2016 Personality Lecture 12: Gender Differences: Agreeableness and other traits: the Science

[@tommytwomommy]

It's like free college. You are the real Bernie.

[@Rex211Bacon]

John Barwick Haha!

[@ezodragon]

Isn't diplomas why you pay for college, primarily?

[@dichotomyofone]

ezodragon College is for all that hot tail you're getting.

[@ezodragon]

Sorry. I don't understand what that means

[@dichotomyofone]

ezodragon as in school is for meeting the ladies and getting laid.

[@BenWeeks-ca]

5:35 Leads in to the Hansel and Gretel story. Profound moral: "Beware of someone who does too much for you. Because there's a devouring element to that."

[@axelord4ever]

Alright, how about this, then? The universe is naturally uncaring. People often say nature is cruel but that's slightly off the mark. It simply does not care. Inasmuch, Hansel and Gretel's adventure is suspicious because it is not statistically neutral.

[@M4dM4n96]

Everything happens for a reason, even if the reason isn't evident. But everything that happens has a meaning, and typically, when you understand what something means you can begin to deconstruct certain events and that will lead to understanding the underlying reasons for said event. So when someone is nice to you and you can't understand the reason, but you can see what the resulting effects mean for you, the person in question and for the surrounding environment, you can begin to build a fairly substantial idea of why it is they are doing so. So if the advantages for you are less than the other then you can see exactly why someone would choose to help you in that specific way. But the more dangerous possibility is when you benefit from help more than the other, simply because the question of why. If you're not learning anything then you need to try harder

[@iggyharl5780]

@@M4dM4n96 "Everything happens for a reason" don't lead your argument with a false axiom.

[@judegrindvoll8467]

Everything does NOT happen for a reason. There is no empirical evidence for this.

[@BenWeeks]

@@judegrindvoll8467 Such things can't be proven or disproven empirically without omniscient knowledge of causality. Like, for example God. Who if you come to trust as a reliable source through his word changes the paradigm.

[@roselandron1591]

As a college student, I find these lectures extremely valuable to try to begin to understand the people around me.

[@autisticfishmonger3651]

This man is one of the most intelligent men I've ever heard speak.

[@axelord4ever]

Well, you sure fucking told him!

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@malkooth The real problem is that what you refer as "beancounting" is unfortunately generally called as "the scientific method".

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@malkooth May you rephrase? I don't get you.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@malkooth No, science did not create life or world. My point is that what you referred as beancounting is actually correct applying of scientific method. I mean that he put high emphasis on analyzing psychological data through statistical models. Not telling great story, ideology, anecdotes - but research data.

[@latinaalma1947]

@malkooth And your area of post graduate education is in what field? Unless you are a PhD psychologist you dont have the capacity to speak the language, do the statistical studies and are in zero position to judge!About as accurate a judge of competency in our field as I would be in astrophysics.

[@Pneuma777]

These lectures have completely shifted my perspective on my own current personality, how it was constructed and what it's purpose is. I'm so grateful to be able to have access to this archive of wisdom! Thanks Jordan, very appreciated

[@stvbrsn]

He’s a smooth talker... roughly speaking.

[@brettsullivan8217]

I love when he says roughly speaking. So now, I say roughly speaking 😂

[@lisasteward6945]

I think you might have something there, eh ??

[@dominance4298]

It depends on what you mean by smooth😂

[@davidwright9092]

XD

[@youshouldmovetochina7308]

So what does this element represent? Well, we don’t know!

[@alfonsobeltran3937]

This channel is going to explode in views in the coming days.

[@Fanofjambi]

Good guess, mate

[@angledcoathanger]

Care to guess some lottery numbers?

[@Faisal-he4tx]

Testament to his theories, if you are smart enough and put enough hard work, you will eventually rise the ladder, he is both, luck also, a fuckton of luck.

[@jessemontano762]

It surely did.

[@georgehancock8031]

You were prophetic, roughly speaking.

[@JM-co6rf]

Mr Peterson is right up there with Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand in that pantheon of most intelligent, appropriately tough, yet compassionate and communicative people on Earth.

[@TopHatKitty]

I am shocked that this truth is controversial and gender studies, which is an ideological major, is beyond criticism.

[@bertvsrob]

don't be - the inmates (leftists) are running the asylum

[@tonybebb72]

Because their entire value is predicated upon the idea of being the oppressed party, and anything that challenges that narrative, no matter how factual, must be destroyed, lest it point out that they have no reason for existence.

