95 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson”

  1. I watched it over the weekend. Debating Cathy Newman is like debating bob. She constantly rephrased his comments to something he didn’t say but what she wanted him to say, so she could light the straw man on fire. And he was a master. He failed to fall for it, and actually gave her reason to have personal interest in the strawmen she wanted to burn. You want to burn down free speech under the guise of not offending others; then tell me how you do your job?

          1. The /sarc tag is necessary in many cases, sarcasm often being otherwise indistinguishable from advanced idiocy.

          2. Well you quoted her so well, I certainly couldn’t provide the set up “yes” or “no” answer without offending or accepting the premise. Neither of which is what really was stated by Jordan or believed by myself.

    1. Yes, it was amazing for him to turn it around and apply her own ideology to herself. I am surprised she didn’t do what leftists always do and just claim they are exempt from their own rules because of their place on the victim hierarchy or because of some characteristic of the people they are interacting with.

      1. I think she was heading to that claim when he stumped her. Far as that goes, she did make that claim when she kept saying proof of the gender gap even existed at the BBC.

        On both gender gap and pink tax; Jordan Petersen’s response was hardly different from ShoeOnHead, who is a self-acknowledged college drop out, yet understands economics far better the Cathy Newman.

  2. That’s the first I’ve seen of Jordan Peterson, that man is a seriously smart guy.

    I made a note of two of his points:
    H described the trans-gender activists as having the same philosophy as authoritarian tyrants:
    (1) “The philosophy guiding their utterances is the same, it’s the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount”.

    It’s a philosophy that I often see expressed on this blog, both in the comments and in the posts. So I don’t think the philosophy is limited to the (traditional) left, but I do think it is a trait of what I consider to be the left. “It’s the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount”, common in both Democrats and Republicans.

    (2) “biological nature sets the rules” it’s versions of this one that I keep firing at people here who think that people of other cultures and religions are subservient to their religion, even though the leadership of those religions might wish that were so, ultimately it’s peoples biological nature that sets the rules and if it’s in their biological interests to get along with the rest of humanity they will ultimately interpret their religion in ways that will ensure that that is exactly what happens.

    1. California is now a leftist shithole because tens of millions of Mexican and Central American illegals walked over the border and kept a large part of their socialist culture, used US native resources for free, destroyed the construction unions and put millions of native Americans, including Hispanic Americans who may well have predated the Mexican war and had long since assimilated, out of work. You don’t need identity politics to figure out that’s a poor model to follow.

    2. It’s a philosophy that I often see expressed on this blog

      Then you don’t really understand what Peterson, or any commenters here, were saying.

      ultimately it’s peoples biological nature that sets the rules and if it’s in their biological interests to get along with the rest of humanity

      You mean go along or be killed? This is a departure for you. What if their biological interests are establishing superiority enough to pass on genes and culture?

      1. I’ve seen Cathy before, but not Jordan. Both are very impressive.

        The key to understanding this conversation is that Jordan is following the facts and Cathy is trying to fit facts into a preconceived position. IOWs, she isn’t listening which Jordan explicitly states and Cathy affirms by incorrectly restating what she’s hearing. My question would be if she’s consciously doing this or unaware? One is evil the other not.

        She’s actually proving that she isn’t listening because of the tool she’s using to confound which is the twisted restatement.

        Then you don’t really understand what Peterson, or any commenters here, were saying.

        Because they can never understand if they never listening. They would argue that they are listening and even provide evidence but it’s a lie because they don’t fundamentally understand what listening is. Listening is one step beyond what they do. They hear the words. They manipulate them. But they really have no need to understand them because it’s not in any way connected to their goal which is not understanding but winning an argument which already has a defined conclusion.

        They aren’t searching, they’re explaining to us lessor beings.

        1. Ken, I agree with your first two paragraphs, I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were outside of her range of comprehension, I (and others here) often have the same issues when trying to communicate with you on topics that are outside your (figuratively speaking) monochromatic range.

          1. “I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were outside of her range of comprehension, ”

            You sure about that? No possibility that she did understand him but was struggling (in real time) with ways to cast his statements as misogyny? No possibility that she understood his points but wanted to provoke him?

            You are absolutely totally certain that she could not comprehend what he was saying?

            “I (and others here) often have the same issues when trying to communicate with you on topics that are outside your (figuratively speaking) monochromatic range.”

            Think much of yourself?

          2. Further down Ken says: “We need to call twisted rephrasing what it is: LIES!”

            Well done Ken.

            Gregg what I said was “I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were outside of her range of comprehension,”

            I didn’t say “There’s no possibility that she did understand him but was struggling (in real time) with ways to cast his statements as misogyny”, I didn’t say “there’s no possibility that she understood his points but wanted to provoke him”, I didn’t say “I’m absolutely totally certain that she could not comprehend what he was saying.”

          3. Basically Greg, you’re trying to use on me one of the techniques Newman was trying on Peterson, deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said.

