Psychedelics, Consciousness, and AI | Richard Dawkins | EP 256

[@JordanBPeterson]

Sign up to my weekly newsletter 'Mondays of Meaning' here - mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.com/youtubesignup

[@alchemyseal9400]

I wondered how an interview with Christopher Hitchens would have turned out, he was my favorite atheist, he was poignant with the typical British sense of humor, quite a treat to watch

[@suedenim6590]

Consciousness co-creates reality, we aren't just residing "on" this "holographic net" (for want of a better term) we *are* this holographic net. We are this beautiful chaos, folded fractally and infinitestimally small into every part of us, from the spiral of a galaxy through the curl of a snails shell to the helix of our dna. *As above so below* Therefore Jordan, to curb free speech is to curb thought, which is to forcefully shape *reality* itself, and not for the better. I cannot fathom more important work, or a heavier mantle to carry than that which you have chosen sir. I can't thank you enough for the work you do🐉

[@gabenorman747]

@@alchemyseal9400 His arguments were all terrible.

[@thelastaustralian7583]

'''great discussion''', its interesting how the Species 'consciously' , is dominated by sub conscious forces. With the vast majority totally unconscious of that fact. emf/emr is your Children's, Children's, 'most serious' and present threat. Obviously with other co-factors. Have a Talk with Professor Martin Pall ,Washington State,...

[@ecai8362]

Put the caption on.

[@samurai8698]

This felt like that friend who invites you over so you can watch him play videogames.

[@Leopar525]

Hahahahahaha

[@Chrominance87]

LOL!!

[@clintthompson4702]

The perfect analogy

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

Haha, yes. Perfect.

[@ericgiesbrecht5493]

It would probably make more sense perhaps if we got a glance at their email exchange that prepared the path for this “conversation”. Regardless, wow. Half way through and can’t stop feeling like I am watching a single vehicle car crash.

[@TalentedTenth]

Jordan Petersen discusses ideas with himself as Dr. Dawkins observes.

[@2511jeremy]

Yeah i hated how dawkins wouldn't even engage and just sat there silent when Jordan was waiting for a response

[@Arareemote]

​@@2511jeremy In all fairness there wasn't much room given for him to react. Dawkins as far as I've seen isn't the type of person to speak over or interrupt someone. As with most English orators/debaters out of civility you wait your turn. Which is what he was doing for much of Jordans hour long Shakespearian soliloquy. Much respect to them both ofcourse but this was Very chaotic/structureless discussion lol

[@mgoogyi]

@@2511jeremy He was waiting politely for his turn. Peterson just talked too much.

[@Wingedmagician]

This would have been great as an episode of Dawkins interviewing Peterson.

[@jamesmatson9131]

@@2511jeremy Yeah.. I think your hate might be misplaced. I think Dawkins may just have been exhausted waiting for a chance to comment on anything, mixed with wondering where to begin dismantling the nonsense mountain that Jordan was gleefully building the whole time.

[@kriptonis]

I imagine Richard preparing dinner, feeding the cat, chosing clothes for tomorrow, all during the interview.

[@philippeballon5151]

marvellous comment

[@jcmusic08]

Mr Rogers?

[@natureisallpowerful]

Like a bond villain

[@marylynnvail]

Upon reading your remark, I could not imagine Dawkins doing anything else as Peterson rambles incoherently. ;>)

[@fragilis_mal3485]

Ahahaha exactly

[@thekidd339]

If I learned anything from this "conversations" it's that Mr.dawkins is an incredible listener

[@salaisuusviisas2385]

Yes, as Mr.Dawkins intended to be referred to as such.

[@erinelizabethmsw5137]

@@salaisuusviisas2385I really think he has no hubris and if someone wants to talk and talk he’s like…OK, this is your time. Personally, I couldn’t finish this “conversation.”

[@danielwoolsey7984]

Lol

[@StoriesFromUncleMurray]

I had a bit of free time, so I downloaded the above conversation and put it into my video editor. I removed everything that was not a sound coming from Mr. Dawkins' mouth. Here's what I came up with: Original video: 1:26:56 Intro removed: 1:25:30 Total audio from Peterson: 01:07:41 Total audio from Dawkins: 00:17:49 Dawkins audio sans interjections (yeah, uh-huh &c.): 00:15:44 Out of an hour and twenty-five minute video, that is supposed to be an interview of, or, at least, discussion with, Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Peterson talks for an hour and eight minutes. Sheesh!

[@winterroadspokenword4681]

I absolutely love that you decided to take the time to do this!

[@pdbdeb5248]

I salute your patience to sit through this and edit it so meticulously. Peterson seems to be in an echo chamber and he loves the sound of his own voice. It's ridiculous.

[@LizaFan]

Jfc. 22:14 "God!" "Okay . . ."

[@deanjovi]

😂😂😂 you legend!!

[@shubhanshujain9827]

I guess JP would love to talk to him for hours, he just has so much to say and so much to ask at the same time.

[@cristi0291]

You've got to love Dawkins' bluntness in regards to Dr Peterson's speculations.

[@CleverGirlAAH]

He really is anti-Peterson (in a good way) lol

[@GMC-qo9xi]

Yes Dawkins is like the guy at the bottom of the well dictating to those above, what is and isn’t actually going on outside of it. Nor is he is able to perceive that the door to knowledge is tightly sealed shut because of his unshakable manmade (constructed) world views (that box in his perception of reality). He reminds me of a child that won’t eat his broccoli, because he thinks he hates it (thus making it the only possible choice for himself)... and has built up an elaborate rhetorical argument to avoid being forced to eat it (what’s otherwise actually good for him). He made it clear: there either is a God (creator) or there isn’t... and he gambled his soul that there absolutely isn’t. How could he ever see what he has chosen to refute (ie. believe/have faith) 100%?

[@fiveDust]

@@GMC-qo9xi that first sentence. Hitting the nail on the head.

[@mysigt_]

And still, Dawkins is able to express approval of other things Peterson is saying. He obviously isn’t trying to please either JP or a specific audience, which is a mark of intellectual integrity

[@tolhumexy6706]

@@GMC-qo9xi All world views are manmade. Every religion was started by a man / woman

[@michmonty95]

Diving into the depths of Richard Dawkins patience.

[@sirwilliamsollace]

A deep dive indeed. Such a wasted opportunity, almost feels like JP was nervous after RD slammed his snake analogy and what followed was a babbling self obsessed monologue

[@huh7056]

@@sirwilliamsollace it's not babbling, you're just not smart enough to understand

[@huh7056]

@@sirwilliamsollace plus Richard Dawkins don't even make sounds to signify that he's listening and understanding which is why it sounds like JP is just blabbering

[@klopcodez]

@@sirwilliamsollace ?

[@TheSands83]

@@huh7056 dude a discussion involves two people., n jordan was all over the place. If u don’t understand that I can’t help u any further., jordan is clearly a sharp guy but he had little to no ability to regulate himself and understand how he was coming off…he was definitely babbling

[@Hitchpster]

I didn't know Dawkins was Peterson's Psychiatrist.

[@lauraj8429]

LOL

[@ashleyrangel534]

Rotflmao

[@VirtualR]

100% lol

[@crs2385]

He isn't. Dawkins is a lazy minded individual who ignores the why and only focuses on the what. Having little to say or less indepth psychological input is the opposite of what qualifies a physiatrist to be. If your gonna try to be funny at least be accurate.

[@IdiotEarthworm]

Ha ha, very good 👍

[@NajibElMokhtari]

I'm 40 minutes into the video and I still can't call this a "conversation" (will all due respect to Mr Peterson).

[@Underground.Rabbit]

I think JBP's akathisia was talking and Dawkins kindheartedly mentioned that to him and kept listening.

[@NajibElMokhtari]

Update: now at 1:17:40 and still the same thing.. I guess it is what it is.

[@samsandoval9143]

It's hard to be certain but with the number of times Dawkins either asked for or seemed to need the clarifications/explanations of what Peterson was saying, I get the impression that these two have such disparate bases of knowledge that this one-sidedness was a necessity for clarity of communication. A 2nd converaation might well be a role reversal just to get both of them somewhat up to speed with the other's knowledge and experience base so a truly productive and meaningful 3rd conversation could commence.

[@Underground.Rabbit]

@@NajibElMokhtari Its gonna be all the way till the end brother ive watched this thing yesterday with great sadness.

[@masacatior]

@@Top_o_da_foodDChain sometimes people with different ideas have mutual respect you know?

[@ivancarlson953]

Professor Dawkins, thank you for hosting this podcast with your special guest, Dr. Peterson, and for letting your guest talk.

[@merlin4real]

It makes sense that RD would have more questions. His work is pretty much intuition for an educated person at this point where as JPs work is subversive bordering on revolutionary. I'm sure as open and curious as JP is he knows RDs work well, where as RD, being very closed minded and unable to understand any kind of subjective truth, had more to learn.

[@LizaFan]

@@merlin4real Subversive . . . ? Peterson makes a grift of shoring up hierarchy.

[@merlin4real]

@LizaFan subversive in the sense that it runs upstream from the lay person's intuition. Also, pointing out that hierarchys exist if you like it or not is a far cry from "shoring them up".

[@simonpaterson9648]

@@merlin4real Dawkins is a great scientist, and biologist, Peterson is a psychologist and prone to Benzo abuse.

[@merlin4real]

@Simon Paterson I never said RD wasn't good at his job, he is amazing at it. I remember reading the selfish gene and thinking it was great. Also straw manning Petterson doesn't make his work less brilliant.

[@inthebedrightnow]

Jordan Pererson took 45 minutes to say "i got high a few times and hallucinated a double helix and it reminded me of a snake sculpture i own"

[@jacktinney]

lmao

[@pattymcc2767]

😂

[@diogobsoares]

And I loved every single minute of it 😂

[@BronsonM6049]

😂😂😂😂

[@jackrogers1115]

Sounds like none of you really understood it then

[@micahwoosley1115]

Dawkins: "you are drunk on symbols, please stay on track" Peterson: "Hold my beer"

[@ItsabitToppey]

*hold my two headed serpent

[@vafixer8885]

Lobster thoughts intensify*

[@abadidibadou5476]

The perfect comment !!

