My Experience Debating Jordan Peterson - Alex O'Connor

[@1999_reborn]

As a black man I feel comfortable knowing Alex is willing to converse with a black woman like Destiny.

[@taanestevenson7611]

Fun 😂

[@blascantu7221]

Is this a meme?

[@andrewc406]

​@@blascantu7221 it's a dead meme that destiny has asked to stop

[@cheyennealvis8284]

Mista Bonerchelli !!!

[@justmbhman]

@@andrewc406 OH NO HE DIDN'T 💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿💅🏿

[@allrequiredfields]

I love that Alex genuinely attempts to defend Peterson's position in his absence, on principle.

[@m.caeben2578]

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.

[@marekb1556]

@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

[@bensalemi7783]

@@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.

[@m.caeben2578]

@@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?

[@marekb1556]

@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

[@Spiklething]

so I misread the video title as ‘My experience dating Jordan Peterson’ 😂😂😂😂

[@csquared4538]

Yep

[@hebgbz4121]

“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? …”

[@csquared4538]

@@hebgbz4121 it bothers me that Jordan Peterson's gay lover, Alex Oconnor, calls him Mr. Peterson out to dinner. Still.. Pretty accurate.

[@michasosnowski5918]

The tongue always turns to the aching tooth :)

[@washedtoohot]

I feel vaguely aroused

[@luxtenebris7246]

To understand Peterson's take on Christianity you have to understand two things - one, that he is a psychologist, and as such he is largely a phenomenologist in his understanding of "real". Secondly, the influence that Pageau has had on his thinking. Pageau's whole angle is that the material questions like "did the Jews really walk out of Egypt" are only asked because modern people have been captured by a forensic, materialist, scientific form of thinking which would have been alien to the people who wrote and edited the texts. To the first point (Peterson being a phenomenologist and psychologist), he judges whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior . For example, he has said that you can't actually tell what someone believes by what they say or claim to believe, but only by how they behave. He's also said that pain might be the most real thing because it has the most powerful grip over behavior. He's also said that whether there is something *more* real than pain (and death) is the fundamental religious question, because anything that could transcend the realest thing we know of would, by default, be the *most* real. So, when you ask Peterson "did it really happen?", yes, he knows what you are asking, but he thinks your whole frame is wrong, because he believes that you are still caught up in the idea that the material, forensic, historical sense is definitively "real", (again, see Pageau), and that's why he doesn't want to answer the question. He doesn't like the question because he dislikes the underlying assumption that the material reality is somehow the most important or most "real" element of the stories. And, to give him his due, it is definitely true that very often when people ask the question "did this really happen?", they are asking it because if he says "no", or "I don't know", they will feel justified in dismissing them as just fictional tales which aren't relevant to contemporary human existence. In short, there is a fundamental disagreement about what "real" means between Peterson/Pageau and people like Alex and Destiny. Alex and Destiny (and many others) are not willing to accept Peterson's view, and Peterson isn't willing to acquiesce to their framing by giving a simple answer to questions which assume it.

[@mcbean1]

No JP's view of what is real is pure hogwash, Harris pulled it apart years ago

[@DonutVideos]

Well put

[@bjorsam6979]

If everybody judged whether or not something is real by whether or not it dictates behavior, then the flood gates would be open and everything's subjective, with nothing solid to hold on to. Which is ironic, considering his musings on postmodernism.

[@feralmode]

nicely summised. i get the feeling even in this conversation above that destiny is trying to get peterson to provide yes/no empirical answers to philosophical questions. destiny is a tool. peterson is also a zionist so they both are tools.

[@MsChampagneSanity]

This is an exceptional explanation

[@patrickdowney2778]

1:10 Momentarily channelling Peterson's hand energy.

[@gabrielabsouza4497]

He was imitating Jordan Peterson.

[@KeyJOSH8]

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.

[@BriannadaSilva]

😂😂

[@Theactivepsychos]

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.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

Indeed

[@ramblingthoughtsandideas]

Hahaha!

[@ralphtoivonen2071]

😂😂😂

[@mike9512]

Alex got as close as anyone has ever gotten to making Peterson answer a question. Well done, sir 👏

[@macmac1022]

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.

[@thomeilearn]

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.

[@wren4077]

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.

[@chrisbirch4150]

O Connor really sold that first answer as well.

[@chrisbirch4150]

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.

[@funnybusiness6491]

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.”

[@macmac1022]

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 :).

[@davespanksalot8413]

I agree! Well written, but was let down by actually making sense 🤣

[@thecatmichael]

You forgot to mention that the analogy has to do with something approximating the subconscious human desire for sticky relationships.

[@CMA418]

Praise Lord Bubble-Yum!