          4. “Basically Greg, you’re trying to use on me one of the techniques Newman was trying on Peterson, deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said.”

            No Andrew. Basically what I’m doing is taking a clear statement on your part:

            “…the perspectives he was presenting were outside of her range of comprehension,…”

            ..which, when interpreted as plain English means you don’t think she comprehended his perspectives.

            and I’m asking you if you are sure of that. That you are absolutely positive that she did not comprehend his perspectives. And then I gave you a couple of other possibilities – simply because you are guilty of your own accusation – not being able to think outside of the totally constricted belief box you’ve manufactured for yourself.

            So since you were clearly projecting when you insulted Ken, I thought I’d help you out and I even gave you a couple of escapes. They weren’t statements of fact..they were possibilities.

            Clearly, you were caught out. And instead of simply saying:

            “Yes I’m absolutely sure she she did not comprehend his perspectives.” – which would have been met with the utter derision it deserved…..

            Or instead of saying “You know, maybe she did comprehend his perspectives. I’ll have to think on that.”, which would have garnered you a little respect.

            You countered with a totally irrelevant – and I might add incredibly wrong – comment on my motives.

            You are so wrapped up in your own perceived superiority, you cannot even see when someone is trying to help you out.

            And so you look ever more like the adolescent fool you really seem to be.

          5. I’m familiar with your debating techniques Greg, and to everyone reading my comment except you my meaning was clear, the phrase “I think . . . ” is self explanatory and only a fool or someone attempting to deride or misrepresent would need further explanation.

          6. and to everyone reading my comment except you

            You are going to need more exceptions or learn what “everyone” means.

          7. Or, you know, try not assuming what everyone else thinks, when you are actually only speaking for yourself.

          8. You are going to need more exceptions or learn what “everyone” means.

            Leland, fair point, can I take from that that you don’t accept that starting a sentence with “I think . . . ” makes it clear that the author is stating an opinion rather advocating an inflexible position?

            You may have put Gregg in a difficult position because I was expecting to be more likely to admit that he was just grabbing an opportunity to deride me rather than take the position that you’re now pushing on him. However, all is not lost, as he’s almost certain to reciprocate your efforts at a group bonding with him and come out supporting your claim that the comment of mine that he attacked was somehow flawed and needed clarification.

          9. You can take nothing. My comment is there for others to read without any need for you to interpret for them.

            Gregg has a good history of making his own comments. I’m capable of not speaking for him.

          10. “I’m familiar with your debating techniques Greg, and to everyone reading my comment except you my meaning was clear, the phrase “I think . . . ” is self explanatory and only a fool or someone attempting to deride or misrepresent would need further explanation.”

            One needn’t resort to debating techniques with you, Andrew Common sense will destroy your blatherings. The day you quit trying to twist the conversation away from common sense is the day you will start the road to adulthood.

            And I love how you haven’t learned your lesson – that you cannot speak for everyone. You have this tendency to state that you know “everyone’s” mind…from the citizenry of a country down to the members of this blog.

            The first step for recovery, for you, would be to admit to yourself that you don’t know what you think you know.

            “I think..” means this is what you think – in plain English.

            And again, My couple of possibilities weren’t declarative. They were just suggestions of alternatives to your absolutist nonsense.

          11. As I said: However, all is not lost, as he’s almost certain to reciprocate your efforts at a group bonding with him and come out supporting your claim that the comment of mine that he attacked was somehow flawed and needed clarification.

            Gregg:“They were just suggestions of alternatives to your absolutist nonsense.”

            So Gregg sees this simple observation: I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were so far outside of her range of comprehension.
            as “absolutist”?

            In the Atlantic article that Rand links to the author makes this observation: “Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion.” Which squares with my thoughts, she had such a strong preconception fixed in her mind of what it was that Jordan believed, things that would have so strongly suited her own biases, that she had real difficulty breaking from it, what he was actually saying was so contrary to her expectations so far “outside of her range of comprehension” she couldn’t mentally jump across onto the new line during the interview.

            And Gregg, that observation still isn’t “absolutist” as the dictionary defines the word, but then maybe you’ve got a special dictionary that suits your needs.

        2. IOWs, she isn’t listening which Jordan explicitly states and Cathy affirms by incorrectly restating what she’s hearing.

          I think that she was listening but just didn’t care. Trying to switcheroo his comments was just a tactic to drive the conversation back to the points she wanted to make. She was the interviewer and tried to control the conversation but Peterson didn’t submit to her authority and kept correcting what she said rather than let her move on.

          1. I agree. She was using a specific tactic, and just kept trying it over and over regardless of what new information, including the success of her attempts, might suggest it was a bad tactic.

          2. I haven’t seen enough of her interviews to know, but is this tool her hammer that works so well for her everything is a nail?
            /

        3. “So Gregg sees this simple observation: I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were so far outside of her range of comprehension. as “absolutist”?”

          Don’t try to put words in my mouth. That’s the technique of a polemecist not an honest discussion. I simply took you at your own words:

          you do not think Newman comprehended his perspectives.

