"That's Your Problem!" Dawkins vs Peterson

Watch the full conversation: • Dawkins vs Peterson: M...
For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: www.alexoconno...
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
VIDEO NOTES
Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins sat down together in Arizona for a conversation that I moderated.
CONNECT
My Website: www.alexoconno...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple...
CONTACT
Business email: [e-mail]
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------

[@ryanthenormal]

Peterson: "There's a lot of ways this conversation could become derailed." Peterson: "Here's one you never saw coming."

[@keithschlegel5123]

You made me literally laugh out loud. What a schmuck.

[@Artisten]

Best comment I have seen in months 😂 literally tears in my eyes from laughing! Thank you!

[@ryanthenormal]

@@keithschlegel5123 Peace.

[@ryanthenormal]

@@Artisten There's a lot more nonsense where that came from! The full conversation is on Peterson's channel, if you're up to the challenge.

[@bolermanii]

hahahahahaha awesome comment

[@reubenwizard]

"The best way to confuse your enemy is to confuse yourself" - Sun Tzu

[@SHALOM_0808]

😂💯

[@deltabadger_official]

Why do I know you're talking about Peterson without even starting the video?

[@user-je2bg5gb7j]

Brilliant, sums his rambling up.

[@TheOasisThinker]

JP is following LOL

[@ComedyDanks]

Hehehehe

[@jjbecker2]

Peterson’s worst nightmare, someone who actually listens to him.

[@fernandoarellanosanchez1106]

Clearly that person is not Richard hahaha, too much of playing the fool

[@ShonnaNelsonWilliams]

Idk they both seemed really interested, although abstract mythological concepts are fictional - in general ​@@fernandoarellanosanchez1106

[@vikspod]

​@@fernandoarellanosanchez1106 jp is not your father lil bro

[@NewportHítman27]

Wtf are you talking about ? So he used the word “biology” to explain a concept and now this kid is his worst nightmare because he looked up the word in a dictionary and now wants to explain the meaning of it’s definition. You are missing the point, and for that you will only follow these fools that get hung on a word instead of thinking deeply and diving into the points JBP trying to make. Also congratulations, their are 404 other individuals that are as clueless as you are. Good luck to all of you and stay safe.

[@NewportHítman27]

@@vikspodNo, but I pretty sure I’m your Daddy kid. Tell your my Mother I said Hello.

[@guzzopinc1646]

Jordan Peterson is funny because you can't trap him in a corner. He is always perfectly willing to go one step crazier when he is confronted with his own madness.

[@stysner4580]

Yeah but hear me out, it's complicated!

[@hermitcard4494]

You can easily trap him by pointing out that. Dawkins didn't do it maybe out of respect, or whatever.

[@erikbroker4127]

Lol, see what you mean. Though I like reading his 12RFL book. There surely is a difference between reading him and talking to him.

[@lemver70]

He will do it himself

[@emuman09]

I think he's been so used to arguing with people that he just gets loud when having a normal conversation it's quite weird

[@jaucbn]

"Sometimes I'll start a sentence and I don't even know where is it going..." - Michael Scott

[@friedrichdostoyevsky491]

"never do any thing, to anyone, ever...for any reason"...-Michael Scott

[@Ganesh_021]

Like an improve conversation ,improversation

[@AessamL]

@@Ganesh_021 🤣🤣🤣

[@dst_20]

"You miss 100% of the shots you dont take, -Wayne Gretzky" - Michale Scott

[@ShonnaNelsonWilliams]

That's philosophy for you 🤷🏻‍♀️ it's all insane until a hypothesis gets proven.

[@RPGLegendarySoundtracks]

To this day, I have never seen someone convey as little information using as many words as Jordan Peterson do.

[@glennthompson1971]

deepak chopra?

[@Longsleeeves]

It’s actually an incredible talent that offers absolutely no value to humanity as a whole as far as I can tell.

[@AllahuWhitebar]

Kamala harris

[@TeWakaOAoraki]

Russell Brand has to be up there.

[@ivemu5008]

it's probably because you can't decipher words like other normal human being?

[@theodorelocke1674]

TIMESTAMPS 0:44 - JP begins to speak 10:20 - JP ceases to speak

[@ra-neter6662]

lmaoooooooo

[@samswank]

It's absolutely exhausting.

[@mekareactsandreviews3026]

😅😂

[@AggravatedAstronomer]

And he said... Ummmm... *decodes smokescreen*... God revealing truth to humans is totally the same as humans evolving ideas on their own, because of... dragon stories

[@noahjacob5552]

Alex chose to upload a clip where JP was explaining something about his world view. I don't see the problem

[@ishaangovardhan7430]

JP: Metaphors are essentially literal. Dawkins: No that's not possible. *End of debate*

[@jnrchi3753]

ishaangovardhan: Metaphors are essentially analogies Dictionary: No that's not possible. End of debate.

[@ishaangovardhan7430]

@@jnrchi3753 ishaangovardhan: metaphors are analogies, not just essentially but also literally Jnrchi3753: **pretending to be the dictionary** No that's not possible. End of debate. Actual dictionary: Yes it's possible. A quick Google search will show you that "metaphor" is a synonym of "analogy". Ishaan Govardhan: I'm sorry to bring you into this, dictionary. It's like using a calculator to figure out 2+2, but some people learn the hard and slow way, don't you jnrchi3753? Jnrchi3757: but... But... That's not possible... Not possible..no...

[@horsymandias-ur]

@@jnrchi3753 The use of words does not care for arbitrary "dictionaries" appealed to for authority

[@LCreates]

Things I learned today: - Fire is a predator. - It's complicated.

[@colemantrebor1610]

There’s treasure

[@fodolocraigo8426]

He's kinda right tho

[@odavex2848]

​@@fodolocraigo8426 Air has killed people too

[@colemantrebor1610]

@@fodolocraigo8426 water kills people too. Is water a predator?

[@fodolocraigo8426]

@@colemantrebor1610 missing the point. Saying the dragon was a combination of many themes to be a predator

[@jvalfin3359]

The metaphorical substrate of our ethos walked into a bar...

[@Maxrepfitgm]

Lmao 😂

[@truthserum3050]

The bartender says "what can I get ya?" The metaphorical substrate of our ethos asks: Well it depends, what do you mean "what" and what do you mean "can" and what do you mean by "I" and what do you me-...

[@Kanakou_DX15]

This made me spit my ethos out

[@danielc6106]

​@@truthserum3050I'm pretty sure he'd order spirits.

[@TheMadmacs]

i just flushed a metaphorical substrate of my ethos down the toilet, it didnt float, neither does anything peterson says these days,

[@GojiMet86]

Jordan: Trans women are not female, they are biologically male. Also Jordan: Fire kills you, therefore it is a predator and dragons are real.

[@graham6132]

Lol. FR.

[@derinderruheliegt]

That someone didn’t say “fire doesn’t consciously seek you out” is unfortunate.

[@danielsurvivor1372]

Isn't Richard Dawkins also not exactly fully pro trans? I wonder if Dawkins called Jordan Peterson on employing the same vague language or not, I really hope so 😅

[@rortys.kierkegaard9980]

…he believes in magic 😂

[@leonkautz8151]

@@danielsurvivor1372 Weirdly enough Dawkins seems to be quite anti trans. Jordan Peterson's whining about not being allowed to misgender people was the one thing Dawkins previously complimented in regards to Peterson. At least last time (I think) he spoke with Alex on this channel.

[@sha-sta]

Why is JP so agitated and shouting? The other two are calm.

[@victorguimaraes3305]

He is very passionate about the topic

[@blessos]

He's basically just laying out all his internal conflict on the table.

[@craighicksartwork]

Because when you talk utter shit, you need emotion to sound confident in your argument.

[@Winged_Snek]

It's a vocal technique grifters use to sound more compelling, keep your interest, and obfuscate how utterly deranged what they are saying is.

[@kevinmcinerney1959]

Peterson's demeanour is so insulting to the others. All day every day as a colleague, son, mother, friend, mentor, senior, junior, client, servant we have to engage with other people and expect that they have expectation of us as we of them. We can't just yell at them as though we are entitled for all to live in our fantasy world. The other two don't give a stuff about his dragon crap.

[@claudiusii2863]

Dawkings "I am interested in what is real." Peterson "But dragons though."