[@donbianconi8446]

Where did you pause to cry about how bloody tough it is to be pavement

[@AlexReynard]

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]

like destiny winds me so much up. He is a combative person and he doesn’t really understand why that annoys people

[@AlexReynard]

@@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.

[@fritzco55]

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]

he’s just a lost child

[@davidmccoy6888]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salery depends his not understanding it". Upton Sinclair

[@Ybby999]

Salary or celery?

[@flankspeed]

​@Ybby999 I'd rather not be paid in watery hair, if it's all the same 😂

[@brnfrmjts05]

​@@Ybby999both.

[@marcotrejo3900]

Wouldn't be surprised if Destiny was getting paid by Russia too.

[@consciousobserver1905]

@@Ybby999 Peterson only eats beef, so salary lmao.

[@WayWalker3]

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!’”......

[@ThePond135]

Did you write this yourself or is it an actual thing peterson said 😂

[@deanerdaweiner3829]

this is perfect LOL

[@williampan29]

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

[@blascantu7221]

I read this while hearing Peterson’s Kermit voice lmao

[@IslandHermit]

Holy shit, you really captured his essence.

[@greysongan3410]

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.

[@clacclackerson3678]

Yes, I agree.

[@Queef_Storm]

tl;dr dude remains the coolest of cucumbers no matter the discussion at hand

[@wiczus6102]

I'm not sure if that's good. I wouldn't wanna be a robot.

[@Queef_Storm]

@@wiczus6102 Self-control =/= robotic

[@AfroGaz71]

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.

[@elmomierz]

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.

[@CB-dl1vg]

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]

naming a populist joke of a physicist there was not the best way to give credit to your argument

[@elmomierz]

@@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]

@@elmomierz it does in this case imo

[@elmomierz]

@@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.

[@Buceesfanmaarten]

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.

[@WiscoMTB37]

Ya the “I don’t know you tell me” line, so profound 😂

[@scottwall8419]

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

[@cremebrule8935]

This was a very good comment.

[@alaron5698]

"To marry a woman, I would first need to identify one. To do that, I would need to know what a woman is."

[@Salt-Oil]

Ah, arguement by demonstration. Like when diogenes held a plucked chicken and said behold a man!

[@kc1916-v5t]

I still can't get past the little chair they gave him here 😂

[@leegrant7333]

that is a little trick a certain type of host plays with the intention for the guest to feel small... snake oil

[@Olyfrun]

​@@leegrant7333clearly this was filmed in a hotel room...

[@coaldoubt2879]

@@leegrant7333 steven is small, though

[@TheLoopy16]

Hard same

[@babyelephant3077]

It’s half the size 😂😂😂

[@holzkiewuf]

I loved Alex’s question about the camera outside the tomb. Perfect way to try to nail it down.

[@AdamJones381]

It was wonderful phrased question

[@johnwheeler3071]

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]

With all respect, the video camera question is a well-worn trope in discussing the historicity of the resurrection. Decades old.

[@holzkiewuf]

@@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?"

[@LordMarvel]

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...

[@LemonHelmmet]

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

[@theobservarator6424]

​@@LemonHelmmet Citation needed

[@Urserker]

​​@@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.

[@wren4077]

@@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.

[@LemonHelmmet]

@@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.

[@AlexReynard]

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).

[@willschmidt7042]

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.

[@SP-mf9sh]

Why did Destiny "not want" to answer Jordan's Question to begin with? That is the real question. The rest is semiotics.

[@ItApproaches]

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....

[@jarrajamz]

That's being British

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

50 years ago was about the last time Britain was a pretty good place to be.

[@aaroningl]

That's what atheist virgins look like bro.

[@MrGrifft]

@@jupitermoongauge4055 The 1970s? Are you crazy or just under educated?

[@lanishx8935]

Excuse you, that's Mr. Bonnelli.

[@noahwilliamson9114]

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.

[@iwannaplanche1621]

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.

[@AdamJones381]

When you say understand Peterson reluctance, what do you mean?

[@maryosborne9952]

WHAT? is a woman. … rather WHO is a woman ?

[@webherring]

"when balls touch each other..." "whoa whoa!" 😅😅

[@Dyues]

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.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

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.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

Are you talking about Peterson or Destiny?

[@gnosismonkey]

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.

[@aguspuig6615]

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.

[@gnosismonkey]

@@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.

[@elusivecamel]

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.

[@gnosismonkey]

@@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.

[@dominicbrant1968]

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.

[@lanishx8935]

Alex has become a fairly masterful arbiter. His ability to walk the fine line in the middle of 2 worldviews is excellent.

[@yukim6769]

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.

[@ND-Skyz]

This is a really intriguing insight to the idea of insightful and well-researched interviews/discussions/debates.