          “And Gregg, that observation still isn’t “absolutist” as the dictionary defines the word, but then maybe you’ve got a special dictionary that suits your needs.”

          Strawman. I never used the word.

          You know, Andrew, you could try growing up and answering my question rather than twist the conversation away from it and attempt to hide your mistake and your obvious close-mindedness:

          When you say:

          “I think Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were so far outside of her range of comprehension.”

          I ask you:

          “You sure about that? No possibility that she did understand him but was struggling (in real time) with ways to cast his statements as misogyny? No possibility that she understood his points but wanted to provoke him?”

          You love big words and you like to show off how erudite you think you are. But it comes off looking foolish when all you do is create straw men and try to push the conversation away from a simple question.

          1. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
            I wasn’t putting words into your mouth, I used your word and in context.

            Strawman. I never used the word.

            Yes you did:

            “And again, My couple of possibilities weren’t declarative. They were just suggestions of alternatives to your absolutist nonsense.”

          2. ok guess I did use the word.

            So? Going to answer the question? Or are you too embarrassed to do that and therefore will resort to more misdirection and strawmen?

          3. I wasn’t going to bother but you said: “You love big words and you like to show off how erudite you think you are.”

            I detest people who use obscure words to try to appear intellectual or sophisticated, and it would never have occurred to me that I’d been doing it, so to help us both out perhaps you could give examples of the “big words” that I’ve been using and I’ll try to avoid using them and similar words in any future discussions with you.

          4. “I detest people who use obscure words to try to appear intellectual or sophisticated, and it would never have occurred to me that I’d been doing it, ………….”

            There’s a lot that doesn’t occur to you.

            Hahahaha still can’t bring yourself to answer the simple question can you? You seem to do everything in your power to avoid answering the question. This includes responding with side issues like “examples of big words”.

            Well you certainly are contributing evidence that you are an absolutist so maybe my use of the word was spot on.

            Going to answer the question Andrew? Or does that frighten you?

          5. Of course those are other possibilities, which is why I avoided being “absolutist” in my comment, I think it’s just bizarre that somehow you could, based on my comment, possibly think otherwise. (Trying to avoid big words when shorter words could be used).

          6. I haven’t bothered with your questions before because asked as serious questions they are dumb, I initially thought them rhetorical.

          7. “Of course those are other possibilities, ….”

            There that wasn’t so hard now was it?

            “which is why I avoided being “absolutist” in my comment,”

            Your comment was absolutist, declarative, complete and final. That’s why I gave you the opportunity to correct it by asking the question. You used every trick in the book to avoid answering the question…insult, dissembling, prevarication, mis-direction, until I held your nose to the question and you finally surrendered. You’re one of those few people who can take a simple question and treat it as an attack.

            It’s too bad that much of your thesis in this thread depends upon your statement that she COULDN’T comprehend Peterson because now much of what you said is rendered as so much trash. Which is why, I suspect, you were so afraid to answer.

            You are dismissed

          8. If I had said “It is certain that Newman was struggling to understand him simply because the perspectives he was presenting were so far outside of her range of comprehension.”

            I would agree that the statement was absolutist in the same way that “thou shalt not kill” can be seen as absolutist – it has no qualification, no ifs, buts or maybes.

            By using the words “I think” I was making it clear that my comment was an opinion and as such was a qualified statement, not an absolutist statement, and taken in that context your questioning only made sense if it was both rhetorical and intended as combative, that was your mistake, my mistake was in not completely ignoring your rude and combative questions, a mistake I will not repeat.

            You are dismissed.

      2. It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than some dork in New Zealand telling Americans how to live.

        1. Leland, He’s not slow witted. He just doesn’t allow facts to alter conclusions. Universally to the left, conclusion means first thing.

        2. Wow Leland, you really are going out of your way to prove me right aren’t you? Labeling those exercising free speech as “authoritarian” is a favorite tactic of leftists.

          1. Who did I label? I gave an example of what Authoritarianism is. Are you arguing that descriptions of words is authoritatian? If so, you have two problems; one, you just gave a description yourself, and second, you got the description wrong.

          2. He just called you a dork, which is an insult and not an example of totalitarianism. Saying you were from NZ wasn’t an effort to take away your right to free speech but that you often give opinions on Americans without really understanding them.

            Everyone will identify as something but that isn’t the same as identity politics, which has a very specific frame of reference.

        3. Perhaps I can use simple substitution:

          “It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than some dork in Germany telling Jews how to live.”

          1. You’re just the gift that keeps on giving aren’t you?
            1. No where in these comments have I been telling Americans how to live.
            2. You accuse me of being “authoritarian” for simply voicing my thoughts.
            3. You then deny you labeled me as such.
            4. You then double down with “some dork in Germany telling Jews how to live.”

            Which people is it that go around accusing those exercising free speech of being fascists? It’s leftists, we see it time and time again on campuses with leftist students disrupting speaking events held by right wing political thinkers.

