaning of "you" despite context but is perfectly happy to use the very ambiguous and subjective metaphorical phrase "moral substrate".
I think it's quite simple: Peterson is doing this because he is unsure about some issues himself. Avoiding to answer a question is a plain sign of insecurity.
Still, I don't understand why he doesn't just say it. His „argument“ would still work if he did. Maybe it's an ego thing. Maybe he can't admit he doesn't know something.
That’s my suspicion. Peterson doesn’t want to admit that he is tackling something that he knows very little about. I would have more respect for him if he was more honest about his approach to topics. But it certainly is as you say “an ego thing“: he loves presenting himself as the smartest man in the room. Do you ever notice in interviews when he is contradicted or in debates when he was contradicted? Watch how angry he gets, he fidgets, he breathes heavily, he plays with his wedding ring, his hand gesticulations become more theatrical.
It’s just very odd to me that a man that tries to present himself as some kind of “seeker of truth“ seems to present himself as a man who has already discovered “truth“ and is trying to present it as concrete fact.
@@theQuestion626I heard recently the discussion he had with destiny and he said I'm sceptical about it and explained why. Isn't that admitting doubt? Or should he just admitted fully the climate narrative.
@@klb9672 skepticism is not automatically doubt. So now, that is not an omission of doubt. But it also doesn’t change that Pearson does not present any counter argument with any type of evidence against climate science.
@@theQuestion626 in the Dawkins interview, JP was pushed precisely on this questions to give a straightforward answer and his final answer was "I don't know". Which is a position that is not very strange among modern believers. His last book title is "we who wrestle with god". He expressed the concept of struggling with faith in many occasions. So frankly I am not surprised if he doesn't have a straightforward answer to a universally unanswerable question like "do God exists" or similar
Which is exactly why he shouldn’t be giving lectures and writing books about religion BECAUSE HE ULTIMATELY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT.
Peterson is an MBTI INTP personality type. Even though it's akin to astrology, his being INTP explains why he explains so much. I like that he has that flaw - nice to have confirmation that he's human. At our best, INTP's are the professors with an extreme passion for our field of study. Or your university friend who talks about coursework over coffee and makes you wonder, "How does he know more than me when he's hardly in class?". We can be good public speakers due to the Extroverted Intuition which focuses on exchange of ideas and intuitively understands a crowd's mental receptivity of ideas = the stereotype of the professor. We also have Introverted Thinking, which is laden with heavy details. We understand that crowds need to be treated differently, but we're always hoping that someone can fulfil the role of our dream conversationalist - willing to dive into the detail, the myriad detours, have a similar passion to unearth the untainted truth of the topic no matter how long it takes. Even though it's pseudo-psychology, Peterson fits the INTP type.
Waiting for someone to bring up his enneagram
I am not sure Peterson would even get specefic with his definition even regarding gender. He is actually asked what is woman in Matt Walsh's documentary about this and his answer is "marry one and find out".
And honestly I thought Peterson‘s response wasn’t as clever as he thought it was. It was a Dodge. Admittedly it was a humorous Dodge but was a Dodge nonetheless.
Come on it's obvious what he meant . When you say something like that jokely you are referring to something particular .
@@klb9672 OK but did he ever answer the question after the joke? No he did not.
@@theQuestion626 that's why they are said as jokes because they are obvious. And honestly why it's so important for you guys to find faults in everything . He's still a human being. Of course he's not going to 100% honest and perfect in everything. Are you that way? Do you anybody that way? Come on stop being such a drag.
@@theQuestion626 that's why this things are said as jokes because thwy are stupid. And come on do you really know anybody who's perfect and doesn't make mistakes or has views that you consider stupid? Can't you see also the good side of a person or only the bad resonates.?
So both of these guys mock Jorson Peterdan ..and we can all agree he is a celebrity clown ...but if you ask both of these guys, specifically "destininy or, as Nornan Finkelstein might call him " Mr Tortellini" , if you ask them about the ongoing genocide of palestinians commited by the zio state ..they would ABSOLUTELY start evading the same way Peterson does. That's what intelectual dishonesty and incoherence is.