[@1970Phoenix]

Jordan Peterson knows PERFECTLY well what is being asked of him, and he intentionally obfuscates to avoid answering those questions. He is an intelligent person and knows what he's doing when he does this.

[@WanderTheNomad]

It's not often that one of these guys are smart enough that we can call them out on purposely being dumb.

[@michaelh878]

Obviously. The question is why.

[@sammiealex5951]

Spot on !! JBP is very intelligent and smart. He is extremely careful about what he says.

[@aguspuig6615]

Its wierd tho, i feel like that question about the jews is perfectly easy to answer, why wouldnt he just say ''yes...'' ''no'...' ''im not sure...'' ''...but i want to focus on the more metatextual aspect of it becuase that certainly happens''. It wasnt some very modern political question were it might be worth it to be weasily, idk why he did that when talking about the ancient past

[@Entheos84]

@@michaelh878 Because he believes all theology is anthropology, he does not want to hurt believers who take the bible literally. So in the end he does it because he cares about people. By not answering directly he does not insult anyone. I personally can respect that but I can also understand asking for more directness from him.

[@paulyj]

I appreciate the grace that Alex has. He is genuine in wanting to know someone he has relationships with. Destiny tries to fit you into a box for his own gain.

[@mr.k905]

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.

[@theQuestion626]

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.

[@klb9672]

​@@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.

[@theQuestion626]

@@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.

[@c1tywi]

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.

[@hooligan9794]

I have come to the conclusion too that this is what is happening.

[@kingkarlito]

audience capture + benzos can really do a number on your ability to be articulate.

[@PrinceKima_12]

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]

@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

[@c1tywi]

@@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.

[@mka9621]

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.

[@DailyPolemics]

The question at this point should be, I suppose, "what could be enough to hold anything sacred?"

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

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.

[@wiczus6102]

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.

[@mukkaar]

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.

[@OrichalcumHammer]

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.

[@annebomba]

I'm becoming a fan of this Alex O'Connor guy. He strikes me as incredibly intellectually honest, curious, and he also has a strong sense of morality even though he is an atheist. And he is very intelligent so he displays these traits at a very high level. Wonderful, this is what atheism was meant to be!

[@olivyae3057]

"Even though he is an atheist" haha theists have an inflated sense of ego and think they have some sort of inherent ownership of morality, despite atrocities done in the name of their gods

[@jayhill2193]

@@olivyae3057 I'm sure there weren't any infamous atheist leaders in the 20th century that committed the worst atrocities in history...

[@annebomba]

@@olivyae3057 True, but most atheists also have an inflated sense of ego that they "don't fall for those childish stories about a man in the sky" and throw away the baby with the bathwater

[@Pllayer064]

"Even though"

[@J.T.Milich]

@@olivyae3057exactly my thinking

[@shortround9201]

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.

[@krisspkriss]

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.

[@danielbriggz]

0:45 Alex's impersonation of JP is so apt. I'm howling

[@theQuestion626]

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.

[@norwalltino]

Alex, the President of our time, now He reach Millions of followers. Alex is a Star already. The future is bright

[@yoonalim9655]

Alex o'connor: intelligent, honest, epistemically charitable. His comment section: I dislike X guest, so let me draw caricatures and beg the question instead of criticizing with evidence and structured logic. For the record, like most people here, I also dislike Peterson and Destiny. However, I refrain from typing unhinged comments that are factually false (like this one guy saying Peterson is apologetic for Hitler) or that are just adhominem attacks that beg the question (he is a grifter / unintelligent / X because he said this).

[@egontokessy1610]

Good comment

[@ФедотФедоров-е2н]

Truly so. Also, analogy with physics from Alex was briliant

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

Exactly what I was thinking after listening to Alex's fair comments about Peterson and then seeing the absolute opposite in the comments. As someone who generally likes Peterson and agrees with a lot of what he says, I don't think such comments are going to do anything to foster respectful and reasoned debate and discussion.

[@aaroningl]

I like most of what JP says, but your comment is still 👌

[@Agryphos]

Peterson has made comments that aren't pro-Hitler, but are.... very bad. Like making comments that seemed to imply that Hitler went the way he did in part because it gave him the crowds rather than Hitler having been that way since before his big speeches. I don't think he intends it to defend Hitler but my God was it a dumb example to use.

[@calanzi]

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.

[@MetalCooking666]

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

[@Kormac80]

Peterson is the epitome of a sophist acting in bad faith. It's all about the $$$ with him. Early on in his transition from Professor to Grifter he made the mistake of some very gentle criticisms of Trump and his customers punished him and he learned his lesson. The thing about these 2 and Sam Harris and Kyle Kulinski and the TYT crowd, especially Cenk is whether you agree with their positions on policy or not, at least you know they're not grifters. I'd argue PBD is another grifter, not only on his internet biz, but his previous biz where he ran an MLM scam. So many grifters on the right.