[@TrishulaDaBestBoi]

@@claudiusii2863 dragons are pretty cool tho

[@krzesio11]

Peterson could be very fun to play DnD with

[@bobk3]

Jordo doesn't know what to do when someone doesn't want to engage in a metaphorical circle jerk.

[@TrishulaDaBestBoi]

@@krzesio11 “well what do we mean by “you rolled a 1” what is a 1 metaphysically speaking”

[@tristan6773]

don’t you get his point? dragons are real in the simple fact that their stories represent something real. and even more, it affect people. and they represent

[@Ixnatifual]

Didn't expect JP to start playing D&D in the middle of this discussion.

[@pineapplepenumbra]

When JP speaks, one must expect anything and everything.. apart from conciseness, that is.

[@arthurmee]

What algnment does his character have?

[@andrewmartin3671]

@@arthurmee Chaotic Chaotic

[@foobars3816]

Then you have never heard him speak

[@jamesclerk815]

What's JP's religion modifier?

[@Robert399]

Experts make complicated ideas seem simple. Charlatans make simple ideas seem complicated.

[@postmodernerkindergartner960]

I wonder which part of this you found so complicated.

[@jackgunning]

@@postmodernerkindergartner960 oh cmon peterson is the king of word salads

[@pyrozoinks]

perfectly put. thank you.

[@postmodernerkindergartner960]

​@@jackgunning He uses a lot of words to illustrate his ideas, nothing wrong with that. It’s definitely more productive than repeatedly asking if dragons or a virgin birth are real in a discussion about metaphors and analogies in relation to the Bible.

[@JoshWiniberg]

There is absolutely nothing complicated about what he's saying here. Human stories and myths reflect our development and peculiarities as a species, so they shouldn't be dismissed by an evolutionary biologist. He's not trying to say anything complicated, but Dawkins (who I have great respect and admiration for, and who I am looking forward to seeing live with Alex on Sunday) has such a bind spot that Peterson has to spell it out at great length before the penny drops. Dawkins finally gets the gist right at the end of the conversation and they actually make some headway. That it requires such great explanation to get to that point isn't really on Peterson, his point was clear very early on in the discussion. Their first discussion was a car crash and Peterson really does need to take the blame for that one, but this time Dawkins was being incredibly difficult and repeatedly (and quite rudely) blocked the conversation from making any progress.

[@Aiphiae]

"Is fire a Predator? Well, it's complicated because fire *kills* you." Can't get over how Peterson twists definitions to suit his narrative.

[@fakecactus]

He couldn’t have gone much further to madness. Perhaps he could have shoehorned in ‘time’ as a predator. No doubt he will at some point.

[@horsymandias-ur]

I think this only works if fire was a substantial evolutionary pressure on teh human species (like snakes or large cats)

[@trisweatherburn]

A great debate between Jordan & Peterson…

[@tonyburton419]

You can read and make many existential themes apparent from many great works of literature. Peterson uses the Bible...it's a clever, money-making, attention-seeking grift move.

[@crazydov]

Lol good one

[@psicologiajoseh]

lol

[@pseudobeast4653]

What?

[@david.cutipa]

Jordan Peeleterson

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

This is Jordan Peterson, sober, so can you imagine what he would sound like following a huge bong rip?

[@ComicsOdyssey]

I laughed

[@j8000]

1 cider deep

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@j8000 A Yard of Cider?

[@observationist]

My preference would be acid.

[@ggstylz]

😂

[@joshisdriven]

Amazing how Dawkins won the argument by saying nothing

[@Djamieson713]

he didn't lose, but he certainly didn't win either.

[@SupermanOG]

😂

[@all-caps3927]

Tracing the thought process of Jordan Peterson is about as possible as catching fly in a sport hall that's pitch black.

[@all-caps3927]

@Resonant_Resolution-7 the amount of condescension with which you speak is shocking - you didn't disprove any of my points you just assumed that I don't step out of my comfort zone or ego as if that has any relevance to understanding what this guy is trying to say

[@EbonyPope]

What don't people get about this clip? The dragon is a original fear represented in that myth. Not really a crazy concept considering a lot of or fears are evolution based.

[@richardpenfold5841]

If Jesus came down and joined this conversation, he’d make Jordan’s coffee decaffeinated.

[@Benjamin_Kraft]

So nice to see two intellectuals in a thoughtful discussion. I guess it's nice that Peterson is there too.

[@frankylampard3931]

Ahahaha nice

[@graemejack9040]

@@frankylampard3931The thing is Jordan is Intelligent until he talks about anything to do with religion.

[@hollow7873]

🤣

[@sneakysquid62]

​@@graemejack9040 Don't try to pass your ignorance off as a virtue. Maybe you're just too arrogant to learn something of value

[@herm574]

​@@graemejack9040or politics... or biology... or sociology... or economy...

[@pansepot1490]

Feels like a scene of a movie. One of those movies when in the end you find out that the protagonist doctor was in a mental institution all the time: as a patient, not as a therapist. He wasn’t being interviewed by journalists - that was the fiction in his head - he was being evaluated by psychologists.

[@123lowp]

LOL!!!!

[@Knytz]

😂😂😂

[@pineapplepenumbra]

He is somewhat Pythonesque.

[@kcfreeman3021]

Nice, this narrative made the crazy ranting bearable....even funny in spots.

[@joshuaim3263]

What movie has a scene like that? I want to watch it now

[@yellowboat2055]

Peterson talks about simple ideas in an unnecessarily complicated way instead of discussing complex ideas in a simple way. He simply conjures an illusion of a greater understanding.

[@mided2119]

That's what I was thinking, too. He isn't actually very intelligent or sharp at all. It's just that he talks in a way that makes some people think he is - but his ideas and what he's saying is actually really simple (and stupid / childish).

[@KORNEWARRIOR]

OMG finally someone Said it.

[@TheOneAndOnlyZelenkaGuru]

Typical Christian charlatan - say a lot of nothing and never answer honestly and directly.

[@Brenden-H]

@@KORNEWARRIOR lots of people are saying this. although more than 1 in 30 are misled by him and I have to imagine those people arnt regulars on Alex's channel and only got recommended this cause Peterson is here. Alex, Richard, and all the normal people in the comments are making fun of Jordan and roasting him as he deserves. Id almost bet my life savings that Alex invited Jordan on knowing the memes that would ensue. I laughed so hard at this video, and you can tell they are holding back laughter too, only Jordan is taking this seriously as he goes off about dragons

[@loganmedia1142]

He does the same in his psychology lectures.

[@Nephelangelo]

Jordan Peterson is the Steven Seagal of intellectualism.

[@johntaylor4817]

Dawkins thought bubble “what the fuck am I doing here?"

[@mre7550]

Absolutely right.

[@ianbuick8946]

Money it's why. Easy pay-day to say the least.

[@paradise_valley]

@@ianbuick8946and good publicity. Peterson is a shell of his former self, a blithering, blabbering fool. The only bad that comes out of this is Alex and Dawkins are giving this grifter a platform, but at the same time I’m all for freedom of speech and if supporting the daily wire means we can get content confronting these crooks I guess I’ll take it.

[@ianbuick8946]

​@@paradise_valley What do you mean a platform?

[@CahyaTroy]

@@paradise_valley "shell of his former self" lmfao I don't think so. Watch his interviews from the 90's. he's always been like this. AndrewTate plowing his daughter was the final nail in the coffin for him.

[@LCDRformat]

"IF PREDATOR IS REAL, IN WHAT WAY ISN'T DRAGON REAL?" Dumbledore asked calmly

[@AlucardArik]

I genuinely think this Peterson fellow is mentally ill and/or he could be the living embodiment of Collin. The engery Vampire from What we do in the Shadows.

[@daan260]

@@AlucardArik because you don't understand that Peterson has a different worldview. Not everyone is a materialist. I know, shocking.

[@jaybird1731]

@@daan260 I think we understand he's full of bs.✔👈

[@oliverthompson9922]

​@@daan260Aaah. Peterson isn't aware that he exists within the same physical reality as the rest of us, you say? Got you. Cool.

[@colaboytje]

​@@daan260 Do you have a worldview where dragons are real? Because that is Peterson's worldview. Not all wordviews are equal. Some are just not true and irrational. And with not true, I mean that it does not correspond with reality.

