The Jordan Peterson Problem

[@guywalsh3283]

Peterson doesn’t think that we’re basically all evil. He believes good and evil runs through the heart of each human from my understanding.

[@sosaysthecaptain5580]

I don’t know anything about this channel, but I want to know about the dc-10 flying under the golden gate

[@iuseitToo]

Read the description...

[@iuseitToo]

@Goh Modley JUST WEAD DA DESCWIPTION GOSH... lazy idiot

[@natureowl]

DC-10? That was a propeller plane right? That's like more like a 727.... And yes it can. Done it on FS 2000 many a time.

[@sosaysthecaptain5580]

@@natureowl look it up, it’s a Douglas DC-10, one of the early widebodies. You can tell it apart from a 727 in that the tail engine goes straight through the tail rather than using an S-duct. Also much bigger.

[@Inspector-Chisholm]

Pure click bait.

[@petereames3041]

He’s not saying we are fundamentally evil but rather we all have the potential for evil. Humans are neither good or bad, they’re both.

[@spennny1000]

No he quite clearly says people are worse than we can imagine.. in all 3 of his books....

[@spennny1000]

He even says that if we're good it's because we're cowards

[@1flash3571]

@@spennny1000 You don't seem to understand what he is saying. Go back to school.

[@spennny1000]

@@1flash3571 I know what he should have said lol.....

[@1flash3571]

@@spennny1000 Do you even understand what he said and meant about someone being a coward because we are good as you put it? I don't know exactly what he said, but your comment about good guys being a coward doesn't make sense. There has to be a CONTEXT as to why he said that. I don't think you know what he meant.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

I listened to both Peterson and your lectures back when he was a normal person and you were both uploading your work for free, and back then, you were my two favourites, so I can't wait to hear this in full.

[@lLenn2]

lol, Jordan Peterson hasn't changed since 2016, bro

[@justinpaul3110]

I am not particularly dogmatic about my appreciation of Jordon Peterson. I do disagree with things he says. That being said, it would be nice if someone would mount a worthwhile critique. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed this wasn't. First of all, the point made about, "you being a Nazi," wasn't to suggest that people are bad. It was to illustrate that you have the potential to be bad...and that can be exploited. Peterson has consistently said this and it was disingenuous to leave that part out. Nitpicking about who would have been a NAZI based on official party membership is a bit laughable. I strongly suspect that there are FAR more people who identify with political parties than are official, on-paper members of said party. If Republicans or Democrats ceased to exist tomorrow, future people could look back on this time and theoretically say there weren't a lot of either. Second, the IQ literature is terrifying because IQ has been shown to be an indicator of wealth generation. People who lack brain power are far more likely to be poor. Peterson finds it terrifying because he has said multiple times that this is a leading cause of inequality that there is no answer for. Again, you left that out. I can see legitimate reasons question IQ testing and information derived from scientific endeavor and to criticize when repeatability issues arise. Certainly if the Stanford Prison Experiment can't be replicated then it shouldn't be used evidence. Strike on Peterson for using it, for sure. However, you really veered into strawmanning territory hard on this one by use of omission.

[@azidhal6444]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/an3Ui5ehoKd3l9U Great vid by Contrapoints maybe give that a go. Imo a pretty fair critique

[@JB-ru4fr]

His Nazi scenario seems to raise the topic of “free will vs determinism” more than good or evil nature. Either way he didn’t ever directly address those in that context if I recall. Anyways JP is not a philosopher by trade, but he is a clinical psychologist (?) so I think he is used to prescribing answers for clients rather ending on the questions which I think WC is getting at.

[@michaelwu7678]

There are SO many good critiques of him if you look for them.

[@deleted01]

@@michaelwu7678 The "good critiques" of him tend not to bring him down too much. So people resort to nitpicking.

[@michaelwu7678]

@@deleted01 they actually bring him down a lot by showing how ill-informed and ideological he is. Well, I guess it's subjective how important you think that is.

[@mikebowman9844]

I love your lectures on the philosophers. Regarding men leading more corporations: Wes, you posed the situation as one where “we” can choose what traits to select for in corporate leadership. You might not have been in the corporate world much. There is an organic nature to how leadership establishes within a group. All other traits being equal, those with a higher level of assertiveness and competitiveness tend to occupy the leadership positions. “We” (I don’t know who the “we” would be) are not in control of this dynamic of homosapien great ape group behavior. I am not saying that perfect outcomes come out of this dynamic. There are glitches in the human genome. For example I’ve worked closely with two company presidents and seen each be so assertive/competitive that it spills outside the company in a way that customers end up being alienated by their behavior. Another related observation I’ve personally made - both narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies are seen with high frequency for those who climb well up the ladder. The combination makes for a person who has one face to those who are higher up and a different face to those who are subordinate. So the higher ups are going to have a hard time “selecting for” any set of traits you choose because of the skilled acting that goes on with a high level of motivation the effective ladder climber has no matter what the selection criteria is. They will mold their persona to whatever criterion the higher up (e.g. board of directors) chooses. And near the top of a large corporation the positions are filled with the driven types who are jostling for position to eventually get the big job which has all the money and status they crave. From what I’ve seen Jordan Petersen is not far off in his analysis of this particular issue. Aggression with the needed company culture veneer describes it well.

[@aestroai8012]

Peterson is a hard guy to pin down. I like the way he probes big questions, but he often ends up making arbitrary connections using oversimplified facts. I believe honesty is the best policy, and I just want him to focus more on what he wants instead of pretending to have solutions for the world! In other words, follow his own rules!

[@NoHomeLike127001]

IIRC Peterson doesn't conceptualise things in terms of aggression. He does so in terms of trait assertiveness which is a facet of trait extraversion in the Big 5 personality scale. Furthermore he never makes any ethical claims about whether aggression or assertiveness is desirable or not but only observes it as an emergent property of human nature within the present socioeconomic structure. Nonetheless thanks for making the video.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

The Big 5 is still not entirely scientific so there’s that added factor to Peterson’s arguments that blurs the picture even more.

[@johanngizurarson7235]

Appearantly, the hexagon model of personality trait has more validity. But it wasnt as much as a fad…so be it

[@133547john]

Hello Wes, nice talk as always. One comment though. The point you make "The Nazis invaded Poland to GO GET the Jews living there" is not true. Poland was invaded due to what the Germans at that time called "Lebensraum"(living space). They believed that they needed land to expand on. So that invasion was mainly fueled by this rather than chasing the Jews.

[@bd7913]

Indeed, you are correct on that, which now throws the veracity of Wes's argument into question given his slip on that detail (similar to the treatment he is giving Peterson's assertions). Other posts below also point out a number of other historical inaccuracies that further undermine Wes's knowledge of history.

[@krumpelschtiltzkeen]

And the Poles had their own campaign against the Jews.

[@pennyAustralia1]

They actually just wanted a highway in the end that connected the German speaking parts of the land formally Prussian by the end of it. But we couldn't have that.

[@Felipe-xt4id]

That's misleading. The "living space" implied a living space for the people that the nazis considered worth of keep living. If you were not from that cloth and were in a place considered a necessary "living space" (like Poland) you would be moved to working camps, ghettos or killed, and the Jews were a special target for that so even if you assume that the theoretical framework used by the nazis did not imply "let's invade Poland to kill Jews", their actions speak louder than any political theory for the integrity of Germany. And saying that the Polish people persecuted Jews is not and excuse for the actions of Nazi german, you can't go on court for a crime and use the excuse that "EveRy bODY does It yOUr ExCeLLence". It still is a crime

[@jules6105]

Hi, this is not an accurate take of what Lebensraum was. It included the germanisation of neighbouring states and the extermination of jews etc. as an explicit aim in Nazi ideology. Here is a link for you to see more about it: encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensraum

[@broken_abi6973]

I think your second and third points about the military and women in the working place were stronger than the first about the nazis. You deconstructed Peterson's trick quite well. He cherry-picks facts that seem to all lead towards a prescriptive claim but avoids openly stating or explore what that claim is, and then finishes with a natural fallacy. He does this in multiple cases.

[@haraldkoch4446]

You don't like cherry picked facts. Ah you prefer rotten fruit. Be careful when you bend over to pick up the rotten fruit because someone might kick you in the bum. I just thought maybe selective arguments instead of cherry pick might work better. I could be wrong.

[@ongobongo8333]

The nazis one seems rock solid. What's wrong with it?

[@jeffwells641]

Another issue with the Peterson Nazi argument is that the average German citizen almost certainly didn't know the Jews were being executed. They knew they were being rounded up and removed, but that's really it. And what reasonable person would even imagine they were being murdered? The number of people who actually knew what was going on in the concentration camps during the war was probably pretty tiny, relatively speaking.