[@sethbishop6890]

Compare this to gender studies. If you choose to study gender over this, you are deeply troubled.

[@oaxacachaka]

how very patriarchal of you.

[@s0medebr1s]

oaxacachaka why do ask this question?

[@Auriflamme]

+oaxacachaka How dare you call him the patriarchy, I'm the fucking patriarchy!

[@JFK6699]

*Stands up* No! I am the patriarchy!

[@Auriflamme]

Namedoesntmatter *Sits down* Alright geez, you can be the patriarchy if you want.

[@vulpineeldrich6746]

22:44 "People go viral during their lifetime" .... prophetic.

[@bobcoco6047]

You wouldn't guess 'till what point... :O

[@GrantValdes]

0:01 Thought he was going to deliver the lecture directly to us.

[@ccg8803]

Am I the only one who when has a trouble in his life listens to this man and has responded his question in almost 4 minutes?

[@mrnonesense]

Just to side track. Monopoly is not a completely random game. It's actually a good game to teach elementary strategy. Basically the secrets of Monopoly are: 1. Two dices. Most probable throw gives you 7 and least probable are 2 and 12. 2. The way game is set: do not buy things from first quarter the best place is on second quarter due to jail and fourth quarter luxury is overvalued. It's still important to block other people in there. 3. Three houses is usually the optimum. 4. Buy, buy and buy aggressively. 5. Train stations are good when you have all 4. Essentially it is important to block anyone of owning 4 of them. Water and electricity are not good investments. 3. You can use jail for your own advantage There's a book written by mathematician (stochastician) about monopoly. It is fairly easy to simulate

[@alexandraperaza2560]

I just heard your podcast with Joe Rogan. It was the best episode. I really hope you do look into doing podcasts!

[@DavidSharp2201]

he already has

[@roddydykes7053]

Alexandra PerazA that sure went well for him hey? Haha. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person

[@Kenspiracy664]

BUT PROFFESSOR I GUT TAUGHT DAT GENDER WASNT REAL???!?!

[@Jamesharris144]

Jordan, In Hansel and Gretel, it's the man who gets married again, and the stepmother who convinces him that the kids need to go. It's the evil stepmother motif. Monopoly is most certainly a game of skill. It's also a game in which members can make deals with each other, so a certain amount of conscientiousness (in the form of high competitiveness relative to that of the other players) and openness both help a lot. Putin's net worth is something around 200B. I've heard that when land and other assets are taken into consideration, the Queen of England may be right up there as well, but I'm not sure of the validity of that claim, and it would be difficult in any case to actually verify. What I think would be interesting is an analysis of German Märchen (fairy tales), and their influence in German ideologies through the years. Though they by far aren't as complex and nuanced as stories from The Bible, they have had, I think, a demonstrable influence on Western cultures.

[@bedwere]

Economy is a positive sum game when there is free exchange. For when two people voluntarily exchange two things, they are both better off than before.

[@Jackaroo.]

Jordan B Peterson is one of my favorites, although I don't care much about psychology, I think his insight into philosophy is fascinating.

[@michaelbuick6995]

At the 14 minute mark prof Peterson explains that at the extreme ends of trait disagreeableness (1 in 50 most disagreeable) these people are all male and a large number are in prison and if you combine that with low conscientiousness than you're probably looking at a psychopath. So at the very extremes you start to see pathological behavioural disorders. What would be the corollary of that at the extreme of trait agreeableness? If you took the 1 in 50 most agreeable, probably all women, for high and low conscientiousness would we expect to see an increasing occurrence of diagnosable disorders and if so what would they be?

[@ogunsiron2]

extreme disregard for truth and justice while trying to keep the current peace. sticking to consensus to avoid conflict right now, at all cost. Sapolsky said in one of his videos that in general, women care more about consensus and keeping the peace and men care more about justice, even if thet means upsetting some people.

[@davyroger3773]

It would be intresting to see the corelations between a mix of extreme traits. High Extraversion and openness with low neuroticism would be a start

[@jessemontano762]

That's a good question...