[@logicalconceptofficial]

@@vafixer8885 ok that was funny lmao

[@logicalconceptofficial]

Logic is still God though no matter what any human thinks or says. It is self evident and objectively supreme. All the people including Dawkins (unfortunately) who make it into a thing where either Dawkins is right or Moses was are missing that 90% of their message was the same. Eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Use logic and reason with intellectual honesty (good faith). If Moshe were able to debate Dawkins in person he would basically say “wtf dude I was saying the same kind of thing you are. I only did it 3300 years before you and was certainly not influenced by you.” Ok maybe that’s more like what I would say if I were Moshe but still. Moshe (which is at least a pen name for the Torah’s author if it wasn’t a “legal name”) said basically to devote yourself to the source of knowledge and embody reason. He said this without any influence from Dawkins, and mainly from practicing reason himself over the course of a lifetime, and from observing what a lack of reason and devotion to the objective one (logic) brought Egypt and various people. It is unwise to make an enemy out of my 90% friend because we see 10% of things differently.

[@AstralRaven1928]

When I heard the bang at 1:24:34 I momentarily thought Dawkins had shot himself in sheer frustration at not being able to get a word in edgeways 😅

[@david.ricardo]

AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAGA

[@Nicoladen1]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 This is the funniest shit I've heard all year.

[@teeniemartinez8023]

Omg. Dead. 🤣

[@crangel2183]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@michellemichelle5202]

Most underrated comment on this video 😂😂😂

[@azarak34]

Professor Peterson, I say it with all love I have for your work and for you: You gotta give more space to people you talk with. In this conversation you talked so long that it was more a monologue than discussion at times. Best wishes!

[@simonmasters3295]

Agreed

[@matthewhall8161]

Well, he was asked to defend his helical snake/ DNA connection claim. That took a while to do properly. Of course Dawkins simply called it "boloney" and moved on 😌. But I agree, the last few minutes of JBP asking Dawkins questions was the best part of this conversation. I imagine JBP would agree as well.

[@peteranderberg569]

Well, listening to Richard Dawkins listening to, and being constantly interrupted by JBPs tripping rambling was really not very interesting. Probably the most disappointing JBP performance so far.

[@TheReaper569]

@@matthewhall8161 he wanted to speak about that to dawkins because ,1 JP knows he would disagree and perhaps offer something he didnt know, but other than simple rebuttal that wasnt the case, 2 JP knows that RD is very very very smart, so he would like his take on it.

[@pvereni]

Exactly my words. I definitely believe you are far deeper than Dawkins but that won't emerge until you practice more one of your strongest ideas: you have to listen carefully if you want to understand. And in order to listen with the needed care you must talk far less than your interlocutor

[@rodolfocampa95]

Dr. Dawkins' patience is admirable.

[@David-cf2iq]

I'm sure that his three wives agree with you....

[@rodolfocampa95]

@@David-cf2iq Which three wifes?

[@isparky.]

@@David-cf2iq your mother is there?

[@PHIllip324]

When I was 14, Dawkins appealed to me because I was just becoming an atheist edgelord. Now at 29, I'm much more into Dr. Peterson and am of course a different person than I was 15 years ago. Seeing this is like having a debate with my former self.

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

And now you've become a "theist edgelord" instead, or?

[@gabenorman747]

@@proudatheist2042 A Reddit moderator.

[@bay5005]

This is 100% accurate.

[@lexodius]

1 cor 13:11

[@fitnessabdul6811]

@@proudatheist2042 An atheist edgelord, to me, is someone who becomes atheist because it's slightly foreign and makes them feel smart rather than having a considerable amount of logic for why they are an atheist.

[@albiboy1599]

Never thought I would have ever had an existential urge to hear Richard Dawkins speaking.

[@ivanoranrof9577]

Dawkins does sound like the Blue Raja in the movie "Mystery Men". Almost a caricature of an accent.

[@albiboy1599]

@@ivanoranrof9577 His voice here reminded me of Bertrand Russell from the famous debate with Copleston.

[@marsjokes]

Same, lol.

[@twntwrs]

Yes, an oasis of reason in a desert of fata morganas of conjecture, symbolism, factual errors and nonsense ill disguised by verbosity.

[@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi]

I am so angry with Jordan right now

[@vigilantejesus9010]

[1:30] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Jordan’s rise to fame, Bill C-16, and Free Speech [5:30] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about the Intimidation and fear of speaking out against the far left [9:10] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Micro retreats [11:40] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Dawkins’ paper about the organism as a model [18:30] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Female sexual selection [21:10] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Differences between Jordan and Dr. Dawkins' thinking [24:00] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Jeffrey Gray, his work on modeling, Psychedelics, and Anxiety [30:00] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Psychedelics, Symbolism, and Consciousness [41:00] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Jordan’s experiences with psilocybin and yoga [45:40] Dawkins listens to Jordan talk about Postmodernism, Lacan, Foucault, and Mikhaila’s Oxford Union debate... I could go on.

[@drdeadbeat1604]

I see a pattern emerging

[@ahLeftside28]

Lol. What does this all mean?!

[@CalderaMauricio]

Nice one

[@glennthompson6754]

Spot on! I'm a JP fan but this was a seemingly unstructured ramble. I feel for Dawkins..... He seemed to spend the whole time trying to identify any consistent point to respond to from the meandering rambling! Tough ask!

[@mork07101960]

Jordan wants to impress Dawkins

[@Areflection4]

listening to this discussion for a 2nd time, it has gotten no better. I can well imagine Dr. Richard Dawkins quietly working on his latest book while Dr. Jordan Petterson worked his monologue! 😮

[@BlueskyDenver]

An ex boyfriend was listening to Peterson religiously on and on and his life was a very big mess. I didn’t like Peterson’s word salads and ongoing marathon of talking to himself about nothing and not giving the other person a chance to get their word out even once.

[@betford2]

😂

[@average.yt.commenter609]

This was kind of weird. Like the initial part of the conversation was cut out and it's audio only. I feel like maybe Dawkins spoke less and let him speak more for this result in the comments. Anyways jp doesn't do this much anymore in actual interviews. He called this a discussion and not a interview for whatever that's worth

[@garyvillette6920]

jp Sure loves to hear himself talk. It annoys me so much that he runs down tangent upon tangent, and spends so much time setting up his question that Dawkins prompts him to get on with it and ask the question! I can imagine Richard drifting off into his own work while JP blabs on and on.

[@ShuggieEdvaldson]

It's true, Dawkins does do a powerful line in populist propaganda, he sounds soooo sincere too! :) Whereas, Jordan is honestly searching for the truth of reality - the true purpose & meaning of life, so to speak, and that's the difference.

[@explainous]

This is exactly what an interview shouldn’t be

[@ericdufrane2344]

One where the host talks 90% on the interview?

[@pawelvg1]

@@ericdufrane2344 it was a joke

[@davidbanner6230]

Just how does Dawkins live with the existence of someone like Gandhi? Here was a man, a professional lawyer, who gave up everything for a cause that would bring him nothing but suffering and poverty, for what? Is it possible to say he did not believe in a God, then why was he doing it? Are we to assume that he was so stupid to not be doing it to be for a cause, like Dawkins, to have a nice lifestyle, of travelling around the world and feeling important hob-knobbing with the hoi polio? Relative to that; how does Dawkins’s deal with the existence of Steve Jobs, who was an ardent admirer of Gandhi and who, according to the once CEO of Apple, had a picture of the great man which was only possession he had in his house. Does Dawkins lump him ‘Steve Jobs’ in with all the other misguided fools who believe in some form of religion….. It’s bloody ridiculous to have to listen to such endless nonsense…

[@jamieshannon9019]

Two intelligent people with different ideas discussing them in an open conversation I'd say that's exactly what it should be

[@randlecarr3257]

The Dawkins interview w Russell Brand was much better. Two Brits using words collegially. Refreshing.

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

I have deep respect for both of these men. But I gotta say the highlight of this conversation for me was Professor Dawkins' willingness to challenge Dr. Peterson bluntly and straightforwardly.

[@joeboswellphilosophy]

Agreed. "That's bullshit". 54:28. 😅

[@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός]

When such intellects come together, you almost ‘feel’ their intelligence as a force, which makes their bluntness SO FUNNY.🤣

[@JewTube001]

well it would be the highlight, because he hardly talks for the rest of the video.

[@senseofmindshow]

@@brando3342 it seemed to me like Jordan often didn’t give Richard enough time to explain his answer.

[@joeboswellphilosophy]

@@senseofmindshow Yes, quite.

[@Rory99M]

20:51 "it seems to me you keep wandering from one subject to the other" 😂 he's right there in fairness

[@GungaLaGunga]

Absolutely brilliant and hilarious.

[@levit4jesus]

Well, he established what Dawkins' theory of modelling is (probably for the listener), and then asked how Dawkins thinks that this pertains to sexual selection. Seems like that was the very clear build-up, right after the introduction, when Dawkins asked what he wanted to talk about.

[@davidbanner6230]

Just how does Dawkins live with the existence of someone like Gandhi? Here was a man, a professional lawyer, who gave up everything for a cause that would bring him nothing but suffering and poverty, for what? Is it possible to say he did not believe in a God, then why was he doing it? Are we to assume that he was so stupid to not be doing it to be for a cause, like Dawkins, to have a nice lifestyle, of travelling around the world and feeling important hob-knobbing with the hoi polio? Relative to that; how does Dawkins’s deal with the existence of Steve Jobs, who was an ardent admirer of Gandhi and who, according to the once CEO of Apple, had a picture of the great man which was only possession he had in his house. Does Dawkins lump him ‘Steve Jobs’ in with all the other misguided fools who believe in some form of religion….. It’s bloody ridiculous to have to listen to such endless nonsense…

[@analyzeit2622]

If only I could have just enough ADHD to be creative and curious, but not so much that I'm unproductive and dysfunctional.

[@panosshady6168]

@@davidbanner6230confirmation bias makes you see evidence for your beliefs everywhere. Crazy how you tried to make an argument that god exists based on the fact that Ghandi existed. Ghandi was even a Hindu, how is his life evidence that your god exists?

[@jadonharper1493]

I love how Richard confronts Jordan’s intellectual elusiveness, and Jordan’s response is “We just have different thinking styles”.

[@Dave-yv7tg]

"JP- I'm more about aesthetic than facts!, RD- "that's nonsense" "Oh my god jeeze, let me change the subject already"

[@5th-Season]

I’d hire Dawkins to be my accountant, but Peterson to be my CEO. Both brilliant, but different thinking styles ;)

[@ukaszrybkowski2769]

​@@5th-SeasonI feel like Peterson as a CEO would do fine at the beginning due to his superficial charisma, but sooner or later he would get caught up in his own bullshit and would leave the company bancrupt.