[@RoxxorzYourBoxxorz]

​@jeffwells641 'what reasonable person could imagine they were being murdered' is a much better question than you realize it is

[@djanitatiana]

Nope. Not that we are fundamentally evil in nature but that we constantly underestimate our individual capacity for evil and susceptibility to evil. A critical distinction required if you are to discuss Peterson since he so heavily influenced by Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Jung.

[@relaxingsounds1386]

and because JPB has read an actual history book or two.

[@ItsCronk]

@@relaxingsounds1386 Has he? He doesn't understand postmodernism at all. Maybe not his most well read topic.

[@woundedchildstory3172]

I'm a non-joiner too. We should start a club :D

[@cam2307]

Can I join?

[@mmccrownus2406]

The joiners will rule There is strength in numbers

[@Autists-Guide]

Ah! A fellow Marxist.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

pretty minor particulars. have to admit that jp is enormously right about so much

[@cjhepburn7406]

U sound like a fan

[@TJ-kk5zf]

@@cjhepburn7406 no. like someone who knows the work of peterson and listened to this commentary

[@cjhepburn7406]

Well I listened to this commentary too. Congrats on knowing the works of Jordy P.

[@theethicalhacker7271]

@@cjhepburn7406 he sounds like a Stan

[@relaxingsounds1386]

@@cjhepburn7406 or he could.just be right.

[@invisigoat]

Yes but would your aversion to being a part of a group (I have the same mindset btw) a feature of your intellectualism afforded to you by a free society…….or is it a feature inherent to your personal nature?

[@mwaters421]

I agree completely

[@franzsperginand113]

It's fair to say that if you were in Nazi Germany, you wouldn't be you.

[@sinisterem]

Interesting video. A couple of thoughts occurred to me. One: if most people are decent. Could it be that we sometimes run the risk of being too decent to deal with, say, sociopaths? Two: have the nazi's, unintentionally, in a roundabout way, proven that minorities can be a danger too? They just got the minority wrong. The nazi's, not the jews, were the dangerous minority. Could it be that we are someitmes too decent to imagine that a small, but ideoligically dedicated and energetic minority can be a threat?

[@kamrynm9780]

The issue of "minorities" could be reframed to be issues with groups that are very intolerant, from Carl Popper's paradox of intolerence.

[@bozo5632]

Just about every group (in politics etc.) is a minority.

[@bozo5632]

@@kipwonder2233 I'd say it was perfectly clear - that we positively obsess about minority opinions, invent fictitious dangers, then exaggerate them 500x.

[@jeffwells641]

Necroing this but I really wonder what the Nazis might have become if Hitler wasn't so incredibly, insanely racist towards the Jews. If you've read what he wrote and said about them, he didn't seem to view them as like, invaders bringing down the country (the way some people see Mexican immigrants, for example), but he seemed to view them as literal cockroaches that spread filth and disease. What if he simply didn't care about the Jews? How would that have changed the way everything unfolded (besides the obvious 6 million Jews who wouldn't have been killed).

[@patromo]

"not a joiner of things" wow

[@Dan-ud8hz]

“In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche “What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference-so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.” ― Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

[@ETBrooD]

No true Scotsman...

[@elrathJohnson]

@@ETBrooD perhaps... But I think you're miss appling the term. No true scotsman fallacy means after you have made a claim (all birds fly) you are presented with a counterexample (look, a penguin) rather than updating your claim, you instead dismiss the evidence as invalid (well, all _true_ birds fly). The above quotes don't fit. They are saying "look at the ideals of the man described. Look at our society. Those two things are dissonant."

[@ETBrooD]

​@@elrathJohnson I disagree. Both quotes attempt to wash away the sins of Christians by redefining Christianity/Christians and then excluding "impure" Christians from the religion after the fact. The honest approach would be to accept the sins of Christians and regard them as human failure, in the process admitting that adopting Christianity doesn't guarantee that no evil will be committed.

[@Orthodoxi]

Good thing Nietzsche came along to set us lost children of God who thought Jesus meant we too could become a child of God born of the holy spirit through him straight. 🤔🙄🤓🥸😅😅😅

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

I'm was raised in a race-mixing peace church. I have physically harmed racists, fired racists from jobs and also helped destroy the South African racist apartheid government. And I went to Harvard on scholarship. MLK was a REVEREND. Not a "civil rights activist." Christians like me celebrate the burning of racist American cities. So, some of us everyday Christians here are feeling pretty good about dead and buried filthy racist bodies. Let's celebrate the victories!

[@tsilaras_exposed3109]

I think it's a great idea to tackle popular topics precisely for the views and popularity it can bring! This channel deserves it!

[@AudioPervert1]

As for popularity a lot of It is western white male chauvanism 👎🏽🕳️

[@tsilaras_exposed3109]

@@AudioPervert1 If that passes as apt commentary then i pass for a moose!

[@VincentGanshert]

This topic needs to be tackled because it greatly harms society.

[@Laocoon283]

That's what one might call "selling out" lol. It's a history of philosophy channel not a shit click reaction channel.

[@lincolnblumell8158]

I really enjoy the lectures given by Wes Cecil in general: they are informative, witty, and much can be taken from them. However, I feel the characterization of Jordan Peterson in this lecture, while some points may be made, largely missed the point of what Peterson is trying to do. I feel that Cecil has missed the nuances of Peterson’s arguments in certain places and credits him with certain philosophical ideas or agendas that are not actually present in Peterson’s work if you listen to it carefully.

[@returntofleet]

New series on British philosophers sounds good! Can't wait. (Love to hear your thoughts on Alan Watts, but I bet it will be on the likes of John Stewart Mill, etc) 😉🙃👍🏻

[@kamrynm9780]

Hopefully Hume will be covered, even if he is Scottish.

[@firstal3799]

Scots are getting their own county. So

[@landline516]

I think we are clear about what we get when selecting for aggression. The excitement is seeing what we will have when we select for community and cooperation.

[@anonymike8280]

Muck and failed enterprises is a possibility.

[@ericharmon7163]

I think you misrepresent many things. Maybe through misunderstanding. He never said things like, you would be a Nazi. He said it's more likely you would be the a Nazi. Because people always think they would be the one to stand up. No, statistics state you won't. He seems to confuse a psychological argument with a data driven argument.

[@kicksyyarosh5708]

I wouldn't have been a Nazi either because they spoke in German and me and Wes only talk in Virtue signalling

[@deleted01]

Wes Cecil: _I'm not going to nitpick_ Wes Cecil: _[Nitpicks]_

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Nope. They are key factors that together are used to extrapolate. Critique each & the whole ‘begging the question’ fallacy is exposed & falls to pieces.

[@Avalk]

Aggressive people select themselves, it’s not part of any design of the system. If you are more aggressive you are more likely to put forward your ideas and apply for higher positions, taking up responsibility etc.. if you wanted to artificially select for less aggressive people or take decisions communally the more aggressive would still influence power more unless you spend a good share of resources in suffocating control

[@saltzmanweniger]

That's not really true though. Living with people, needing to at least pretend to co-operate has selected (in a social sense, not a literially evolutionary sense) for more agreeable, co-operative people. A minority of people who act 'aggressively' can't actually benefit from that behaviour without most people being agreeable and co-operative. To be successful you have to be at least agreeable enough that people still like you and are willing to work with you. Co-operation up to a point is just rational self interest. People are very clearly less agressive and more co-operative than they used to be.

[@Avalk]

@@saltzmanweniger yeah, you’re right too but I think that using “ aggressive “ as a definition is the problem, because it’s not exactly like that. You might need “ that feature “ to just say a kind word to a friend sometimes, I don’t think that Peterson calls it that but I call it “ the balls “. Some people just have them, you know, that’s why they get paid more and not all men have them ( and of course not all women )

[@johnmilligan6605]

It's very scary how fascism is gathering support again in the western world via people like Jordan Peterson his analysis of the work of the Frankfort school and his deliberate falsification of the history of Marx and the Soviet Union are very worrying I believe this was why 200 of his fellow progresses signed a petition to have him removed from his job nothing to do with gender pronouns but about encouraging students to thing in a very conservative way leading to a right wing world view very dangerous behaviour at any time but with the rise of the extreme right in USA and Europe at the moment his behaviour is despicable and irrisponsible in the extreme

[@Avalk]

@@johnmilligan6605 I don’t see anything wrong with being right wing OR left wing but claims of falsification of what went wrong in the Soviet Union smell like you might be somewhat extreme or a denier. Stalin was every bit as nasty and murderous as Hitler and he managed to kill more people even. Also, what does that have to do with my comment? Why are you replying here?