I am saying Dredstiny because O'Connor not only has remained ABSOLUTELY silent since the begining of the zionist genocide of palestinians but he kept hosting and "debating" genocide supporters like shabibo, dawkins, sam harris , peterson ..
Power, money but also celebrity corrupt the mind.
ufff. touché.
Yeah. Cuz thats complicated. "Was jesus alive and was he the son of god?" is not a complicated question
I love how Alex listens . It's not about ego , it's about the debate , to find the truth, explore , and so on.
The irony about Peterson talking about religions is that he's really bad at it. I watched many of his lectures, and it's all wishy-washy nonsense. There are no red threads about what he's teaching, and A LOT of false claims that are just wrong. It's a while since I watched it, but having studied religion full time, I remember just finding so many claims that were untrue. The reason is that he doesn't use many "uncertain" words. Instead of going "I haven't found many who would claim X exists." he says things like "It's an impossibility for X to exist!" and then he trails off about lobsters or something. He'll say stuff like "No other religion but the religions that came out of Judea describes Y." when I'm like "Hold on. There are many. Hinduism describes Y more in depth. Even Buddhism and Shintoism describe Y."
The worst part is that his lectures don't even seem to have a topic. They're just rants. What are people supposed to take from a lecture that mixed psychology, religion, human culture, and lobster culture. There's no value there. I think I'd raise my hand every time he trails off on a new tangent and ask "Is this going to be on the exam? Do I need to note that there's a scientific consensus that human culture needs mold itself after deep-sea lobster culture in order to thrive so that we can use their great teachings in the treatment of depression?"
A dp with a jacked up lobster slipping in a complain about lobster culture is funny
I agree, he is completely oblivious to East Asian religion and philosophy. On top of that, he is very ignorant about real Bible scholarship.
Peterson is a malignant narcissist.
This is the guy that quibbled over definitions for like 4 hours in a recent debate about insurrection just to avoid ever having to be in the defensive position. He has no right whatsoever to complain about obfuscation. He is one of the most tactical and machiavellian debaters around.
Excuse me what? he made clear his definition of insurrection, with example, and it was his opponents which refused to accept a common definition and engage
@@tentickterror8308 I'm referring to his 1v1 debate with Rob Noerr which was like over 5 hours. The reason it was over 5 hours is because Rob agreed to give his own definition of insurrection so long as they could eventually get to Destiny's. What followed was literally like 4 hours of Destiny doing the most pedantic and pointless quibbling over Rob's definition to stall for time and then when they finally got around to going over Destiny's, he rage quit.
In other words, Andrew was *completely vindicated* in not providing his own definition because he knew this is exactly what Destiny would do.
@@sullainvictus What do you want destiny to do? Avoid the legal definition of insurrection and instead take your guy's made up definition?
@@silversalmon9909 there is no singular "legal definition." But also since the way it's being used is colloquially in the discourse, what should be discussed is how people tend to think of the word, not a "legal" definition even if it existed.
I enjoy the way Jordan Peterson explains things, there's a lot of depth and enhances understanding
I think it's worrying that Jordan Peterson gets so much attention. That goes for Destiny, too.
Yes. I'm noticing intellectuals on the internet platforming Destiny a lot lately without doing much research into how horrible of a person he is.
Completely agree, Destiny is the human equivalent of a dumpster; helps you take out the trash but when you look into it you see how disgusting and gross it really is after being filled with garbage so many times.
@@HalcyonSunsetwhat has he said that makes u say that?
@@imperfectmammal2566 He was a major abuser of winfestors in SC2. Thats enough for me! :P
Peterson has saved too many lives for you to even say this. You should study him more
When Destiny was 12 he blew out the candles on his birthday cake and wished he was like Rain Man… unfortunately he missed half the candles and ended up like this…
i've seen you under like 12 vids featuring destiny. Definitely a bot
I met Jordan Peterson on the street with his wife and child , I exclaimed loudly "Mr Peterson " grinning from ear to ear , he mistook me for a fan but I swiftly told him my real thoughts , it was a most gratuitous experience !