[@alexhansford2459]

What does bancrupt mean?

[@rafaelmarques-gg9kf]

@@ukaszrybkowski2769 exactly like elon musk

[@WhiskyBaron]

Dawkins displayed a level of patience the likes of which I have never witnessed. Absolutely painful to listen to Jordan interrupt him even directly after asking him a question. I hope he reads all of these comments and reflects on the fact that this was a grand opportunity wasted.

[@chompchomp7853]

Rather listen to Jordan ❤

[@ohalloranjames]

yeah I really admire Dawkin's' patience here. This was a real mess of a conversation, with Peterson meandering all over the place.

[@levit4jesus]

Dawkins seems quite interested (possibly contrary to the usual listener, who just wants any side to be "destroyed"). Dawkins also asked most of the questions discussed (in his short time speaking). Peterson needed quite some time to answer Dawkins' questions. Would be very interesting to have it the other way around as well. Peterson's question at minute 21 was not reached until about the 1:21:30 mark, but this was in part also because Dawkins himself had questions for Peterson. Notwithstanding, it took quite some time for Peterson to carefully formulate his questions, maybe he was a bit too careful 🤔 But you gotta love both of them for honestly and open-mindedly seeking truth.

[@Hurus1]

Dawkins tried to get him on track. He realized full well, that there is something not ok with JP at that day / interview. I cannot understand why he put this catastrophy of a word salad online.

[@ThorirLenvik]

He loves to speak what he's speculating in the moment... Fortunately he's remembering much of what he's read!

[@bobgolden939]

"So... about the DNA..." " Well I do yoga in the morning " Never laughed so hard

[@bperez8656]

It’s so cringey I feel bad…. Lack of self awareness in a way

[@bobgolden939]

@@bperez8656 no doubt it was the medication

[@brystonhickman366]

It’s funny that he brings it up, but not nonsensical. He was saying the attention of consciousness can be focused on different levels, using yoga as an example of doing that sort of thing. He used that as a jumping off point to theorize that it’s possible to focus that consciousness down to a micro level, to where you are literally conscious of the structure of your dna. It is definitely an out there thing to say, which JP admits, but he did make a point with the yoga story. JP was definitely all over the place on this conversation, but I think you may be being overly dismissive of what was said.

[@chesterdesmond666]

@@brystonhickman366 Agreed. I think that's why he is getting a pass instead of a wtf from most people. I don't think Peterson is capable of speaking without it making sense on some level. It's just that his mind goes several iterations deeper than the current topic (like a chess player) and he tries to skip the intermediate levels . He always does that to a degree but this particular one was almost like a when a child just free associates and rambles crazy stuff which is all technically correct but too disjointed to follow. I think he was intimidated and\or was prepared for a debate instead of a conversation and this tendency took over.

[@cristianproust]

@@bperez8656 You should not be listening to professors talk if you can't understand what they are saying. Stick up to the Kardashians

[@TastySanchez]

If people are wondering the interview starts at @1:19:35 This is when Jordan finally shuts up and actually asks a question without trying to answer it himself and beginning another 30 minute rambling monologue.

[@paulrose4735]

Peterson is groping at blindspots, and trying to grasp smoke; Dawkins is simply witnessing and observing it for 45 mins really...

[@daveyeung]

I listened to the whole thing. Jordan Peterson took all of us on a bad trip and Richard Dawkins was the casualty. Professor Dawkins was such a gentleman that he didn't hang up.

[@High_Priest_Jonko]

Dawkins is always the sober friend we can rely upon

[@kentl7228]

Weren't they beside each other? They were walking together after a while. Then running as Peterson tried to catch Dawkins.

[@TheFosterJourney]

​@@High_Priest_Jonkoyes, but I'd like hear him ramble for an hour for just one time, after he is drunk, lol. That'd be EPIC

[@Earthad23]

He's trying to remind the atheist that he is as religious as any fundamentalist.

[@crashtestdummy2337]

Dawkins is a pseudo intellectual, though who cowardly refused to show up.

[@talitaza8862]

I am watching a Dawkins lecture after this just to balance out Peterson's monologue. 🤣

[@painandpyro]

You must be new to Peterson

[@JOAKINGtube]

Lol

[@iurivanastacio3081]

Lol true

[@talitaza8862]

@@painandpyro 😁 I have listened to all his debates and interviews for almost 4 years now, but damn, he is next level in this one... I don't think it is wholly his fault, though. Richard seems disinterested, kinda bored. 💁‍♀️

[@alexauiux]

​@@talitaza8862 I think he was a bit irritated, and it was more evident for me when he used the word "bullshit"

[@MrKail]

This is the type of conversation that really needs a moderator.

[@thecultofjohnnydelr.soulsw7010]

If he sucks at Maths the man is struggling like the rest of us and the reason for his appeal.🤣 Dawkins is absolute, listen. The earth goes around the sun✅ The chimps are cousins✅ Intelligence came much much later✅ Shit man 🤣

[@painandpyro]

Absolutely not. If you want debates with quick rehearsed talking points and pandering to respective fanbases, you're in the wrong place. Whenever JBP discusses stuff like this, he is always exploring, he's stated this many times

[@DTR89]

We don't need a moderator, we just need Jordan Peterson to learn basic two-way conversation skills

[@GrubKiller436]

We need Bret Weinstein to moderate!

[@GrubKiller436]

@@DTR89 He's an extravert; it's in his personality to continue if the other doesn't insert himself in. And as you can see, Dawkins is not at all in any hurry to insert himself in. Maybe you could also suggest Dawkins to be more active in the interaction?

[@DocnoXXX]

"I think you're almost drunk on symbols" ... That may very well be the first time that Dawkins has made me laugh out loud

[@marsjokes]

Same, lol. "He's out of line, but he's right."

[@NorDixonSkiSchool]

Type in "Richard Dawkins Bitches" to make it 2 times

[@williansnobre]

I love that term, to be honest. Drunk on Symbols. I see it as both an insult and a compliment.

[@DocnoXXX]

@@williansnobre Good point... and it certainly didn't seem to offend Peterson. He even partly agreed with it, realising that perhaps he was getting carried away with it as one can with a bottle of good wine...

[@Garrick1983]

Dawkins was short and didn’t want to participate. The least interactive I’ve ever seen a guest with Dr.Peterson.

[@Galdring]

Richard Dawkins is a very patient man.

[@particleconfig.8935]

Scientic Fact.

[@MrTruthAddict]

He just took a nap and had a cuppa while JP bloviated

[@kevine9474]

Or a coward.

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

Not when it comes to religion. He snapps easily there.

[@piakrut3476]

Not really

[@shellfish3495]

That is why Dr. Dawkins prefered an audio session, So that he can do his daily chores, in the mean time. :D

[@max_rpm5947]

Dawkins, the master of patience.

[@codyflores3920]

Dawkins is way too concrete in his thinking. Simply refuses to open his mind to the metaphysical

[@letsfindout1621]

@@codyflores3920 Which is understandable… I love Peterson but I love truth more and the only thing we can truly rely on is our own experience no matter how appealing peoples words are.

[@yeshuaislord6880]

@@letsfindout1621 Ironic you said you love truth more but then proceeds to say we can only rely on our own experience which is highly subjective and not in the least objective. Congrats

[@letsfindout1621]

@@yeshuaislord6880 Everything is subjective what’s your point?

[@danf1862]

@@codyflores3920 you mean he refuses to believe fantasy and make believe? Odd statement

[@milindphadnis3990]

This conversation reminds me of a friend who calls me once in a year and tells me everything that is going on in his life with nonstop rambling and fails to even ask once how am I doing. So when he is talking I keep the phone on and meanwhile do all my household chores only saying "hmmm hmmm" to make him believe I am listening. After he is done rambling and gets tired, I say "Well done" and hang up the phone and take a nap.

[@howtodoit4204]

Lol

[@heathercarlisle715]

😂 +1

[@projectalpha4782]

You have friends?

[@milindphadnis3990]

@@projectalpha4782 If you take off the veil of anonymity from your username, then you too can attempt to be my friend.

[@projectalpha4782]

@@milindphadnis3990 'attempt'

[@abbytownsend7739]

I learned a lot from this discussion. I learned how important it is to be a good listener and how dumb it makes you sound to be obsessed with your own thoughts. I also learned how admirable of a quality patience is.

[@nadesmond6029]

Perfect😂thank you! I really learned a lot from you learning this, cause I'm definitely not Gona waste my time on what I rightfully assumed was gonna be a one sided ramble😂

[@brigwood7658]

'It was initially weird for me too; a case of "WTF doy? ... you aware of what 'dialog' means? (or a 'full stop'). Then I thought I'd have another listen, just allowing the words to 'do as they will', And so I stood up straight like the phuking lobster I am, cracked an awe inspiring woody, zoomed up on benzo's, and with some 70's UFO german synthesiser music for background atmosphere, and I listened! Lo and behold, it took on a certain dream logic of its own. Ideas gave way to aesthetics, masculine order, stability and hierarchy lost all form, collapsing into feminine chaos, change, rhizomic flow and bodily discharge. My 'vagenis' changed into a 'pegina' and back again ... and yet I felt perfectly comfortable with this ... as if it were perfectly 'natural'. So now I 'm like "Thank you JP for liberating me in ways you'll never know, and well beyond your best intentions (I wish he was my dad)"

[@sadhu7191]

I liked part he said he took 7 grams dry 3 times. Saw dna and molecular level.

[@abbytownsend7739]

@@jonathanalexander9881 I’m CRYING

[@arvaneret_329]

Ironically, your comment revolves around yourself and addresses no part of the conversation between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins, who both are capable of demonstrating patience.

[@DrTTube]

1:23:55 Dawkins is so fast at 81. JP often asks questions that are overly wordy for no apparent purpose and might take a moment to parse. But not for RD. BTW, I listen to JP a lot and I've never seen him this intimidated in any conversation he's had. Good for him.

[@chrismathis4162]

This wasn’t a discussion. It was Dawkins listening to Peterson talk.

[@CleverGirlAAH]

I'm so disappointed in the man on this one... FOCUS! FOCUS!

[@richardsaddress580]

Dawkins was steering him in the conversation though. Seemed to me anyway.

[@xBurzurkurx]

Because if Dawkins even said a word, Peterson would have dissected it instantly. The equivalent of "hey man it was just a joke" when they weren't joking, Dawkins is too afraid to engage anything that profound because he himself knows the chances of his atheistic philosophy being the universal "correct" is not likely, and hes a narcissist that doesn't want to be wrong.