[@macmac1022]

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.

[@thequietintrovert8605]

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).

[@macmac1022]

@@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.

[@macmac1022]

@@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.

[@whishfulthinkinging]

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!

[@macmac1022]

@@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.

[@drewbuu]

I love the take “how can one be like this when they are like this?” Because anything can be and just because something is one way doesn’t mean everything is that way. No one has to give you the answer you’re looking for.

[@bryantrew6366]

It’s beside me why Alex takes this position. It’s very obvious why JP answers in this manor. He knows that the frame work in which the question is posed is not purely constructive investigating and that you’re not educated enough in the literature to command any level of critique worth entertaining , so he’s compelled to give you the cliff notes in the most in the most efficient way he knows how. Why debate a Wikipedia warrior on information they’ve been convinced is below them and in turn use an answer as a weapon. There’s a clear difference between his engagement with Destiny and other classically educated masters of their field. Not once did he say “I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and tell me what you think”. Why? Because he has low faith that Destiny has any level of interest in actually considering anything he has gaping blindspots with.

[@mrmr446]

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.

[@willburbur3793]

I never realized that my like of Peterson directly declined as I started taking uni philosophy 😅

[@klb9672]

Let me gueas the reason is because you have started reading philosophy that he criticises. Am I right?

[@mrmr446]

@@klb9672 No, read any introduction to philosophy if you want to find out.

[@BadassRaiden]

This is probably the only time that I agree with Destiny over Alex on anything. If you watch enough of Peterson's content, you must special attention to the differences between how he asks and answers questions when he is talking to people he knows he shares the same viewpoints with and people he does not. You also have to watch enough of his content where he is alone talking to the camera by himself. He absolutely, 100%, undeniably, objectively, obfuscates on purpose. He does not like questions that challenge what he believes to be true. Most of us don't, but most of us would probably just get defensive. He is smart enough to know that getting defensive shows the degree to which your beliefs are actually shakeable and the degree to which you are actually not so sure about which you claim to be certain. So to avoid being defensive and in his mind showing weakness as it relates to the validity of his own assertion of his own position, he obfuscates pointlessly. He does this with climate change and it drives me fucking nuts. When talking about climate models and their efficacy he says the following: "Well what do you mean about climate? Well climate is everything. How can you be so arrogant to think you can model absolutely everything?" This obfuscation, this endless defining, redefining, making sure we agree on the definition of the words we are using, is a tactic to avoid getting defensive about either positions he has in which he knows he knows nothing of authority and is therefore of no authority to hold the position he has with such fervor - or about positions that are meaningful to him where he actually isn't certain despite his continuous assertion of the validity of concreteness of the position he has. So let's go back to the climate model example. He has to obfuscate and attempt to redefine the word "climate" into a context that will legitimize his position. This is why he redefines climate as meaning "everything". Climate in no uncertain terms, does not mean everything. Climate are long term weather cycles and patterns. That's it, and you can model whether or not the climate of a particular biome changes based on no other inputs than that of which has to do with weather. You can account for added pollutants, added water vapor, etc. or a subtraction from all of these, and you don't have to go as detailed as to map every human beings activities that add or subtract from them. We have broad data that is collected that measures precisely how much water vapor gets added to the atmosphere, how much pollutants get added, and we have that data because it's literally measured directly in the atmosphere itself. Again, we don't need to map out and follow the lives of every human being to measure precisely how much CO2 or methane is added to the atmosphere, we just measure the parts per billion concentration and see if it's gone up or down. He does this, particularly on matters of the climate change discussion because he is above everything else, a capitalist. The overwhelming majority of people who are passionate in their demands of government and industry as it relates to the climate crisis are quite obviously anti-capitalist. It is precisely because they make demands of government and industry, demands that threaten the stability of the sort of capitalism that allows capitalists to regulate themselves and do whatever the fuck they want that he holds the position he has on the climate change discussion. So he obfuscates, and tries to make the claim that scientist models are wrong, that it's not that big of a deal, certainly not a crisis, and therefore there is no reason, in his words, for these "Marxist and communist" environmentalists to suggest essentially the destruction of capitalism as it currently exists in favor of some new system, which no matter who you are, he will claim the system you want is communism. So I very much disagree with Alex on this. Peterson is certainly smart enough to know what he's doing, and he does. He purposely and knowingly obfuscates endlessly on matters he knows nothing about, or on positions he portrays as being concrete when he is actually unsure of the validity of his asserted concreteness, in order to avoid getting defensive. He does it in talks with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty all the time. Whenever he is cornered on something he doesn't get defensive, he just says "wait a minute.. what exactly are we talking about here," or "what exactly do you mean by" or "could what we are talking about actually mean this" or "what I was actually trying to say and what I actually meant was". It's all about redefining what is meant by something, whether it be a single word or a whole statement. This tactic is as pathologic to Peterson's engagement in conversation as Trump's lying is to his own.