[@CarterColeisInfamous]

58:14 its actually estrogen that does the masculinization. The mother produces a protein that blocks the estrogen from her so the only source is from the child. from Robert Sapolsky's Human Behavioral Biology

[@belindabrown4011]

This was fascinating and for the first time I started to understand stats but it moved away from what I wanted to study which was gender differences ....stopped at 50 to look elsewhere for understanding gender and psychology

[@TopHatKitty]

The reason people get angry about their gender is that they believe people are saying they're born WRONG and need to be fixed. I don't hear him arguing that at all! If anything, finding out the truth just makes it sound to me like people have enough variation that we should accept people as they are. Like the people who were exposed to certain hormones in the womb. They shouldn't be punished, but they shouldn't lie to themselves either. They're an anomaly, and that's OK.

[@123a-o5d]

1:10:00 It doesn't seem impossible that the cultural difference doesn't have an effect until a certain age. I can imagine younger children unselfconsciously pursuing their interests and then as they grow up they begin to worry about what other people think of them and their possible future careers so they choose a different path.

[@magical571]

this is very interesting, i'm glad to have found your channel. subscribed.

[@PhillipYewTree]

Why can't the slides be included in the you tube clip?

[@flowgo5299]

Thank you kindly for these wonderful videos!

[@SeekingUltimateSynthesis]

you know you could get a tripod and point it at the screen(with you in the frame preferably)

[@JFK6699]

Even without the slides, you are the type of professor I would seek out as a student. I wouldn't care how hard you mark because it would be worth it for the experience. You are fantastic and I really admire everything you have accomplished, both politically and pedagogically. Thank you for the videos.

[@BrettonFerguson]

The slides would be nice, but I'm content without them. If I had time, I'd volunteer to be your cameraman or video editor, but I don't so I'll just shut up now.

[@uisce2005]

Bretton Ferguson hell! I'd volunteer to be his audio guy if I wasn't all the way across the country and way too darn South #mediateamforjpeterson

[@brightphoebesays]

I love being able to go back and have him 'say that again?!?' if I missed something ; )

[@mohamadfarhoud6090]

Thank you Dr. Peterson

[@elisteele574]

Incredibly valuable lessons contained here.

[@JohnChampagne]

49:35 "It's not that easy to figure out how to distribute the money." It's also not that easy to figure out how to make industries account for externalities (make prices honest so that impacts on the environment are shown in prices). We could address both challenges by charging fees to industries that deplete resources, put pollution or disturb / destroy wildlife habitat, then sharing the proceeds from the environmental impact fees to all people. This should be a global policy, so that industries do not simply flee to more lax jurisdictions and complicated 'border adjustments will not be needed to make trade between nations with different environmental standards fair. A democratic society would raise fees for particular kinds of impacts until random polls show that most people think that there's not too much of this or that kind of impact on the environment. In other talks, Peterson speaks of the imperative of embodying moral principles in practice. If truth is a primary value, we should *act* as though truth is important. We should account for externalities so that prices more honestly represent costs. We should account for externalities efficiently and fairly. Equal sharing of natural wealth promotes justice and sustainability: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2018/06/equal-sharing-of-natural-wealth.html

[@travisbrontide4524]

The last comment.. Are you a socialist?

[@JohnChampagne]

​@@travisbrontide4524 I've always disliked that word. (Maybe you can say what you mean by 'socialist'.) Since my earliest years of thinking about politics, I've seen 'socialism' as the worst of both worlds. I do believe we should respect public *and* private property rights. Man-made wealth should generally be owned privately. Except for public infrastructure. But even roadways might be funded by charging tolls to those who use them (with proceeds beyond construction & maintenance costs being shared to the people at large). Natural wealth belongs to all. When industries take or degrade the quality of natural resources, they should be made to pay compensation to the people at large. Assuming that we must limit overall rates of depletion of resources or amount of pollution, any putting of pollution or depletion of resources by one player necessitates that all other players exercise restraint to that extent, to ensure that overall limits are respected in practice. The payment is a form of compensation paid by those who don't constrain their action to those who (therefore) must constrain their action. Respect for public *and* private property rights effectively synthesizes essential features of capitalism and communism. SOME of the means of production are owned privately, and some are owned in common. Fees charged proportional to pollution put / resources depleted, with fee proceeds shared, would end poverty AND promote sustainability. I think I repeat myself. But if it's at least in part a paraphrase, maybe it helps to clarify. How to fix civilization: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-fix-civilization.html

[@travisbrontide4524]

@@JohnChampagne thanks now i understand what you meant by nateral wealth

[@TAMALMORTAL]

Sorry, could you please provide me with the links of the videos? Very good video. Thanks a lot for sharing this is really useful.