[@xBurzurkurx]

Masked by "I don't follow where you're going"

[@Greg400]

JBP seems to have a problem with excess

[@nlemonj]

This is the single most painful, "interview," I've heard Dr. Peterson have. I was really hoping to hear more from Dr. Dawkins here.

[@bogowongo]

it's painful, but it's also secretly really good. it will just take a while....peterson is trying his thing to oppose materialism, and it's not easy. yeah, he should've listened more.

[@TheSands83]

@@bogowongo dude he just ranted what was the purpose in having anyone else on … just get on and rant .

[@bogowongo]

@@cynthiamartini8982 yeah, i wondered the same when listening to it without reading any introduction. this was not meant to be an interview. but i think peterson sat in a delicate spot of both trying to build an intellectual bridge, while being fully aware that a lot of what he's trying to get across is very challenging to a core materialist mindset. i don't know enough about the seemingly chaotic plethora of things he tried to get at, but the ayahuasca story is one thing i know about. if dawkins had to study the story of ayahuasca forced at gunpoint, e.g. via the works of jeremy narby, he would have to contend that there's a serious mystery there. why would a figment of your imagination in your head during a hallucinogenic trip tell you about which specific 2 plants of the rainforest to mix in order to achieve a wildly different and prolonged effect. this "interview" really ain't what it seems. but i still think that in a more lucid state, peterson would've let dawkins talk more.

[@bogowongo]

@@cynthiamartini8982 yeah. the echo chamber groupthink mentality, people defending "castes" like atheism or materialism or idealism or spirituality.....it makes it very very hard to build bridges across to different mentalities. i'm not a fan of dawkins, but i think he's genius enough to help humanity with progressing, if he just receives some important data from the other bubbles of thinking on this planet. he coined the "meme" meme for one in the 70s, which is a pretty great one. it's become central to my thinking.

[@Gush27]

@@bogowongo I really don’t think he would think there’s anything mysterious there at all.

[@Steve-Owens]

A wonderful monologue Jordan.. I thought you were having a guest on?

[@Steve-Owens]

Dear lord Jordan. I listened to this all. It was so frustrating. Each and every time Richard made and effort to reply to your questions, you interupted him and went off on a lengthy self gratifying rant. In the last few minutes, you allowed Richard to speak for just a few brief seconds bit you still, interupted and answered all your own questions. Painful to listen to.. I guess at the very least you intrigued me to go and listen to Richard, which I'd need to, you didn't let him speak. I suspect in the hour and a half interview? Richard spoke less the 5 minutes.. I hope you don't mind me saying..

[@prof_jesus]

Dawkins is 80+ years old. It's amazing how some people are capable of staying sharp at that age, I mean, he probably never drinks or smoke, but 80+ is where most people's mental capacity is already weak. Can't imagine living past 80 honestly. This dude is a beast, I hope he stays well for a long time. The first of his book I've bought was the God Delusion, and I quite enjoyed it, although I'm not quite an atheist myself. I always find the artistry of making science (and what is usually assumed the boring stuff for most people) topics interesting through creative use of literature. Science writers like he and Sagan, journalist like Hitchens, they are underrated for their prose. It doesn't take much for fiction to appeal, but how incredible is the ability of making non-fiction/reality a thing of beauty. Absolutely amazing.

[@birhangijam3679]

I'd love a round two but this time with Dawkins having the floor. With more time of course, in fact, I'd pay to see that. Overall, as with most people, this was such a great meeting!

[@WhenceRed]

reminds me of "The Last Samurai" drunk on wine or Word? Who Wins? Heraclitus, Iamblichus, and Augustine are winds washing over Dawkin's Sand Dunes

[@WhenceRed]

his TED Talk, an Atheistic Novella, Or Novella, A MASTERPIECE .

[@WhenceRed]

novelella

[@WhenceRed]

... or novelella, I meant

[@BlakeBake]

Agreed. I'm 30 minutes in and JP has been talking pretty much the whole time.

[@DTR89]

It would be a stretch to say Dawkins talked for even 10% of the time. This is quite shameful, I'm sorry.

[@elektrochava]

Yeah I don't even know why JP wants to talk to Dawkins, he could've chosen others more relevant to this discussion. I guess Dawkins is a 'bigger' name.

[@siimkelner2282]

Jordan literally spoke 99% of the time. I wonder how Dawkins felt during that recording.

[@PRED4T0R85]

like handicaped on wheelchair trying play football//soccer...

[@fdafsdfasgs]

As somome else said: like being invited to friend's house just to watch your friend play videos games.

[@shanewatts5115]

Probably disrespected. I think he was fed up tbh...sounded like he was mad to get away from him by the end of it. 😂

[@killpop8255]

Like an Amazonian jungle dweller

[@sjowners]

Probably skipping between the mic. and a good book and hanging laundry.

[@bkrich]

Where's the timestamp where Richard Dawkins talks?

[@marceijkelenboom9675]

Unbelievable how Jordan invites Richard Dawkins and then just talks at him for the first hour without barely asking a question.

[@madtrini]

@@scparker6893 because its a funny observation. But you're right.

[@tcarr349]

Marc please don’t be surprised by Petersons behavior. Dawkins has a history of striking below the belt in interviews. I’m not saying that P is right! Of course he is on the attack. I’m simply saying all is fair in love and war. Dawkins militant history invites confrontation! Peterson is just playing to his audience. Honestly I don’t believe that Peterson believes his own rhetoric. However his followers also have a voice and that belief shouldn’t be just dismissed as myth. These are real people with real hopes, desires, and culture. If mankind is ever going to unite, shouldn’t we at least respect our neighbors and approach them with open arms?

[@tcarr349]

John I liked your comment. Your not even wrong. Your not quite right either but I respect your view.

[@abraham2217]

@@scparker6893 because im stupid thats why

5:41 Richard Dawkins: I admire your courage in speaking up about this. Huge number of people, including me, totally agree with you and many many of them are just too frightened to say so. Because there is a massive intimidation going on, especially in the academic world.

[@ToastytheG]

Bang on. I've seen it to many times to remain silent about it anymore.

[@dannyboysable]

lol

[@FrictionFive]

Good transcription!

[@rogerc23]

You only need two words…..prove it. Until it’s proven all you need to say is F U.

[@LD-io9zv]

How about at 42.25 ! Dawkins, “ so you think that our consciences can see down to the cellular level? That has got to be utter nonsense.”

[@SG-bh2ij]

I love Jordan Peterson. That’s why I’m subscribed to his channel and was able to listen to this but I wish Jordan would have let Richard Dawkins get a word in. Richard was not able to finish his thought before Jordan jumped back in.

[@ThePallidor]

I think he was partly just tired, but this has been a problem with many guests. Peterson gets on his Energizer Bunny mode and just keeps talking making no effort to cut to the chase.

[@painandpyro]

Dawkins knows how to use his big boy voice. You have to listen to a lot of Peterson's ideas before you can understand where hed coming from and Dawkins obviously recognizes this; he's a smart man and he's trying to listen. This isn't a debate, there isn't a "winner" or a "loser"

[@pistonmeyers]

@@ThePallidor Cut to the chase. Just the opposite. Peterson does not ever cut to the chase. Rather than say what he thinks. He has to first tell you all the references he has used to get to his conclusion. As if he needs to defend the conclusion before stating it.

[@judjudersawn2596]

If you love Dr. Peterson then you should respect him enough to listen to him or to finish his show. 46:46 Dr. Peterson states: "Now, I've talked too much during this discussion so far; there's something I really want to ask you about if you don't mind." Dawkins subsequently refuses to field Peterson's question and insists upon answering Jordan's previous line of inquiry. Your characterization of Jordan repeatedly "jumping in" and thereby preventing conversation is entirely false and disrespectful.

[@SG-bh2ij]

@@ribos2762 WOW, that’s crazy to say that and use those words about Jordan Peterson. I think the reason you say that is not because it’s accurate but because of favoritism towards Richard Dawkins and whoever else. Without a doubt Jordan has helped so many people in the world. To call him a coward and a pseudo, is exactly that, not genuine.

[@mattdorrell9567]

Two highly intelligent and interesting people that I've admired for years. I had high hopes for this discussion....shame it was so one sided though. It reminds me of the short poem that used to be on my science room wall at school.... 'A wise old owl sat on an oak, The more he heard, the less he spoke, The less he spoke, the more he heard, And that's what made a wise old bird'.

[@cynthiamartini8982]

This was not meant to be an interview. As you can tell, he does not explain the complex stuff to the listener, as he usually does, because this was meant for himself- not others. Poor guy, doing something nice and gets all this negativity for his trouble.

[@timtibbetts4193]

​@cynthiamartini8982 can I ask exactly what you mean by your response to this comment? I'm not sure I understand.

[@jonathanszkola3359]

This is why you don’t call your friends while you’re on psychedelics, they’ll most likely have no clue wtf you’re talking about 🤣

[@adonisadmirer2752]

Peterson really has to stay on topic when doing the conversations. His exploratory-associative thinking is great, but mostly for lecturing. He seems to have lost Dawkins in the first third of this discussion.

[@Lyonessi]

I can imagine Jordan going off on his tangents using his hands and face to express his thoughts and poor Dawkins can just watch him like his icon 😂

[@MarcInTbilisi]

Very polite. Jordon, shut up for a moment!

[@chris432t6]

JP did dominate most of the conversation but Dawkins was very respectful and cool.

[@michaelpearl5269]

It seems a reasonable criticism at first glance. However, the sheer complexity of the subject(s) defies easy explanation. Thus, Dawkins peevish annoyance is, at best, counterproductive, and he seems to be otherwise disengaged.

[@MarcInTbilisi]

@@michaelpearl5269 I was expecting more of Dawkin's thoughts...

[@markokrsmanovic2562]

When Jordan mentioned that he had had taken a bunch of psychedelics, I think Richard taught "well that explains the feel of this interview" 😀

[@princechannel2154]

Thats so sad I'm so disappointed right now while watching

[@hebertjerome]

7 grams of LSD is an insane dose, 500 micrograms is an affective dose. 7 grams wow.

[@paulajanson8053]

😂

[@olliemiller8945]

Think he said 7g of psylocybin didn’t he?

[@aleksbb2537]

@@hebertjerome he took mushrooms

[@hanscastorp7870]

Dawkins, 20:51: "It seems to me you keep wandering between one subject to another without sticking to one at a time." Dawkins, 1:19:38: "So what is it you wanted to ask me, because we have run out of time." This monologue could possibly have been an interesting dialogue, had Peterson let Dawkins in edgewise.