[@wiczus6102]

If we prove a model then the extrapolated data that was not tested but is compatible with the model is still likely to be true. I really dislike people who want an empirical proof for everything but alas this is the society we live in. That's why vaccines take so long to test, that's why people are still able to contest every established scientific theory, that's why we waste money on technologies that will not work and delay the ones that will - just because so many people have this particular misunderstanding of science.

[@ThinhNguyen-md6hu]

actual skitzo

[@justinwickee]

I think that Peterson's approach isn't necessarily about obfuscation, but rather a rigorous insistence on clarity and precision in language. Peterson's tendency to question definitions and underlying assumptions stems from his background as a clinical psychologist and his philosophical inclinations, which value deep understanding over superficial agreement. When he challenges terms like "climate," among others, I feel that he's emphasizing the complexity of issues that are often oversimplified in public discourse. This isn't avoidance but a demand for rigorous thinking. Some people often interpret this as deflection because they're accustomed to straightforward, unchallenged exchanges. However, Peterson' aims to uncover the nuances that are essential for meaningful debate, especially on polarizing topics. His stance is not simply capitalist; it's rooted in skepticism about grand narratives and the unintended consequences of societal changes. Far from trying to avoid difficult questions, he seeks more so to elevate the conversation to a level where all assumptions are laid bare, ensuring that any conclusions drawn are based on a comprehensive and honest examination of the facts.

[@Extracredittttt]

Thank you for this thoughtful bit of text. I really dislike how many JP defenders claim that the more you watch, the more legitimacy and honesty you see in JPs responses. For me, as it seems to be with you, it is very much the opposite. It becomes clear that on certain topics and in certain contexts, JP turns the obfuscation way up. It clearly reads as a defense mechanism as you describe here

[@nagranoth_]

obfusicating IS being obviously defensive. It's not intelligent; it's dumb, obvious, and dishonest. You're giving that clown way too much credit.

[@SpiceAndSauce]

Cant believe Jordan Peterson js taken this seriously.

[@rayaqin]

if Alex, who is clearly an exceptionally intelligent person takes him seriously enough to try incredibly hard to understand Jordan's thought process maybe you should think about taking him seriously in some aspects

[@SpiceAndSauce]

@@rayaqin Alex does that because it his profession to debate and discuss about others in his field. I can outright reject Jordan Fakerson. I find JP boring.

[@pee-ray5760]

​@@rayaqinPeterson is promoted by billionaires as an "intellectual" due to being a Capitalism apologist and religious conservative though. Alex is an intellectual that discusses religion. The two would inevitably meet but it doesn't mean Peterson has anything of any value to say. I mean, didn't Alex debate D'Souza?

[@rayaqin]

@@SpiceAndSauce he explicitly says that he thinks Jordan is smart and sincere in this video, what are you on

[@benisrood]

I can't believe anyone takes Destiny, a terminally-online former carpet cleaner seriously. I don't listen to Peterson anymore, and haven't for years, but you guys think Destiny is worth listening to.

[@El.Duderino369]

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.

[@anthonylombardo6012]

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.

[@claudiabarcelo1376]

nothing more uncomfortable than watching Destiny try to be relatable.

[@TsunamiNR]

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.

[@sinchex595]

Precise*

[@TsunamiNR]

@@sinchex595 Indeed. My bad. Then again, JP is neither.

[@actionflower6706]

You are a dismal cxxt. Clear enough?

[@SpencerTwiddy]

@@TsunamiNRdoubt you’ll find anyone as well-spoken

[@TsunamiNR]

@@SpencerTwiddy the guy is internationally known for his word salads

[@edbop]

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.

[@c.m.6487]

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.

[@quietwulf]

Man I love this channel. Thanks Alex

[@drvanhelsingz5133]

My god did he practice that before hand ? He freaking nailed it!

[@wren4077]

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.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

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)?

[@aaroningl]

If you're talking about imitating JP, the answer is that they idolise the man. There's your answer.

[@drvanhelsingz5133]

Everyone in the chat took my question far too seriously 😂

[@liul]

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

[@diliff]

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.

[@davidmireles9774]

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.

[@ZaQ-Fort]

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.

[@DylanPohl]

There should be clarification that when Jordan was asked what a woman is his reply was, "marry one and find out".

[@nonalien-l1n]

I think it's worrying that Jordan Peterson gets so much attention. That goes for Destiny, too.

[@nickallbritton3796]

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.

[@HalcyonSunset]

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.

[@imperfectmammal2566]

@@HalcyonSunsetwhat has he said that makes u say that?