This is a very respectful criticism of Jordan Peterson, and I have a lot of respect for the conversation. That said, I will offer a small defense of Peterson, because he really does do his rambling, "challenging assumptions" thing with EVERYONE. Yes, he doesn’t do it with every topic, but he does do it with people who are his friends, not just his opponents.
nothing more uncomfortable than watching Destiny try to be relatable.
He does his own thing. "Trying to be relatable" is projection on your end lol
It's called obfuscation. The #1 tool employed by anyone defending any establishment.
What pissed me off about dr Jordan is he’s 100% sure that psychology is legitimate and based on science and evidence but climate science is bs. Like how can some science be good and some science is bad. Isnt all science based on evidence and the scientific method? He picks and chooses the science he likes.
"Isn't all science based on evidence and the scientific method?"
Yes, by definition, but not everything that we are told is science, actually is.
We (Brits) were told during lockdown that our rights were being taken away only because they were "following the science", and the science dictated their actions. Of course, those of us with working, adult brains knew that these were simply human beings throwing the unassailable banner of science in front of their battering ram as they approached the keep of freedom. Many people believe that the same is happening with climate science, and that this obsession with net zero etc. is simply a method of control.
For me, the question is not whether the climate is changing (it always has), but who or what is causing the changes.
Science is great. Human beings are a mixed bag.
To be completely fair, Peterson isn't wrong to criticize and question the validity of certain fields, because there is a sliding scale as far as what we refer to as a science. Now having said that, he's a complete and utter hypocrite and moron for even using this argument, and I can guarantee, he will never give an accurate or honest response when asked to define these things, because he knows that psychology is at the very, tippy top of the list, when it comes to fields that should not be referred to as a science.
At its best, psychology is really nothing more, than the statistical study and analysis of human behavior. Beyond that, most of it's just, supposition upon supposition and assumption upon assumption. Maybe refer to is as a social science, and lump it in with sociology, anthropology and archaeology. But not wanting to contribute to the bastardization and diluting of the term science, they should be referred to as social studies or the humanities. By contrast, meteorological and atmospheric science, while not perfect, or the weather man would always be right and no farmer would ever lose another crop to floods, cold snaps, droughts etcetera; but at least it's all based on quantifiable and measurable, natural phenomenon.
I really appreciate Alex's steelmaning here. I think the biggest flaw with the lense with which Destiny wants to look at Peterson's discussions on religion is that Destiny cannot acknowledge the epistemology on which Peterson operates when he speaks about it and he is pedantically unwilling to give and take on it.
The issue lies in what ''truth'' means in context. Peterson's epistemology (and he has covered it many times in the past) is just not typical rationalism and empiricism when he speaks about religion. He is operating on a more phenomenological epistemological framework and this framework doesn't allow the same objective rigidity regarding historical events. The reason this epistemological framework is used in this context (at least if we try to follow Peterson's view) and not in other contexts is because the religious and historical touches more than just the purely physical. Peterson seems to try to understand history and religion through subjective psychology rather than objective materialism and it appeared quite clear during the Peterson/O'Connor discussion. I remember him mentioning that it's not obvious through which lense someone *should* read the Bible or a lot of history. The reasoning (still following Peterson's logic) is that historical writings carry lots of subjectivity that doesn't purely capture the material (if at all) but rather capture the subjective experience of its participants and the archetypes through which they psychologically view the world.
It's a bit like asking if Marie Antoinette *really* said ''let them eat cake'', the materialist answer is likely no, but the phenomenological answer is more along the lines of ''it carries the archetypes through which the historical writers viewed the situation which is an oblivious elitist ruler detached from the reality of her kingdom, the archetype was probably an accurate portrayal''. Asking ''do you believe there really was a person named Jesus who died and was resurrected?'' falls in the same vein where he seems to think the writing around the character portrays the archetypes through which the writers viewed the world around an event that may or may not have been the exact materialistic way in which they are described. To some extent, I think Peterson views God along the same epistemological frame. It may be a powerful archetype through which people have viewed the world for millenia and that impacts physical events through the psychological effects it carries regardless of its materialistic existence. In essence, the fact that people believe is what makes it real to them.