[@wattiewatt]

I can't get past Peterson's bombastic approach. Meanwhile Prof Dawkins is "wtf he saying?"

[@grantm6933]

All he does is vomit a thesaurus

[@EbonyPope]

I don't get why people don't understand what he's saying. It was quite clear. He sees the neurological pathways as root for those adventure myths. What's not to understand about this?

[@EbonyPope]

​@@grantm6933 Why don't you get what he was saying. It was pretty easy. He sees the neurological pathways as a representation of these myths. It's what makes us explore. What didn't you get?

[@Oyabu...]

​@@EbonyPope whats that to do with it being devine

[@grantm6933]

@@EbonyPope 1. Where did I say I didn't understand what he was saying?; 2. It's irrelevant to the question asked; 3. As with practically everything he says, there was a much simpler, much more concise way of saying it.

[@beebebop]

I’m convinced after this exchange that I’m not ever going to waste my time listening to JP. Ever.

[@TommyShlong]

Excellent decision

[@appleturnover519]

Non, no. Why not revisit him in a year or two, just to see if he is even more unhinged?

[@iainrae6159]

Dr Peterson to waiter, 'There's a fly in my soup!' Waiter to Dr Peterson, " That depends what you mean by '' a fly' and ' soup'.

[@bjrnchrstn]

Or starts with a counter question like: ‘Im curious if you ordered soup indeed? Because blablabla (3 minute rant)….’

[@HeinrichGossler]

I'm confused, is the soup a predator?

[@YHWHandElohim]

​@@HeinrichGosslerwell it's complicated because if you choke on it, it kills u

[@Gorgovoid173]

That also hinges on the presumption that "Flies in soup" is a bad thing, so I need for you to also define the word "bad" to me in your understanding. It will let us understand whether the "fly" in the "soup" made it better, or worse. Then we need to understand whether or not the "fly" wanted to be in the "soup". Or was it lured in? What was it lured in by? Does the soup have qualities similar to that big-ass flower that you can find in the rainforest that I forget the name of right now? Why do we even call it a "fly" anymore, when it's clearly not? Does it's name become "float"? If so, what happens to the swimming aid? Swimming "aid", I say while meaning the entire amount of those objects in existence. What is the plural of "aid"...?

[@kacperiwomatuszewski5395]

t's like, how the hell am i supposed to knoo? I don't knoo, t's like - t's complicated, man.

[@atdevill]

JP activated that "yap" card and did not let up.

[@janegardener1662]

He has a very irritating voice and he isn't afraid of using it to his advantage.

[@odavex2848]

​@@janegardener1662 Literally old Eric Cartman

[@ShadowZZZ]

omg 100% what I was thinking lmfao He just wont stop yapping it's so exhausting to watch ugh

[@julianshepherd2038]

Is he on speed or just mental ?

[@Julian0101]

@@julianshepherd2038 Yes

[@Sid00077]

You did a great job at moderating the debate. You were very impartial and made sure Jordan stayed on topic (which is quite hard😂).

[@TheSlazzer]

I would disagree with "Peterson stayed on topic". What he's actually doing is to dodge the question - I'll grant cleverly, and even quite interestingly at times - but he's really just rhetorically dodging the question. What he's saying implies that he does not believe in divinity - but (Speculation:) saying so openly would alienate some of his regular audience, which would be bad for books sales. Additionally, I can very much understand he does not want to be put into the "Atheist-"box. Once you're labeled as such, some doors are closed.

[@blootooth00]

​@TheSlazzer Well, he may not have stayed on topic but Alex in the full interview spent a lot of time cutting Jordan off and telling him to go back and answer the concrete question. And he did so seemingly without pissing JBP off, which is pretty impressive. I think Alex has really figured out how (relatively) to "separate the wheat from the chaff" when handling conversations with JPB. Not perfectly, but more than most can do.

[@Sid00077]

@@TheSlazzer Oh, that was on topic for Peterson. Usually he tends to go off tangent and just ramble😂

[@estellesstories7467]

The framing was excellent. It gated the discussion intelligently. Peterson will be Peterson, but this was one of the best moderations I've seen of him.

[@Brenden-H]

@@Sid00077 He did go off topic and just ramble for the whole video, about predator's and dragons and predator's loot hoards. This was meant to be about if the Christain Bible is man-made or divinely inspired, not fire being a predator because it can hurt you and also mainly it's part of the predator amalgamation dragons are based on (and did you know that the dragon as imagery transcends the words we have for "predators") like, just put the fries in the bag bro. This is so off topic it's hard to follow.

[@Adam-dz5tj]

Really interesting discussion between Dr. Jordan and Dr. Peterson. Definitely get these two together again please!

[@bradcofo]

Peterson: What if the moon was your car and Jupiter was your hairbrush? Dawkins: No. Peterson Fans: Dawkins is just a shallow thinker.

[@YamiAi]

xD

[@236Doodad]

It's complicated!

[@ashlinmathew8322]

LMFAO

[@brentwhite9712]

I know the bloody literature man!

[@rathraven1313]

He is a shallow thinker.

[@Nathouuuutheone]

Y'know I'm really disappointed that JP's whole political thing is "but post-modernism bad!" while his entire theology is "but you're not thinking abstractly enough!" Is he even aware of this apparent contradiction?

[@jhodapp]

A fantastic point, I appreciate JP’s imaginative thinking sometimes, but the man could stand to sharpen up his explanations a lot more.

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

He is the posterboy for postmodernism.

[@OriolSalalPalos]

I profoundly disagree with peterson. But as I see it, precisely what Peterson says is that abstract categories and human narratives are somehow real. And that their existence obeys an evolutionary and natural logic. Postmodernism, on the other hand, criticizes narratives, arguing that they are social constructs and contingent, not natural and necessary. I believe that their disagreement is not in the reality of narratives or abstract objects, but in their origin and naturalness.

[@ritchiediggs]

@@jhodappNo, he could not. There’s nothing unclear about it. It’s clearly nonsense. He’s making an illegitimate leap from mythos and analogy to hard facts, even biological facts about the world. It is foolish. And Dawkins is sitting there with that flabbergast saying ‘I told you so.’

[@DundG]

What about postmodernism supports higher forms if abstraction!?

[@Angelic_Advocate]

Real footage of my 3 brain cells when I’m thinking in the shower:

[@kw6382]

I love you

[@Casualcrusader777]

The best comment here

[@blackpredator4637]

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

[@hosnaaa6555]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@v2ike6udik]

strange combo. cold shower? dragon breath shower? 1 cell expelling that they are being boiled alive.

[@dennisd3258]

lol “Is fire a predatory!” “No” “WELL IT’s COMPLICATED!” Probably the best internet moment of the day

[@krokigrygg]

It’s like Dawkins is permanently on the edge of bursting into laughter 😂 You can just see the suppressed grin -absolute legend!

[@Jake-dx8pt]

That's because Richard literally can't conceive what Peterson is referring to - it's quite clear that Richard is a materialist and can't conceptualise the fact that human reality is by definition not something that is graspable, as our realities are the amalgamation of the external world and the internal world. You can't just look at the outside world without simultaneously looking at the internal.

[@firecloud77]

Yes, it's the kind of bursting into laughter a haughty teenager would do when they have yet to learn the wisdom of their elders. Dawkins is still an adolescent when it comes to deep philosophical matters.

[@ryanthenormal]

@@firecloud77 It's more like the kind of laughter a parent bursts into when a haughty teenager tries to explain where they've been all night without actually saying anything about where they've been all night.

[@sjkdsfsdf52]

@@firecloud77 you guys can cope and pretend that he is actually articulating something abstract all u want lol it's a pile of horse crap lol

[@joemiller7082]

@@firecloud77 I am sure he understands the point he’s making. He just thinks it’s silly. You are lost in the bong rip philosophy sauce here. What Peterson is talking about here is very speculative thought experimentation. It’s very subject to perspective. He is almost creating an amalgamation of abstract and material and is using terms interchangeably which makes the conversation more complicated than it has to be. I think it’s not only intellectually dishonest, I think it’s irresponsible dialogue. It’s just my opinion, but I’m not alone, that he does that intentionally to create a safety hatch in case he’s called on a bad opinion. That way he can pivot back and forth, conflating the two. Classic noun shifting.