[@post-structuralist]

@Faus It's not about your personal morals and how they feel. It's about looking at the differences between Stalin and Hitler. History is done no justice when you only view it through the eyes of the moralist.

[@koroglurustem1722]

Wes, I appreciate your evaluation of Jordan's ideas. I believe that nobody is above criticism, not even Jordan. Your first criticism is welcomed. I think those statistics about Nazis must be well analyzed. The ethical question of silence of big majority on the atrocities of the cruel, noisy minority is an important one to discuss. Your second criticism isn't right though. He is always trying to raise the question of human nature and the Russouian and Hobsian views as two extremes. Statistics shows that it's the mix of the two.

[@JB-ru4fr]

If statistics say so, well well...

[@koroglurustem1722]

@@JB-ru4fr do you speak English ?

[@post-structuralist]

First off, statistics doesn't give an opinion. You gather that and formulate from the data. Secondaly, I laugh at the notion that statistics is all that it takes to figure out the mythical nature of humans. And thirdly, Hobbes did not say people were inherently bad. He said that people were pushed to do wrong because of fear and anxiety that the next man might be his killer. We are not wolves in sheep's skin, we are sheep's in wolves skin.

[@mark4asp]

He doesn't mean 100% of people would become NAZIs - just most, or enough.

[@edwardhalpin7503]

The proof of this theory is right in front of you. Critical race Theory now being instituted in American public education is extremely radical yet very few people are standing up against it.

[@LetsFindOut1]

In your conclusion towards the 35 minute mark I don't believe he's making definitive claims that most women might prefer motherhood to aggressive competition for c-suites; he often emphasizes the unfolding revolutionary impacts of the birth control pill and affordable tampons on traditional values. In his university lectures, he often explicitly states that he is speculating based on the best evidence that he has reconciled through studies across multiple fields. One of the main reasons I like you both is because you both often acknowledge how many variables there are in any given situation and he is very vocal about cautioning against single variable solutions or analysis of major problems. The reason he has focused on personality theory in his profession seems to be his attempt to reconcile social and religious and cultural forces with biological and environmental forces. And you mentioned multiple times that he says these things in short videos. I know you realize these are clips that you're probably watching, but maybe you didn't realize how much he has fleshed most of his spoken ideas out in his maps of meaning book. I've read a little bit of it and it's a very thorough book. He makes a lot of claims in it that can't be conclusively confirmed, but he's also trying to map out the fundamental human experience of meaning and values, so he's bound to have to take some leaps of faith as it were, when trying to comprehend such a far reaching subject. Id really enjoy hearing/reading your criticism of his actual maps of meaning book. I feel like you could contribute a lot of insight to him if you guys were to ever speak.

[@edwardsbarbara25]

I don't prefer motherhood

[@scythermantis]

Are there ACTUALLY documented cases of airline crashes due to highly skilled military pilots being overly aggressive? Somehow I doubt this. But there is an interesting dichotomy between agrarian pastoralists and nomadic warlike steppe peoples...

[@stijn4311]

Peterson's claim isn't that almost everyone would have actively supported Nazi actions. His claim is that there's a good chance if you were placed in that historical situation, you would be one of those people who kept their head down, didn't actively or passively resist what happened, did what you were told by the people in charge, and in that way contributed to a genocidal system. He doesn't say "You would have been a nazi". He says: Don't pretend you would be a hero who would've gone around saving people left and right; the chance is much higher that you would have done nothing and just tried to survive, like most people did back then, but that does mean you would have contributed to the system.

[@jancomestor4820]

Exactly. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

[@stijn4311]

To add to my initial comment: I do think Peterson also claims that there are more people than we'd like to admit who might first be one of the people who just keep their head down, but will slowly (or rapidly, depending on the person) be tempted to join the Nazis in what they are doing because it allows them to give free reign to monstrous parts of themselves without consequence. (Edit: like in Solzhenitsyn's famous quotes about evil running through the heart of every person) Maybe it's that part of Peterson's claims that people often misunderstand as "You would've probably been a Nazi".

[@cheapshot2842]

I posted a video link where Jordan Peterson said "You were the Nazi." But it was deleted. Hmmmm "The lesson of world war 2 is you're the Nazi." -Jordan Peterson

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

@@cheapshot2842 refer to first comment in thread?

[@michaelmcarthur8364]

You mean like the passive, unquestioning compliance or shaming demonized compliance of the Wuhan virus experiment? Did Wes, after the data of true (non)lethality of the virus and the virtually useless efficacy of wearing a mask (other than virtue signaling and herd compliance) wear a mask?

[@stevebaryakovgindi]

Thank You Professor, I do enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson, but take him much less seriously nowadays. Him and his cronies like Gad Saad totally turned me back on to Postmodern deconstruction since they made fun so much. I like studying talmud and talmud is constantly deconstructing. Loving you and Derida

[@ValorPerformance]

“I don’t tend to do well joining groups” is completely irrelevant and not an answer to the thought experiment. The exercise is not to decide whether or not you would voluntarily go out of your way to join the Nazi party. It’s what would you do if your life circumstances were forcing you to either join or aid the Nazi party. Peterson does not claim people are inherently evil, as you say he does. He simply notes how ones environment, more often than not, dictate their actions. The reason you do not find the low IQ problem terrifying (as Peterson states he does) is bc that isn’t a burden nature placed on your shoulders. If you or your child had this problem you may feel very different. And I in no way wish this on you or anyone else. I really enjoy your channel and will continue to tune in.

[@kicksyyarosh5708]

I wouldn't have been a Nazi either They always wore grey Uniforms And I prefer Sports Gear with Bright Colours.

[@jshays007]

Exactly ... Wes Cecil has taken Peterson out of context ... See the book for reference ... Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning

[@bedosar]

@@jshays007 Why is that almost anyone criticizing Peterson is almost always met with the excuse of being taken out of context?

[@ValorPerformance]

@@kicksyyarosh5708 lol this checks out

[@ValorPerformance]

@@jshays007 Ordinary men came to mind for me too. Horrifyingly enlightening.

[@Naomi-br7rh]

Thanks for the video. I don't agree with the first point -- Jordan isn't saying that everyone is secretly a nazi with only the thin veneer of society to prevent them. He is interested in why ideologies lead people to commit the horrible acts that they do. If we say that most people were not nazis, only a few bad apples, we limit explanation to just that, rather than really asking what it was that led 'good' people to do those things (which btw the only way we will understand it and therefore the only way we can prevent it happening again). Peterson says we are both Rousseau and Hobbes, he does not think everyone is evil. He says that we can't really understand how people (including ourselves) behave in times of desperation or crisis (incl during the war) because most of us spend all of our lives living in security. We look at people around us and think that this is how people behave when this is really only how people behave in a safe culture. By saying that it was the nazis that committed horrible acts in the war, we are falling into the language and thought which led to those acts in the first place -- group thinking. To Jordan, what the nazis did tells us how humans act, not how nazis act. Watch his Maps of Meaning lectures for more info, I think they are fascinating (he talks most about what I have just mentioned in the Harvard ones, start of first lecture)

[@AstroSquid]

I'm sure Jordan would have a talk with you, would be great to watch/listen to that video.

[@plateoshrimp9685]

I guarantee you this will never happen. Peterson will never confront anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about. He agreed to debate Zizek because he bought his persona as a slovenly fool and he got burned. You will never see Peterson engage with any serious challenge to his ideas again.

[@AstroSquid]

@@plateoshrimp9685 Zizek, was that even a debate?

[@mrjpb23]

No way that’d happen. Peterson only engages people who pull a big audience because he’s mostly interested in spreading his gospel (and conveniently getting rich doing it). He doesn’t enjoy dissent.

[@VincentGanshert]

Why are you sure that Jordan would have a talk with him? He hasn’t actually debated anyone capable of debating the issues he bases his whole career on, for many years; once he got rich from his grift it became far too financially risky. You’re right the talk with Zizek wasn’t a real debate; it was supposed to be a debate about Marxism and he admitted in his opening that he hadn’t ever read any Marxist theory (his entire contemporary career is essentially bashing Marxism), and that he had reread only one of Marx’s shortest books the night before the debate. It is far too risky for any conservative grifter to debate on the issues they make their lucrative salaries “discussing”, they rely on audiences undereducated in the subjects, and talking with any serious expert would have them exposed immediately. This is the case with Peterson. It true for any of the conservative grifters, they all make a LOT of money and will NOT risk it. Look up the debate records of Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Charley Kirk, it’s always the same, if they’ve ever been dumb enough to try to debate an expert they are instantly exposed as charlatans, pseudo-intellectuals, grifters, scammers and liars. These people are nothing but complete frauds, and if you look into their debate histories, and the debates they spend their careers running from, you should start to get the picture if your at all perceptive. He’s made millions of dollars talking about subjects he has basically no knowledge of to people who have no knowledge of the subjects. It’s EXTREMELY predatory and disingenuous. It is pedaling lies about serious subjects on a mass scale and it genuinely harms society. Anyone who honestly learns enough about these subjects will see that people like Jordan Peterson are completely fraudulent public characters. If you need ANY clarification on this, please ask. And please tell your friends or anyone who has fallen for these frauds ✌️

[@AstroSquid]

@@VincentGanshertLol, there is a view, a very distorted one, also a character attacking one. Hmmm, a lot of that has been going around since woke people took over the internet... Good luck with your view. Btw, Zizek agreed with Jordan's views.