The bigger point is : Peterson has a very phenomenological understanding of the world and many of his discussions are held within this epistemological context, not within an objectivist and materialistic context. This makes sense because.. the man was a psychologist, his whole job for years has been to listen to people and try to understand how they view the world, not necessarily if their views are materialistically accurate to describe their own circumstances which, many times, they likely weren't.
Doesn't destiny literally acknowledge that in the first couple minutes?
@@Kitaec1494 His stance doesn't make me think one bit that he either understands this or wants to acknowledge it if he does. To some extent, I've never even seen the man talk about phenomenology at all so I'd even question if he knows what it is as a philosophical concept.
That might be true, but Destiny’s point here is that for many questions, his phenomenological approach is irrelevant. If I ask “Was Jesus resurrected from the tomb” I am not asking on an epistemological level or in terms of higher order logic. I am asking in terms of a material account of historical facts. This is the obvious discussion to be had, you can’t just make everything into a subjective abstraction otherwise, there is no ground the be covered. You shouldn’t need to ask “What do you mean by happened” because there it should be entirely obvious in the context. When someone asks “What does Jesus’ resurrection mean” then it makes sense to result to higher order theories of meaning. But the no intelligent person with good intent would try to decontextualize the conversation when it’s not necessary.
@@davidkong8493 I will continue to play devil's advocate here and follow up with : what makes you think the every day materialistic interpretation of facts should even be the prioritized epistemological framework to view this specific question through? Not to say it shouldn't, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why one should even be prioritized over the other here, only a presumption that it should based on nothing more than a strong subjective attachment to it. You say ''this is the obvious discussion to be had'' but all this is is a rhetorical game of framing, there is no reason not to deviate from what you consider obvious and there is no reason to think the obvious even carries a more interesting discussion with it. The question also carries a lot of meta-discussions and assumptions to it that are not as trivial as the question makes it appear, it's a very loaded question.
I would also agree with Peterson when he specifically said to Alex that the materialistic framing of the question : ''did Jesus really resurect from the dead?'' is often employed by people with hostile intentions towards the whole discussion and that it only serves to rhetorically kill a discussion and discredit someone pre-emptively through a double bind. It's essentially the atheist's grandstanding of ''see, I believe in reality and not my interlocutor'' mixed with a ''damned if you do, damned if you don't'' question leading to nowhere. It's a cornering tactic to try to either make someone say something that sounds crazy at face value without more explanation or to try to distance themselves from their religion and therefore losing face in the process of defending it. None of those are interesting discussions on the topic and Peterson is absolutely right about this. It's a small man's idea of what a real discussion looks like.
@@Not.a.bird.Person meworks to use; but that wasn’t the implication of Alex’s questioning. If I ask you “did jesus walk out of the grave” You could say “Yes/no he did(n’t), but whether he did or not is irrelevant” or something. What peterson does isn’t transforming the discussion on an intellectual basis. He is clearly intending to avoid answering directly. What Destiny is referring to is the tendency of Peterson to take what is said out of context and make it into a higher order question with out providing justified basis for it. Any reasonable person knows that the questions Asked are grounded in the physical because that’s the whole point of the Christian Apologist: arguing God exists and that the bible is a reasonable historical record. In Peterson’s language, Alex’s question asks whether the bible is a material truth (a lower order truth). Jordan tried to avoid a concrete answer with a bunch of unnecessary words. When the answer was either “Yes, the bible is literal”, ”no it is not literal, it is metaphorical”, or “it is both”, or “it is neither” (the atheist view).
It would be great if someone said to Peterson, "What do you mean by 'he' and 'she'? Are these metaphorical claims of designational differences but in truth these words don't accurately convey a deeper, spiritual designation that is embedded in what any human may recognize about themselves as true? There's a bloody-good reason to recognize that truths about existence cannot be distilled down to physical characteristics alone when describing 'what is right and wrong' or 'true and false' and to do so is to miss a greater knowledge of our very existence as humans."