[@nathankelly2934]

Props to Alex and Dawkins for keeping a straight face through this

[@redmed10]

Especially richard. He was just looking wide eyed at peterson waiting for him him blow himself out.

[@Andre_XX]

I could detect they were struggling.

[@ivantsachev2520]

Its kinda disappointing you didn't understand any of this and are acting smug in light of your ignorance. I expected more from Alex's audience I guess.

[@Andre_XX]

@@ivantsachev2520 Nobody understood any of this, not even JP himself.

[@ivantsachev2520]

@@Andre_XX You sure you're not projecting a little bit? Don't worry I'll hold your hand.

[@DrudgeRock]

Dear god I have never heard a man more in love with hearing himself speak, with so little to say.

[@davidbellamy2612]

Exactly. His body language tells you that he is having some form of ecstatic experience triggered by the numerous thoughts being inspired by his own words. He is confusing self-gratification with insight.

[@xanthromera]

Next time you listen to Peterson, count how many times he says "I".

[@lalitnaidu9406]

@@davidbellamy2612 Thoughts being inspired by his own words or thoughts inspiring the words? Or simply a positive feedback loop?

[@chottstuff]

Dawkins and Alex really failed to push back here. not all predators hide treasures. sometimes humans best option against a "predator" is to run and/or hide. etc... secondly, Peterson wanted Dawkins opinion on things and then DOES NOT LET HIM SPEAK.

[@ytubeanon]

I think by the end of the clip, when Alex asks "a lion is an instantiation of the bracket term dragon?" and Jordan replies, "Yes!", it means they're still trying to pass through the looking glass and figure out what Peterson is even saying before they can properly begin to push back on it

[@DrSpooglemon]

What's to push back against? Letting him speak does all the work for them.

[@appleturnover519]

YES! There were a few absurdities Peterson said that they could have easily refuted, but didn't.

[@mach7479]

I just want to directly apologize to Dawkins for how much patience he had to show for this completely untethered monologue of symbol salad.

[@adayah2933]

No worries, he was visibly having some very good fun.

[@ianbuick8946]

Don't worry. He got paid enough to sit there.

[@ApostateltsopA]

Amazing to see how little Peterson says with all those words.

[@justsam7919]

10 minutes to say something that could take a couple sentences

[@AXharoth]

youre just too breindead to understand , dont blame him

[@ohioskane363]

It's his greatest skill.

[@Lyonessi]

Is he really saying little? Maybe you've heard it before but jeez he says a lot of different thoughts. He's definitely more vocal and elaborate and open about what he thinks, some people like Dawkins simply don't think like him therefore don't talk like him.

[@ApostateltsopA]

@Lyonessi Yes he is, Case in point he made a big show out of dragon being a synonym for predator, but then wanted to talk literally with a dragons specific anatomy. I work in tech, but there is a useful maxim that crosses disciplines, people who can speak simply and in common terms generally know more than people who add unnecessary words and a lot of jargon.

[@Vladd7]

Jordan Peterson turned a conversation into a lecture that nobody asked for.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

Zero self awareness

[@bmac_xxx207]

@@arriuscalpurniuspiso idiot

[@mathiaschaves7604]

I wish he stopped saying that what he is about to say is "really interesting" or "hard" and just let who is listening to decide.

[@miseryandwhisky]

As usual. He’s such a gas bag.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

@@miseryandwhisky Jordan is a con man. He struck gold by being overly sophisticated in a simpleton era

[@pedrogarcia7777]

This KZbin channel is full of great comments of smart people and unbiased people. Congratulations to you all 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@--Snowy--]

"I'm not interested in dragons. I'm interested in reality." Me too, Dawkins, me too....

[@justmbhman]

Dawkins believes in memes. A dragon is a meme. Dawkins believes in Dragons. Dawkins believes in memes until Peterson asks him if he believes in memes lol...

[@KevinUchihaOG]

@@justmbhman Dawkins doesnt believe in dragons, he believes in dragon memes.

[@andrewaar]

There’s a lot more to life than physical “Reality”. We’ve barely scratched the surface of the unconscious. Delving into the unconscious is not quack science, there’s something to it, it exists for a reason, it’s completely undiscovered. I don’t see why Peterson gets so much hate for delving into it. Jung, Freud, Neumann, etc all delved into it. We’re going to get to a point where we MUST delve into it if we want to go past the physical. If you had a drug induced ‘trip’ and delve into the deep and dark areas of your psyche, what makes you believe that’s any less real? That’s what I believe JBP is arguing, and it makes sense to me. You can certainly argue that he might take the interpretation of a symbol or metaphor too far, but I think one will surprised at the accuracy given his knowledge of psychology, neuroscience, evolution, religion, and symbolism.

[@1001johny]

Have you ever killed two birds with one stone? How big were the birds?

[@stammesbruder]

@@justmbhman Dawkins doesn't claim that memes exist in the same way a lion does. It comes down to the definition of "existence". Does Frodo exist? As a character in stories - yes. Does he exist as a physical being within our own material world? No, the person depicted in those stories is not a real person. Frodo is a concept of a person, and that concept exists. He does not exist otherwise. Just like a dragon. A meme is a phenomenon of fast spreading and far reaching information. Does this phenomenon exist? Yes. Does this mean that is transforms concepts of beings into our own physical reality? Absolutely not. They exist - but in fantasy, not in reality. That's the distinction Peterson can't somehow grasp.

[@tvaudits]

Wow.. Dawkins makes Peterson make himself look stupid whilst barely having to speak.

[@jacksonelmore6227]

Are you for real, Jordan answered exactly how I’d might answer, whereas all Dawkins can do is say “no bc logic”

[@Zoomo2697]

​@@jacksonelmore6227 Absolutely. “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” G. K Chesterton.

[@MissBlennerhassett876]

@@jacksonelmore6227 You can barely string a sentence together, so I'm not surprised whose side you're on lol

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@@Zoomo2697 cute quote Fashionable quote

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@@MissBlennerhassett876 you’re salty 🧂🥨 Peterson breaks the egos of intellectuals

[@phairlyaweaome]

I have no more information after watching this than I did when I started.

[@dyhidrogenmonoxide]

Really? I learned that my vegetable drawer is full of predators, since a carrot can kill you if it gets stuck in your windpipe. edit: sorry I hadn't listened to the end; a carrot is an instantiation of a dragon; must store in fireproof box

[@Andre_XX]

I learned that Peterson is a raving lunatic.

[@Funnysterste]

I found out that I will never want to listen to Peterson again.

[@1bertoncelj]

well yeah if you are too dumb to understand any of it of course you wont learn anything lol

[@kaidenschmidt157]

Cool. I have less.

[@bagdaduk]

I love how Peterson takes about 10 minutes to describe his argument point, and Dawkins debunks it in 2 or 3 words

[@samo8178]

I get it now, Alex's moustache is *our* dragon

[@Dagh1]

So you're saying Alex's mustache is fire?

[@brothercaleb]

Nope, it’s actually complicated than that

[@APaleDot]

There's an eternal treasure there

[@karoder-aprahamian7235]

Loll

[@curiosi-tea6914]

@@Dagh1 Alex's mustache is the metaphorical substrate of fire.

[@serversurfer6169]

Peterson: Okay, so is fire a predator? Dawkins and Alex: No… Peterson: Shush. Anything that can hurt you is a predator.

[@Brenden-H]

my first reaction was "so falling off a cliff is a predator..."

[@simisworld1979]

@@Brenden-Hwell look how much of the West it’s already ended… I wish the west would stop sucking itself off on the internet and grow a pair. I’m so sick of watching these fucking vegetables quibble on the internet. And then comments like this. The west is committing suicide. Jordan Peterson is trying to get you guys to believe in god.

[@oteila6151]

Which is a bad reaction since a cliff isnt an active force, but in turn if you have a fear of heights, a cliff might very well be classed as a predator to you

[@cupofcoffee4251]

@@Brenden-H Gravity is a predator. It's always there, so it's a meta-predator. Our brain itself is also impacted by gravity, so it's the same. Few people understand this.

[@Brenden-H]

​@@oteila6151 I'm sorry but no, predator isn't synonyms with danger or fear. We already have words for that, its "danger", "harmful" and "fearful". A predator specifically is another living organism that hunts other living organisms called prey. And through the predator prey relationship, both organisms have selective pressures that cause them to evolve to better hunt prey or avoid predators.