[@JohnChampagne]

"You can't help them" means you can't raise their IQ or correct other persistent deficits. It doesn't mean you can't invite them to dinner sometimes or help them with some chores.

[@pillmuncher67]

IQ is Voodoo.

[@jeffwells641]

I watched a surprisingly inspirational video recently by a guy who has an IQ of 70 and is working to improve it. And he is finding success, with the video itself being about his finally being able to hold down a job at McDonald's. Now he's probably never going to reach an IQ of 100, and probably a 90 is unlikely as well. But 80's certainly didn't seem out of reach.

[@JohnChampagne]

@@jeffwells641 That is inspiring.

[@JustMe-ob7lu]

To be fair, he said: "Most likely to be a nazi " 2nd: according to my older fellow citizens in Austria, he could be right (peterson)

[@crazierthan-u7571]

I thought Peterson was saying, at least in part, that the Germans didn't have horns and pointy tails; they were people, no different from us. There were "Aryans" in Germany and other countries who, at great personal risk, gave aid and protection to the persecuted among them. In a situation like that, heroes are scarce, and most of us probably wouldn't have been one.

[@godsstrength7129]

Yeah it’s pretty obvious anybody who says they wouldn’t have been a Nazi for sure under ANY circumstance only says that because they see themselves as sheep not as wolves but Jordan Peterson has studied long and hard the shadow aspect of humans and how we are unaware of how evil we truly are like in the Book Ordinary Men. Also being “not part of a group” is a really silly argument because people also would join the Nazi’s out of fear as well so you really have no idea if you would be brave enough to stand up to Nazis especially if they threaten you or your family

[@SorinSilaghi]

The Stanford Prison Experiment was not about showing that given the opportunity regular college students would become sadistic prison guards. The experiment was about showing that if you manipulate human interactions to take away the things we do naturally, like empathy, you can turn perfectly nice college students into sadistic prison guards in a relatively short period of time. The point isn't whether people are inherently good or bad but rather that people are both good and bad and that society can bring either the best or the worst in people. Jordan Peterson makes this point constantly, which you seem to have missed. He uses this quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, all the time: "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

[@ebogar42]

They were never nice college students. The experiment just brought out their sadistic side that they hide in public. Some weren't into it as much as others either, but some people are bad and will do bad shit to people given just a little power. Some aren't bad but get pressured by others easily. Not all Nazis hated Jews, but still went along with it.

[@SorinSilaghi]

@@ebogar42 you'll have to provide some kind of citation for me to take that as an argument. I've read the book that Zimbardo wrote about the experiment and I don't remember there being any indication about what you're saying. But this was a few years ago so I might be wrong.

[@ebogar42]

@@SorinSilaghi Probably not, but why is his opinion right again? It's just his observation based on his opinion of what he thinks people are before they do the experiment. He thinks they are good. I disagree. I think they just hid that shit. People aren't good and never were to me based on how I've viewed people over the years. People are fake. They hide it all the damn time. Just because they act good in public doesn't mean they wouldn't fuck you up, bully you, or talk shit if they got some power. Our entire country is raised on hitting on someone when you don't get your way, but you think they all came in there back in those days never touched in their life, or ever learned any of that violent behavior from their parents or friends? You all need to wake up. Most people aren't good people and will stab you in the back to get ahead in life.

[@SorinSilaghi]

@@ebogar42 I agree that everything is fake in your country, I got the same impression when I visited years ago. I live in Romania. The book is called the Lucifer Effect and goes into great detail about how the experiment was run. The candidates were split randomly between guards and prisoners and, from what I can remember, they weren't told exactly what was going to happen. There is valid criticism directed at the experiment but in my opinion it doesn't invalidate it as a demonstration of how things can go wrong. I think your opinion is cynical and I don't think there is anything I can say to change it. That's OK, for all I know it could be totally justified. But regardless if people are inherently good or bad, cynicism doesn't lead anywhere good in the long run.

[@dukimanx6228]

Wrong. Read the book written by the guy who did the actual experiment. What the experiment showed is that putting untrained people with no support in high responsibility positions leads to psychological overload. It says nothing about our inner nature.

[@scythermantis]

Despite having some (severe as well as not-so-severe) disageements with you, what I really do value is the way you constantly seem to basically be saying "IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE" which is something I've been screaming for much of my life. That being said, it is important to remember the following as well: You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see. - C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

[@stevedriscoll2539]

It's a little odd to me that of all the malevolent things that happen on this rock that you would have such a bone to pick with this guy of all people...everyone is ignorant in so many things, and it seems that calling him out on these certain facts does not address the majority of his appeal to folks

[@chrisdiver6224]

I have felt put off by Mr. Peterson because he comes across as wanting to be an Authority who has Answers and as cold, humorless, and aggressive. Whether on the political left or right, these characteristics in a speaker tend to attract believers looking for confirmation of their social conditioning. What we all desperately need instead is the thoughtful, humane, respectful airing of different points of view so that we are challenged to think for ourselves about what we had previously taken for granted.

[@joness1056]

As someone who has watched a lot of Jordan Peterson and like a lot of his work, I still agree with this. His approach is understandably off putting for a lot of people, the way he hammers his points home in such a serious manner can get overly tiring I find. I find him much more easier to tolerate when he's speaking with someone else who can bring a lighter touch to balance things out, and I think there are quite a few good interviews out there. I've spring-boarded off a lot of his points and have learned a lot from this but I do see how his views could be taken as gospel by a lot of people based on his stern approach, and how that can polarises his audience.

[@beedi1]

You are getting so stuck on the details you are missing the point.

[@vukcevu5854]

The thing about being Nazi in Nazi Germany to me is that people have both good and evil side and also about having a "free will" to choose it so then living in environment that wants your evil side you will most likely show evil side. Hitler got 37% on election and his popularity and number of members just kept going up. It would help if we look at a different angle. Im pretty sure that Nazis from Germany if they lived in SSSR they wouldve been Communists.

[@Luke2777F]

I'll love to hear your lectures on Hume, Locke, Hobbs...

[@Bombbashable]

He absolutely never says “you would’ve been a nazi, so be careful of throwing stones”. He tries to explain that it is worthwhile to see how you would have been a nazi in order to GUARD you from being sucked into such ideologies”. Pretty big freaking difference for the intellectual exercise.

[@shyguy1845]

@@fleontrotsky yep apparently no one understands him unless he agrees with him. It's also ironic how Peterson's "fans" are always claiming that people who criticize don't understand Peterson even though Peterson himself doesn't understand the thinkers he's criticising.

[@Bombbashable]

@@fleontrotsky are you saying that this isn’t a misunderstanding?

[@deleted01]

@@shyguy1845 triggered

[@shyguy1845]

@@deleted01 what a great rebuttal.

[@lukedavis6711]

Hes saying both obviously. If you dont guard yourself you will probably follow the evil out of ignorance, and even if you do guard yourself you still might.