[@louisethompson7149]

Bravo! The two highlights!

[@EdNorty]

41:20 is hilarious: Peterson: I think human beings can sometimes see into the microlevel of reality. Dawkins: ...what? Peterson: Yes, I've done drugs.

[@crs2385]

DMT is a drug that can lead you there I guess

[@nickseebs5563]

LOL! That moment around 41:35 when Peterson said, "I have taken extremely high doses of psilocybin", is where a very confused Dawkins was finally able understand why Peterson was taking the conversation in so many directions.

[@victorcorrales4162]

He was telling a joke & it took 40 minutes to get to the punch line

[@maplestratocaster]

As a huge fan of both these men I was looking forward to hearing a discussion between the two. Very disappointed to find the format was more of a lecture from one brilliant mind to another. Mr. Dawkins displays much patience. It plays out better as an audio segment. Otherwise we`d be watching Dawkins listening. I absolutely love JP. Maybe someday Dawkins will feel comfortable with a live segment with more back and forth.

[@3lit3gn0m3]

Yep. I enjoy JP's views on things, but I feel he needs a moderator when talking to someone else who could add similar value to a discussion. Pausing at 22:28 to say this. I've never really thought 'little' of JP, but I feel like he's kinda just being rude at this point.

[@jacobsmith831]

@@3lit3gn0m3 agreed. But the moderator would have to be perfect in their direction

[@dumbdumber1885]

Why Dawkins wanted audio only is so that he can continue weeding his garden patch while JP talks on endlessly.

[@Brehvon]

Jordan's answer for the snakes issue took up a lot of time all by itself. I have a good feeling we will hear another conversation with these two. Might not even be a bad live discussion similar to the Sam Harris events.

[@NoOneAtAll666]

Well said, it was quite a strange one! Richard barely said anything for 45 mins! Love and respect to both these guys.

[@covariance5446]

Damnit, Jordan. You have one of the best thinkers of our time agree to be a guest on your show. And despite holding contrastingly different beliefs about a very contentious and not at all trivial topic (i.e., the veracity/validity of organized religion), there is a refreshing mutual respect shown in the first minutes. All good so far. But why oh why do you not let the man talk? You can tell he has some good ideas and replies forming but you keep interrupting him and preventing him from developing them. Somehow, Dawkins has all the patience of a saint and simply allows you to talk over him. Nothing can be done about it now (it's in the past) but I will say that in the future, should Richard agree to come on again, please undertake efforts to allow him to get more speaking time in.

[@aliakseiivanov7923]

The whole interview was Dr Peterson pretending to be a scientist and trying to convince real scientist about it.

[@marktlog]

Maybe we can say saints have the patience of Dawkins now

[@justinphilpott]

Absolutely best comment for this video right there. Boom.

[@wallacewyatt4023]

Agreed. Let Professor Dawkins speak. We won’t have the great man for much longer. He’s getting on in years.

[@hellabella8295]

Yes, Jordan likes to hear himself talk.. and takes so long to say something simple.. Dawkins is absolutely amazing.. ❤

[@kennorton1478]

that's the difference between the great Dawkins and the rest of the thinkers and authors , right to the point, choice of word, not using fancy words to impress, just precise articulation.

[@IdiotEarthworm]

Well said 👍

[@onurbole7921]

That is the tradition of analytical philosophy. The focus on clarity and formal logic in language was initiated by English intellectuals like Bertrand Russell, then it became the dominant style in the academic world in England. There are many writers like Dawkins in many fields. Some Americans like Chomsky stick to it as well. That contrasts with the style of continental philosophy, which can get poetic, obscure and dispersive.

[@MultipleGrievance]

​@@onurbole7921 When you say philosophy in regard to Dawkins, You are simply highlighting communication style right?

[@aaronbuchanan4115]

You know, this reminds me a lot of the first conversation Peterson had with Harris about truth around 5 years ago: clunky and tough to listen to. But I found the subsequent conversations between Harris and Peterson to be extremely interesting and insightful. I really hope the same will be true for Jordan and Dawkins. Major respect for both thinkers.

[@seanmatthewking]

Even in this one, I was interested to hear Jordan talk about which of the purveyors of highly inaccessible ideas he finds to be saying anything of value. I’ve dipped my toes into he writings of Jung and some post modernists. I’ve read a small amount of Foucault and struggled greatly. I never read anything by Lacan, but I’ve read several works where his ideas were referenced. I’d be interested in hearing Jordan talk to a defender of Lacan and a critic of Jung.

[@fury_saves_world]

@Ambient Music: To make you feel better Df? Hurt hjm brother plz

[@theperfectbeing]

@ckots Yeah I never really understood Sams level of TDS given that he is highly analytical and evidence based regarding the positive impact within a system. It baffles me that he can look at what causes strife in people (financial struggles, upward mobility, etc) and acknowledge the fact that people are more free to explore other avenues once the baseline struggles of survival are taken care of and then turn around as say Trumps presidency was overwhelmingly negative simply because he personally despises how Trump speaks about the issues.

[@EmperorPenguinXRemas]

​@@seanmatthewking I wachted some lectures on Lacan, I read some and also some application of his ideas. Most is bad and he still mostly a fraud, although some ideas are great. For example, his notion of extimacy, mirror stage, symbolic order, which can be applied in something as the technological domain.

[@kozmickarmakoala3526]

This conversation was very clunky , to say the least.

[@countofst.germain6417]

20:50 hahaha! I love Dr Dawkins. He's such a no nonsense factual guy. Discovering him about 15 years ago really changed my view on this world.

[@lesediramahobo8991]

And 42:00. This scum Peterson got exposed. I've always knew he was a fraud who gets drunk on his own word vomit.

[@Subfightr]

Me too brother:) 🫂 for the better imo, for the worse in the opinion of everyone else, even though I've been even more helpful and kind to others... Does not matter. I'm still a heathen with no morals in their eyes :(

[@Acrocanthosaurus]

He's a disinformation shill.

[@Subfightr]

@@Acrocanthosaurus Dawkins is? He's open to being wrong. I've learned a lot from seeing him eat crow and thanking the person for it. What are you referring to?

[@ericdufrane2344]

@@Subfightr what in the world are you on about

[@darrenbrown7037]

My biggest take away from this entire thing is that Jordy has taken 7grams dried mushrooms on three occasions. I’m disappointed that he wasn’t able to remain focused on a single topic in this exchange with Dawkins, but I’m very impressed and excited with his use of Psilocybin and at such high doses.

[@Ihopeitsnottoobig]

Why r u excited

[@seanmatthewking]

This is the nature of Jordan. It’s very hard for him to stay on one point. The mushrooms probably don’t help because these type of things can help you see connections but don’t always help you see which connections are the most significant and vital connections. Jordan needs frequent interface with people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to keep his feet on the ground. Both of those men are laser focused and don’t let JP squirm away when he’s landed himself into highly questionable territory, which is very frequently. JP is very into mysticism. I’m not knocking it, I actually really enjoy when JP weaves anthropology, psychology, evolution, biology, theology, etc together. He’s like the ultimate entertainer of stoners. I think there is value in this type of thinking, but it requires sober analysis to be any use. And while JP has a very capable analytical mind, I think his love for mysticism and spirituality causes him to withhold the required analysis in certain areas, and so he needs to butt heads with the more sober-minded thinkers.

[@TheSonicDeviant]

@@seanmatthewking - It sounds like you need to be less grounded! 😆

[@MrCarl2020]

@@Spectacurl I had high hopes for this as well. Jordan simply fear the man.

[@darrenbrown7037]

@@Ihopeitsnottoobig Because doing 7 dried grams of mushrooms is one of the most incredible experiences a human can have and I’m happy for him.

[@panamerica5649]

This was another situation where Jordan makes himself a fool. He talked 99% of the time and had almost nothing to say!! What a lost of opportunity to speak with a genius like Richard Dawkins...

[@dennisrankin]

I don't believe Dr. Dawkins was given much space to answer questions. This was 95% Peterson and 5% Dawkins. However, I do enjoy listening to Peterson make his points.

[@ivanjdrakov1957]

Absolutely agree

[@willawallace2090]

Yes. I actually thought it was rather an awkward conversation. I felt Dawkins was losing patience several times.

[@EPlTHANY]

@@willawallace2090 That's just Dawkins

[@MrDoppelhaken]

I can see why Peterson waited 6+ months to release this. I don't think it comes off quite well, and maybe that's a reflection of the fact that Peterson had to speak with both Penrose and Dawkins in the same day and was less prepared than he should have been...personally, this seemed like a lot of Peterson rambling over recycled talking points I've heard him bring up many times previous instead of actually engaging with Dawkins. Right at the end I think he realizes that this isn't going as well as he would have liked, and he finally starts asking some interesting questions. If it had been an hour and half of that, it would have been better. There was a point when Dawkins began to suggest that, despite his righteous opposition to postmodernism, Peterson himself frequently falls into its ideological trappings through his endless extrapolation of meaning on to symbols-then Peterson cut him off. I think that should have been explored.

[@musiqueetmontagne]

​@@willawallace2090 I agree it was awkward at times. As good as parts were, if I was Prof Dawkins, I would have been frustrated too. JP does need to let others respond properly.

[@kocamojoe]

Peterson really dropped the ball on this conversation. He didn't allow Dawkins to speak at all. If this conversation ever happens again, which I doubt, as Dawkins probably would not want to be subjected to this, Peterson should simply ask a question and allow him to answer.

[@sc7597]

Well, some answers take 45 minutes. But yeah JBP was never a smooth interviewer.

[@DavidM-vt3ur]

Yeah I noticed the same. I'm inclined to be forgiving-- sometimes anxiety can manifest in overcompensating-- but in over an hour Peterson never corrected. Dawkins I thought was quite gracious about it. Still, a remarkable conversation.

[@LoneHero2]

When Peterson knows he’s outmatched intellectually, his ego overcompensates and he filibusters with idea salad

[@aaroncphelps]

I think actually that Dr. Peterson was excited to speak with Dawkins, and perhaps his excitement carried much of the conversation. But seemed like passion and excitement to me.

[@sc7597]

@@LoneHero2 I don't think so. He was outmatched in certain topics with Zizek and still managed to give concise answers when necessary.