I don’t know that the parallel between the question “what is a woman” and “did a man leave a tomb 2000 years ago” lands. One of them is a conflict between descriptivist and prescriptivist philosophy and the other is a question of history with religious implications. I think it’s possible to be pedantic on one but not the other. Man and woman being biologically distinct is a real and present observable condition, there is no obscurity about it.
And while the tagline might be “what is a woman?” the real question is “what is a female” and “who gets to define language.” The proposal is being made that a certain female subclass (woman) can be redefined to include certain males. It’s subversion. C’mon, Alex. I’m not a fraction as smart as you and I can wrap my head around this with fairly little effort.
For me the problem is rather with the anwer 'Adult human female', the question itself is fine to ponder about.
The answer I think is lazy because:
1. If person belives in differences between "gender" and "sex", then I don't see how why wouldn't they believe in difference between "woman" and "female" or rather why is this supposed to be the definition.
2. If they don't believe in such a difference then the answer doesn't actually mean anything. It's equal to saying "Woman is an adult human woman".
No, not at all. There is no need to make recourse to philosophical jargon to decide that the term "woman" has varied usages and that these have become polarized within an ideological war between the transphobic hate cult and everyone else.
By the way, transphobic imbecile, neither man nor woman is a biological term.
He did this to Sam Harris for like 10 hours str8 before Sam called him on it the peterson Doubled down on the nonsense and insulted the audience because "Their internal beliefs arent transparent to them in any meaningful sense, so why should what I BELIEVE BE ACCESSIBLE TO ME????"
Which was maybe the most intelligent cope of all time.
I think it helps to compare asking an early 20th century physicists if a photon acts like a wave or a particle. In the same way a physicist would have had a very difficult time explaining wave-particle duality before they completely understood it or before the general public was ready to accept it, Dr. Peterson is also wrestling with and trying to figure out answers to these difficult religious and philosophical questions. It’s us, the general public, who are not able to accept the answer of “well it’s both” at this time. I think it’s completely fair for him to answer the way that he does. We have come to accept wave-particle duality as a fact of quantum physics, but we do not accept this duality in other areas or subjects of study. Now that we have moved away from the rudimentary “man in the sky” understanding of God over the last century, we are beginning to ask some extremely cutting edge questions about religion - questions that often overlap with philosophy, quantum physics, evolutionary biology, origins of the universe, etc. and we need to be patient with the leading thinkers in the field as they try to wrap their heads around concepts that have yet to be explored or understood.
There are people who take things literally when perhaps they shouldn't, and then there's Jordan Peterson who goes out of his way not to take anything literally when he really should.
What do you mean by Jordan and what do you mean by Peterson ?
I think part of Peterson’s obfuscation when questioned is his contempt for the questioner, it is a way he can demonstrate that without openly saying how hd feels.
That was extremely enjoyable. ❤😂 who else wants to see Destiny, Alex and Sam Harris on a panel together? Somebody please set this up. One topic that I would love to hear is the moral landscape, that is-ought distinction, consciousness, abortion, and objective ethics and emotivism of the various flavors held by Destiny and Alex. Hell, make my day why don’t you?, include some commentary on Alan Watts.
To the question alex asks at 7 minutes why does jordan peterson do that. I think I have the answer. Its long but I have fit it into one YT comment and it still needs some work but just seeing about getting the idea out there to hear what others think as well.
I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer of ten cents flash in your head right away with bias inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
I didn't find your comment confusing, I understood your comment. I think "it's" (which I loosely interpreted as all the claims in your comment) have a higher likelihood of accuracy beyond "possibly true".
Of all the claims in your comment, I think this claim; "I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while seemingly angry is think is think another really good example of denial... and projection." is what the rest of your comment builds up to support. Upon reflecting on your comment (having not invested much contemplation into Peterson's behaviour prior), I also think that specific behaviour you identified of Peterson is a" good example of denial... and projection" (I'm agnostic on the "really" component because I don't have an established reference system of examples of denial and projection).