[@MrSorrowlol]

+Carlos Baechli its from Numberphile

[@Marrow9000]

1:03:20 begins my favorite few minutes of the lecture

[@anapulecio8063]

I LOVE you Dr Peterson :3

[@nickshel]

Hello, I watched a lecture by Dr Peterson a while ago in which he referenced an eminent debate over gender which I watched at the time and found fascinating. I want to rewatch it but can't find it. Can anyone help please? Thanks

[@freeyourmind4349]

Make sure that before you sit down for these lectures, you do something your future self will thank you for. Go do something worthwhile with your time. JP would hate to know that he’s enabling your laziness in life. Do not use this video as a “healthy distraction”! Yeah, I’m talking to you. Watching these videos can change your life but it’s not going to happen like magic without you working for it. You could just sit here, forever, and only watch JP videos and that’s not going to help you one bit if you’re not getting out there and applying it all

[@shadowninjaify]

To answer his economic question: is money infinite or is there a fixed amount, I think its both. But I do think as more money gets put into cycle that the same portions of it stay concentrated in the top companies (which, in itself, I don't oppose to). I think it's no surprise that if you invent a company like Amazon that millions of people buy things from, of course you end up with all the money.

I wish it had links to the videos shown.

[@brightphoebesays]

Mr Peterson was saying about how in same sex couples who become parents, one takes on the female role and one takes on the male role, even unintentionally. I can't remember what video that was in to find it again...

[@markcaseon7136]

Conscientiousness is linked with Serotonin.

[@devinlambolt6340]

Jacket comes off...not now chief, im in the zone.

[@tcmtech7515]

I've noticed that too many people today can't handle 'Complicated" simply because legitimate multivariable analysis (especially large multi-variant and value analysis) of a problem of stand they have too often undermines the overall single point perception of truth and validity of their stand and claims on any topic. Just look a the climate change debate. Sceptics take the debate on as a huge multi-variant problem, that to date has too many unknowns and contradictory variables in play, to ever define it as a 100% proof of anything murderously bad based on solid legitimate scientific method practices. Whereas the believers pretty much stand on a single grossly oversimplified single data point trend of, most often 'Global Average Mean Temperature', and nothing else that has any other value beyond whatever new perceived negative, but statistically normal and expectable, weather event of the week that happens anywhere while at the same time they will dismiss any neutral or positive weather trends or measured statistically significant positive climate sub trends under the 'weather is not climate' stand (unless the weather supports their climate agenda views, of course.)

[@brightphoebesays]

So, and I'm not done watching the video yet, but what are the personality traits that lead to wealth? Are they disagreeable, neurotic and conscientious?, or are they rebels, introverts, open and agreeable? Honest or liars? And is "only the good die young" true? It seems that to be rich a person needs to be deceptive to an extent...

[@CarterColeisInfamous]

23:47 it sounds like the stand up maths guy.. anybody know of the link?

[@fluxpistol3608]

More! More! More!

[@Spudcore]

"It's an infinite game assuming the amount of money continually increases" - Not if you decouple money from actual wealth.

[@CollectvlyUnconsious]

Could you link the videos you showed in the lectures?

[@AndreComtois]

Can anyone tell me what video he's playing for the class at the 42 minute mark?

[@patrickbateman4541]

I cant stand when women have a hard time saying NO, or when they choose to not hurt someones feelings/not being honest AND THEN ending up getting manipulated and taken advantage of.

[@stellashepherd844]

Patrick Bateman Yeah, we don't like it either, but conditioning from birth can take awhile to overcome.

[@Den_Anderen]

everyone gets taught to be assertive

[@stellashepherd844]

The F That would be ideal.

[@igornowicki29]

Are you a 'nice guy'?

[@patrickbateman4541]

Cheshire Cat no, insecure girls are just a massive turn off, untrustworthy too. The reason i made the comment is jordan went deeply into it on this lecture

[@jetrpg22]

Thought on wealth distribution: In the last 20 years the distribution has gotten larger and in the last 20 years there have been repeated efforts and legislation to change this. The laws to punish (equalize) the rich only further enrich them. That isn't to say all, but all politicians are willing to pass and mobility appears to be decreasing as well.

