True story mitogenesis genesis

Could not agree more!

As a center left partial admirer of Peterson, I've seen this issue of his come up several times over the past several years but I'm still confused by it. Peterson articulates himself very well and I'm inclined to believe him but I never hear a coherent argument out of the people who are persecuting him. I keep thinking surely there must something valid they think he's done wrong but they never actually say what, in Peterson's word's, exactly he's done that is so wrong, besides some controversial social media posts. This video is just another instance that falls in that category. I have no idea what the lady thinks he's done wrong in any organized sense. (maybe she doesn't know either.)

👍👍

Lesson number one. Just because you're good at x don't mean you know jack about y. Feynman was simply ignorant on this matter.

In 1970, having graduated from Caltech in 1960 with a BS in EE, I sat with Richard Feynman in his home discussing my new 180 page manuscript about the phenomenal significance of birthday that proposed humans evolved to respond to birthday/seasonal differences in their early environment because it amounted to a profoundly fundamental dimension in our environment, phase of the annual cycle of arriving daily levels of solar energy, responding with systematic differences in neural development, ways of being human. "So what can you tell me about my ex-wife that I divorced," he asked. When he then informed me of her birthday, I provided details of their problematic sex life and he responded that I got that right. We went on discussing birthday's significance for about an hour. Finally, he said, "If no one else on the Caltech faculty will read it, I will." Whereupon I truthfully disclosed that the head of Caltech's Biology Department had already told me he would read it and Feynman handed it back to me, ending our meeting. The Biology Department head's only response was, "Maybe there are some phenotypes." Sigh! My apologies to the world for not yet having published my discovery. Rescuing birthday from the archaic notions of astrology provides us with a Solar Compass for usefully sorting our ways of being human. One example, people of birthdays 6 months apart tend to appreciate each other's ways of being.

Great from pakistan

The polymath looks for other polymaths, looking for stories , experiences, faith , ability and so on ,they learn a lot about themselves and how to use the polymathy and if ur a polymath it's about answers

Thank you Lynn Margulis for your contribution to the world.

Thumb in the loop. 3 red lights

Didn't kary mullis create the test?

Psychology is definitely pseudoscience

You look at this complex system and pretend it's an accident. 😂

I tried anyway. Many many years later I have come to much of the same conclusions, but I dont think the effort isnt worth it because we still have terribly damaging power conflicts, self-denial, environmental problems that is endangering the basis for liberal democracies etc. ... who knows, maybe this is just me further delving into the sunk cost fallacy, but I havent seen any engineering feat that can survive a pernicious ideology.

he called terrance Howard a polymath

Where can I see the complete discussion?

I think it's pretty clear that evolution doesn't always favor energy efficiency. Just look at the evolution of homeothermy and the development of thyroid thermogenesis. Also consider diet-induced thermogenesis in overfed rodents or cold-induced thermogenesis in man. The emergence of homeothermy allowed the mammals to come to dominate the Earth and no doubt contributed to the impressive brain power and intelligence of man. However, the results aren't always good . . . huge mammals such as elephants may well have been better off being cold-blooded. They could still retain a lot of heat from the environment and would need a lot less food. However, we can still point to many cases in which evolution has selected for energy efficiency - the evolution of sleep and hibernation, for example, or the slow metabolism of the giant panda, which used to eat meat but now subsists on a very low calorie bamboo diet.

🙏🏽🙏🏽

unbelievably unfathomably incredibly based

Bro seems like they are the same concept with competitive and non competitive inhibition

Who votes for morons like her, it’s so comically evident that she is incompetent

How can those C7 and C8 bind to membrane of pathogen? I don't see any speficic force to bind. If it bind using hydrophobic interaction, then what is difference between mammalin cell membrane and pathogen membrane?

I prefer social sciences as they deal with things I can understand and therefore I can have more confidence in what social scientists research. I have more confidence in research that seeks understand what humans do than in research on qunatum mechanics because one deals with the world i live in and one deals with something I can't understand.

Forgive me but Peterson is playing fast and loose with language here. How can he prove that the samples that were utilized were “randomly selected“ how can he prove “bias“? Nebulousness that he employs within his statements he uses to distract that he doesn’t have an actual counter argument and also I would like to see what proof he has for the claims that he makes. Just because he speaks confidently and articulately doesn’t mean anything. It’s just theater. Histrionics. Sophistry. And forgive me… What is this ridiculous nonsense about “you don’t say what they say precisely“? He’s not attacking the data. He’s attacking the syntax. And he does this as a form of rhetorical trickery in order to avoid actually presenting a counter argument. This is crackpot level thinking. Further, I would like to know where exactly within the Bill it’s says *anywhere* that it can and will do the “compelled speech“ that Peterson rants about. He never does this. I’ve never seen him quote the Bill once. And so basically? I’m looking for the “smoking pistol“ that proves compelled speech. I can’t find it, and Peterson never throws it on the proverbial table. Perhaps… Because he either lied about the bill? Or the “smoking pistol“ doesn’t exist? So the farcical irony at the end of Petersons diatribe is that yes indeed… He demonstrates that he is acting against the methodology and scientific inquiry of his field of study. He provides over no actual evidence that supports what he states. He engages in this alarmist nonsense of “it’s only a matter of time“ as if instead of engaging within pragmatism or actual analysis he’s just wiping off a proverbial crystal ball. His employment of sophistry and severely being resistant to actually presenting the evidence that he uses to support his alarmism is his where his entire argument turns to vapor. And what I find so troubling about someone like Jordan Peterson is how he plays fast and loose with language and says “I’m not discriminatory! I have all these KZbin videos!“ But then he goes on to outright lie about a law that he says is some type of totalitarian overreach. But he never proves this. He’s never been able to prove it. Because it simply doesn’t exist.