[@AusTraLiaNPsyChO]

@@imperfectmammal2566 He was a major abuser of winfestors in SC2. Thats enough for me! :P

[@nathanielwaugh9232]

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".

[@theQuestion626]

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.

[@klb9672]

Come on it's obvious what he meant . When you say something like that jokely you are referring to something particular .

[@theQuestion626]

@@klb9672 OK but did he ever answer the question after the joke? No he did not.

[@klb9672]

@@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.

[@klb9672]

@@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.?

[@nigelsenchez]

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.

[@lawrence4361]

"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.

[@po5283]

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.

[@jjjccc728]

Good convo ## Analysis of the Conversation **Story:** The conversation centers around a critique of Jordan Peterson's communication style, particularly his tendency to obfuscate and avoid direct answers to certain questions. The speaker expresses frustration with Peterson's approach, arguing that it undermines effective communication and understanding. **Key Elements:** * **Obscuration:** The speaker highlights Peterson's tendency to avoid direct answers through obfuscation and evasive tactics. * **Material Facts vs. Abstract Concepts:** The speaker differentiates between material facts and abstract concepts, arguing that Peterson often conflates the two. * **Communication Breakdown:** The speaker suggests that Peterson's communication style can lead to misunderstandings and breakdowns in conversation. * **Sincerity vs. Strategic Avoidance:** The speaker debates whether Peterson's obfuscation is intentional or unintentional. **Problems Raised:** * **Ineffective Communication:** Peterson's approach can hinder effective communication and understanding. * **Lack of Clarity:** His responses can be vague and unclear, making it difficult to discern his true position. * **Misrepresentation of Ideas:** His obfuscation can potentially misrepresent his views or those of others. **Questions and Topics:** * **Sincerity vs. Strategy:** The conversation explores whether Peterson's obfuscation is intentional or unintentional. * **Effectiveness of Communication:** The speaker questions the effectiveness of Peterson's communication style. * **Impact on Understanding:** The discussion examines how Peterson's approach can affect audience understanding. **Addressing Questions:** The speaker effectively addresses these questions by providing specific examples and analyzing Peterson's communication style. However, the conversation does not offer a definitive resolution to the issues raised. **Resolution of Conflicts:** The conversation does not resolve the underlying conflict between the speaker and Peterson's communication style. Instead, it highlights the ongoing tension and disagreement. **Effect of Solutions:** The speaker's critique offers valuable insights into the potential drawbacks of Peterson's communication style. However, it's unclear whether Peterson would be receptive to this feedback or willing to modify his approach. **Suggestions for Improvement:** * **Direct Engagement:** The speaker could directly address Peterson with their concerns, allowing for a more open and productive dialogue. * **Alternative Perspectives:** The conversation could explore alternative interpretations of Peterson's communication style or potential reasons for his approach. * **Case Studies:** Analyzing specific examples of Peterson's obfuscation could provide a more concrete understanding of the issue. Overall, the conversation provides a detailed analysis of Jordan Peterson's communication style and its potential drawbacks. While it does not offer a definitive resolution, it highlights the importance of clear and effective communication in public discourse.

[@diyalectic52]

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.

[@eldjoudhi]

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.

[@fractalicflow]

ufff. touché.

[@ldpauls]

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.

[@revlarmilion9574]

He was slightly famous before that for putting his lectures on KZbin, 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

[@donnievance1942]

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.

[@ArcanaEric]

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.

[@thedukeofdukers]

If you watched TVO back in the day, you would have seen him on a few discussion panels.

[@totsh2056]

Because there's no way he could have been famous before you got to know him, right?

[@zmo1ndone502]

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.

[@Not.a.bird.Person]

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]

Doesn't destiny literally acknowledge that in the first couple minutes?

[@Not.a.bird.Person]

@@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.

[@frogimmortal]

Gotta say that Alex’s genuine good faith engagement with religious believers is extremely heartening to me every time I hear it. The quantum physics defense really seemed to get where he was coming from, even though he ultimately came down critical. Good stuff

[@iAmCymba]

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.

[@NathanielDJohnson]

Hi, I am interested in the psychological perspective on this. If you have time, could you elaborate a little on why? Thank you.

[@tomas644]

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).

[@tuckerallen1421]

My grifter alarms are going off every time I see Peterson. I would like to be more optimistic, but it doesn't sit right. Wouldn't be the first time an entrepreneur has pretended to adopt certain beliefs as to pander to specific audiences. It feels like Peterson doesn't even believe what he says because he's going out of his way to separate himself from his own conclusions. Disingenuous at worst, and overly convoluted at best. Can I accept that he's just "bad at what he does"? He may tout some goofy rhetoric, but I don't think he's actually unintelligent.

