You don't have ideas; Ideas have you - Jordan Peterson

[@TotalRookie_LV]

The idea of ideas having me has me.

[@introgauge]

Good for you! See you in 4 years😁

[@pebofatso]

"Whose pulling your strings?" is such a vital question

[@bhavagambhiram874]

I think I've got daddy issues with Professor Jordan Peterson, lol.

[@carrieshayne89]

Mind blown

[@petersullivan1409]

Best. Peterson. Clip.

[@ESOTERISMOYREALIDADES53]

nothing is more contagious than an IDEA--SPECIALLY OF FEAR..

[@tylertheultimatebadass87]

More wisdom like this please

[@ankitindahouse]

This is kinda like how genes use living bodies to propagate themselves. Some ideas are remarkably fecund and attractive. They latch onto humans and get propagated as a result.

[@andrest-laurent4041]

Only 2800 views. This is so important.

[@italia689]

Andre St-Laurent 2902 now. Be patient.

[@NiekBeenen]

7.3k. Hidden pearl still

[@HalfpennyCat]

calling someone a "fucking tool" just became all the more brutal.

[@alienspotter422]

Exactly! Thanks for the edit, Gravithan! / Maria Sederholm, Sweden

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Drink one less Starbucks a week and pitch in to keep these videos coming. www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson. Peterson's Patron page is just under 30k a month. Help push it to a grand a day.

[@happygoloopyrocks]

Peterson said that you can't claim ideas you took from books as your own, which is fair enough. However, does this also apply to taking the ideas in multiple sources and combining those in a idea not discussed by the books you've read then your own idea or is it then just a hybrid of the ideas you derived it from?

[@introgauge]

Whatever idea claimed you first, should answer your question.

[@marko6489]

That is an ego problem. Me, me, me.. truth is truth, you either see it or dont.

[@Steve-ls2hg]

Kind of reminds me of what Howard Bloom wrote about in the Lucifer Principle

[@habibhassan7770]

This hit me so hard

[@doncarlodivargas5497]

this is correct but an idea must first appeal and it must give answers before it can 'own' you, the scary thing is it is typically the escape from personal responsibility which is the appealing part, that's also why all ideologies are dangerous and have something evil in it

[@thedevo01]

The appeal of "escaping from personal responsibility" is in part useful. An idea *should*, after all, only appeal to you if it makes your life easier in some measurable way that is of interest.

[@rickstevens1167]

Science is an ideology. And it is not evil.

[@MrCementer88]

Dostoevsky said/wrote it first in Demons. Jung learned it from him.

[@davefischer2344]

lol most people define their ideas by misconceptions, over emotion, and narcissism.

[@haxlwaxl997]

okay... i dont get it.

[@MannFace51]

Think about it, say for example you have a friend that really hates group 'X'. Your friend gives you all the reasons why he says he hates group X and why you should too. You notice that there are also a ton of other people like your friend out there too, and they agree on all the points your friend makes. The problem is, this idea is not *his* idea, it is an idea that he got from someone else and that he has adopted himself. In other words, It has *HIM*, he doesn't have IT. Your friends "idea" has the ability to influence his outlook on the world and his actions in it (like a disease that infects the mind) and can be easily spread by exchanging information through speech or what have you. This is how fascism, communism, and every other ism spread: they grasped the culture they took hold of by the throat and essentially told it what to do by *its* standards. And that's why it's dangerous. You must identify the ideas or memes you abide by and decide which are genuinely yours or something you adopted too, then decide if they harm or help you. Hope that helps.

[@nikolaneberemed]

Like the idea that there's a God? Whose idea was that? Certainly not the idea of any believer, they just accepted it, they did not come up with it.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Good point, but it seems like this idea of God comes up over and over throughout the ages. In different forms. It seems like some kind of basic need to have some focus of belief. It's just so prevalent. But indeed, that would be a good question to ask him. Why don't you?