What is the source of this video? Would love to watch the full interview or documentary. Seems very interesting. Thanks

He saw wokeism coming without even knowing it

Bro's high

doesn't hyperbolic curve only describe simple enzymes and non cooperativity??

has anyone ever told you that you kind of sound like hank green?

dimensional analysus about fractals where or how exactly?

i dont get the cranial nerve stuff, what would happen if the face touch hot stuff, what would that pathway look like.

found your immunology series a day before my exam and im so thankful for it :')

This a wonderfully done concise and precise presentation.

Thanks dude !!!!

thank you so much!!

OUCH?!?!!?!?!?

Thank youuuuu🙏🏿

I hate it to be that person, but you are wrong. Right, there is a lot of plagiarism on YT. But this Veritasium video is no example. All examples you mention are the classical textbook examples you now find all over the place for Chaos theory, rabbits and convection roles included ;) Note that original credit goes back into the 70s and before. "Deep Simplicity: Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity" is itself drawing from the material of others.

Thank You for this piece of valuable info. I am trying to figure out what is the role of the microbiota in mothers birth channel regarding the baby's future ROS signaling capability. I understand that we inherit only half of our ROS signaling capability from the egg's mitochondria and the other half from carbon redox molecules made by microbiota living on the birth channel surfaces. Many with c-section history have autoimmune problems. Correlation, cause or effect? I am a semiconductor engineer with deep biohacking interest in natural solar radiation, earth magnetism, structured deuterium depleated aka metabolic celluar water and circadian changes regarding to our mitochondrial health.

someone who thinks against a stupid person who joined a gang

:)

Thank you ❤❤❤❤❤

~She knows bullshit & did not walk in it....she went her own way to learn everything she could to understand the WHY in science....that is why she is extremely intelligent. RIPDr. Margulis.

I have this saved on my ipod from middle school, all my songs have a producer tied to them except this one. Even in like 2012 nobody knew who made this song 😭 but thanks for the youtube upload, at least now I can put it in the youtube copy of my old middle/high school vocaloid playlist lol. Lots of obscure songs that are hard to track down....

The only thing I'd say is off in what he's saying here is that if you're trying to minimize the issues specific groups of people are encountering in your society then just taking a random selection from the entire population Isn't representative of the specific issue you are trying to improve. Samples taken randomly from the specific groups (more difficult I understand) with as little information as to what the purpose is, would seem better. I'm in a position between these 2 (if Peterson did mean whole society only). You certainly can include whole society as well (for more understanding as a whole) but I see doing that alone as in a similar category to only taking samples from those who have had the worst grievances. You end up with a skewed idea of the problem and would come up with ideas that are either far too weak or far too heavy-handed based on which approach you took. In a way, in this specific instance, that seems to be the root of the debate both are having.

Psychology is not a science. Two key criteria to qualify as a scientific approach to acquisition of knowledge are objectivity and quantification. As regards objectivity, the very thing that makes psychological inquiry distinct from biological investigation is its (supposed, not typical) focus on the subjective causes of behavior. Subjectivity is, by definition, not objectivity. There are no objective means of assessing subjectivity absent reducing the experiential aspects of reality to objective (currently conceived as material/physical) aspects. If that is undertaken, then the subjective essence of a phenomena is reduced out of existence. Second, quantification in psychology is a game, at best. We assign numbers to concepts lacking any measurable physical properties (think Likert scale). What, for instance, are the units of a thought? Absent units, there is no justifiable quantification for measure. More, our so-called scientific theories permit the parametric precision of "effect present/effect absent" (e.g., try predicting the numeric outcome on ANY memory study. You can't. All you can say is that if the IV is in play as hoped, the experimental condition will differ by some non-specifiable amount from a comparison condition). In short, our "numbers" are simply proxies for the words "more" and "less".

It is really hard understanding real science and a few do. It is really easy to understand social science theory and many do.

Galileo was a party of one.

He could have cleared up a lot of his confusion if he had simply looked up the etymology and history of the word “science”, but I guess if he’d done that he couldn’t have done the obnoxious “haha social science dumb” routine, which was already clapped-out in the 1970s. What a jackass.

Appreciate it☆☆☆