[@user-nm3ug3zq1y]

It's really funny how people can watch JP's videos - with the plan of making a video about him - and misinterpret his words in so obvious ways. All you need to do is to watch the original full lecture video where the snippet came from and get the context. He's a bit of a story teller, presenting the material in an entertaining way for his students. He emphasizes certain things. Do you believe the point was recounting the precise number of Jews living in Germany at that point in time, or was he maybe trying to make a general point about something else? You'll hardly find a lecturer who isn't being a bit polemic or colorful or whatever here and there. (At least none you'd want to listen to.) However, if you already are biased when you approach someone, you'll treat every casual remark, every small slip, as a sign of dishonesty. (And I think this is dishonest.) JP's point is not that humans are inherently bad. His point is that being a hero is really hard, if it's not in a movie, and if you're actually gonna stand up for what's right, there might be all sorts of dark impulses in you of which you don't know yet, that by no means are limited to actual active malice. The 'ducking', the 'looking the other way', then rationalizing it, like 'what can I do anyway? Probably they did something to deserve it...', that's all part of it. He's saying that from relatively peaceful times like ours it is relatively easy to 'speak out against evil', because what's the consequences? A few likes and hearts on Facebook? If you *really* were living in Nazi Germany, in Maoist China or whatever, it's just not obvious if you *really* would act heroically. The very least you can't just assume it haughtily. 'You likely would have been a Nazi' can't be interpreted as 'careful consideration of all available data suggests that ...' I mean, come on, that should be obvious. Are you a human being or a bot? Then the next example where you get all hung up about that he thinks it's 'terrifying', that society has no plan in place for what to do with people with low intelligence... You're fearmongering here, claiming he is saying this to fearmonger, shutting down thinking. That's pure fiction. Have you ever looked at the actual world? Have you ever turned on Fox News? Do you think, there WILL be any plan to create a support system in the USA that leaves no one behind? Really? Nope, right? The last decades of neolib, neocon etc. suggest that this will just go on, everyone 'being responsible for themselves', while the easy jobs die out. You'd need to be REALLY ignorant - or evil - to not find this terrifying or at least understand why someone might think it is. Also, he is NOT saying that 'nothing can be done' - he's saying that everything he knows about IQ research suggests that nothing can be done TO RAISE INTELLIGENCE! Quite convenient, how you left out this crucial part, making him look like a monster. If you had listened around honestly for a while, you'd have figured out that he's WORRIED about this, because so many people being left out will destabilize society and eventually harm everyone. What do you believe he wanted to suggest? That they're be put into camps? You might have better said it then, because otherwise you might just instill fear in our hearts towards JP. The hypocrisy is just unbelievable. Then you make the claim that he promotes selection for aggression with jobs, so effectively men yadayada... Only that he isn't doing that. In a million places he's saying that the main factor is COMPETENCE. Foremost intelligence and conscientiousness predict success in life. However, in all sorts of hierarchies there's a tendency towards corruption, and power games are being played, and in such a setting, disagreeable (instead of aggressive) will more likely come out on top, especially the very top. He does not say that this is the way to do things. Mostly this is a counter argument to the oversimplification of 'the system is rigged against women' - of which you seem to be fond of. He is also not promoting not to ever socially intervene, he's saying that many interventions aren't well thought out and end up making things worse instead of better, so you need to be really, really careful. Seriously, this is all not hard to figure out. You need to try harder. You're just strawmanning the guy into oblivion, like you've seen other people do.

[@TheDamnSpot]

The fact of whether you are a joiner is irrelevant. When your choice is the moral horror of joining versus the physical horror of being gassed in the showers... Well, none of us would know for certain what we would do. Also, the spirit of his example is not specific to those joining the party. His point is about going along to get along and not be killed. The sophistry in your answer does not serve your argument.

[@pillmuncher67]

So, wanting to survive makes one a Nazi?

[@TheDamnSpot]

@@pillmuncher67 Wanting to survive is simply human. On one level I think it is immoral to judge someone who commits atrocities in order to survive. I'd say that depending on the moment in one's life that the choice is placed in front of them, it may be that 98% of us would make the choice to simply do as we are told. An 18 year old is much more likely to chose life over death, regardless of what the cost is. If someone has a family or dependents, they're much more likely to justify becoming a monster. A father will do whatever he has to to save his child. Same for a mother. On another level the Nuremberg trials have established that society itself can be held accountable to some degree. That individuals can be made to pay for the sins of the collective. I mean that's what the post-war trials were about; the idea that humanity would rather inflict more damage on people who are fundamentally victims themselves than to tolerate holocausts on any practical level. Those who were hung were mostly the actual bad guys. But there were a few that were victims themselves - as well as perpetrators. It gets murky real quick. Being a Nazi is different from being a coward. Being a coward is not a sin. Being a Nazi, especially a jack boot wearing SS officer, is a sin. A sin unlike any other. I am a believer in forgiveness and a path to the light for everyone. Even Hitler. But I also believe that the price to come back to the light must be paid. And sometimes the world doesn't even give you enough life to pay it - even if you were to live a thousand years.

[@tylerasire244]

Not sure you contextualized what he said wholly appropriately, but even so some good points were in here.

[@quintindittmer5834]

He absolutely is. Jordan peterson just talks out of his ass with a bunch of jargon. He deserves a more brutal comprehensive takedown than this.

[@kevinhornbuckle]

This is the most learned challenge to him that I have seen. I support his clinical psychology work. His ideas and methods are good within that realm.

[@Popclone]

When Jordon Peterson became popular on KZbin I started watching his videos, I became very excited about his “lectures”, then after 3 hours in I realized he was re-hashing the BIBLE in his own words, spewing fancy words and expressions to bait people into his old Bible World. The man is preaching religion through his fancy wording. The man is a facade, a business man. I don’t know how many noticed that. To me his very dangerous, smells like a cult. He has nothing to offer. His popular because everything he spews confirms with Christians and Christians love that, he dose all this subliminal. He constantly says ; paraphrasing “its not what you think, it’s something else”, but it is the same old thing in a new fancy box.

[@pillmuncher67]

As I already wrote under another take down video of Peterson: Peterson is a quack who misleads young impressionable men. He sells them false self-assuredness and religion in the guise of deep philosophical wisdom that he misrepresents or just made up to feed on their insecurities. In them, he has an army of defenders on the interwebs that try to drown out all criticism against him. And the more people criticize him, the more these young men feel they belong to an elite club of wise men who see through the veil of fashionable wokeness into the real world of eternal manliness. Think Fight Club. IOW: He's a cult leader

[@2424-j2j]

Jordan Peterson over-simplifies our human predicament. He extols traditional roles and myths that preserve his privileged place in society. He does not address social inequality that has contributed to so much disfunction and strife. Thanks for calling into account the “facts” that support his arguments.

[@VermeersLens]

You've hit the nail on the head; I do noticed JP tends to interpret statistics on social conditions in an absolutely Darwinian sense as if thoroughly immune to human interventions. This seems a strange response even if the statistics are completely correct. In a sense he's like Pangloss in Candide.

[@MiguelThinks]

I wish more people pointed this out. Me having been a Peterson fan to now very critical of him, I fail to see why so many still defend Peterson. Are they just a lot of new young fans or something?

[@MsNessbit]

@@MiguelThinks Yes, I think they've mostly been exposed to him via The Joe Rogan Experience. (At least initially).

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

What else would you expect from a cognitive psychologist, with zero knowledge of hypnotherapuetic techniques? He's not exactly Milton Erickson.

[@spamhands]

Have you done a lecture onKarl Schmidt a critique of liberalism?

[@Siddarable]

This is first criticism of Peterson I've heard that actually makes sense.

[@stevenrichardson1843]

I thought JP thought that an interest in things more than people was the key difference in choosing occupations. Then, the willingness to specialise, and sacrifice other things in order to get to the top. I don't remember him saying aggression was the main differential between men and women at the top level

[@onthemagenta]

That’s the main difference in field - specialization, industry etc. it is people vs things. The predictor of success within those fields (or any) tends to be aggression (occasionally expertise, but still requires a measure of aggression to position oneself). Hence why so many managers and people in charge tend to be assholes.

[@stevenrichardson1843]

@@onthemagenta I'm going to watch the video again if it's ok to respond? I think you're correct in everything you said. Just not sure it was an accurate criticism of JP's position.

[@OMiskell]

You sir are correct.

[@dr.redphdleasurestudies.5399]

Very disappointed. There are problems with JP's work but instead of actually addressing them you're doing this strawman thing. Quit being lazy. It's beneath your intellectual capacity.

[@AANasseh]

If your argument is that JP’s belief that humans can be evil is wrong then you need to study Chimp behavior in the wild. Chimps are extremely vivacious animals within and between their tribes. Yes, they are primarily cooperative within their tribe but make no mistake. They become violent when necessary towards each other and other chimps too. As our civilization has placed a thicker facade of complexity over this reality, we forget that we are of the same cloth and our violent tendencies have been programmed into our head genetically over millions of years while culture is holding the facade only over the past few thousand years. JP’s positions are valid, even if the Stanford experiment was not repeated successfully,

[@bradwilson6601]

Stopped watching when you said "no, I would not have been a Nazi". You have no idea.

[@theethicalhacker7271]

That’s why he made it a question. keyword “would”

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

Maybe you would not have been a Nazi party member, but you would have certainly turned a blind eye to all the atrocities the Nazis were doing. Perhaps that's what Jordan Peterson should have said rather than "you would have been a Nazi".

[@theethicalhacker7271]

@@FinalLugiaGuardian I agree !

[@sunflare8798]

And you have?