[@aguspuig6615]

I think the main piece that keeps me optimistic is that he has been sort of consistent on his beliefs since forever, i doubt he was grifting for 50 fkin years, its easier to belive that he is traumatised and therefore has let some cognitive dissonance go unchecked, i dont think he has it in him to be fully dishonest, his ego and sense of self couldnt take that, becuase his identity seems to be built on being honest and morally upright. Not in a public persona manner, in a personal manner, i think he would go crazy if he genuenly thought he was being dishonest, i think hes just not strong enough right now to admit fault, wich is still a big failing, but its not a grift, i think he belives what he says, and i think we could unironically save him if we got him to feel comfortable, and we confronted him with such good faith that he cant bring himself to get defensive, its gonna be hard, becuase he has gotten so much hate that he now probably has a very hard time thinking any criticism is good faith, when hes always either glazed by the right, or relentlessly mocked by the left, but i think its possible. Maybe Alex could be the one to do it, and god i hope it happens

[@peterkiedron8949]

GRIFTER!

[@johannesbakker4330]

@@peterkiedron8949 I had to look up the etymology. It comes from an alternation of graft. But ultimately it comes from Middle Dutch. In contemporary Dutch it is gracht (a ditch).

[@willburbur3793]

A Christian podcast I listened to about 6 years ago said something about Peterson that always stuck with me. “I agree with every single thing he says. It’s crazy. He always seems so insightful and I never find myself disagreeing with him. Which is why I’ve decided to never listen to him again.” And those words got through to me about 2 years after hearing them

[@Violaphobia]

@@aguspuig6615 I disagree, or he’s just dishonest. Remember when he was sounding the alarm on “compelled speech”, calling everybody against him marxists and Nazis? Here we are years later, nobody has been jailed for their speech, and his opinions of the “radical left” have only become more hysterical. He doesn’t update his beliefs about “free speech” as Twitter becomes a weird right wing echo chamber. It suggests that he was always just hiding how partisan he was all along

[@vincepurser764]

This is a good and accurate challenge. The likelihood Peterson is not aware he is intentionally obfuscating is practically impossible. I understand proceeding with charity... but he has weaponized it as a tool to use against his opponents.

[@probiffy1305]

Petersons audience love the mysticism he promotes, and he has cast himself as the hero in his story. Truth is secondary.

[@percyrd1]

Destiny really just wants to slag JP off and thought he found a mate in Alex. Didn’t pay off

[@rayaqin]

good summary of what happened

[@DavidMishchukDM]

Destiny loathes every influencer or personality that doesn't completely agree with him. And he is physically incapable of hiding those emotions.

[@markcollins1497]

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

[@theQuestion626]

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.

[@markcollins1497]

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.

[@theQuestion626]

@@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.

[@johannesbrahms9528]

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.

[@civilape]

@18:18 he's not stupid, no. He's doing it knowingly and maliciously

[@AlexReynard]

"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.

[@whynot217]

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.

[@AlexReynard]

@@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.

[@whynot217]

@@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.

[@AlexReynard]

@@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.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

When your opponent is dressed like a colorblind pimp, you're starting with a major advantage.

[@Lemoenus]

Jordan Peterson discounting climate science because of minor statistical deviations, but ignoring any in psychological studies regarding personality types, behavior or gender preferences is beyond insane.

[@Woodsaras]

"gender preferences"? Brother, the fk are you on about :D what STUDIES AHHAHA

[@parasocialbondsmetaswvoits9078]

did you miss your therapist appointment again?

[@Extracredittttt]

Yeah dude he makes sweeping statements about psychological concepts, especially around personality types, as if they are a biological fact of life. It is wild

[@Extracredittttt]

​​@@Woodsarasthere are a ton of studies about the various effects of gender - in this case it seems like OC is probably referencing trans people, though. And there is literally a mountain of data/studies on the effects of transitioning socially, medically, in different environments etc.

[@nigelsenchez]

Yeah psychology is 100% accurate science and you cannot question it but climate science is bunk. 😂 he picks and chooses the science he likes.

[@photonboy999]

*"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..."

[@GlitchInTheSkatricks]

I’m a Christian, but I love listening to Alex. He’s very thoughtful, open minded, and charitable towards both people and their positions on philosophical ideology. It’s a rare quality, and seems to be a gift. I struggle to even spend time listening to Christian content, but I can listen to him for hours sometimes. Thanks for your contributions to philosophy and the world of podcasting 🙏

[@jacobhuggins5448]

Peterson did answer the question when Alex asked about the resurrection and putting a Panasonic camera whether or not you would actually see something happen and Peterson said: yes.

[@Robb3348]

"i would suspect yes"--hmmm i wonder why he put in that wiggle-phrase?

[@robertbdavisii9801]

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.