The only question I might have is about the ball and the bat thing. I still don't get it, but don't bother, after years of carelessness, I'm finally going to invest time and energy looking that up and attempt to understand the information. I have no tips (I mean I have $20, but your not getting it, sorry).
@@thequietintrovert8605 Excellent, thank you for taking the time to read it and give a response. You are right as that behavior that is shown in that example with peterson is the main point and how sometimes simple questions can expose that. And you are the second person to answer the questions at the end of it.
I can give you some questions that have a high rate of avoidance so you can see some examples or I can show you TONS of of my questions being avoided in YT comments. I have a set of judge questions that has only a 3% answer rate by christians and muslims in YT comment. Been trying it lately in discord and the percentage went up a lot so far, but my sample size is still small at 32. The judge questions I have probably 20,000. Took 6 years. Got some simple moral questions that many christians and muslims avoid that I have been asking lately too.
Is it that you dont know the answer to the bat and ball question OR you dont know what my point was with that? 20$ does not even come close to the value I find in your response, you give me some hope for humanity LOL.
@@thequietintrovert8605 If the ball was 10 cents, the bat would be 1.10 on its own and the ball would add 0.10 more making the total 1.20. If you write it X +(X + 1.00)=1.10 or 2x + 1.00= 1.10 people seem to get it.
I do include ad hom/personal attack responses that I do not think are a troll but I do not include troll responses nor do I include no response. I only include people that I do not think are trolls that give a response that does not answer the questions. Let me give an example.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
I will ask these and the most common response I get is how do I know right from wrong?. Or I will ask just #3 and they will say no one is innocent. Or for #5 they will say that is not analogous to the adam and eve story, and they are not really wrong BUT that does not really answer the question. #5 Is the one that causes the most problems as if I wanted to study this behavior I needed to cause it to happen. I dont use it in the follow up questions. So the stats on those questions is atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering. Christians are less then 18% and muslims less then 7% in YT comments.
I enjoyed this comment; it was worthwhile to actually read through it. Not all comments rise to that level of value lol.
I don't have much of a background in psychology or Jungian anything, but your theory makes sense to me on first glance. It matches well with what I've seen in my personal experience, where I struggle to understand how a given person is misunderstanding what seems to me to be fairly obvious. Sometimes, said person is myself, and it's only obvious in hindsight, with the benefit of a change in scenery and emotional state. I would maybe try to consolidate your ideas to make them more presentable to general audiences if the goal is to get your ideas out there, but the actual substance of your comment seems solid in my opinion, whatever that's worth.
Keep thinking, you clearly have something going for you!
@@whishfulthinkinging Thank you, it means a lot. From some people I get responses like these and from others I get things like TLDR or if you want to write a thesis dont do it in a YT comment, sometimes just this is all gibberish. What I would really like to do is try and say all that but only using questions. I have some ideas on how to do it but I just dont know how understood it would be. There is really only one way to know and that is to try it out I.
I think the fast mind just gets in the way and in a sense blocks out the conscious mind what is being said in the first place. That is why I like questions as you can sum up a syllogistic argument in a question or 2 but your asking them to think about it to give their answer so you not really telling them. But when the question gets avoided what can you do other then just ask it again. I offered to pay a guy 5 bucks just so he would answer my judge questions after about 5 response that he did not answer them with. He did answer them and he told me I could keep my money. Some people I had a week long back and forth trying to get them to answer the questions and they never ever did.
One of the most amusing parts of the interview was that you had to constantly reassure Jordan Peterson that the questions you were asking him aren’t as complicated as he wanted them to seem.
Alex, the President of our time, now He reach Millions of followers. Alex is a Star already. The future is bright
Regardless of JP’s beliefs, he comes off as incredibly dishonest.
to you maybe, to me he comes off as sincere but flawed
he's a politician larping as an academic
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 yup
Incredible charity and diplomacy. Well done Alex!