[@TheRationalizer]

5m 40s: The story of Hansel and Gretel was that the father remarried and the step mother persuaded him to abandon them, but please don't call her "she" as she was trans-gender and preferred the pronoun "them" :-P

[@ogunsiron2]

interesting. I was surprised to hear him say that it was the stepdad who wanted the kids out. It does seem to me that in most folktales it is step-moms who have a huge problem with the children from previous marriages and mistreat them or sneakily try to get the spouse to dump the "other woman`s" kids. Step fathers either don't care or ... they do their harm much more directly like they kill the stepkids! like male babboons. not sneaky but pretty grim lol

[@roddydykes7053]

22:49 I wonder if Jordan in this moment could’ve predicted how much he would go viral

[@HondoTrailside]

So has the rate of views changed since the pronoun wars started? This would help quantify the degree to which the PC warriors have made any attempt to understand the issues.

[@avril2824]

well I've just discovered him. yeah, he's great. He really stretches the mind.

[@seekerout]

I'm here because of the pronoun wars, but I'm not a PC warrior; I may be wrong, but I doubt if many of them would be attracted to this.

[@BrettonFerguson]

SJWs don't want to know. They consider this Fascist hate speech.

[@ingold1470]

And how he has 200,000 viewers. Mostly from the crowd who support him because of the pronoun war.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Actually some one of first things that I found about him was the "pronoun war" (which is politely speaking irrelevant for me, I don't mind even people who self identify as being an Apache helicopter, I may call them so) and I was at start a bit uncertain whether he has more to say on less flashy, but more relevant scientific subjects.

[@alfonsobeltran3937]

Brace yourselves the controversy is coming.

[@BrettonFerguson]

Here it comes: "Boys have penises, girls have vaginas." BAM! WOW! OMG! I can't quite wrap my mind around it. I'll have to meditate on that concept for awhile and get back to you.

[@jamieriley5908]

Jordan, you're a fucking legend. Thank you.

[@nimrod06]

Personality has a normal distribution because they are defined that way, no? It's the same as saying IQ is normally distributed. All metrics are defined on a relative scale. unlike something income that you have an innate unit of measure. The best you can say is that the mode coincides with the median robustly in the tests, so with appropriate scale you can match the discrete distribution with normal distribution. If the distribution is continuous, you can basically partition the groups so that they look like normal distribution, even for something like income(ignoring the reasonable unit).

[@taniaaboulteifaboultaif9972]

it would be interesting to see you and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie have a conversation together.

[@dancertiffy]

Where can we get the video which contains what he is writing down? I would like to get a lot more out of this video if I could see the statistics he his talking about. Perhaps I should do a youtube search statistics + population studies. I can tell what from what he is talking about that the math is some good stuff.

[@007barb]

What were the ages (average/range) of the participants in the study from Booth and Irwing?

[@lontus-racref]

Just want to leave a quick comment noting that the video you use in this lecture slips between the concepts of income and wealth at will...which the survey does as well (even falsifying data from Sweden).

[@dbsk06]

he kind of goes on tangents (e.g. wealth distribution) but useful tangents and great talk nonetheless

[@HomsianCam]

Please! Where is the lecture where you talk about interpreting effect size?

[@zdenkogonda6360]

subscribed. Thank you.

[@trucid2]

Jordan, recently you released videos where you take a stand about using words made up by radical ideologues. In that light could you please reconsider your use of the word gender? Here is what Wikipedia says on the origins of its meaning as it pertains to biological sex: The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates from the work of John Money (1955), and was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards. In other words the word gender was made up by the feminist movement to mean exactly what they want it to mean, that is to say, something other than the biological sex. I urge you to avoid the use of this word as a. It has no clear meaning and b. it serves the radical left wing agenda.

[@Khayyam-vg9fw]

Yes. This misuse (or ideologically-motivated abuse) of the term "gender" infuriates me, too. The word is SEX.

[@chrisincredulous7231]

Yeah good luck trying to get this guy to use the language you prefer...

[@primusstovis3704]

You cite Dr J Money? Not the most reliable sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#cite_note-paidika-25

[@trucid2]

Primus Stovis You say that as if it diminishes my argument. It only strengthens my argument.

[@primusstovis3704]

trucid2 I do not see how it strenghtens your argument in any way. Dr Money's hypothesis of the "born a blank slate" failed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1997-sex-reassignment.html He also has some strange opinions on pedophillia. A quote from his wikipedia page. "Pedophilia opinions: John Money was critical in debates on chronophilias, especially pedophilia. He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money asserted that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex. If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.[25][26] Money held the view that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept.[25][26]" So, tell me, how does this strengthen your argument that we should listen to the likes of Dr Money?