[@Deedee-im6wb]

Jordan Peterson is the King of Word salad when backed into a corner. Smart, he is, but when it gets to religion, maaaaaannnnnnn, he becomes a awkward kid that just fumbles everything.

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

What do you mean by Jordan and what do you mean by Peterson ?

[@hannesangell]

Beautiful analogy with the bouncing objects question to a physicist! Exquisite!

[@kingcrabchris]

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.

[@jamesdettmann94]

2:34 his inner Christopher Hitchens comes out

[@NPC999]

Destiny is slimey.

[@loganross1861]

Destiny’s strategy can be summed up in one word: exaggeration. If you pay attention and simply observe over time, most of his positions depend on him exaggerating the positions of people he’s arguing against. And this has a compounding effect. So that once he’s made a few points it’s impossible to be in any sort of honest dialogue. It is also noticeable that whenever his position begins to weaken or falter, he will quickly and aggressively take hold of one or another exaggeration to bring things back into that advantageous and impossible dialogue. It might be understood as an outcome of his StarCraft brain. He has to maintain a rule set for everyone in order to move the game forward to his advantage. So he is constantly re-framing the discussion so that everyone is within a convenient and exaggerated caricature.

[@BertisAU]

​@@loganross1861 what id do to go back to the simpler times of competitive Starcraft....

[@zetdota3163]

​@@loganross1861I have 100* starcraft brain destiny has. I don't see corellation. I think he simply lacks humility.

[@theinvisiblewoman5709]

JP is a master of sophistry. JP is an “author of confusion” if we were to use the sentiment of the Bible.

[@heikki1623]

No "adult, human and female" are not words that are hard to define. It's a very clear, simple and correct definition.

[@m-yday]

after this, I really am curious about how a talk between Alex and Matt (DarkViperAU) would go. I guess the pertinent discussion point there would likely be react content, but I know he's done a lot on politics and religion in his past. So I am sure Alex could find a really fitting topic that interests him there too. As far as I've seen, I've been quite happy with Matto, since he truly seems like one of the most honest speakers out here, which is why I respect his view so much. He cares deeply about the moral implications of things too, which is something I adore. I feel the same way to an even stronger degree about Alex, but if we're talking about a person who is not - by main career - a philosopher... Matt truly is one of those people who does not appear to hold harmful ulterior motives when he speaks.

[@ilovepickles7427]

omg yes. This is why when people ask me about Jordan Peterson, my prepared answer is always "He is a smart guy with a lot of interesting things to say, but his views on religion are disingenuous at best, and opportunistic at worst." But what really p*sses me off is how he, like other religious apologists, then go on to claim that "materialist atheists" are somehow less moral or live a less fulfilling life. And what's even more frustrating is that I happen to agree with the vast majority of his opinions on what constitutes such a good and moral life, I just happened to come to those same conclusions through a "materialist atheist" perspective. Peterson would likely then go on and try to put words in my mouth, and claim that I am religious and just don't know it. He tried to do as much in his interview with Elon Musk, when he remarked that he was "trying to see what his (Elon's) religion is". I still watch Jordan's podcast because I think he adds a lot of value to some important conversations, however the moment he starts touching on religion I just turn it off. I'm no masochist. Yawn.

[@michaelh878]

As soon as he touches on anything outside of psychology you should turn off. He is clueless about everything else.

[@markevans8206]

@@michaelh878his psychology takes are not great either.

[@IditarodBro]

To play devil’s advocate for him, I think he just means that your sense of values ARE western values, which were born from Christian values. So you are culturally Christian. If you had to live in Southeast Asia for a year or so, maybe you would realize that ur values are fundamentally different than theirs because theirs is non-Christian in origin.

[@getasimbe]

@@IditarodBro That's so simplistic as to be inaccurate though. Enlightenment values would be closer to accurate, though still too simplistic

[@IditarodBro]

@@getasimbe it’s not simplistic if it’s true.

[@zoinx8256]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks

[@Godless_Doc]

Regardless of JP’s beliefs, he comes off as incredibly dishonest.

[@rayaqin]

to you maybe, to me he comes off as sincere but flawed

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

he's a politician larping as an academic

[@Godless_Doc]

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 yup

[@timkroes7655]

This critique of Peterson is actually fair and amazingly thought out. I think the examples provided are very good and I would absolutely love for Peterson to engage with this critique. Because as many other have, I miss the old Peterson. I think Peterson works best in the hypotheticals and the Jungian spheres. I suspect Peterson is to emotional to fairly engage in politically sensitive subjects.

[@aguspuig6615]

I hope he does, the man gets too much blind praise and blind hate, he needs some honest critique

[@The_Art_Coach]

Peterson is a jungian. Alex is a Vulcan. That’s the issue.