[@stevedriscoll2539]

I think (whatever that signifies) that one should sparingly use the word "facts". It always seems to make one's argument (however right, wrong, indifferent, or whatsoever) seem contiguous and logical (and ominous). I think everthing is only relative;, and, whether there are any such things as objects (facts) or objectivity is speculative. However, I enjoyed your talk.

[@deprogramr]

I would say that the "Jordan Peterson Problem" is more about the evolutionary necessity of religion as an embodied ethical framework. Something about when people think they have jettisoned religion, they may have just invented a new one that they don't yet understand as such...

[@rhaunshoden5304]

This is one of my favorites topics to hear him speak on.

[@sunflare8798]

Nonsense, there is no evolutionary necessity of religion as an embodied ethical framework. If you think there is, show us the evidence for that claim.

[@deprogramr]

@@sunflare8798 hmmm, It's not a scientific claim. It's a teleological concept around how we organize ourselves, and use language and protocol to serve our goals or at least perceived goals. Related would be something like this quote from De Maistre... “Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists.”

[@sunflare8798]

@@deprogramr Too bad as the most important philosophers, from Kant and Hume to Spinoza and Nietzsche all rejected a teleological order of the world. And even what you said has nothing to do with religion but simply with the organizing of our daily activities. Peterson will be remembered as one of the lowest points in our current cultural enviroment.

[@3DaysTillGrace]

@@sunflare8798 sounds like you worship science like it’s a religion. Maybe you should check yourself before criticizing others?

[@krumpelschtiltzkeen]

I would not agree that the military selects for aggressiveness. I was a Marine. They more select for agreeableness. Really. And that makes if you think about. I think Peterson is wrong to characterize women as more agreeable than men, and about many other of his characterizations of men and women.

[@AlexanderKoryagin]

As always, thank you very much for such a well balanced and insightful presentation! I don't know enough about Peterson to have an intelligent opinion, but next time a student asks me, I think I can safely direct them to your video!

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

Well, considering a majority of his claims about Peterson are flat out incorrect I wouldn’t. I would grant him that Peterson is almost begging people to misinterpret him oftentimes, though.

[@vygotsky17]

Dear Wes. I would love to get your take on Lacan. Would you consider doing a video on him?

[@lukedavis6711]

That would be amazing! Lacan and then how Zizek is influenced by Lacan. Totally disagree with Lacan and think hes as dumb as alternative history or alien abduction but how his ideas influenced people would be interesting.

[@Dan-ud8hz]

“It seems to be easier for us today to imagine the thoroughgoing deterioration of the earth and of nature than the breakdown of late capitalism; perhaps that is due to some weakness in our imagination.” ― Fredric Jameson, The Seeds of Time

[@burnsloads]

Can you form an original thought or do you just copypasta from note pad?

[@Ggeorgiev89]

Beach property goes for 50 000 dollars because it will be under water in less than 5 years in my worlds, also in yours..?

[@flacjacket]

What we are experiencing isn't the result of 'late capitalism', it is the result of 'late stage' liberal democracy. The left is entropy, the tearing down of borders, often it is a good thing, often the boundaries really do oppress, often even arbitrarily so, but sometimes it isn't arbitrary, some walls are load bearing, and of those only so many can be torn down before the roof falls in upon us.

[@cheapshot2842]

@@flacjacket A wall stands only to separate one from other. Beware the other, praise the wall. Praise the other, beware the wall.

[@barbcarbon9440]

Thank you so much for this, Wes. As a fledgling philosopher, I got sucked into a lot of the Peterson stuff early on. Something felt off about it. This was such a great clarifying response to him. And brave… I can see you’re already taking some hits here. His devout followers are a lively bunch, but please don’t let that keep you from doing these kinds of videos. Those of us who need help navigating what is out there really appreciate you!

[@coopersy]

It is amazing how many Jordan apologists storm any video that disagrees….

[@coopersy]

Sorry if I offend, but over the past year around a dozen social commentators I follow have discussed Mr. Peterson’s seeming need to stir things up. Almost always there are way more comments than there would normally be with most outraged anyone would question Jordan’s stance. That is weird because I wouldn’t normally expect any crossover of followers at all…. To quote Mr. Peterson “statistically that’s just strange”. Of course it is anyone’s right to look for people commenting on their heroes, nothing wrong with that at all…

[@Menapho]

I think this is a good subject to address. Thank you for taking it on.

[@robert_a6228]

Peterson believes we have the capacity for evil, not that we are inherently evil. He often references Jungs concept of the shadow and Solzshenitsyn work, specifically his quote stating that the line between good and evil runs down the human heart. Thus with this point, Peterson urges that Nazi Germany is the responsibility of the individual to prevent, by getting their act together. It is deeply optimistic point fundamentally, although terrifying.

[@arterial]

Even Joe Rogan caught him out on his equality of outcome nonsense concerning incels.

[@lukenardoni2454]

Jordan Peterson: “You would have been a Nazi!” Jordan Peterson fan: “What does he mean ‘would have been’?”

[@nickhockings443]

I'm sorry to hear you citing the BBC version of the prison experiment. Did you not take the time to look up the critisism of it ?

[@BCPorthos]

Thank you for this. Your comments section will be a lot more interesting with this video. I think an example of tribalism is about to play out here. I find Petersen interesting on the same level I find you interesting. I agree with some parts of what you said but not other parts. But you have shared your insights which gives me a new lens to look what he says. I value that, again thanks. I truly enjoy your channel it has made Covid easier to endure. Enjoy your Sunday.

[@heartbeatplantation795]

I agree, although I have a rather different Impression of Peterson. Peterson is a psychologist and not a philosopher. One difference is that he talked to many people with serious mental health problems and screwed families and social networks. His main point about IQ is that it is a widely known and ignored problem. Also his point about gender difference is that most men and women are the same. Only on the extremes a difference in genders appear. There is a disproportionally large emphasis on extremly well paid positions. There are some very well paid jobs where the best people are the smartest people working as hard as they can. People that are in this successful minority positions are pretty much 24/7 available for work. And the point he makes is that the positions this people have are not as desirable as one might think, because almost their whole life is dedicated to their work. And in some fields this dedication to work really matters (he likes to use lawyers as example). I thinks Cecil would agree that it is crazy to work 70+ hours a week if you have more than enough money to live a happy life. And his experince is that many women in their thirties choose a family insted of a life dedicated to work. But for the majority of people gender differences are not that big of a deal. And I am well aware that Peterson clips portray a differen't picture. But if one watches Peterson in his lectures or longer talks one gets a more nuanced view of him. Also I think that his fundamental picture of humanity is positive altough we certainly have the capacity for evil.

[@dougstofelonline3710]

Re the “you would have been a Nazi” question. You’re response (paraphrased): “No, because I’m not a “joiner” of things!”. Well, that’s easy to say sitting in the safety of Modern day America. I’d venture to say it would have been a different story if you had to make that decision in Nazi era Germany when the consequence of being a “ non-joiner” of things could have very well meant life or death or success or failure professionally. Similar to many classic painters (ie Leonardo da Vinci ) who claimed to be Christian. We don’t know for sure if they were…we only know for sure what would have happened to them if they openly claimed they were not.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

There were plenty of people who never joined the Nazi party, or who maybe paid lip service to it. Richard J Evans says - there was coercion, but many people just outwardly conformed and kept to themselves. Doesn't mean to say they resisted or anything, just refuse to believe. More difficult after 1933 though I guess because you had then the question of being exposed to Nazi propaganda for much of your life..

[@kenth151]

After a few minutes of listening to you, I can see why you have 16K views and 31 K subscribers; while Jordan has millions of views and millions of subscribers.

[@Avanti12]

🙌🙌🙌spot on!!

[@ItsCronk]

Owned with facts and logic, epic!!!!!

[@shyguy1845]

That makes no sense alot of great thinkers(I'm not Implying he's a great thinker btw) never got recognition during thier lifetime. reputation and fame ≠ being right.

[@pillmuncher67]

As someone else under another take down video of Peterson wrote: By that logic we should all follow the grand philosophy of Mr. PewDiePie.

[@bobolishis7]

Why would you regret it. Controversy does not exist on channels but amongst channels.

[@bensaylor9093]

NOW DO ZIZEK! Wes, please. Do Zizek.

[@JacquesduPlessis11]

And so on, and so on... (my zizek)

[@VincentGanshert]

Do Zizek in what sense?

[@chrisc7265]

@@VincentGanshert anally

[@jsuisdetrop]

@@bensaylor9093 What's the point of your initial comment again?

[@bensaylor9093]

@@jsuisdetrop that I'd like Wes to do a video talking about how he views the works and influence of Zizek's philosophy. Is it really this hard to interpret this comment? Or do I need to have a big pedantic stick up my ass to comment on this channel?

[@cjhepburn7406]

No one seen Valkirie?