[@nikolaneberemed]

Supernatural ideas did crop up all over the world, and originally there was a god for every unknown - a god of wind, death, fire, lightning, sea... Apparently, people are inherently desperate for explanations. It just saddens me to see a brilliant dude like Peterson choosing a comforting lie over an honest 'I don't know'. Ricky Gervais put it well - if we burned all the books right now, in 1,000 years none of the religions would be back as they were, but all of the science would be back exactly as it was, because every experiment would yield the same results. Maybe someone should ask him, I don't know.

[@Edbrad]

The problem with belief in god isn't so much the god bit, it's in the details. It's the detailed conceptions of things resting on truthful foundations, and people find it very hard to question their beliefs partly because they can't give up the false conceptions since they feel deep down there's truth

[@NeoJiNeTiK]

0:27 [Jordan Peterson] Let's say you're an ideologue of some sort because some of your probably are socialist, fascist, environmentalists, something that has "ist" on the end. It's like you think those are your ideas, they're not. You're their tools and so that's fine if you want to be a tool of those ideas, you go right ahead. But you don't know where those ideas are leading, and they could well be leading somewhere you do not want to go. 💺 Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people. 🚕

[@torontolarrivee7965]

This guy is just a fountain of pseudo-profundities. In one breath: "you don't have to take any responsibility [for your ideological possession] because you're just drifting in an ocean of thought," in the next, "you should find out just exactly which ideas are possessing you and then you should decide if those are your ideas. And the probability that they are is zero." Amazing that the vacuity and contradictions at work here are not detected by Peterson or his audience. He should try this nonsense in front of some trained philosophers & see how far it gets him.

[@torontolarrivee7965]

I don't doubt that everyone is in the grip of their ideas. But Peterson talks in one breath as this is something we can't escape ("you're just drifting in an ocean of thought"), and in the next breath as if we can stand outside of our ideas, and assess and own them ("...decide if those are your ideas"), and in the next breath suggests that this is impossible ("the probability that they are is zero."). He should follow his own advice and examine his beliefs more carefully, first for coherence. He is treading into the philosophical debate over free will vs. determinism, but doing so very ineptly.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

He's talking about people who are brainwashed. They latch onto an idea and do not have to take responsibility for much of anything because they have the Big Idea that encompasses All Truth. Or so they believe. Peterson is urging people to think for themselves and not just join an ideological club, a cult. He's demanding that you take responsibility for yourself and not lean on the 'ist' or 'ism' - of some group-think. It is nearly impossible to get out of a cult. You can't easily separate your ideas from the accepted party line. Peterson is right. The ideas aren't your own. You've latched onto them to avoid responsibility of thinking for yourself.

[@torontolarrivee7965]

"He's talking about people who are brainwashed. " No, he's clearly addressing everyone in the room and saying all of them are in the grip of their ideas. Does he think everyone in the room is brainwashed? Please. One of the myriad annoying things about Peterson and has fans is that they can't agree on what they agree about.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

"Like, let's say you're an ideologue.." is how he begins his point. He's focusing his point on ideologues. If it's a room full of ideologues then, in that case, yes, he's addressing "everyone in the room". But what he says is, "...some of you probably are...[ideologues]." He's defining who he's talking about. The actual point - that people are the tools of ideas rather than peoples' tools - is another story. Seems by your writing that you're a case in point. LOL. :)

[@torontolarrivee7965]

Fair enough - if you are correct, it would help if Peterson didn't conflate the concept of an 'idea' with that of an 'ideology' - the two are separate concepts (an ideology is a worldview knitted out of many ideas). As to whether I am an ideologue, I suppose I do believe in various ideologies - political liberalism, consequentialism, , determinism, reductionism about the self, etc. . If Peterson thinks it's a big insight to say that we should think about the consequences of ideologies before adopting them, and you're impressed by that, so be it. Most people I know have thought about the consequences of their ideologies, and adopted them on that basis. Also, can it possibly be doubted that Peterson is an ideologue? I don't think I've seen him talk for more than 2 minutes without bringing up Jung or Solzhenitsyn. His mind is a like a hard drive that is running that software nonstop, applying it to every conceivable problem.