I mean you say "obfuscated" or "wishy washy" but it's his fear of saying something and being inaccurate which holds him back so much. When he's speaking about vaccines, it's quite a level topic, but when you speak of God and the Bible and you haven't exactly reached the conclusions you'd want to reach, he's going to try and say only as much as he'd know and no more. Suppose that has something to do with how much pressure he has from the public to say the things which actually end up being constructive and not misleading. Either do not try to politically argue a psychologist or just be patient with his answers. Destiny talking about "it's just tactics" exposes the narrow view he holds; as if everyone debated just for the sake of debating. I bet if Destiny tried to talk to me in real life whilst I were in a hurry and I told him I had to show up for work, he'd scoff and say I'm just using avoidance tactics. In these scenarios truly think to yourself - who is trying to help who?
Destiny's scepticism is based on evidence and experience with people in the public space. If you (not a politician/debater/agitator/interviewer etc.) would say that you have to go to work it would be likely that you're not lying. If someonee is in a debate and then suddenly says "well I have to go feed my hamster" - then yes it is an avoidance tactic. It is naive to think about conversations in verbal sense only rather than on multiple levels.
As for Peterson - I don't know how can you spread falsehoods about legislation (c-16), vaccines, climate change, IQ and history (nazism, but also inventing/twisting stories about ancient civs) while being "scared of saying something inaccurate". I also loved his interview with Cathy Newman where he talks about component analysis - which he never uses again, in any other topic - like womens choice of jobs, sexuality etc. He knows what the standards are but he only uses them when it fits him. So either he's extremely delusional or just dishonest.
You’re entirely too charitable. First, it’s Peterson himself that has delved into religious discussions. It is not too much to ask that a person who volunteers to speak on a subject have a few opinions and definitions at hand. Second, I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he said out right “that is complicated and I don’t know because X Y Z”. Instead he departs on adventures down definition avenue without ever hinting that he’s going to arrive at a point. That, to me, is either an obvious obfuscation tactic or a shortcoming of conversational literacy that means he should not be invited to chat on the topics where he does that sort of thing. He brought the baseball and the bat and invited the kids in the neighborhood; he can’t get away with saying “I don’t want to play”
@@wiczus6102 You either miraculously managed to only read a part of my comment or just didn't give a shit on what I said at all. Why even reply if you don't give a shit about what I say? Are you challenged? And everything you said after "As for Peterson -" seems like you either never really truly listened to what Peterson said or you truly truly hate the notion of there being an objective truth that exists in the world we live in. The lack of concrete examples to your rant about his views isn't helping at all.
@@TheShortStory Yes I see your frustration towards Peterson lacking an unclear conclusion to some topics he has discussed about with say; Destiny. However an obfuscation tactic is a far reach for sure. You're assuming he's trying to change your mind by debate prowess and obfuscating once "caught". Quite to the contrary I've seen the complete opposite in Peterson, he doesn't seem to care at all about what the opposition sees or hears, he's extracting value for his own followers in each of his talks. This is what I'm getting at with the "going to work" reference, Destiny is trying to meet Peterson at the battlefield and Peterson is trying to meet Destiny at the library. Although there was quite some spark in Peterson during their talk, and even taking of notes which is common in debates, I hardly view that as a political debate than more so a deeper philosophical exchange. Peterson isn't trying to win votes.
@@merchrich9758 oh, I think we agree to some degree. Peterson gets paid, directly or indirectly, from being seen to debate. He is not trying to convince, only to create clips he can share with his followers. The best thing would be for everyone else to ignore him entirely and not give him grist for the mill. I say “obfuscation tactic” because I believe all he’s trying to do is not get cornered into a firm opinion that someone can leverage against him later (except for on culture issues, where his audience get to hear what they want). And he’s very good at avoiding corners.
When your opponent is dressed like a colorblind pimp, you're starting with a major advantage.
I would love if these 2 had a podcast together.
I agree that Peterson can be difficult to listen to when he dissects every word in great detail. Alex's comparison to quantum physicists was spot on-discussing everyday topics in that way would be highly impractical.