[@samlazar1053]

Introverted and Extroverted are personalities And those are shaped by life and surroundings

[@frankdelahue9761]

Disagreeable people can be found in prisons.

[@bradalexander6252]

Thank you for posting this.

[@stvbrsn]

*Speaking Roughly* The Jordan Peterson Podcast.

[@frankdelahue9761]

Rule following is called dilligence.

[@socratesdancing]

When there is a pause caused by Dr Peterson 'battling' with his computer, I like to pass those moments inserting the sailor-fainting foul-mouthed language I would be useing in that moment. That SLAM!!! is the sound of the door as ALL the introverted and a **%$###-ing sizable proportion of the extroverted student opt for a 'flight' response over any other choices.

[@brightphoebesays]

I have an above average IQ, but I am alone and uneducated, (1 step away from disaster) so according to this, my first step should be to find a partner. Makes sense. I'm just not ready yet emotionally, but I will soon, start looking. A suitable man and a decent home are really the things I want most in life. But it seems my Dad was right in wanting me to be a secretary.

[@nixieblue4708]

Does anyone found the videos he was showing?

[@edwardmorris3453]

How many women do you know who'd rather be a self-employed plumber or mason than a secretary for someone else?

[@patrickbateman4541]

Edward Morris None. They seek secretary like positions and then complain about their position.

[@edwardmorris3453]

In fairness to most women, it's not they who complain. It's feminists who do most of the complaining.

[@judegrindvoll8467]

Who complains about working in an office?! I've heard men and women complaining about being cleaners or flipping burgers or working in crappy retail stores but in that situation it is a lack of status which is the problem, and secretaries are certainly a step up from those positions.

[@charlessantos8800]

thank you

[@DoloresFlores5]

So interesting!

[@christopherrivera1673]