[@TravelBossNas]

Wtf is Peterson talking about. How anyone takes him seriously anymore is beyond me

[@Marwans]

That's why I've felt dawkins hasn't taken this seriously

[@CASFcharley]

Do people? Probably no one watching this.

[@jacksonnn1661]

Peterson does my head in these days. How anybody can use that many words and be so verbose without actually saying anything is quite impressive though I guess 😂 dude is a waffler

[@AXharoth]

you asking this question shows your IQ xD

[@ig7567]

@@jacksonnn1661 two explanations: while listening I realized I am stupid AF or the guy is talking in full delusional mode

[@matthewcoughtrey8383]

It's genuinely crazy how peterson can spew out such a dense word salad of analogy and allegory, just for Dawkins or O'Connor, to summarise the overarching meaning of his statement in such an understandable and concise way

[@JoeGamer81]

Waiter: Can I get any desserts for the table? Peterson: I would like an ice cream sundae. Waiter: Sorry, sir, we don’t serve that one. Peterson: But you just asked if I wanted dessert. Waiter: sorry, yes, I just mean that we don’t have that particular dessert. We have others, but not that one. Peterson: What is an ice cream sundae if not the imagistic representation of dessert? If you have dessert in what way do not have an ice cream sundae? Waiter: In the way that we don’t have it…? But we do have cheesecake and cherry pie… Peterson: (interrupting) but why not abstract it? You have pie and cake and probably custard. What’s the relevant image? *Dessert as such*. What’s the image of that? The ice cream sundae that never runs out. And then there’s a cool twist on that, it’s so interesting - hot fudge! Alex: Wait: the sundae is a pictorial representation of the abstract concept of dessert? Peterson: Yes. Alex: But they have pie. Abstraction might be useful in art, but - you can’t eat an abstraction. Peterson: (holds up menu) We had the image long before we had the dessert. Alex: …sure, but - Peterson: look, if you want identify a particular class of dessert, well then pie is a good term. Waiter: does that mean you’ll be having the pie? Alex: Would you say that pie is an instantiation of the term dessert? Peterson: (gnawing menu) Yes! Waiter: Are you answering me, or…? Alex: Would you also say that pie is an instantiation of the term “ice cream sundae?” Peterson: Yes! YES! It actually matters to us if we eat delicious confections! Dawkins: Fuckin ell mate. I’ll ave me a roit cut o’ pie.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

😂😂😂 Bravo 100% 😂😂😂

[@Emilpoika]

Beautifully argued!

[@kimbraun0823]

I think you have cracked the code. That made about as much sense as what Peterson actually said. It was like a Mad-Lib. Same formula with different key words. Kinda scary when you think about it.

[@CARambolagen]

😂😂😂 very good!!! 😂😂😂

[@95Kane]

Amazing 😂

[@BeerandCheez]

So lemme get this straight. In a discussion of stories naturally evolving over time vs being divinely inspired, Peterson took 10 minutes to say "humans have always used dangerous beasts as a metaphor for obstacles that must be overcome for reward", and STILL couldn't make that very simple point before the clip cuts out. Why do people take this man as an intellectual.

[@FrancisFCopp]

Thanks for that I’ve been trying to figure out what he’s trying to say for over 3 days now.

[@sanadhouimdi1600]

Well that's not what he said, but that's what you understood. What he was saying is that most people don't study biology and religious thinking. His argument is that each discipline will lead you to the same fundamental truth which is, to my best understanding, once you make yourself self-sufficient (basic material and psychological needs), you need to go into exploration mode.

[@bbroogs]

@@sanadhouimdi1600No, the needs vs exploration was his initial premise, but not what he ended up saying. What he ended up saying did not provide argument for his premise, nor was it particularly profound.

[@edgyvenom153]

​@@sanadhouimdi1600 I've actually put exploration first before my physiological needs so he's also wrong there, coming from a subjective pov

[@createyouremotion-cw3qw]

exactly. He was correct in what he said but he could've said it in a few words.

[@Zummbot]

I am convinced Peterson is purposefully obtuse.

[@incertosage]

Yep, nobody actually talks like this. Even when asked for a direct answer, he still obfuscates things

[@kevtb874]

Yep. He's gotten himself tangled in knots and is terrified of alienating sections of his fanbase. He's lost any objectivity in debate which is a bit of a stinker when that's what you are showing up for.

[@kenkaplan3654]

He is to desperate, narcissistic and neurotic for that.

[@Hoganply]

Sunken costs.

[@fentonmulley5895]

He's a drama queen

[@yaftali1434]

I left religion because I heard people like Peterson tried to defend it and failed miserably

[@ekinteko]

Here is a summary of this interaction. Alex: uses keen sense and high intelligence to distill Peterson's points into one sentence. And shows the implications of that. Dawkins: Agrees. Peterson is dragging the divine into the mundane. Peterson: Is on the defence. Well, there is no difference from the bottom going up, or the top coming down. Dawkins: checkmate. Precisely. You fail to see the difference. The floor: this has struck the core of Jordan's teachings. Peterson: unable to logic this way out. Starts rambling. I can attack you, please do not attack me. Maybe if you indulge me, we can arrive at a conclusion together. Dawkins: No. We need to stick to truth and facts. Implication: Otherwise we will arrive at the wrong conclusion. Peterson: visibly annoyed. Cannot logic out of this one. Doesn't have any facts to base his direction. Will not concede the point. Peterson: tries to obfuscate the issue by using a metaphor. Alex and Dawkins: following along. Alex and Dawkins: Jordan this doesn't make logical sense. Peterson: not happy. Is made to seem unintelligible. Video cuts out.

[@glowwurm9365]

I find Peterson incredible difficult to watch, he obfuscates, drives you down a path to somewhere then suddenly hopes over onto another path going in a completely different direction. All the while he uses language which is complex, which takes time to digest, in short the point being made isn't clear, and just as you come to that realisation he has hoped over onto the other path and the process repeats itself. Very hard to argue against as the posts are perpetually moving... This guy is an educator?

[@Chris-im3ys]

​@@glowwurm9365 And until now I deeply believed JP does this on purpose in a way that is intellectually dishonest. But this video is so completely wild that I'm beginning to think he genuinely has no idea that he's doing it.

[@intraphage]

​@@Chris-im3ys jordan peterson appears to have an incredibly neurotic personality that prolly leads him to a very rigid and uncompromising view of the world, one that only he truly understands. I remember reading that a friend of freud's had an obsession with the numbers 23 and 28 and believed everything concerning men was related to 23 and everything concerning women linked in to the number 28 and this led to further research on natural rhythms; similarly, the guy who basically discovered or first isolated testosterone used to inject himself with testicular vein blood, semen and juice extracted from dog or guinea-pig testes because he believed it enhanced his mental capacity and strength, which led us to more discoveries on how testosterone played a role in the endocrine system. Even though I think Jordan Peterson is utterly insane, obsessive and most definitely on the spectrum, I think these minds are conducive to scientific advancement but not necessarily as individuals as much of the advancement comes from others making sense of the madness. I personally find him wildly entertaining but not for all the right reasons lmfao.

[@simonasfaw9450]

Well said. I really just think he's getting old and grumpy. I used to like his old videos... but IDK how this will play out. The longer he does this the more he seems like a mad man :(

[@mfredhernandez]

@userJohnSmith

[@YuriUzliam]

4:51 The moment Alex realises he forgot the tranquiliser dart for Jordan.

[@chanmeenachandramouli1623]

Lol:-) MeenaC

[@richardwells1804]

I think Peterson has lost it…… is he taking his medication.

[@postmodernerkindergartner960]

lost what

[@axelbruv]

@@postmodernerkindergartner960 a) His car keys b) His wallet c) His mind d) His passwords. You can ask the audience or phone a friend.

[@bilalkhabir5873]

His marbles​@@postmodernerkindergartner960

[@Kanakou_DX15]

@@postmodernerkindergartner960 the metaphorical substrate of his ethos

[@AmirhoseinHerandy]

@@postmodernerkindergartner960it

[@sufian1z]

Dawkins stayed silent, watching the show with the same expression you'd have at a magic trick where the magician forgot the rabbit but kept pulling out endless scarves of... philosophical fluff

[@bradkaitting4638]

"I won't use your pronouns, but dammit, you will acknowledge my dragon!!!". There it is.