            Given that my argument was in part that conservatives were often just like leftists with many sharing “the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount”, if it weren’t for the fact that you’re a long-time commenter here people would be accusing me of having created a Leland sock puppet to support my case.
            Thanks!

            Oh, your insults are a waste of effort, such childishness doesn’t make a dent in me because I’m not 5.

          2. No where in these have I accused you of being authoritarian.

            I repeat myself from yesterday: I provided an (now two) example(s) of what authoritarianism is.

          3. No, you’ve dug yourself too deep a hole to plausibly argue that your comment “It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than some dork in New Zealand telling Americans how to live” wasn’t intended to be taken as an attack on me – both I and Wodun recognized it as such and given the context that was certainly your intent.

          4. Perhaps another substitution:

            “It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than some dork in the United States telling Kiwis how to live.”

          5. I think it’s pointless trying to re-frame your earlier comment, the horse hasn’t just bolted, it’s been found by someone else, renamed, gelded and is now living on the new owners farm in southern Kentucky.

            As for your latest version, we frequently get foreigners down here telling us we’re doing this or that wrong, the Jordan Peterson’s (he’s a Canadian and the subject interview was on British TV), Michael Moore’s and various other characters with opinions are an international commodity.
            Does their voicing their opinions on their topics of interest and applying those opinions to whichever country they happen to be in make them “Authoritarian”? Nope.

          6. Ok, let’s try it:

            “It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than Michael Moore telling Americans how to live.”

          7. “It’s hard for me to think of a better example of Authoritarianism than Michael Moore telling Americans how to live.”

            Maybe this will help (wiki):
            Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime.

            Michael Moore advocating whatever it is he wants to advocate is not authoritarianism, it’s free speech. It only become authoritarianism if he gets to practice it.

            I’m starting to think you’re being deliberately dense – but I’ll allow that, as with my suggestion regarding Cathy Newman, you might just not be able to handle what to other people is a pretty basic fact because it’s outside your range of comprehension, to you authoritarianism is the advocacy as well as the practice of excess and corrupt power. It isn’t.

      3. I get the impression that Jordan Peterson is a man who can hold onto and consistently apply the principles that he has built his world view upon, like I said, a seriously smart guy. So I think he would apply that same “The philosophy guiding their utterances is the same, it’s the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount” perspective in the judgment of people irrespective of their politics. If you don’t see that presumption that group identity is paramount in many of the posts and comments on this blog and in the wider politics of conservatives perhaps you’re just blinkered by that very same group allegiance.

        You mean go along or be killed?
        No, most people on this planet aren’t calling for or facing the threat of go along or be killed (if you have no inclination not to go along you never get to the “or be killed” bit, it’s irrelevant to your thinking, biological nature is centered around survival with a better life for . In a world of increasing prosperity the chances of a better life for oneself and ones children are greater through peaceful trade than through conflict.

        What if their biological interests are establishing superiority enough to pass on genes and culture?
        In asking that you demonstrate that you don’t understand what the phrase “biological interests” actually means.

        1. No, most people on this planet aren’t calling for or facing the threat of go along or be killed

          OK, so you are saying that biology isn’t driving people to survive but to also better their lives. The two are not mutually exclusive. But your flaw is in thinking that your view of what makes a good life is the same that other cultures, societies, and religions have.

          If you don’t see that presumption that group identity is paramount in many of the posts and comments on this blog and in the wider politics of conservatives perhaps you’re just blinkered by that very same group allegiance.

          Again, you don’t understand what identity politics is. Everyone belongs to groups, that doesn’t have to mean their identity is based on belonging to one. But for the collectivist left, group identity does define people this way. Also, being part of a group, doesn’t make you a collectivist.

          1. But your flaw is in thinking that your view of what makes a good life is the same that other cultures, societies, and religions have.

            Fair point, but I think the depth of the biological drive (nature, instincts) will in the long run overwhelm inflexible religious teachings and today “what makes a better life” is, the world over, defined by most people as “what the West has” (wealth, health services, security, education, longevity) hence the desire to move there.

          2. I doubt you would find agreement in Rand’s commenters on what would constitute a good life. For example, I couldn’t imagine living in California, but Rand does. But what I do care about is that Rand is happy with his decisions, and I doubt he would be happy living as I do, even it is in Texas.

          3. Fair point, but I think the depth of the biological drive

            There is nothing biological about the west per se*. As in, the course history took and the ideas developed were not fated to happen and are not a biologically driven point in societal evolution that all societies will eventually reach. (Only to be replaced by the socialist utopia according to many leftists)

            Western Civilization is really an outlier in human societal development and there is nothing to guarantee its future other than hard work to keep it so. We know this is true because a significant portion of leftists seek to overthrow Western Civilization.

            Humans have existed in their present form for 200-300 thousand years. Biological imperative was in play throughout all of that and yet often lead to outcomes other than what we have in the USA.