I've been following Peterson for years, particularly on religious and psychological topics, and in my opinion he isn't obfuscating anything, he is just really (some say overly) precise. My biggest challenge is simply staying focused, so it's not a content I can go through with a tired mind.
There are plenty of people who simplify complex ideas, so why push Peterson to do the same? He takes nuanced topics to the extreme and that's what I like about him. And there's clearly a demand for his style. I also reject the notion that people only listen to him because he uses big words that only sound smart (those people probably just don't understand them).
Destiny isn't smart. Why is he being included in these circles?
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're not smart, ya idiot. I don't like the man either but I know he's smart. A smart idiot but smart nonetheless
Because everyone with influence, money and intelligence disagrees with you
Here's something I would actually want to see:
JP answering questions in court.
He’s a performer, as much as anybody out there caught up in the sound of his own voice. He can be very elegant and clear in his thoughts and at other times he’s just ridiculous. I’ll never forget that moment, when he was in his first debate with Sam Harris, where he’s going on about something, and he’s walking back-and-forth towards the front of the stage, maybe kind of looking up into the lights with his hand out, expostulating on something, and he in a dramatically plaintive voice saying “I’m working at the edge of my understanding here…” just spinning away from the question that Sam was trying to get him to respond clearly to - just very indicative
I also remember during a debate with Sam Harris one Harris was expressing how he still was not sure what Peterson actually believed, and then Peterson, sitting in his overly dramatic way with his legs crossed his hands folded on his knee staring at the floor instead of looking at Harris, goes off on some tangent about how people are not transparent to themselves. So much to the point that he even asks the audience if they are capable of articulating what they believe and they laugh and then he snaps of them and says that they aren’t capable of articulating themselves. It was just such cheap theater that even Harris from self said that it was an obvious Dodge.
Sometimes I think it’s theater, but I think it’s just a more dramatic way of his presentation. He’s attempting to present himself as a kind of “deep thinker“ and that we are getting a glimpse into his “thought process“. It all just comes off as cheap theatrics as well as stream of consciousness that you would see from someone who is mentally ill.
Sometimes I can appreciate him can appreciate where his thoughts go, Even in some instances with Sam Harris, speaking of maybe the last time that he and Harris were on stage together. People who fascinate him can bring out the best in him, when he’s in actual conversation with folks who can counter him in a way that he doesn’t find that is directly critical or antagonistic to him. Sometimes he can be maddeningly full of shit. And then when he steps into territory that he has no real substantial sense of, you just want to grab him by the collar and give him a good slap. And for those people that he overwhelms, he often comes off is just an angry bully. The dude is at best a very mixed bag.
@@markcollins1497 I can’t really value him as any kind of positive element. It’s my opinion that he is a man that is desperate to make some kind of mark in history. I am of the opinion that he has some kind of messiah complex. He believes that he is smarter than he actually is. He’s so quick to make it seem that he has uncovered some kind of wisdom that others have not, yet when it comes to presenting such “wisdom” and supporting it with evidence… He falls flat on his face.
I believe the man is truly sick. He needs help. He doesn’t need a microphone shoved in his face. He needs a therapist. But he will never get help, he will never get the help that he desperately needs because he is too valuable to the far right.
It is also my theory that Jordan Peterson is on the verge of another mental breakdown. I believe him to be an alcoholic that is drinking again and I think it’s only a matter of time until we find out that he’s had another mental collapse. But what is worse is that he is allied with people that will run public relations nonsense I try to make it as if he has some kind of martyr when in reality he’s just a very sick man that never got help and had nothing but delusions of grandeur and nothing else to offer.
13:50: You guys do make a point ... but then you go too far at the mockery... you are trying to nail him down to see if he believes in miracles or is Christian...
Whats wrong with that?
@@silversalmon9909 Sorry, it's been a while since I watched the video and made the comment, but I think at the time I would've felt that mockery was present and what I feel mockery reveals bias and doesn't attempt to understand another's perspective.
To be able to defend your opponent from being criticized... you gained a fan.
Is there anything in the world that induces boredom quite like destiny's voice?