Alex Kierkegaard: 407. There is no form of government in which those in charge of the administration of things do not live off the population - do not "steal" from them, as those below see it - though of course there's no stealing involved at all. That's simply what it means to be "in charge": that everything below you belongs to you, and that you can therefore use it as you see fit (otherwise you wouldn't be "in charge"). Either this is acknowledged publicly, as in despotism, or it's hidden from the public as in democracy with pseudo-philosophies, demagoguery and lies. Even in communism, which is Christianity in practice - with everyone equal before God - God here means simply "the party apparatus". When everyone has become meek lambs in order to at last become equal, of course the one or two wolves remaining will take charge of things and become "communist Gods" overseeing their equal lambs, and, now and again, eating one or two of them. Here too there is no theft - the energy which the wolves expend to stay on top - so that the communist utopia can EXIST AT ALL - needs to be replenished, and it can't very well be replenished magically now can it. As for capitalism, utter inequality is presupposed there, the difference with despotism being that the higher ups are chosen due to their capacity to OFFER others what they want, whereas in despotism due to their strength to impose their will on them. When the latter are no longer capable of retaining control of things, the former step in and take their place. When even the former (which is to say the capitalists) can no longer retain control, some amount of communism is injected in the form of socialism to quell the rising ressentiment; under full-blown capitalism as much as is necessary and no more. The varying amounts of socialism found in different countries are merely a reflection of the differing psychological compositions of the various populations. The most capable, ambitious and energetic - the Americans - have a minimal amount of it, whereas the most lethargic, lazy, effeminate, etc. - e.g. the French - have more. And then there are local idiosyncratic cases, as with e.g. the Scandinavians. These are very industrious little bees, but they are also enormously economically successful, for whatever reasons, which is why they don't mind so much that so much is taken away from them. The southern Europeans are far more lazy, but they are also poorer, so socialism stabilizes at a lower level, simply because their societies cannot afford to maintain a higher one for long. - There is no LOWER form of government than this - this varying mixture of capitalism with socialism. Communism is highly unstable (indeed, strictly speaking impossible), and hence either morphs into despotism (as Orwell saw), if the leadership is strong enough, or implodes and goes back to some mixture of socialism with capitalism if it isn't (as in China). Lower still lies complete anarchism - savagery - which again can only be temporary, instantaneous even (if not utterly fictional). The moment the strongest men in the group step forward, new governments and government mixtures and nations spring forth, and the game begins anew. 671. What must be understood about the subject of "jobs" before any further discussion can begin on the subject is that there are two types of job: the one that you create yourself, and the one that others offer you, and it is always the latter type that subhumans mean whenever they use that word. But in order for the latter type to exist, the former must have originally created it (since "jobs" do not exactly grow on trees in the jungle by themselves now do they). Translated from Subhuman, "We need more jobs" means "We need more innovative, daring individuals to risk their lives' savings (or borrow from banks by placing their property as collateral at the risk of losing everything and even going to prison) to launch mankind on new, daring and untried paths, and advertise whatever secondary subservient roles they might have for us under their tutelage and protection". But nobody uses the Human formulation because it would spoil for them the narrative of Marxist propaganda, so we are stuck with the popular conception and its associated implication that jobs do grow on trees after all. So fight the system, brother! Those capitalist vampires are not creating anything! All they are doing is sucking your blood dry and trying to take your "jobs" away from you! 807. Redistribution doesn't work. It never has and never will. No amount of taking money from the rich and giving it to the average or the poor will ever make these people rich, because the moment the average or the poor get some money, they give it straight back to the rich, for the same reason that the rich became rich in the first place: because, thanks to their superior intelligence, they design the iPhones and perform the surgeries that every sane person desires. The only way for the scheme to work would be if the average and poor people themselves preferred the products and services of the average and poor people, to those of the rich, but they do not, because even they are not that stupid, and inequality continues. The journalists and pseudo-academics, meanwhile, are still trying to concoct increasingly elaborate schemes to reduce this damned rising inequality that, in their view, is the scourge of the 21st century, but here's where a true academic just stepped in, in the form of Austrian professor Walter Scheidel, to shut their bullshit down, in his great 504-page study of inequality from the Stone Age to the present, The Great Leveller."Only four things cause large-scale levelling. Epidemics and pandemics can do it, as the Black Death did when it changed the relative values of land and labour in late medieval Europe. So can the complete collapse of whole states and economic systems, as at the end of the Tang dynasty in China and the disintegration of the western Roman Empire. When everyone is pauperised, the rich lose most. Total revolution, of the Russian or Chinese sort, fits the bill. So does the 20th-century sibling of such revolutions: the war of mass-mobilisation." In other words: Destruction, and only Destruction. Only mass destruction can reduce inequality, and a comet hitting the earth would turn us all into electrons, at which point there'd be no journalists and pseudo-academics left, unfortunately, to scribble a million tiny little articles to celebrate the ultimate and logical conclusion of their efforts. Meanwhile, the rest of us whom supremely unequal evolution endowed with working brains, have set aside the scribblers' word vomit, and thought long and hard about the issue, to finally divine its true cause and understand it, and therefore learn to fully appreciate it and even love it. The reason that destruction equalizes - and the greater the destruction, the greater the equalization - is because it undoes civilization, running back the clock of evolution. In prehistoric times we weren't equal either, but the distance between us was far smaller than it is today because we lacked all the scientific and technological advances which of course the more intelligent among us will utilize to better effect than the less intelligent, to succeed (unless you think that a moron and a genius can utilize a digital computer to the same advantage, in which case you are a moron). There's nothing for it: civilization/evolution and inequality are synonyms (with evolution being the biological form of civilization, as civilization is the technological form of evolution), and the idea that we'd go through all this trouble to create them with the goal of becoming equal is so preposterous that only someone who is utterly uncivilized could believe it, much less want it. We were equal - or at least nearly so - right after the Big Bang, in the quark soup that lasted fractions of a second, and we had that experience, and enjoyed it, and have been getting further and further away from it ever since, for the simple reason that stasis is boring and we'd rather try new things and enjoy ourselves instead. And the newest thing we've set our sights on is a world of cybernetically enhanced genius demigods fighting it out with the aliens and between themselves for Supreme World Domination (because, in the end, as everyone knows, There Can Be Only One). But don't worry average people and poor people and degenerate people, because, as a result of this cosmic struggle, we'll turn you all into quarks again, and you'll have, for a few fractions of a second at least, your beloved equality (or at any rate, near-equality) once more. So the journalists' and pseudo-academics' equal (or at least near-equal) utopia will indeed happen, only a few billion years later than they imagine it, which is fine, as far as they are concerned, since subhumans' capacity for abstraction is so weak they have trouble parsing any number greater than 100. Just read the kind of dribble that they scribble and you'll see.