            * It could be argued that the founders made some biological appeals to human nature. But there is also a heavy dose of philosophy in there. It could also be said that there are many other biological traits that belong to humans that would lead to societies different than what we have in the west.

          4. Wodun, perhaps you misinterpret my meaning, the biological drive is to move to greener pasture, I’m not talking about a drive to dream up how those greener pastures can be created. There is certainly in Iran dissatisfaction with the status-quo, and I think it’s fair to say that over the thousands of years we’ve seen many examples of various versions of market economy with democracy and that today there’s far more democracy in the world than there was 30 or 50 years ago, there’re plenty of examples in the form of western countries to follow and if people can’t move to Europe or America etc they’ll just have to work towards emulating the market economy with democracy model at home.

          5. Andrew_W, I also agree with you that it is human nature to innovate and create in order to have a better life. It is just that it manifests differently in different cultures and societies.

            What is a better life is a subjective term and while it may be hard to believe, there are those who think comforts of Western Civilization are not desirable or even that the physical comforts can be obtained while pursuing different societal structures that are diametrically opposed to Western Civilization.

          6. Leland, do you think I could find agreement amongst Rand’s commenters as to whether or not living in Australia would be better than living in Venezuela?

          7. Wodun, sure, but those people are the exception not the rule, and often, those preaching abstinence from materialism do so not just on religious grounds but also because they realize that greater material wealth and education amongst their flocks would undermine their own positions of power.

            The poorest continent on Earth is Africa, Africans are overwhelmingly keen on having higher standards of living, their problem is that almost every country on the continent is politically fractured along ancient ethnic lines and there are people with power and entrenched interests, the elites, that are doing very well even if the vast majority of their people are not, also while the mechanisms of democracy are widespread the education of voters to understand which candidates are competent and trustworthy and which are not is largely absent. I followed the recent campaigning, judicial battles, elections and the Presidential run-off vote in Liberia very closely.

            Former world footballer of the year and now President Weah might be a nice guy, but even if he has the best intentions for his country it’s obvious that the bureaucrats and other politicians are going to run rings around him. In my estimation he was far from the best candidate. Candidates like former Coca Cola exec Alex Cummings or Lawyer Charles Brumskine might have been able to progress the country if elected – but voters didn’t have the skills or (due to ethnic rivalries or their love of football) the inclination to vote for either of those two.

            Also the power of those entrenched interests needs to be appreciated and to put it into a US context; If a country somewhere in the world developed a system of government that worked fantastically well but had no politicians, how long would it take for the US to switch to this fantastic new form of governance? How long would it take the US public to recognize the opportunity, with all the orchestrated propoganda there would be against it?
            How long would it take the politicians to vote themselves out of power? I’m betting a very long time.

            That’s a measure of the hurdle that poor countries in Africa and elsewhere have to leap over to transform their governance.

    3. –Andrew_W
      January 22, 2018 at 12:35 PM

      That’s the first I’ve seen of Jordan Peterson, that man is a seriously smart guy.–
      Yup. Or at least very competent.

      –I made a note of two of his points:
      H described the trans-gender activists as having the same philosophy as authoritarian tyrants:
      (1) “The philosophy guiding their utterances is the same, it’s the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount”.–

      I think Jordan was being very generous by using the term philosophy-
      or simply wrong. Pseudo philosophy would be correct.

      –It’s a philosophy that I often see expressed on this blog, both in the comments and in the posts.–
      I don’t think so

      “So I don’t think the philosophy is limited to the (traditional) left, but I do think it is a trait of what I consider to be the left. “It’s the philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount”, common in both Democrats and Republicans.”

      I think politicians tend to be Lefties. And more likely if professional politicians. Or if all you do is politics. \
      So I agree it’s common in Dem and Reps, especially if stupid- which most politicians are.

      (2) “biological nature sets the rules” it’s versions of this one that I keep firing at people here who think that people of other cultures …”

      Biological in nature referred to hierarchical structure of society- which is largely emotional. Or your status or status of others will have emotional effect upon you.
      Or it hasn’t change since the lobster. But lot’s of other things have changed since the lobster.

      1. “I think Jordan was being very generous by using the term philosophy-
        or simply wrong. Pseudo philosophy would be correct.”

        Philosophy: (2) a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

        I’m more-or-less happy with his use of philosophy in this context, I interpret his meaning as a willingness or keenness of people within a group to adhere to the beliefs of that group, to adopt the groups identity and beliefs as their own.

        The only issue I have is that he (understandably given the limits of the situation) didn’t acknowledge that all people have to some degree an innate desire to belong to a group, that it’s part of that biological set of rules we have as social animals, some people though are by their personal nature more independent than others, it’s just that those with both an ideological bent and that philosophy that presumes that group identity is paramount are more prone to become party political disciples of one persuasion or another.

        I think there aren’t plenty of Republicans (as well as Democrats) who jump to adopt the group think of their party because being a Republican is a significant part of their self identity. So if being a sheeple is being a leftist it’s not limited to just those traditionally labeled as leftists and (as you argue) the politicians on the right.