[@Jason-ms8bv]

Thanks for stepping out of your comfort zone and tackling this one Wes, I for one am very suspicious of much of JP's sophistry and misrepresentations going unquestioned.

[@otaliesin2133]

Then he can do the most good by tackling US politicians!

[@davidsafier6333]

I remember in the mid 90s seeing tourist helicopters flying above and then UNDER the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm guessing 9-11 stopped that practice.

[@balloonhead61]

Wes suffers from an arrogant certainty selective facts to weave this talk also he produces a burning strawman to counter lazy lad

[@jebidiahnewkedkracker1025]

I am forced to admit that the thumbnail pic of the United Airlines commercial craft flying under the Golden Gate Bridge prompted me to click this video on. I don't know why, but I find the picture almost mesmerizing. Perhaps I will actually listen to this later, but as far as clickbait, I find such a picture truly remarkable, and knowing that it is phony only adds to the fascination that I have for it.

[@wdavis7655]

Check the shadow out. It is shorter than the plane. Wonder what the light source was.

[@jebidiahnewkedkracker1025]

@@wdavis7655 I really do not think this is a real photograph--I believe it is a fake photograph. I just find it fascinating because I'm wondering if it has any meaning for the person who posted it to KZbin, or if such a photo was made or posted on nothing more than a mere whim....I mean why United Airlines? Why is it flying under the Golden Gate Bridge, and not under (say) the Bay Bridge?? (United Airlines does not even utilize that color scheme on their aircraft any longer anyways!)

[@wdavis7655]

@@jebidiahnewkedkracker1025 Yes, I assumed it was a created image. My point, meant to be ‘kind of’ humorous is that creators of images sometimes don’t look at the image they have created. i.e. The mental image stays mental. But then again maybe it was deliberate.

[@jebidiahnewkedkracker1025]

@@wdavis7655 If it WAS deliberate, I would sure like to know the story! The image is so strange and compelling to me, that I wouldn't mind having it blown up and hung on my wall.

[@lLenn2]

The Wes Cecil Problem: uncharitable

[@bretta7057]

Woke up to this notification: “Wes Cecil added a new video: The Problem with Jordan Peterson” ...am I still dreaming?!😍

[@Macoak1]

I thought this video was about an airplane‘United’ flying underneath the Golden Gate Bridge. I talked about this in COLLEGE!!!!

[@saqlaq96]

Probably the most reasonable critique of Peterson. Although I think that the argument about aggression and hierarchies was misrepresented. Peterson tends to specify that the selection criteria is “competence” or the will to work and make ridiculous amounts of money (in the top 1% of the people in these demanding jobs), not aggression.

[@memecathar1263]

Just stop reading the comments right now. Save yourself

[@inph1del]

I can see where your perspective may come from, but its an illusion. You cannot make the distinction you would not have been, your personality is made up of your life experiences. taking who you are now and inserting your personality from now to then. Is not in the slightest a good argument that you would not have been. That's to say if Hitler was born in the US he still would have become a Nazi, somehow. By saying you would not have, is to say you couldn't have due to deterministic rules of how your brain would manifest itself to think as you do now as you are to say you wouldn't. This is a paradox. Couldn't say for sure. but the point is, all people are capable of selfish and cooperative goals. This ranging from eating everything for yourself, to murder in the name of, to giving your only food to someone else. Strange comments.

[@brucebruno842]

The problem we run into when we wonder if we OURSELVES would have been Nazi party members is to think of OURSELF as not OURSELF. WE wouldn't be OURSELVES if we were in the time of the Nazi party, because WE do not exist in that period. WE can not comprehend such a thing, since WE can not comprehend not being OURSELF as WE ARE. We are who we are, and to imagine ourselves any other way would cause conceptual conflicts. Instead, you have to imagine people in general. This way you can approach the thought experiment in a completely unbiased manner, and not run into conceptual conflicts of another nature either. Mainly YOU being YOU, and YOU not being able to completely comprehend an experience outside of YOUR OWN experience, especially an experience rooted in another period coming out of another period headed into another period, all of which YOU have never experienced. You MUST divorce YOURSELF from the equation! YOU are rooted in THIS period; which is incomparable to that period in time. I think that the "INTELLIGENCE" in "I".Q. is misleading. Intuitive types; which I am, score the highest on these "tests", and who do you think makes these " tests", Intuitives. It is more like a "how much do you think like me" test or a "how does intuition factor into your conscious and subconscious functions" test. The I.Q. test used to be, mainly, in WORDED format, and WORDS have a subjective meaning to them. Meaning, a word or words can be interpreted differently. Introverted Intuitives, like me, found more than one valid way to answer the questions, so they changed to PICTURES, and all of a sudden Extroverted Intuitives started scoring the highest since Extroverted Intuition deals with the "objective" and not the "subjective". PICTURES/SHAPES don't have a "subjective" element to them, since they are "objective". The point is, it's a test for Intuition/patterns and not Intelligence. Intelligence can manifest in many ways and be focused on many different forms of information, ie. Kinesthetic, Emotional, Sensory, Intuitive, Subjective, Objective, etc... 10% have low I.Q. and don't contribute but in Mr. Petersons' own words only about 5-10% do almost 100% of the contributing, in this manner.

[@timothyblazer1749]

You know, you're falling prey to precisely the same bias you accuse JBP of having. Some of your points are valid, but you make sweeping generalizations, and employ assumptions about outcomes ( selecting for non aggressive pilots will decrease incidents, selecting for female traits in business will actually work in terms of the competitive landscape, etc) So I understand your concerns for his misstatements. I concur. I don't concur with your synthesis.

[@robsan5410]

I feel like wes just makes his assertions with a question mark at the end, which is simultaneously more honest in his lack of knowledge and dishonest in his biases toward a certain type of knowledge

[@timothyblazer1749]

@@robsan5410 certain type of knowledge? Not sure what you mean, unless you want to make an ontological argument about something? In my case, I'm speaking to his assumptions. He is assuming, without evidence, that aggressive pilots are, on average, more dangerous pilots. Until I see a controlled study on this, I won't concur. The same is true for female pilots...and also the assumption that female pilots will be less aggressive pilots. We don't know that either. So my concern is in his axiomatic approach to non knowledge. He assumes he knows something about things no one knows anything about.

[@robsan5410]

@@timothyblazer1749 I just meant that he has a pretty obvious liberal academia bias and he uses a general "measured skepticism" rhetorical style while subtley promoting his perspective. Nothing terribly wrong with that. I think that you're right that he makes some pretty big assumptions there, but assumptions are necessary in the pursuit of knowledge in my opinion. Im not sure if studies would even help in those cases as there are so many extraneous factors.

[@Illinoish]

I'm starting to think that 33 1/3 percent of people can be fooled anytime but that doesn't necessarily mean they're good or bad.

[@schumanhuman]

As someone who studies economics, I find his idea of the Pareto function explaining income inequality (beyond the gender divide) as innate extremely naive. It's just part of his cynical conservatism, 'Sure the world is tough bucko but that's just how it has to be' I'm no Marxist, but like many conservatives he makes a bogeyman out of Marxism and builds up a largely imagined Frankenstein's monster of post modernism and cultural Marxists for us to fear to obscure his own very shallow analysis of the political economy.

[@clemonsx90]

Watch the Russian movie Chekist

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

In what way is it extremely naive?

[@schumanhuman]

@@purplemonkeydishwasher9818 Because though he did acknowledge it is a problem, from the way he described it implied the extreme inequality is somehow a 'natural' consequence of free markets which align along the Pareto distribution thus he took a fatalistic point of view, which roughly came across as inequality = bad but socialism = worse. Of course some of the wealth inequality is derived from differences in merit as it should be, but the classical economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo, Mill etc all differentiated between earned and unearned income aka economic rent or monopoly rent. That is income derived from monopolistic privileges mostly in land but now also including intellectual property. And empirically it is not hard to show how the majority of wealth inequality today is made via this unearned income, not merit. When we have a free market more along the lines of what Smith et al envisioned, then we can look at how problematic inequality is. Peterson claims to be a reader of Tolstoy, perhaps he should try his last and censored book , 'Resurrection', by that time Tolstoy was a fervent supporter of Georgism which advocated the taxation of unearned rent even more than Smith and Ricardo.