[@Usertrappedindatabase]

totally stole this tip from another video but open VLC player (free to download), and hit ctrl-N (cmd-N on Mac) and the audio quality is better and more adjustable.

[@BrettonFerguson]

I'd like to see a study done on Transsexuals to see if they have the same personality traits as their biological sex. For example, men who identify as women, is their attraction to sex partners more visual like it is in other men both gay and straight? Do they predominately use the left side of their brains, front and back as opposed to left and right as women more often do? Test all the differences such as these, if so it would show they are indeed mentally male, they just like to dress and act like females.

[@judegrindvoll8467]

The problem with this theory is that it would require genetic males and females to have single markets for their sex, whereas both genders display many variables across a broad spectrum.

[@_ANGST]

"We talked about"

[@psychologyrelated538]

Please talk with Sam Hyde, the strangest comedian, who funnily enough talks about Jung in early skits👏👏👏

[@JoeyTwoHearts]

Never heard a lefty say, “well let’s see if I can get this right” that’s something

[@lightgrey5365]

did peterson just bless my medical transition 🤔

[@KatBuckleyXOX]

XOX Thank You

[@scrooge-mcduck]

22:30 Them that have, get.

[@janetmcgregor775]

I scored extremely high in disagreeableness, when I first read the result I said "No I'm not! ...Oh, Ok maybe I am..." - true story ;) I think it illustrates disagreeableness well. I just have to make up my own mind on everything, I'm not a mindless follower.

[@kyarimaresuki]

I think this whole lecture was meant to help students challenge the SJW narratives! XD

[@Jadae]

Our Silkie Hen flock displays conscientiousness all the time. They're hilariously bitchy, and you can watch their relationships quite clearly in plain sight. There ya go. Animals w/ that trait. Sensitive and docile flock birds lol.

[@gatersaw]

22:47 Jordan Peterson has gone viral.

[@chrisnam1603]

💎

[@xstensl8823]

if my salmon is not grilled right i will send it back. its called negative feedback. sure i am a pain in the ass, but i am doing the restaurant a service imo. this becomes complicated when in Asia. loss of face. no growth.

[@travisbrontide4524]

1:01:06 you can do it ive been everywhere on tha 5 traits Being high in conscientiousness & agreeableness leads to disaster around people that have the mentality of crabs in buckets Lookin at it id say tha crabs are the opposite & in my experience they will take you being better then them as a personal insult & can become very irrational as if your the reason for all their suffering

[@eboomer]

The clip on wealth distribution: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4GufISkns-hqa8

[@aorusaki]

Intersted

[@kronoscamron7412]

My first experience with sjws in university was a literature professor he was basically writing degenerate/erotica feminist plays and teaching it to us, as well as talking to female students in a flirty/inciting manner. this however ended badly when a dude ended up beating the professor because he was hitting on his girlfriend. Sjws are occupy alot of positions in academia.

[@vancebiondo5930]

😁🖐 hay jorden

[@stephanovanvuuren5645]

I am disappointed because of the lack of debate in the comment section's top reactions. You want a discussion, dr. Peterson. I feel sorry for you that nobody interfered during the class. I certainly hope that atleast someone did after class. 56:00 I would like to give a reply to your statement that conservatives haven't figured it out. You've said it yourself. The people who are doing well currently, do not want the give up their wealth. The economic system in Western countries failed, atleast if you want to defeat poverty. There will always be ways to not have money, as you stated yourself addiction, IQ or social background as I would say are some of the factors to be poor. As long as the government will not invest in decreasing mid- and long-term poverty, the relative income always matters and it will show its consequences immediatly (like right now). Most African countries do not have the same amount of resources as Western countries do. Speaking of administration as well, hence it's easier to get out of a situation which requires 4 gates to engage rather than encountering someone with life-threatning powers face to face. Anyone can have an input below. P.S I've read about your recent medical drama, I hoped the best and still. Take care!

[@globalvillage423]

Conscientiosness is linked with serotonin systems.

[@maikeru01]

His description of what constitutes a psychopath/criminal sounds like a liberal male.

[@andrewwatson4244]

I'm poor and stupid, so I'm fucked then :(

[@philipschuster6557]

Socially construct my gender, will you? Well socially construct this n!nn

[@vancebiondo5930]

Confusing dizzimying and intellectually. Hard to follow organized thought or a mash mush of I a like intellectual labyrinth of infinity of satan . I cant tell but l8ine of thought I lost

[@sadjeebis]

Hyuuuuge