        “Biological in nature referred to hierarchical structure of society- which is largely emotional. Or your status or status of others will have emotional effect upon you.
        Or it hasn’t change since the lobster. But lot’s of other things have changed since the lobster.”

        Jordan discussed one example of how “biological nature sets the rules” there are plenty of other biological rules around our nature that were not discussed; the need for a social bond as discussed, the numerous other instincts we need to survive and pass on our genes are others.

        1. didn’t acknowledge that all people have to some degree an innate desire to belong to a group

          Lobster.

          Of course people want to belong to groups, we are social animals. People also have identities. But you are missing the point of what identity politics is and the difference between treating people as individuals and collectively by a perceived group identity.

          It is kind of BS to say that if someone belongs to a group that they practice identity politics, because simply belonging to a group or advocating for a group is not what identity politics is.

  3. Jordan Peterson does not work for Google, but if he did, they would not only fire him, they would gloat about what a bad person he was and that they immediately needed to dismiss him so as to not discourage other persons working there.

    He started out answering why “men need to grow up”, where his views, I am sure, come from his clinical experience either counseling un-grown-up men or counseling women in relationships with un-grown-up men how they are frustrated by their partners.

    This immediately segued to the gender pay gap as if to warn him that asking for men “to grow up” is as much as asking men to take on traditional gender roles as providers for families which leads to the crimethought that women cannot be the primary provider for a family, and it went from there.

    I also found interesting that he backed up his assertion that the gender pay gap wasn’t strictly men bad women good because he explained that there are “16 factors underlying the difference in pay, only one of which is gender.” Factors are from statistical factor analysis, which is how he from his scholarly hat studies personality.

    He suggested that one thing that will depress your pay is the personality trait of agreeableness, that is, not complaining that you need a pay raise and that women score as more agreeable and hence are paid less (according to the factor analysis and derived inferences).

    Oh, noes, girlz play with dolz! Jordan Peterson “Damored” himself right there and then by saying there are group differences between men and women that would lead fewer women to seek to work as coders at Google. Peterson just could not dig himself out of that hole by saying that in his counseling practice, he trains women how to be less agreeable (as a personality trait where someone accepts people as they are rather than telling people more of what one wants) inasmuch as not making their concerns about being underpaid known so they get more money, but no, that just didn’t cut it.

    You all saw the hate directed toward James Damore as being evil and sexist and anti-diversity and anti-science, but what did Mr. Damore say that was one fit different than Professor Peterson apart from the Dr. Peterson having more of the experimental psychology literature at instant recall?

    We are just so sunk, so hosed as a society because the hate directed at Damore is the norm — the Google CEO made a point that he fired the man because he agrees with the bad things said about Damore. Peterson spoke on my college campus, and yes, I was afraid to go because I didn’t want to have my head battered by Anti-Fa. No, his talk probably “slipped under the radar” and didn’t attract protests, but such is not far behind.

    1. Just finished “Win Bigly” by Scott Adams. I got it via Audible. In general, I found it a boring book. It’s a better rehash of “What Happened’ during the general election, and probably more accurate to the general than “Shattered”. But most of it is a recap of his twitter timeline, and his personal ability to observe what hundreds of thousands observed. The book is also a victory lap for him and his early prediction. Unfortunately, it is not until chapter 87 of 98 that you get to something that most of us already know, but often don’t say as simply.

      That chapter doesn’t say what Paul does, but it does note how “hosed as a society because the hate directed at Adams is the norm “. Scott Adams livelihood was ruined by what he terms Hillbullies. Google’s CEO is just another of those bullies. (So was Weinstein).

      I made my opinion of Trump clear from the start. Trump was never my preference for the ticket, and I never supported him in the primary, other than over Kasich. Whatever Trump’s faults, and the supposed faults of his supporters; he represented (even then) less harm to this country than Hillary and her supporters. Hillary and Co had no issue with literally assaulting their own countrymen and ruining opponents regardless of their actual status or personal threat to themselves. As Adams notes in the book, Hillary and Co believed they had the moral authority to do so.

      BTW, I did think Trump would win the primary the moment he announced. I never put that marker out there, so I can’t prove it. But I did believe it. I didn’t at the time want it to be true, but it seemed clear as day he would. For that reason, I’m not impressed by Scott Adams observations. I came to the conclusion from knowing the popularity of “The Apprentice”, and realizing that millions of Americans, most of them successful, watch it and easily accepted Trump’s executive role.

    2. “I also found interesting that he backed up his assertion that the gender pay gap wasn’t strictly men bad women good because he explained that there are “16 factors underlying the difference in pay, only one of which is gender.” Factors are from statistical factor analysis, which is how he from his scholarly hat studies personality.”

      When he did that, Newman did not show the slightest interest in knowing what those 16 factors were nor how they played a part. She was not there to try to illuminate.