[@Brave_New_Tube]

"I meant no more than they meant yes." That's it. That's the secret sauce to solving government overreach. Call it out where it is, refuse to comply, and stand your ground. Living in fear of the overreach will not make it go away.

[@Milos.L]

exactly

[@elektrotehnik94]

That is ONE of the steps to solving government overreach. ^^ If a critical mass of people don't do it with you, you can get forgotten in jail. Perspective.

[@jandevries57]

I respect Richard Dawkins. Jordan B Peterson looks full of himself. Loves listening to his own voice.

[@AquaStevae]

Jordan Peterson does not look full of himself. He's just an intellectual who has such a flow of ideas that it's hard to stop going. I'm sure you wouldn't understand...

[@jonathanszkola3359]

Both of these statements are simultaneously true

[@alexxela8192]

It could be an interesting conversation if Richard Dawkins was given a chance to talk.

[@steveerl1443]

It's not a debate, it's a monologue. I'm curious why Peterson even brought him on. He doesn't seem curious at all to hear what Mr. Dawkins thinks. Sad.

[@baalrog666]

Richard himself asked Jordan several questions, so he wanted to hear him answer. And JP does say he talked too much around 45 mins in and wants to ask Dawkins something and Richard goes back to Jordan yet again. So I don't think it was some sort of bad intent from Jordan, RD felt like he genuinely wanted to hear what he had to say.

[@steveerl1443]

@@baalrog666 some of my favorite parts of discussions with Jordon are his ability to listen, think deeply, and then respond. Of course we're all human and make mistakes but in this interview he just seemed determined to speak over Mr. Dawkins, interrupt him more than a dozen times by my count, and dominate on any topic. Probably not intentional by any means but if it were me and I listened back to this, I'd immediately contact Mr. Dawkins with a sincere apology.

[@InnerTranquility]

It's not a debate, it's just a conversation. Not everything has to be a "battle to win".

[@peimankhosravi]

@@baalrog666 yes it seemed as if Dawkins had his guard up which didn't let the conversation flow so it sort of turned into JP monologing to explain/justify himself. JP tried to stirr away from this but Dawkins was not moving. I hope a second meeting does take place but would help if RD, obviously a great thinker, loosened up a bit.

[@Lopfff]

Dr JP is like the kid who shows up at his grandpa’s house and has a million things he wants to talk to Grandpa Dawkins about

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

A little bit- Jordan is definitely excited to be talking to Richard Dawkins. Jordan has changed his mind about religion over time.

[@danieltaylor1784]

I think that is basically what occurred here. I think it would be much more productive if it happened again

[@samalex2180]

I thought that aspect of it was adorable. Peterson clearly loves him, as many of us do. Dawkins talked to him as if he was an impatient puppy.

[@judjudersawn2596]

That joke is a completely false characterization which makes you look dumb. 46:46 Dr. Peterson states: "Now, I've talked too much during this discussion so far; there's something I really want to ask you about if you don't mind." Dawkins subsequently refuses to field Peterson's question and insists upon answering Jordan's previous line of inquiry.

[@jamiel4803]

@@judjudersawn2596 tbf Dawkins was half way thru his point when jp said that. Dawkins was mid unzipping his bag to get book

[@CedarloreForge]

I’m a Christian, and I found Dawkins WAY more eloquent and agreeable, and found Peterson way more rambly chaotic and frustratingly long-winded in this recording… 😆

[@symbolicmeta1942]

Because he spouted nonsense about the snake helix being dna and wouldn’t back down when he didn’t have a real case. The only way he would have a case would be if he found something through his drug trip that we didn’t or at least he didn’t already know about. Since he didn’t bring that up, and instead went into how he saw🧬 I am guessing nothing not already known to him(subconsciously or consciously) appeared.

[@tom2659]

@@symbolicmeta1942 he’s been Brain damaged since his drug addiction

[@nolongerjuicyboiz4413]

@@tom2659 Someone should stop that menace Brian.

[@nolongerjuicyboiz4413]

@@symbolicmeta1942 I think he would back down, he was ready to admit he has no evidence and it was just speculation. He was a bit frustrating though cause there wasn't really a dialogue.

[@tom2659]

@@nolongerjuicyboiz4413 lol, sorry I missed that

[@willowrobinson]

I love how JP lectures Richard as if he’s a student rather than one of the greatest thinkers of modern times

[@peterjones6507]

I expect JP has a different view of RD, as do I.

[@colecassell2477]

Did you seriously just call RD one of the greatest modern thinkers? Unironically ?

[@peterjones6507]

@@colecassell2477 I also nearly fell off my chair at the comment, but it's what some people believe and presumably by the man himself. .

[@davida.rosales6025]

But he ISN'T one of the greatest thinkers of modern times... He's just a popular writer of militant atheism... which any 20-year-old filled angst can do!

[@ToveriJuri]

@@davida.rosales6025 He's not just a popular writer and of militant atheism. He has had an impact in his own field too. He's just not very good at having a nuanced discussion about religion, he's completely focused on reciting facts and pointing out how you can't prove the mystical aspects of religion, I'm with him when it comes to facts. However what He and atheists whom are inspired by him lack, is any willingness to engage with the idea what religion means to people in anything but a very negative way. They just don't want to understand the other side at all they don't want to even attempt it. And he clearly at least when writing God Delusion didn't understand Christianity in general and it shows. He should have stuck to his own lane, His work on religion and atheism isn't very impressive or thought provoking. Even though people like Harris and Hitchens had equally hostile way of approaching the subject matter they at least had some basic understanding of what they were talking about when it came to Religion, Dawkins is completely lost on the subject matter.

[@gaz1967]

I don't know if Jordan was star struck or something but I've never heard him prattle on so much. Richard was very patient, I imagine he struggled not to roll his eyes every 2 minutes.

[@whydontyoustfu]

he was high

[@whitneymacdonald4396]

That's probably why Dawkins didn't want to be on camera. This was horrifying to listen to- and I like listening to Dr. Peterson.

[@jhibbitt2896]

i do get the impression he was star struck

[@TheSands83]

@@whydontyoustfu that’s what I was thinking that jordan was hopped up on adderall

[@gaz1967]

​@@cynthiamartini8982 it was a conversation, unfortunately Richard couldn't get a word in edgeways.

[@DavidLowe1974]

The patience Richard showed was quite remarkable. Was looking forward to a thought-provoking exchange of ideas instead we were mostly subject to shower thought from Jordan. He’s hoping round two will go better.

[@domenicogrimaldi591]

Jordan regularly paused to give Richard an opportunity to speak, but he just stayed silent.

[@DundG]

I liked that Peterson could clear up his thought process about some of his ideas and make it tangible. Dawkins was on point to call some wild things totally unfounded "bullshit" in his words. But Dawkins made clear to wich point he agrees with Peterson and made good short points too.

[@williamsegerstrom5920]

Undoubtedly, round two has to be better unless Peterson keeps running his mouth, this opening recording was absolutely awful. Peterson is such a narcissist.

[@caina4678]

@@domenicogrimaldi591 nah, JP was constantly derailing Richard, and not allowing him to lead the conversation

[@matthewstokes1608]

50 mins and they are truly 50:50

[@rebornzealot]

RD: "You seem to wander from one subject to another" JBP fans: Yeah he does that 😅

[@altheaequatorin1179]

Yes that commentary was even included by his colleague in the foreword of JP's book 12 Rules for Life, if I remember correctly!

[@marcoantonio078]

Coming from Dawkins, whl is so very precise, in everything he says.

[@patmoran5339]

Is it fans or a cult following?

[@robertlustmord1636]

@@patmoran5339 Depends on who you talk to. Every fandom has its zealots

[@patmoran5339]

@@robertlustmord1636 I thought this should not be a popularity contest or a way to attract creationists or believers in intelligent design.

[@felicityneale3001]

This 'discussion' reminds me of going on a first date with a guy who spends the entire time telling you about himself and doesn't ask you a single question about yourself, and when you try to proffer some info about yourself, he blinks and then carries on talking about himself.

[@janklosowski]

41:44 I admire how Dawkins can both appreciate Peterson when he deserves it, and a few minutes later call his BS like that with no hostility, but also no hesitation.

[@CleverGirlAAH]

1000% There were times he was genuinely impressed by a question or hypothesis, and others when he didn't know what was going on (understandably) lol

[@downstream0114]

This is the way!

[@2511jeremy]

Dawkins is a clown

[@thirdlynephilim]

Yes, but Dawkins' and Peterson's brains are definitely intelligent in different ways. Dawkins can't think in symbols, while Peterson almost exclusively thinks in symbolism. Both have different advantages.

[@desnock]

@@thirdlynephilim Don't confuse Peterson's fragile grasp of reality based on his obsession with symbol. It misunderstands the use of symbol, likely in the same way Jung's critics had a valid argument when he took his theories too far. Certainly as a practical/pragmatic reality - both were knee deep in consequences of said riding the fence between consequence and validity to creating magic where none may exist (not getting into whether their magical thinking exists or not, just the mindset that confuses profundity with self-centeredness which is a problem of the ego as it struggles with practical reality)

[@TheScienceForge]

I want to thank Dawkins for having Dr Peterson!

[@maga2.062]

Dawkins is an excellent listener

[@TheEgzi]

The gap between them in knowledge is just way to big I think

[@illyriandescendant7963]

It looks like Jordan Peterson invited Richard Dawkins (only) to listen to his entire lecture. What an unforgettable experience!

[@dannylad1600]

Peterson: rambles on about some random topic for 5 minutes Dawkins: "yes.." Peterson: continues rambling.. Dawkins: "ok" Peterson: starts to ramble on about other topics. Dawkins: what's your question? Peterson: "well what I'm trying to ask is..." Continues to ramble on about random stuff for another 5 minutes without asking a question.

[@reverie4632]

Dawkins actively encouraged Peterson to continue elaborating his points.

[@YashArya01]

@@reverie4632 He said multiple times that Peterson keeps jumping around to one topic after another without finishing the thought.

[@reverie4632]

​@@YashArya01 The topics weren't randomly presented because they were interrelated. Dawkins specifically said that the underlying topic may be fundamental to their difference.

[@twhiteofrd_1102]

@@YashArya01 THe problem was that Peterson jumped to a separate topic that integrated with the original but Dawkins didn't connect the jump so Peterson would go on trying to explain the jump and never so never actually got to integrate it into the original point. Partly that's on Dawkins for not being patient enough and partly that's on Peterson for not being literal or concise enough to make the point without delving into another story

[@멸문멸공-b4c]

P is terrible

[@michelleareton8314]

I felt a bit uncomfortable listening to this. JP was either too excited or nervous. Everything he said was fascinating. But I just wanted him to take a breath and let Dawkins respond with one full sentence. I’m afraid Dawkins might have felt disrespected. I bet a second interview would be more balanced and would push our chimp brains to their limits in the best way.

[@deliadonoso5789]

Felt the same, at 30 min on ...the guest have only spoken for like 1 min

[@stereoreviewx]

I disagree I think Dawkins is just being a sniper he wants Peterson to say something and tell him he’s talking rubbish and if Dawkins proposes ideas then his ideas come under scrutiny put simply Dawkins is an awkward old sod

[@IndoctReeducate]

@@stereoreviewx I caught this vibe too. Dawkins was trying to pin him down on a statement he made in a lecture and JP had a pretty good response in my opinion.

[@emiliosnic]

@@stereoreviewx boy, open your eyes and read more scientific literature besides Peterson’s work

[@michaelranieri.29]

Makes me happy to see everyone telling Jordan what he needs to hear. Tells me that we’re not just a bunch of drunk ideologues-precisely what he warns us not to be.

[@logicalconceptofficial]

But everyone is here to listen to him and their critique seems to be group think. Dawkins is a big boy…he could speak if he had anything worth saying, but conversations and relationships between minds are like that, the informer informs while the informed becomes informed. Dawkins is not the brilliant man people think he is. He is one of the “false prophets” (people spreading false certainty that logic/god does not support) that we were warned of by Moshe in his teaching (Torah).

[@logicalconceptofficial]

A biologist that uses science and logic (the source of proper order) to say so publicly as he has that there is no God (source of proper order) is illogical, and is sowing confusion in impressionable minds (like most who have the gall to call themselves teachers these days while they themselves lack wisdom). Only through God aka Logic can we have any consistency, sanity, or knowledge. How could the one true God (the actual source of proper order and all knowledge) not be logic (the source of proper order and all knowledge). Knowledge of God will cover the earth like the ocean when people wake up and let Logic guide them rather than denying and defying the objective truth of the objectively true one ☝️

[@logicalconceptofficial]

What is the opposite of an ideologue? If I may propose the answer that it is something like “someone who applies logic to questions properly rather than illogical one size fits all solutions that are not properly tailored or reasoned” then maybe we can find some common ground and we can use that to help everyone understand that devotion to logic (the one tautological God that is not a false) is real worship of the real God. What determines what is sense or nonsense (objectively)? Logic aka God does… What determines what is a fake or real god? Logic aka God does! What determines what is logical and must exist or what is illogical and cannot exist? Logic aka the one true God and his rules do this. What divides certainty (knowledge of good and evil) from uncertainty ( chaos) and made order out of the primordial chaos? Logic aka God aka “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” does… To say God is not Logic or vice versa is illogical and ungodly. Acknowledging the objective truth and it’s source can make any and all minds sane.

[@odinviken]

Criticizing an individual for talking too much and listening too little, is hardly being an ideologue. In addition, he’s not really living up to his own advice, that’s for sure.

[@DutchmanAmsterdam]

@@logicalconceptofficial Jordan Peterson is rather immature next to Dawkins, due to his religious (biased) tendencies clearly. Belief keeps one in a child state psychologically.

[@FirasFreajah]

I'm officially never going to waste me very limited time on earth listening to JP ever, EVER again

[@andrewcarrara6664]

THIS

[@CD-123]

Same brother, same

[@trsitianniebla]

You people are so ignorant and unintelligent. You are ignorant to possibilities.

[@XanaxMilf]

And he makes thinks so unnecessarily long to make himself sound grandiose

[@licencetostay007]

Word

[@mmaea]

Round II is needed. Preferably with a moderator asking the questions and giving fair and ample time to both Jordan and Dawkins.

[@gordonfreeman2070]

Exactly. Another talk would require a moderator. Someone that sits in between philosophically. Perhaps Bret Weinstein

[@WombatKnul]

It's not a debate though.

[@Tokinjester]

@@WombatKnul ikr!? moderators for conversations? what next ...safe-spaces?

[@vaibhavsati538]

@@Tokinjester Hhahaha

[@mmaea]

@@WombatKnul True but these two are heavyweights in their respective fields and are diametrically opposed on certain issues (i.e religion’s influence on society). There is also so much these two can discuss so a moderator may be needed to ask all the questions the audience is interested in and to manage time constraints. This conversation was essentially a one way street.

[@vanessaburdine4865]

“There is intimidation going on, and you’re one that has stood up to intimidation. For that, I salute you.”

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

Very wholesome. (And important!)

[@jeffwoltjen3887]

Jordan, I write this as a huge fan of yours since 2015. I have listened to hundreds of hours of your lectures and this is the first time I've ever had to dislike a video of yours. I listened to the first hour of the video on a bike ride that saw my emotions span from hopeful, to impatient, to agitated, to worried, to exasperated--brought on by your inability to share the space. You've taught me several times over the past years that a dialogue is an exchange of ideas which takes place when both sides listen intently and forthrightly to what the other side has to say so that knowledge can be communicated. Under that definition, this cannot be called a dialogue. You spoke at Dawkins for about 90% of the time--he was very polite and was patient while you drifted from one branch of thought to another, to another. At first I was irritated because you have a propensity to lecture (but you are good at it and have so much to share) but then I was worried at the thought that you cannot help yourself. At the midpoint of my bike-ride I was begging you to give a straightforward answer to Dawkins' question (the only one he had a chance to pose) asking you to explain what you meant by the coiled snakes as DNA metaphor. By the end of the ride, you were nowhere near answering it. I was angry on the way back. You had asked Dawkins for this opportunity to speak with each other, but you spoke at him. I thought to myself someone who dominates the space like this in front of an equal is usually either too confident or insecure in what they are saying. I ended the bike ride with a thought from Nietzsche who said something like "One repays a master poorly if one only remains a pupil." I got off my bike angry and scared that we have reached that point. I hope you have a chance to read this and reflect. I love you so much and can't thank you enough for all you've done for me over the years. To me, you will always be a hero.

[@steve13061986]

totally agree, it was ridiculous. I think Peterson has grown so full of pride and self-admiration that he thinks people who watch his videos are only interested in what he has to say and not his guests.

[@alextimer8055]

I think Peterson was nervous. Dawkins rational is like a sledgehammer & he’s not interested in everything Peterson thinks & talks about. He is demanding of rational though. It was a good experience for Peterson. Hopefully they’ll talk again & he’ll change his strategy.

[@rochelle9243]

I felt like Peterson needed to lay a lot of ground work so that Dawkins would understand the questions JBP wanted to ask properly. Otherwise Dawkins would just wave the question off as being nonsense. Now that the ground work has been laid, hopefully they can have a second conversation.

[@nathancurry7944]

I couldn't have put this any better myself. This sums up exactly my thoughts on this one. I admit that my first point of alarm came when JP had John Vervaeke on his podcast last year. Full Credit to JP as he was the portal which provided me with the exposure to John Vervaeke and needless to say that it was a moment you realise that you've just struck gold. But, JP did not give John a half chance at speaking, and repeatedly interrupted him throughout the episode; to the point at which I had to turn it off. This epsidode was even worse. When I first heard he had recorded a conversation with Richard Dawkins I was delighted. I thought it would really be great to have an open conversation with two great minds and intellectual juggernauts, only to listen to JP lecture Dawkins on everything from psychology to biology and anthropology through to psychedelics, all the while circumabulating the one question he was asked. I don't know. This was hard to watch.

[@WTF_Over]

there not equal Jeff.

[@MasterofLightning]

Damn JP, this is rough. He's gotten better but what a bummer to see how this turned out. It would've been great if he asked multi-layered questions, gave plenty of time for answers and either briefly pushed back in a way that invites further conversation or used that to move deeper into a topic.

[@Zelcon02]

I feel there should be a mediator in the next discussion as I feel that I didn't get enough of an opportunity to listen to Professor Dawkins. In spite of that small complaint, thank you for uploading this. It was very interesting.

[@ivanjdrakov1957]

Absolutely agree, it was not led well at all

[@henniebotha]

40 mins in an still not much from Dawkins. He's actually trying to be a mediator to keep the discussion on track

[@suggestivewondered179]

but Richard managed to make his point in his short ammount of time to speak. To really understand Jordans point of view, you have to be focused the whole hour+ of info. Also Jordan showed a lot of respect for Richard the whole conversation which is commendable. He knows and shows Richard is the real deal!

[@twntwrs]

@@suggestivewondered179 It's that slimy faux deference that Peterson oozes when in the presence of his intellectual superiors only to turn around to sneer at them behind their backs as "The new atheist types like Harris and Dawkins". Who get it all wrong...

[@ElobinGarvic]

I think it was better for their methods of thinking and communication to emerge naturally. A mediator could constrain them to a given topic, but hearing them negotiate that for themselves was both entertaining and informative. Letting them exist as humans, not cut clean by a program. I love that.

[@DeepSpaceNinja]

This isn't a conversation, it's Peterson giving Dawkins a lecture. I would have liked to hear more from Dawkins. Also I've noticed that every time someone criticizes his view, Jordan starts changing subjects rapidly and makes it more and more complicated.

[@snehilraj6950]

well, in the detection of a conflict, one solution IS to explain your lines of thought; in a non confrontationary manner

[@General_Tso762]

He isn't changing subjects he is trying to give perspective. This is what a conversation about the difference between the questions "how" and "what" looks like. Unfortunately JP has a better understanding of both than the guest with a singular perspective. I appreciate a strict machine but that position has lead to the most horrible and counterproductive systems in human history.

[@2511jeremy]

Dawkins wouldn't reply wouldn't engage and was lethargic

[@marcosgarza3813]

Those weren't even critiques, but rather outright rejection, which makes the nature of the response (changing subjects rapidly etc) even worse, almost primordially defensive.

[@svenmuller5332]

@@Typecast-L it was a horrible episode. One of the most interesting guests in a long time and he does not get to say a damn thing

[@clearpill]

I've gained a whole new respect for Richard Dawkins merely for his patience throughout this interview XD - Great gems in here, thank you Mr Peterson for putting this together.

[@OffGridInvestor]

Dawkins in my experience is a master of putting everyone else down.

[@matthewhall8161]

Yes, it almost seemed that Dawkins was perfectly happy to let Peterson put forth his ideas to be scrutinized. Kind of like the Floyd Mayweather style of debating..

[@survivalsearcher]

@Bk6HXwD9DYK57jWm maybe, or there may have beem much there to digest and make sense of. The questions he did ask were great ones that kept the conversation in context as well as driving it forward. A great conversation to be allowed to be a fly on the wall of.

[@YouAreRightlAmWrong]

probably has something to do with him having a stroke

[@LC-wv7tz]

​@Bk6HXwD9DYK57jWm Or Maybe Peterson overcomplicated the simplest things. He takes a simple idea that everyone knows and is aware, wastes 5 minutes rambling about making it out to be something it's not, then just keeps having diarrhea of the mouth ad nauseam. If you've spent any time in healthcare, or public service, when you listen to Peterson talk, it is EXACTLY like people suffering from severe mental illness. He's borderline delusional at times, he can't stop talking. The dude is hypomanic, distracted, paranoid, delusional, and he comes off to other people as condescending and narcissistic while also extremely boring. The dude needs to reel himself in. Or better yet, just stop. I've been listening to JBP for years. He's never been the same since his addiction, mental breakdown, and hosptialization. It seems in the past he was just stable enough to keep his craziness under wraps, but now that he doesn't have his kid chaperoning him and his filter of competence is gone, we can see how lame he really is.

[@CHRISCONTEPSS]

I'm 37 min in . . .and have NO IDEA what the topic or point of this is. . . lol. . . . . I imagine Dawkins left for a while, ironed a shirt, made coffee, folded his laundry, and came back at "What was your question?" . . . .

[@rstevens7711]

Dawkins was very very very patient. Especially so when there seemed to be long passages where he didn't even speak. Dawkins has never been more right, in any of the many books he's written, when he said... 'You seem to go very quickly from one idea to the other.' I think we all know that was a very diplomatic way of saying something else.

[@michaelricketson1365]

It’s not a bad thing to make one’s own connections between ideas.

[@rstevens7711]

@@michaelricketson1365 Perhaps Michael,.but there were a number of times when Dawkins, to put it bluntly, had little idea what Peterson was talking about. And that wasn't due to a lack of understanding on the part of Dawkins.

[@michaelricketson1365]

@@rstevens7711 Maybe it was a lack of understanding? And maybe lack of interest too. Peterson and Dawkins have very different ways of thinking.

[@rstevens7711]

@ckots It's obviously hard to work out true meanings of messages online. Obviously I don't know your intention or background; but I have to ask you... Are you aware of the history of the Soviet Union? East Germany? China? Khmer Rouge? North Korea? And Dawkins is 'authoritarian left'?

[@gonzothegreat1317]

@@michaelricketson1365 Different ways of thinking. Hahaha. One is a rambling lunatic, the other one a former scientist who keeps dozing off.

[@esperthebard]

This was both great and terrifically disappointing. While there were some fascinating topics, one idea led to the next over and over, without any of them being discussed to a satisfactory extent. I had hoped for friendly debate between these two gentlemen, both of them engaged and digging deep into a few big subjects. We definitely need more of these two, and it needs to be more constructive and with both of them speaking for a more-or-less equal amount of time.

[@painandpyro]

Jordan doesn't do debates like that on his podcast, have you heard any of the others???

[@DTR89]

@@painandpyro No need for a debate, how about a normal two-person discussion where the word count ratio is greater than 10:1

[@CleverGirlAAH]

Couldn't have said it better myself... Peterson had to go into his defense of verbiage mode. And it careened out of control from there. Just go back to that original point, Jordan. You wanted to talk about his paper. And about women's sexual selection. lol I stopped halfway through to read comments to see if anyone else was frustrated. The man's talking about his experience with ayahuasca now lol. Sheesh. I love the man, but c'mon... I think in the earliest parts of the discussion Dawkins seemed impressed at Peterson's insight into biological literature. u_u *sigh*

[@halalmeatz5644]

If you have followed for JBP for any amount of time, you will know that that isn’t likely to EVER happen. 🤷

[@Wraith4446]

You're right; a mixture of time restraints and complex topics that Jordan refused to approach immediately led to an uncomfortable listen. Also, I have noticed, perhaps from such a habit of lecturing, that Jordan tends to take up the majority of any given interview with his own opinions. It is a specific skill to balance an argument and conduct an interview simultaneously.

[@jeffbeamer9882]

Hilarious listening to Dawkins trying to corral Jordan into being more succinct ... Fat chance! But very entertaining ...

[@brambledemon1232]

I thought Jordan should’ve given him more time to speak

[@SangvineScribe]

It is hard to be succinct when your position ventures outside establishment positions. Jordan's ideas are nuanced and somewhat novel, to most people and require more supportive elaboration to be understood whereas Dawkins' ideas are largely confined within the modern zeitgeist. He doesn't need to spend time supporting his tenets as middle school science has already provided the modern mind with the prerequisite presuppositions.

[@seanmcgrady8688]

@@brambledemon1232 Yea, I'm 20 minutes in, and I don't think Dawkins has said more than a few sentences.

[@jeremiahmacclure]

Too bad Dawkins doesn't have the courage to stand up to the woke types publicly as Jordan does. Dawkins is a coward in comparison.

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

@@SangvineScribe That's a good observation. Dawkins can efficiently rely on your background and narratives that have been repeated before, whereas Peterson has to aquaint you with a newer background and way of thinking.

[@mathiasfantoni2458]

43:05 It is likely just the fact that you had seen models of DNA illustrated in books and online and that your consciousness presented you with the memory of what that visually represented model looked like, rather than your consciousness actually capturing a live image of your very own DNA as it was right that moment in your cells. Your weren’t “seeing” DNA “live”, but you were remembering models of DNA put forth by scientists and putting that memory in the context of your then current experience and probably “understanding” something rather than actually “observing” it. I think a lot of those mystic experiences have to do with memory and navigating and connecting different memories, rather than actual, outwards observation of the stimulating world.

[@najmulhossain778]

I've a chronic illness After listening to Jordan Peterson i actually realised his personal struggle and that actually helped me a lot to tackle my suicidal thoughts

[@anonymousanonymous3464]

I also have a chronic illness keep strong and fight it till the end you can do it.

[@ULTRAVIOLENCECHANNEL]

Me too, but too many fuckers would enjoy it if I did that so out of spite I live everyday. Stay strong you got this. Treat yourself like somebody you're taking care of!!

[@E______]

@@ULTRAVIOLENCECHANNEL love them anyway will drive them crazy ❤

[@cornelorcremonaprimrose4347]

You’re stronger then you know! You matter! We love you! God/source loves you too! A clean healthy unprocessed gmo free and oil seed free diet helps bring better mental clarity to the mind!

[@michellewilmott5653]

💗

[@Morerhys26]

Dawkins is an expert at simplifying the complex, Peterson excels at re-complicating that simplification. Fascinating (if a little one sided) conversation between 2 very different thinkers and styles.

[@conversationcorner1837]

How does he complicate the simple ?

[@ChrisBenFitz]

@@conversationcorner1837 because he goes deep and broad simultaneously. It's very exciting, but it's different from Dawkin's methodical approach.

[@conversationcorner1837]

@@ChrisBenFitz You're looking for the word "verbose".

[@ChrisBenFitz]

@@conversationcorner1837 Possibly, but sometimes his explanations are necessary.

[@ChrisBenFitz]

Sometimes I have to research/think about what he's saying. Is that because I'm ignorant, or because he's talking nonsense? It seems more likely to me that it's the former.

[@rodhedaz]

Thank you Dr. Peterson for your insightful podcast. I wish Mr. Dawkins had equal time to express his ideas. Hopefully there will be a round two coming up.

[@rufusreloaded1043]

It's never going to happen. Peterson came across as quite deranged in this outburst. Dawkins was a bystander.

[@mobilegameplaywalkthroughs990]

While I deeply admire Peterson's lateral thinking ability and intuitive and intriguing grasp of broadly diverse subjects, I would have loved to hear Dawkins interject more often with his trademark "cut through the bullshit" style. It was very refreshing the few times when he did that. I think Peterson's brain could produce some very good ideas in many fields if he let people like Penrose and Dawkins rein him in and guide him more during their talks.

[@jessicakelley0]

Jesus, that was really well put! I 100% agree with everything that you said.

[@sirhc1590]

While i understand your point, everything Peterson Says is actually connected. He isn't just jumping from point to point as it might seem. He is trying to explain stuff so complicated that as a society we don't exactly have words to communicate the ideas quickly and efficiently, so he tells a story so that people understand what he is try to say. He didn't have enough time to completely lay out his line of thinking, to where he would of been satisfied that Dawkins understood exactly what he saying before accepting his answer. Yes peterson did alot of talking, but like I said he wants to make sure Dawkins understood what he was saying so that Dawkins response would have been fruitful to Peterson. Peterson isn't just trying to tell u what the truth is he is searching for the answer and since he is working towards understanding the unknown it gets quite complicated. Peterson is building a Map in his head, and almost everything Peterson says is connected in some way, with some exceptions of course.

[@desnock]

@@sirhc1590 pretty unsupported bit of sophistry by those who like to assign meaning (magical thinking) for confirmation biases.

[@lukemetcalf8491]

Agreed

[@codyflores3920]

No way. Dawkins and others like him have way too narrow a view of the world. Very unimpressive thinkers. You have to understand that Peterson is an intuitive thinker. Therefore, he has an intimate familiarity with the metaphysical and potential. Dawkins, on the other hand, is stuck in the concrete world. Mediocre thinkers find that to be objective, but they’re really just limited in their cognition and ability to comprehend the abstract and symbolic nature of consciousness. Dawkins reminds me of a nineteenth century naturalist who thinks that we are just tying up a few loose ends in our understanding of reality.

[@adam-yk6yd]

Jordan has got to do better in these discussions- he talked for 80% of the time and Dawkins barely had a chance to get into his area of expertise

[@bperez8656]

It doesn’t sound like anyone is giving him the necessary feedback

[@Apol-los]

“You’re obsessed with symbols” -Yes. “Borderline drunk on symbols” -You could say that.

[@mattstang3439]

Whats the time stamp?

[@ivanjdrakov1957]

Lol yeah that was hilarious

[@Tool4793]

@@mattstang3439 22:54

[@mattstang3439]

@@Tool4793 thank you

[@Krshwunk]

Symbolically speaking, what does that MEAN?

[@thisisbrotherhood769]

People are mistaking Dawkins' "Patience" as him simply not having the energy he used to to fly with the conversation. He's still great to listen to.