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

​@@schumanhuman I don't think that Peterson would disagree with you. He hasn't claimed that income inequality is entirely the consequence of merit based interaction with market systems. In fact, he often points to the example of the board game "Monopoly" in his lectures to show how money/property eventually accumulates into the hands of just one player even in a game based almost purely on chance. His point is that these sorts of phenomenon will occur regardless of what market/product you're talking about. Any critique of hierarchies that points to the disparity in outcome as evidence of unfairness doesn't account for the fundamental fact that this is simply how trading games play out over time. Peterson's point when talking about the Pareto distribution in this context is usually followed by the point that redistribution and regulation that is aimed at keeping systems fair is used to soften the blows that naturally result from market interactions (i.e. providing a safety net). I would be careful in basing your critique of Peterson on this video. Despite it supposedly being a deep dive, Wes gets a surprising amount of Peterson's points wrong.

[@schumanhuman]

@@purplemonkeydishwasher9818 'he often points to the example of the board game "Monopoly" in his lectures to show how money/property eventually accumulates into the hands of just one player even in a game based almost purely on chance.' Does he mention that the game of monopoly was originally called 'The landlords game' which showed how inequality could be avoided by taxing land rents? The game had two sets of rules to display the difference between the two systems of real free markets and the crony privilege we have today. www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/monopoly-game-inspiration/ 'His point is that these sorts of phenomenon will occur regardless of what market/product you're talking about. ' Well no, that's the fatalism I'm talking about, capital goods can compete due to elasticity of both demand and supply. Monopoly power usually occurs through privilege and cronyism. Land is not capital, it is both fixed in aggregate supply and location ie you cannot ship cheap land from Alabama to New York. 'Buy land they aren't making any more of it.' is a phrase often attributed to Mark Twain. Hence goods have generally got a lot cheaper and/or better due to competition driving productivity, which is what free markets do well, but land had only got more expensive as it absorbs the productivity gains.

[@chrisrancat2808]

People chop up JP's videos, rename them to get views and repost them under their own channel hoping to make some money. Your number crunching is missing the point and Poland is flat in between western Europe and Russia. Who doesn't invade Poland. Your off base all over.the place.

[@larrybuzbee7344]

I have been aware of JP's existence for some time but have consistently avoided direct exposure. Given his persistence in the popular conciousness I dipped in here to test the waters, as it were. This is how I approach all such figures; by gathering a range of views on the subject before approaching it more directly. As I suspected from the outset and based on the very cogent analysis presented here, JP is of the simple answers to complicated questions ilk that has become so popular in our deeply shallow age. Telling people what they want to hear and dressing it up in pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo is a tried and true route to popular acclaim and the money and power that comes with it. Or, as P. T. Barnum so succinctly put it "If you want to sell it, paint it red".

[@tubedore]

On the contrary, always go to the source to make your own opinion, be authentic.

[@larrybuzbee7344]

@@tubedore Thanks for the advice. However it is often the case that viewing a source from afar will provide sufficient information to forewarn of danger. Take an active volcano for example, or a rampaging mob, or a self proclaimed leader. When I see any significant number of people dressing alike and following each other around I automatically seek high ground to observe events from a distance.

[@tubedore]

@@larrybuzbee7344 It’s not a matter of distance (from afar or up close) how you deal with the new phenomena, it’s your personal involvement with it that forms your own opinions, not only through the middleman (even as highly esteemed as Wess). It leads to lack of originality and perpetuate memetic outcome that you seem to dread.

[@larrybuzbee7344]

@@tubedore It is neither possible nor reasonable for you to tell me how i must form my opinions. Form yours as you wish and I shall do the same. Moreover, dread is not a component of my process, merely reasonable caution. As a reductionist sculptor and engineer, my innate tendency is to work from the edges toward the center. If I encounter a significant flaw in the material during that process I may either abandon the effort as likely to fail or I revise my goals. I am also acutely aware of my necessarily limited means and personal limitations so I take it as a first principle that I am unqualified to instruct others in their pursuit of truth or what path the should follow. Let me say this as circumspectly as possible; you might seek elsewhere to find a student worthy of your guidance, I've been Captain of my own ship for a very long time now.

[@tubedore]

@@larrybuzbee7344 Well, you put out your harsh judgment of Peterson without first hand knowledge and presented your methods of forming an opinion. I pointed out the discrepancy. With my own limited ability to know the truth, I expressed what caught my attention, you can take it or leave it. Also, thank you for bringing it to my attention that I might have been too direct in my advice. I did not intend to offend you, while defending Peterson.

[@thelorryist551]

The thing that bugs me about this is the constant use of "we", "system", and "organise". So you say it would be better to have a system that doesn't select for aggression. Ok, maybe, so how do we get there? Such a system is not happening spontaneously, so it needs to created by somebody. So wouldn't those somebody's need to pursue those changes with what could be described as aggression, even forcefulness? So, the new system would just be the same as the last, with the forceful and aggressive in charge. Isn't this what kept happening with communist regimes? The fundamental idea, justice for the workers, was good and charitable, but the revolutions required to make the changes just empowered tyrants. And they could then claim to be operating out of righteousness, not just self-interest, so were worse that what came before.

[@pillmuncher67]

There are such things as cooperation and mutual aid, you know?

[@clemonsx90]

Peterson explicitly says the government should help the 10 percent of people you accuse him of saying we shouldn't help. He is an economic progressive.

[@scythermantis]

Nietzsche as a tragic prophet and occupying the same dialectic as say, Dostoyevsky, is an important idea. The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. If Plato weren't there for you to anchor yourself against, then how much of your 'scathing critique' would even exist?

[@hamiltonmackenzie3340]

JP is a huge heart married to a superb brain - what better role model?

[@alibobali4032]

Yeah, trust me people get it. You need a daddy. If you want JP for daddy, go ahead.

[@xTimobaas]

With some bezos on the side.

[@tigerlilysoma588]

That’s crazy. He is an idiot. He even said he is a Christian. That means he believes in magic. It’s funny that Wes did a thing about him because I always tell people to listen to Wes Instead of Peterson. Half the stuff that moron says is just a repackaging of Carl Jung. Wes Cecil is definitely the superior intellectual and what’s more, I believe he would be embarrassed to read such compliments due to their decisive nature. Petter son is a looser. Go back to school kid

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

😂😂

[@hamiltonmackenzie3340]

@@alibobali4032 I didn’t mention Daddy, you did. You are trolling around JP and hitting out with daddy statements, projection much?

[@NancyLebovitz]

Also, not being welcome in the Army isn't equivalent to can't participate in society. !0% of people being significantly below average isn't surprising for a trait which is distributed on a bell curve. Aggression, assertion, and risk-taking aren't the same thing. To the extent that aggression is selected for, it might be because aggressive people are scary. It's not like selection is an arbitrary choice. Thanks for pointing out that Peterson is definitive about things which really aren't so definite.

[@filioque4509]

Peterson doesn't propose an ethical solution for those unable to prosper in society. He doesn't dismiss the problem either. He explicitly, and repeatedly proposes free, open and honest discussion on the topic. Actually, he explicitly states he doesn't know the solution, hence his emphasis on free speech, the original reason for his rise to fame.

[@burnsloads]

Wow. Somebody who actually read or listened to Peterson. I can't believe how blatantly ignorant Wes was in this video.

[@plateoshrimp9685]

This is exactly right. Peterson is a social Darwinist, and his proposal is that the totalitarian hierarchy he desires is just and natural (whatever that means), and that those who don’t prosper under this system of strict ideological conformity are innately flawed and can not be helped.

[@spaghettipunch2681]

Right, this is why left philosophical traditions are being called postmodern neomarxist plague by those around him, and the Soviet Union is portrayed as an evil empire, with the main reference to it being Solzhenitsyn, who has nothing to do with serious historiography. Come on man. I agree with his position that you have to be adamant with your arguments, so you always have to hammer them with all might to make sure they stand, but he himself sure fails at it sometimes and does not acknowledge it. How do you battle that?

[@JB-jr8zw]

I didn't expect to see a comment like this here :(

[@purplemonkeydishwasher9818]

@@plateoshrimp9685 lol what are you talking about. Peterson doesn’t say this at all.

[@victorguzman2302]

Peterson uses stereotypical generalizations that contain a little bit of a truth so that people accept his ideas without thinking too much or analyzing his rhetoric like you are doing now. Peterson talks to big audiences who are not very well educated or don’t have the historical facts because they are young and not into history or science at all. That’s his advantage. When he has gone to debate people like Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty, you can see his lack of real knowledge in some subjects.

[@luxtenebris7246]

I had high hopes at the beginning of this video when you started with the demonstration of some factual inaccuracies, but the whole thing fell apart when you tried to make the case that Peterson thinks we are all evil. That is contrary to the central tenet of all his work, which is that everyone has the capacity for both tremendous good and horrible evil and that it is largely our individual work and choices which dictate how that plays out. You either don’t understand Peterson or haven’t actually delved into his work. I hope you aren’t just doing a cursory glance at a couple of his KZbin clips and then putting his name in the title of your video to generate views.