    1. It does suggest a more direct and firm criticism of the thought police is warranted.

      We need to call twisted rephrasing what it is: LIES!

      The first time it happens you give a warning. The second time, you exit the interview. Do this every time and they will lose their audience… even the people that agree with them.

      I am sick of it.

      I’d read the criticisms except they would just be more of the same.

    2. I didn’t see any of the comments threatening violence, so I don’t know if there were actual threats or just the new concept that speech commies disagree with is violence. I am sure that there could have been some actual threats rather than just insults but none of the articles I read gave specific examples and instead make the reader rely on the media.

      This is the same thing the American media does and 99% of the time you dig into it and find the events being portrayed in the media didn’t actually happen that way in reality.

      That a handful of what could be actual threats or overboard insults were then portrayed as the norm for the tens of thousands of insults is also common way for collectivists to attack people. Its like with Trump, but happens to anyone not Democrat, when he said Rosie was a pig, the media said he said all women we pigs. Just as the target of an insult isn’t an individual, the people insulting the C4 reporter are also not individuals and neither are the people not insulting her.

      1. I don’t doubt threats were made, but I’ll be curious if Cathy Newman’s career is as ruined as say Scott Adams for predicting a Trump win.

      2. On Tucker tonight, the idiot mayor of Albany, NY said that Dreamers who were physically blocking people from getting into Disneyland were simply exercising “freedom of speech.” So that’s where we are.

        1. Well to be fair, Berkeley has already gone down the road of certain forms of protest and violence being free speech. More to the point for Berkeley, if you identify someone as racists for speaking something you don’t like, you have the moral authority to assault them as part of your freedom of speech.

          That theory is now being tested in a court case.

          1. What never happens is consideration of the our ancestors fought communists and socialists not just NAZI.

            How would Petersen red pill them on that?

            Highly ironic that free speech rights were largely defined by protecting the communists and socialists right to advocate the overthrow of our society and that now those people are in power, free speech takes on a different definition. It isn’t just the our violence is free speech while your speech is violent thing either. Corporations that exist because of speech are prone to abusing freedom of expression when it doesn’t support progressive marxism.

          2. Wodun, did you see AoS today with the question: “Why is it that nobody is literally Stalin?”

            It does make you wonder.

  4. they would gloat about what a bad person he

    So true… it’s not even difficult to predict. Come on… up yer game. Just teasing. Great comment. Reading Damore’s denouncement by other Googlers was another erfect example of listening (with understanding) not being anywhere in their list of goals.

    Wodun, luved yours too. You really wield the scalpel of truth well.

  5. I coulnd’t tell if Newman really could not understand what he was saying…..

    …or wasn’t listening to what he was saying and tried to paint him as a Neanderthal misogynist……

    …or totally understood him but was trying to paint him as a Neanderthal misogynist….or perhaps provoke him by calling him a Neanderthal misogynist.

    1. I would have asked Newman directly whether or not she was evil or stupid (allowing her to realize both is an acceptable option.) That’s my default position to any liars meaning I would not be too popular as a guest.

      It usually doesn’t take long for them to remove all doubt. That doubt is removed up the chain as well. The real question is why society continues to tolerate it?

      1. I would have asked Newman directly whether or not she was evil or stupid

        Then you would not have been as effective in getting your point across to viewers as Peterson was who was as successful as he was by avoiding attacking her with pejorative terms. People get emotional and then lose their ability to think rationally, by not winding her up with insults he kept the audience focused on his message.

        For what I could tell Newman is an out-and-out feminist, and misandrist (wow, unbelievably my spell-check doesn’t recognize the word “misandry” or “misandrist” that, I think, says something about how society sees the male-female relationship, only men can be gender haters not women, a bit like the argument that black people can’t be racist, only white people are racist) to boot, I thought Peterson got as close as anyone will ever get in half an hour to cause such a person to question her own position.

        1. Then you would not have been as effective in getting your point across…

          We absolutely agree on this, but that doesn’t mean my approach has no merit…It just has no persuasive qualities as I’m sadly aware.

  6. My wife and I work in the same field (aerospace engineering), and in fact originally met because of that. She’s 7 years younger than I am, but makes slightly more than I do. That’s only because she has always asked for more. It really isn’t a lot more complicated than that. Most women don’t realize that they could get more by asking for more.

    1. One of my former supervisors in Aerospace is now a close friend. His wife is an independent accountant supporting various business. She told him he wasn’t asking enough and pushed him to counter offer for more when accepting new assignments. She was right.

      1. I worked for a company for almost a decade and got a $4k raise every January like clockwork which was my intent from the day I was hired. Except one year when I got nothing. That was the year the employees decided to get together and collectively bargain. I was completely disgusted with myself for allowing my wages to be tied to their performance. I fixed that the following year.

  7. Authoritarianism is a form of government…

    Andrew’s point that speech isn’t authoritarian is technically true but ignores Leland’s point that some speech is supportive of authoritarianism’s objective’s which is to control other people’s lives. It’s the difference between hard control and soft control but it remains all about control.