[@Happy-xn6hd]

Dominating.

[@VeronicaMxoxo]

Spot on hahaha

[@AJ-gk7bn]

But he will use someone pronouns. Just not when his speech is controlled by law. At least make a better straw man then that.

[@VeronicaMxoxo]

@@AJ-gk7bn There are no laws controlling speech regarding pronouns. The bill Peterson protested against never even indicated someone could receive legal sanctions for not using someone’s preferred pronouns.

[@AJ-gk7bn]

@@VeronicaMxoxo Literally completely irrelevant. I don’t think what you said is accurate but even if it was it’s completely beside the point. Peterson was reasonably under the impression that it compeled speech and has said many times that would be the only reason he wouldn’t refer to someone by their preference pronouns. So again, that didn’t address my previous comment at all.

[@RPGLegendarySoundtracks]

"Is fire a predator? (...) Well, it's complicated because fires kills you" 😂

[@jesterc.6763]

Also this proves dragons.

[@mestrinimaster3602]

Is gravity a predator? Well, it kills stars and planets, so... who knows?

[@GapWim]

Confirmed: all inanimate falling objects of suficient size and mass are now catigorised as predators. Coconuts and pianos included. Together with deathcap mushrooms and any other chemical molecule or element which is poisenous or venemous to us. ... when words lose all their meaning 🤦‍♂️

[@adayah2933]

It sounds absurd but his line of reasoning was perhaps he was collecting all characteristics of a dragon, one by one, and comparing them against predators to eventually conclude that the dragon is an ultimate predator that in all ways is predator-like.

[@DaleTomlinson-w6c]

I mean, fire doesn't just kill you, it spreads and, if hot enough, consumes you. We measure our energy consumption in calories, and we do the same for fire. He probably would have been better placed if he described fire as the ultimate weapon instead, but I think its not a massively unreasonable statement to make in the context of what he was saying

[@0nFoot]

I don't trust anybody who raises their voice when they try to put across their point of view.

[@stysner4580]

Exactly right. EXACTLY RIGHT, HEAR ME! IT'S COMPLICATED!

[@vici7]

there is a saying in german: "wer schreit, hat unrecht!" translated: "the one who screams is wrong!"

[@DraskoSaric]

Alex, you did a good work here. Thanks!

[@Terminal.Rainbows]

The least surreal part of this whole tableau are the dinosaurs outside the window.

[@tobynsaunders]

*Well, think about it! They're real, biologically, or they were, so what is a dragon? IT'S AN IMAGISTIC REPRESENTATION OF A DINOSAUR plus some other predatory symbols sprinkled in, so how can you say dragons aren't real, it's like, I think LOOK! A DINOSAUR LEAVES A FOOTPRINT! WHAT IS THE FOOTPRINT? IT'S A MEMORY. AND DRAGONS ARE IN YOUR MEMORY, so it's complicated!*

[@Knytz]

Wtf. In what year is this recorded😂?

[@kushagrasingh8642]

​​@@tobynsaunders i can't begin to imagine how Alex and Dawkins listened to all of this with a straight face 😭🙏

[@shmeef279]

Normal person: the floor Jordan: THE METAPHYSICAL SUBSTRATE WHICH STOPS US FROM FALLING INTO THE PIT OF ABYSS, AND ITS LIKE, MAN, THATS NO SIMPLE THING YOU KNOW.

[@tjohn6echo]

MATERIAL, not metaphysical (substrate). Metaphysical would mean its virtual. But I give your comment a "like" nonetheless for your brilliant parody of how JP would have started rambling using word salad. 😆

[@ReCoIL171]

Just shed a tear

[@danzmind27]

But is that a problem.....🤔

[@m.n.executor1902]

​@@tjohn6echo "It depends on what you mean by 'material' and what you mean by 'metaphysical' and what you mean by 'mean'. We don't know what any of that means. It all depends on your level of analysis." - Psychologist-who-is-staunchly-against-postmodernism.

[@shmeef279]

@@danzmind27 maybe not a problem, definitely useless, u can just say floor.

[@AwesomePC-l2i]

I get his point and it makes sense. Let me give it a shot. Vampires are a meta category which includes bats and mosquitoes. Given that Vampires are real one must conclude Twilight is infact a documentary.

[@sugarlessrobots]

🤣

[@dofer112]

I’m confused, where is the fire that kills me?

[@TruthSika]

...and the virgin birth? Where did the virgin birth go?

[@liswill8179]

Enjoyed watching this. Richard presents as a mature, chilled adult engaging in a debate, while Jordan comes across as hyper passionate and a bit hysterical. The tone and body language of both is interesting to me. Alex seems measured and calm and did a good job. Thanks to all of you for sharing this.

[@Nicky_Dore]

This was utterly pointless. We gotta stop platforming JP now. It was cute in the beginning. Now it’s just annoying. RD is asking a point blank yes or no question and JP is obviously dodging. ✌️

[@MD-uu5nt]

He’s so different now to what he was a few years ago. His original lecture series was very interesting and he was a good listen for a while. He’s absolutely repetitive and obtuse now. I have had to turn him off every time I hear him now for the last 5 years. His podcast usually involves him talking more than any of his guests.

[@martinfrancis8205]

When isn't that simply because you guys are all atheist 😂

[@g07denslicer]

Especially since this is THE SAME TOPIC that Sam Harris discussed with him 10 years ago: What is truth?"

[@daan260]

it's a 2 hour long philosophical podcast. You want a 1 sec video of a question and a yes or no answer? you're at the wrong spot buddy. Besides, JP is leading the platform you're talking about.

[@DurpenHeimer]

@@daan260 the philosophical platform? not a chance. in serious academic circles, he is an absolute laughing stock; a jester, if you will.

[@TheLotusManFILMs.]

JP is insufferable.

[@surfacegr1nder705]

People who can’t think abstractly are insufferable.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

He's greedy

[@technov1deo]

I agree

[@snakesandsticks]

JP is so obnoxious. Every time he gets backed into a corner (which is often when he's not talking to someone not as skilled in debating), he gets very melodramatic and evasive. Yet people somehow read that as him being open minded and willing to engage. I'm telling you, that's not what he's doing. Since becoming a celebrity, he's honed the craft of being a showman. If you don't see it, then you're just another audience member in his show.

[@nagranoth_]

a showman would look convincing rather than pathetic, though...

[@SelfierX3]

its incredible that you cannot comprehend JP and instead of trying to, just assert your lack of comprehension ability as a flaw in him lol. But then again this whole comment section is full of people asserting the same thing without understanding the actual subject matter.

[@rathraven1313]

Yet, Dawkins is old man who rather believe in aliens and that's he's crazy before admitting he is wrong.

[@maestrogringo]

the first 90 seconds of the video and JP's usual word salad answer cracked me up!

[@Kris.G]

@@rathraven1313 The existence of aliens is a very plausible idea. The second part of your sentence makes no sense at all.

[@Benziiish]

The definition of a predator According to google: an animal that eats another animal. According to Peterson: It's complicated

[@yteixeira]

Life is too short to waste time with Peterson.

[@ert435]

Wise words lmao

[@anaglyphx]

Beautifully put!

[@soopaberr3128]

His videos are a bit like driving past a car crash, so hard not to look 😂

[@misscameroon8062]

agreed wholeheartedly !.

[@terrysullivan1992]

I used to really admire Peterson but he seems to have slipped into some sort of mythological religious lunacy.

[@TheOneAndOnlyZelenkaGuru]

Same here, can't defend this fanatical quasi-religious-philisophical insanity.

[@pavelshliaha1706]

He was always like that. The whole idea of Peterson is that he gets to make up reality to justify his ridiculous beliefs and his opponents can not. An icon of alt right

[@ChaChaDancin]

@@terrysullivan1992 I’m Christian and Jordan Petersen certainly doesn’t represent me or any other Christians. He is an embarrassment.

[@sukotu23]

What did you admire him for exactly?

[@jasongilder22]

@@sukotu23standing up to the authoritarian sanctioned language

[@jmaniak1]

Peterson refuses to converse with anyone who doesn’t have a doctorate. I find solace that I will never be tortured by his presence.

[@deviouskris3012]

That felt like him using it as an excuse to not get publicly pants’d by Dillahunty again.

[@randomhumanoidblob4506]

Thank the Noodle Beastie I'm far too thick to understand his sesquipedalianate verbiage.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

He's a witch doctor. A crank

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

​@@randomhumanoidblob4506one day, Sir Gawain of the Green Petersons will meet the Great Googa Mooga in the Great Beyondo

[@chanmeenachandramouli1623]

Lol:-) Me too. MeenaC

[@pontusstjernfeldt5671]

These two gentlemen both have my sincere gratitude. It is rare that one gets to partake of a debate that makes you feel more intelligent afterwards than before it started, and where the matter of who won and who lost becomes completely irrelevant.

[@thebadasswolves1374]

Should I report you for misinforming ? 😂

[@anthonyjames4319]

Jordan Peterson is what you get when the internet convinces someone they are a genius.

[@strim_gibbles]

Top comment.

[@Matzes]

He is clearly extremely intelligent but somewhere got lost in myths and stories

[@riverjustice]

Yet, Alex is this one that facilitated the conversation.

[@isaacentebi7383]

@@Matzesexactly , I think it’s a very very emotionally charged subject for him and thus can’t think rationally. You can see that his subjective experience of confronting the dragon ie jungian shadow is very important to him

[@motoboy6666]

@@Matzes > extremely intelligent > knows a lot of words

[@chaosblood88]

This is the epitome of incomprehensible communication. How you didn't start laughing Alex is beyond me.

[@rathraven1313]

Because Alex doesn't understand irony and subtext.

[@whirlwhind666]

I know writers who use subtext, and they’re all cowards.

[@newspiked7385]

​@@whirlwhind666#unexpecteddarkplace

[@Bizarre-Clips]

because Alex can understand him unlike you

[@De_Selby]

​​@@Bizarre-Clips you know you can understand somebody and still find them ridiculous right? Understanding somebody does not necessarily mean that you won't laugh at them.

[@dudeinblack4]

If predator is real in what way isn’t alien real? And if they’re both real, shouldn’t they do a sequel docuseries?

[@glennthompson1971]

Alien and Predator vs JP. he would bore them to death with irrational BS

[@paulembleton1733]

@@glennthompson1971 I think Predator would spot the hot air long before and realise JP wasn’t worthy prey. Alien though might be a problem, there could be Alien/JP hybrids that bored us to death before boring into our bodies.

[@grzegorz7097]

Alien vs predator vs dragon = predator. It's very complicated but you get the point

[@KORNEWARRIOR]

Alien vs Predator vs fire But fire is a Predator, well its complicated because fire Kills you right?

[@MaximoToro]

"I'm not interested in dragons, I'm interested in reality" 😂😂

[@lachsimzwaifel]

Let's be real: This is insanity. Again. It's impossible to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson. It's the ramblings of a mad man.

[@eeehhhbertoyee5057]

You should really read the reference material he referenced near the beginning. It makes more sense within the context of the works of Mircea Eliade and Carl Jung. The Sacred and the Profane is an absolutely insane book that Peterson clearly takes seriously.

[@docgraal485]

@@eeehhhbertoyee5057 could you break down his argument for me, I have absolutley no idea what he is talking about and he seems extremely confidence in his stance

[@eeehhhbertoyee5057]

@@docgraal485 Dawkins here is basically saying memes are surface level, viral phenomenon. Peterson, and Jung essentially says that there are certain, archetypal personality characteristics that are hardwired into the psyche, and Eliade says that religious behavior is also archetypically ingrained into the human psyche. So when he's talking about the dragon, or the story of Cain, he's saying he is saying that these things are literally real in the circuitry of the brain in way that far predates the term "predator" or any other linguistic model of the concept. He talks about fire as a predator because to the mind of the protohuman that was developing a conceptual model of what a predator is, it's not that clear fire isn't part of the network of things that can pursue and kill let's say. That's why it's ingrained in the image of the dragon. Basically "dragon" is a symbol that appears in cultures around the world because it is a network of neurological structures that is present in all humans. "Dragon" may be a viral meme that stuck with people, but it stuck because its describing something real internally. With the story of Cain, he's saying it's irrelevant whether they really existed, but that story has unfolded so many times and in so many ways that the human brain has a literal adaptation to dealing with events related to that scenario, and the story of Cain and Abel clicks and holds in the human subconscious because there are sort of grooves pre greased for a story of that type to fit into. So it doesn't really matter if the story is "true" in the sense that a man named Cain literally killed his brother Abel, but it's, as he says, hyper-true. Meaning that story has happened so many times with so many people "playing" the roles of Cain and Abel, that the story itself is part of the human subconscious. Same with the symbol of the dragon. I'm kind of butchering this, but this is my understanding of it. Of course you have to find the works of Jung and Eliade compelling enough, but nobody in the conversation he's having have read the literature. It's absolutely fascinating and compelling work, I read a lot of it years ago when I was really into Terance Mckenna.

[@lighting7508]

@@eeehhhbertoyee5057 you've done a remarkable job at untangling the word salad. And this perspective becomes a lot clearer at the end of the conversation on JBP's channel. "Christianity in the brain is a result of sexual selection and if we stop and dilute the meme, it will lose its mematic strength which is bad because Christianity produces prosperous societies" is a hilarious argument in favour of Christianity that I've never heard before LMAO

[@asdkfljlksdafuioasdf]

​@@eeehhhbertoyee5057 Jungian psychology is unverifiable pseudo-science.

[@Evolved-]

Jordan Peterson is absolutely insane.

[@MomentumCanada365]

That took some bravery to type that. I’m sure you’d say the same thing in a debate with him yourself.

[@raizan1526]

@@MomentumCanada365 you're so butthurt. And he's still insane.

[@thespyrogamergt3163]

Name me a genius who wasn't. Once you realize you there never was one you'll realize the absolute fool you are.

[@starflight777]

⁠@@thespyrogamergt3163There are a lot more “insane” people than there are geniuses.

[@wamingo]

You got something meaningful out of that word salad that isn't a bunch of spiritual gibberish?

[@geofftoscano6804]

I just can’t get away with Petersen’s delivery. His voice is grating, combining a high pitch with over excitement. More than that, however, if you listen carefully to what he says he doesn’t really present arguments, he tends just to repeat what’s just been said to him, and then ask what do you mean by it?

[@tinymcgoo1195]

Like any good magician, he dazzles you with wavy hands and fancy words however unlike a magician looking to entertain you, JP's use of the metaphorical substrate is meant to rob you of your ability to care about living. He needs you as depressed as he feels. If you don't come along, the waterworks start.

[@c2vranoutofnames]

this is a beautiful demonstration of body language. Alex and richard: relaxed, open, engaged, politely making short concise comments, in full control of emotions. Peterson: animated, wildly flailing arms, constantly making broad, grandiose, over the top gesticulations, emotional outbursts straying into anger. In otherwords peterson: >,o < alex and rich: o_o o_o

[@graham6132]

Peterson’s whole schtick is that he says extremely simply things in an extremely convoluted way.

[@pillsareyummy]

Jordan needs to attend OA (Obfuscation Anonymous).😅

[@staceyvanier15]

Actually, he rarely says anything.

[@spicy7302]

​@staceyvanier15 He actually says a lot. If you listen to his lectures and some of his older Q&As, you will find a lot of useful ideas there. Like any other human however, he does say weird/incoherent things from time to time, and some of his political ideas might not appeal to you, but that doesn't resume all of his speech to "nothing at all".

[@graham6132]

@@spicy7302 You have the reverse. On politics, he’s pretty coherent. On philosophy he’s honestly awful.

[@spicy7302]

@@graham6132 That's your opinion which you are entitled to. But I'm curious as to why you say philosophy, because he is not a philosopher. He is a psychologist, and that's what his lectures cover. Maybe it's that you don't know the man at all, and just make strange assumptions like that.

[@hanspeter6427]

Damn, Peterson sure talks a lot without saying much

[@Common_Mansplaining]

Cause you just don't understand him I guess?

[@julianshepherd2038]

​@@Common_MansplainingI think I know what he is sayyand it is nonsense

[@ZyroZoro]

​@@Common_Mansplaining Nah, Peterson just likes droning on and on with esoteric vocabulary, obscure metaphors, and equivocating different definitions of the same word when a simple, straightforward sentence would've done better.

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

​@@Common_Mansplaining What he is saying is quite simple, he just yaps and imagines he is saying something very complex. Hell, alex manages to sum up his long rant as a couple of sentences at the end. JP drags the topic around to 500 different places with no coherency, with no point or direction, with no concluding point. Then when others ask what his point is, he engages in another long ramble... I used to work with people that have brain damage and degenerative illnesses and he talks exactly like them. Its sad really, he wasn't always like this.

[@Common_Mansplaining]

@@julianshepherd2038 oh? What is he saying then?

[@joannware6228]

" Love (willing the good of the other) is all that God is. He doesn’t go in and out of love; he doesn’t change his mind; he’s not loving to some and not to others. He is indeed like the sun that shines on the good and bad alike, in the words of Jesus. No act of ours can possibly make him stop loving us. In this regard, he is like the best of parents. However, we are free. We are not God’s marionettes, and hence we can say yes or we can say no to his love. If we turn toward it, we open like a sunflower; if we turn from it, we get burned." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (10/30/24)"

[@canadian97]

Jordan “filibuster” Peterson

[@sspbrazil]

Dawkins must be thinking, “this guy is a nutter”.

[@daviid27.]

What does nutter mean

[@sspbrazil]

@@daviid27. look it up. Google is your friend.

[@Pheer777]

@@daviid27.crazy

[@cybermandan1960]

Waiter: "Would you like tea or coffee?" Peterson: "99% of your processing is unconscious."

[@petejackson6681]

It depends on what you mean by Tea or Coffee.

[@ViktorLoR_Mainu]

too few words

[@tobynsaunders]

*Well, hang on now. Tea, that's from the East. They use it traditionally for the caffeine. Now, that's a drug. It's woven into Eastern mythology and religious practice. You think that's coincidence? You think those metaphysical beings aren't REAL? THEY'RE REAL IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE CAFFEINE IS REAL!* -Um... so you want tea? *Well, just a minute! What about the other one? You're talking about coffee, so let's talk about coffee! It's AFRICAN. It's AFRICAN. Where did humans evolve? AFRICA. You think that those beans, and they're not beans, biologically, but metaphorically they are... they... it's complicated, okay?! IT'S BLOODY COMPLICATED!*

[@jahseedxavila2594]

JP: "I'll have the tea....the dragon will have the coffee...unless by tea U mean that which can only be drank at teatime in which case "time" must be the metaphoric substrate in which a mythical fire-breathing creature can be considered to operate since high doses of caffeine is the required catalyst for a hyperactive dragon to NOT burn itself ...o shit.....is it green, black or oolong tea and is the coffee instant or brewed...?....Wait.... What was your question again R.Dawkins: (quietly sips his tea while pondering how he got pulled into a one way monologue by an insane person) 😂

[@Mikael-jt1hk]

@@petejackson6681 What do you mean ''want''?

[@paolo2012]

Peterson: "what do we teach our children" Dawkins: "....dragons...?"

[@nanrod]

These days when Jordan Peterson speaks I'm reminded of the scene from Big Bang Theory where Penny exclaims to Sheldon "Oh my god, you're about to jibber jabber about jibber jabber".

[@justmbhman]

OOF. Your point is that Peterson "word salads" right? You realize that "jibber jabber" means "advanced physics that Penny can't grasp" right? Those who don't believe in Dragons end up burning themselves in the end huh?

[@AMH793]

@@justmbhmanyeah but Sheldon cooper is a nerd so

[@chobin7982]

King of the Word Salad

[@jimangela4589]

At least you recognize that you don't understand.

[@chobin7982]

@@jimangela4589 ok triggered 😂😂😂

[@Lobishomem]

JP sounds like a nervous wreck. Hysterical.

[@hp9351]

@@jimangela4589if you understood what he was saying you would realize that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about

[@jimangela4589]

@@hp9351 by all means, explain what he gets wrong. I don't mean a difference of opinion. What is JP wrong on.

[@Ashishlahre]

Fire is a predator, that is some stupid level stupidity. With this analogy. 1.Heavy Wall is a predator. 2. Knife is a predator 3. No food is a predator 4. Steel is a predator Etc.

[@brodymercer8166]

2 inch deep puddle is a predator.

[@HelliarCOH]

Love this. Well said.

[@samyueldanyo8679]

Exactly, there is an inifinite (in practical terms) list of predators. But that is all besides the point anyways. Sure, it is a cool abstraction - that does not make it divine, unless you want to define divine as something which is a good abstraction.

[@mehowop]

Heavy Wall is object. Knife is object. No food is state of object in specific space. Steel is object. Fire is behaviour, other word that is behaviour and not object is wind. Rain is behaviour, rain is not thing, its not object. Objects do not "do". Objects "are". Heavy Wall is object in some place, space. How can it be predator? How non behaviour can make behaviour? You are not correct. Knife, the same case. Knife cant kill. You need behaviour that will use knife. For example person can take knife and kill someone, because person have behaviour. No food is claim about that "there is no food" or "I dont have food" or "Im hungry". In case of food as a object, "no food" means that there is no object named "food". But lets take it as hunger in sense of behaviour. Experience of hunger is not something that will kill you. Behaviour of "ignoring hunger" can lead to death. Steel is object, its not behaviour. It cant nothing. Word predator is behaviour. Fire OFC can eat you. Make big campfire and jump into fire... OFC do not do that. Fire can eat human body in almost literal sense. So how it cant be related/connected/simillar to predator? Peterson is correct. People who do not get it, have problems with language ( do not understadn words, meanings, symbolism... basic things about language ). Not any word is object. Fire = burning, thats it.

[@saurababraham2259]

Bullet is the ultimate predator

[@MaximoToro]

Peterson is the Word Salad All-time Undisputed Champion of the World

[@LiViro1]

0:44 "Very well put". Agreed, deserved praise.

[@mishka1138]

Absolutely, Alex did such a great job as a host. Actually first time seeing a host actually help both parties to understand each other

[@Corellian]

This particular segment could have been titled "Peterson vs Dawkins patience". One would think that the exchange of differing ideas is what ultimately takes time and effort, not trying to follow Dr. Petersons troubled euphoric cavalcade of arguments and explanations.

[@BDnevernind]

Yeah it's amazing how much ranting and raving Dawkins just sat through.

[@lallyk3945]

😂

[@estellesstories7467]

Dawkins is a study in patience here. My goodness, Peterson is incoherent.

[@jahseedxavila2594]

Define "particular" then "segment" also "exchange".....we'll leave euphoric and cavalcade for last" LOL

[@justmbhman]

@@estellesstories7467 You could say the opposite: 1) It took 1.5 hours for Peterson to see the connection between memes and archetypes. He kept trying, Dawkins wouldn't budge. That's a lot of patience from Peterson. Incoherencies 2) Memes exist. "Dragon" is a meme. It's incoherent for Dawkins to believe in memes but not Dragons. 3) Dawkins believes religions are meme-systems. He also believes memes that survive, survive because they're adaptive. Given how long religion has lasted, he should believe religions are HIGHLY ADAPTIVE memes, but he thinks Religion is useless. Incoherent! 4) Dawkins attacks Peterson on his symbol usage. He acts like symbols/metaphor say nothing TRUE about reality. He does this, ALL while wearing a tie he CHOSE because it symbolized something true about reality (his valuing of science). 5) Dawkins is a biologist, so he does math right? Math is done with symbols. Math works because: SYMBOLS reflect REALITY. When Peterson uses symbols for religion, he's "drunk" but when Dawkins uses symbols for math he's "advancing science?" Imagine if Peterson said "Well it's like, these mathematicians talking imaginary numbers, they are drunk!" What would happen is Peterson would look like a clown, but when Dawkins (knowing no relevant literature) says "You're drunk on symbols", everybody cheers? You prolly won't respond to this, but anyway, I'd love to hear how Peterson is incoherent :)

[@blackibex]

Peterson vs Peterson. Dawkins was there to witness it.

[@jnmc2498]

I am religious and I love science. I know don’t have the answers to a lot of things but I do appreciate how Dawkins explains things. He makes it very clear and simple. Now whether I agree with him on every take is another story. But he breaks down things in ways I wish a lot of religious people could do. I prefer ”I don’t know as an answer” than trying to do some high level verbal acrobatics without really teaching anything.

[@owennovenski4794]

Thank you Alex for bringing yourselves together for this dialogue.