    The other slippery argument is to troll back and forth between collective and individual perspectives in an equivalent manner to dividing by zero to get the math result you want.. Or telling people they said something they didn’t and attacking that strawman.

    For example, millions of Muslims are wonderful people, but it only takes one to kill you, but millions of Muslims are wonderful people. Does that address the point? No. The point is that destruction doesn’t require unanimous agreement by all those wonderful people. A single change in the right place could do the job.

    It’s one of the reasons genetic manipulation scares the hell out of me. While there are safeguards, we now have the means (crispr) for a high school student (or terrorist) to modify a trivial piece of DNA that would propagate to an entire species (not just a few random members) and completely wipe them out (including humans… although human death would come faster if not directly targeted. Humans take 9 months to produce. The right bacteria take seconds.)

    Not crossing the line into authoritarian behavior from speech doesn’t mean the objective isn’t there. Some speech is clearly supportive of destructive goals.

    1. Hi Ken, first I just felt I should apologize for my “monochromatic” dig at you, it wasn’t warranted.

      And I thought this part of your comment insightful:
      Because they can never understand if they never listening. They would argue that they are listening and even provide evidence but it’s a lie because they don’t fundamentally understand what listening is. Listening is one step beyond what they do. They hear the words. They manipulate them. But they really have no need to understand them because it’s not in any way connected to their goal which is not understanding but winning an argument which already has a defined conclusion.

      Though I think your point can be apply to just about everyone at one time or another.

      You said: Andrew’s point that speech isn’t authoritarian is technically true but ignores Leland’s point that some speech is supportive of authoritarianism’s objective’s which is to control other people’s lives.

      but I do not ignore Leland’s point, in fact I address it in the very next sentence:

      Michael Moore advocating whatever it is he wants to advocate is not authoritarianism, it’s free speech. It only become authoritarianism if he gets to practice it.

      You said:
      For example, millions of Muslims are wonderful people, but it only takes one to kill you, but millions of Muslims are wonderful people. Does that address the point?

      I’m not sure what your point is, but when I use that argument I’m talking about individualism and individual responsibility, similarly you could say: “Millions of American’s are wonderful people, but it only takes one to kill you, but millions of American’s are wonderful people.”

      People wouldn’t feel the need to point out the “millions of American’s are wonderful people” because in our minds we (as Anglo-Saxons) instinctively recognize that Americans are individuals first, and should be judge for their actions as individuals. We (or at least people who blame Islam for the actions of a few) don’t instinctively and firstly recognize that those Muslims also should also be judged as individuals first if we are to be objective in our assessment of them.

      1. those Muslims also should also be judged as individuals first

        Which is our communication problem since no matter how many times I tell you we completely agree on this point you come back and argue it again. Can you see how that might make me suspect you’re not listening?

        My point is that Islam as recorded in the Quoran is functional and has an algorithmic result. If you’re a Muslim but not a strict adherent to Islam it might not mean much of anything because people are just people all wanting much the same thing.

        But polls indicate that more than half the world’s Muslims are perfectly fine with all or part of the algorithm and contribute to the result even though generally being nice people.

        Perhaps they don’t understand how charity money is being used or the nice boy in the neighborhood is a killer, but I’m not going to ignore it even if it’s a small minority.

        Since you’ve already forgotten it, let me repeat it. I like the Muslim’s I’ve met. They’re people and I like people. I’m just not pleased with people that directly act contrary to my well being which I judge on an individual basis.

        People are individuals. Right?

  8. FFS, Ken I was explaining why in many occasions it is neseccary to point out the individuals bit. I was not suggesting I was including you amongst those people who still don’t get it. Remember the bit about listening before trying to shoot people down?

    1. Rereading my comment I realize that I did make a point of qualifying my concerns: We (or at least people who blame Islam for the actions of a few) don’t instinctively and firstly recognize that those Muslims also should also be judged as individuals first if we are to be objective in our assessment of them.
      Again, Ken, how to you reach the conclusion that my comment was suggesting that you don’t recognize the individuals bit?

      1. Because meaning is not just in the words you use but how much emphasis you put on them. When you repeat (in various forms) that “those Muslims also should also be judged as individuals first” it strongly indicates you simply don’t believe me. This is quite offensive to a person like myself that prides the fact that he treats people as people.

        1. On this occasion I think more to do with the emphasis you think I’ve put into them than the actual emphasis that’s been put into them.

          But here’s a practical example that I’d be interested to have your honest opinion on:
          http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=69773#comment-402981
          (or cut and paste: “January 23, 2018 At 11:08 AM” into control-f if the link doesn’t come up)

          My reading of Greggs comment is that he was being deliberately offensive and combative, asking rhetorical questions to goad me. I’d expressed an opinion and made it clear (I think) that it was only an opinion. He claims that all he was doing was asking innocuous questions for the sake of clarification.

          As a party not involved in the disagreement, what’s your take?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *