Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Dyr

Hector Savage wrote: »

Pleasure to watch, I wouldn't really agree with him as far as the environment is concerned and overpopulation denial - but he just nails it with the whole gender gap myth and 3rd wave feminism.

I'll leave this here, front page of the bbc new site today:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

Hector Savage

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Wow, I feel like JP defense force here today.

How is he a dangerous character for questioning the common beliefs on climate change?

You say we know how to solve it but do we? I mean, if we say we know what's causing it and we know what avenues we could explore does that mean we know how to solve the issue?

There is a difference between "there is an issue and I know how to solve it" and "there is an issue but we don't know how to solve it". It's not "dangerous" to be on team "we don't know how".

It's like any deviation from pretending we all care so much about the environment is met with anger but I don't get that.

"The only uncertainty is whether inaction is going to be lead mere disaster, or total catastrophy."

Right and what you obviously haven't considered is that there are some actions that could potentially ALSO lead to disaster or catastrophe.

So we just need the political will to invest yeah? Invest what? Who pays the price?

Choosing whether to reduce poverty or tackle climate change MIGHT be a false dichotomy but there is plenty to suggest that maybe it's not.

It's easy for you to say with your internet access etc BUT in some parts of the world ALL that matters is where your next meal is coming from.

Why is there a point blank refusal to look at this in any other way?

Guys, if we just stop using up the resources then we can save the planet! It's that simple, eh?

You even seem to admit it yourself... "not tackling climate change will be much more devastating for the worlds poor".

Much more devastating, yeah? So if tackling it is devastating well it's alright because YOU are willing to make that sacrifice?

Except you're not willing to make the sacrifice, are you? You want someone else, from somewhere else, to make it.

Exactly, Peterson has called out the moaners on climate change that will still have a huge carbon footprint and live their western lifestyle while merely virtue signalling.

At the same time, he credited that young guy who is setting up some system to collect a ****load of plastic from the oceans - Thats DOING SOMETHING about it!!!

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

She did until she turned around and said something along the lines of "about the lobsters... the science in your book is bollocks". Additionally, she couldn't really rationalise her position and just moved on to the next question several times instead of exposing herself.

She moved on because she concedes the point. I think that's fair enough. She accepted what Peterson said and progressed the interview.

Brian?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

No she does not "buck that trend".

She concedes only that a small part of it is biological. She still wants to say that it's "largely" a social construct. Largely is obviously not quantifiable but I'd suspect she is thinking almost entirely social construct.

How does that buck the trend.

"Gender is a social construct" and "Gender is largely a social construct" are distinguishable, sure, but it's hardly bucking the trend is it?

If she had come out and said "there are 2 genders and those are determined by biology" then hell yeah I'd say she's bucking the trend and going against her obvious ideology.

She isn't and, worst of all, you KNOW she isn't.

Can you explain "worst of all, you know she isn't" please?

suicide_circus

thou shalt not deny climate change

Maxpfizer

Brian? wrote: »

Can you explain "worst of all, you know she isn't" please?

You are saying she's bucking the trend but you damn well know she isn't.

It would be grand if you were just dumb. Instead you are just being disingenuous.

That's the worst part for me. It's not an honest discussion.

Brian?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You are saying she's bucking the trend but you damn well know she isn't.

It would be grand if you were just dumb. Instead you are just being disingenuous.

Classy. 2 insults in one post. It saves me time writing a reasonable response though, thanks.

Maxpfizer

Brian? wrote: »

Classy. 2 insults in one post. It saves me time writing a reasonable response though, thanks.

You're doing it again.

I don't think you are dumb, so that's not an insult. You are smart enough to come up with these "tricky" statements like "she is bucking the trend".

So that's not an insult. I'll clear it up anyway. I'm not saying you are dumb.

I do think you are being disingenuous not just in that post but now in your response to me.

If you find that to be insulting then I don't know what to tell you. That's my perception. I say "worst of all" because it doesn't have to be that way and it really shouldn't be that way.

She concedes only that a small part of it is biological. She still wants to say that it's "largely" a social construct. Largely is obviously not quantifiable but I'd suspect she is thinking almost entirely social construct.

How does that buck the trend?

"Gender is a social construct" and "Gender is largely a social construct" are distinguishable, sure, but it's hardly bucking the trend is it?

You took "gender is LARGELY socially constructed" as a win like a massive "gotcha" moment when you know that she is playing it incredibly safe.

If she had come right out and said "no, I think there are only 2 genders" then she would have got him right there on the spot. She couldn't though.

She wasn't bucking the trend. She was saying just enough for JP to be "technically wrong" about her but not enough that she would betray her ideology.

I do not for one second believe that you did not see that.

mcmoustache

Hector Savage wrote: »

Pleasure to watch, I wouldn't really agree with him as far as the environment is concerned and overpopulation denial - but he just nails it with the whole gender gap myth and 3rd wave feminism.

I might check it out later. The pay gap stuff could be interesting but maybe like yourself, I think he may be talking out of his arse when it comes to scientific stuff.

First, I'll need to use a free 30GB partition and install a small linux distro with a browser and watch it through that. Afterwards, I'll reformat that partition and shut down my machine so that the RAM clears before I boot into my main partition. I don't want youtube suggesting videos from the crazy side of the internet.

xckjoo

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I've always been struck by how uncontroversial he actually is.

Like even with the diet thing. He isn't putting out video after video telling people about this amazing new diet that will change your life. If anything he is saying "don't do this, I don't like it and I'm not even sure if it's working".

The reaction to JP just seems to be WAY over the top compared to what he actually provides. It almost feels like his fame has actually been entirely constructed and nurtured by his detractors.

This is a guy who's reputation precedes him but when you actually get into his "message" it's just so mundane I can't imagine anyone getting all that worked up about it.

With the lobsters he is really making the mundane of mundane points. Yeah, we have something observable and measurable in common with a common ancestor. Wow. Except people are flipping out over it and trying to hold his feet to the fire because... what?

The best argument I can think of is that he is some kind of "gateway" to the alt-right and other extremist groups but is that only because he comes across as kind of a conservative?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the far-right and conspiracy minded people have attached themselves to him simply because he riles up their ideological opponents so much? Sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

He must have disavowed the far-right hundreds of times by now but it keeps coming up.

Like he is hiding this extreme right wing stuff under this boring persona? Then how do things like the lobsters or his diet fit into the larger picture? Am I going to say "oh sh!t I did stop eating carbs and only ate meat and I've dropped a lot of flab and I feel kind of good maybe I will join the KKK tomorrow"? Or, "that's kind of interesting how Lobsters react to anti-depressants, I guess I am alt-right now"?

I think what's happened here is that "The Left" have reacted to JP with a completely overblown amount of hysteria. For some reason they have tried to destroy him and discredit him based on very little and, as a result, the have turned him into almost a household name.

It's funny you bring up Sarkeesian because she is essentially his mirror image. Mundane, really not all that controversial at all. Yet, there are a group of opponents hanging on every word waiting to jump all over even the smallest error or the slightest unconventional or debatable comment. So she becomes famous and then people know that even mentioning her is a good way to wind up or troll their supposed opposition.

Why do people hate this guy so much?

What you'll notice as well about the GQ interview is that his supporters see it as him "owning" the interviewer but his opponents see it as the interviewer "owning" him.

This is from The Guardian on November 1st: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour

Reading over it I wonder if there is any more value in this article than there is in one of the talking heads who support him blindly on Youtube?

I think you've done a decent job of summarizing things here. Peterson is a microcosm of how society is these days; or at least "online" society (I still think people are at least semi-moderate in real life). The so-called "outrage culture" is all part of it. You have to be 100% for or 100% against something. You can't listen to someone like Peterson and say "He has some interesting points. I could do with taking X on-board but I disagree with him on Y". People who like him become zealots who change their every belief to whatever he's last said, or crusaders who must destroy the false messiah, sent here to destroy us all. Or at least that's what the most vocal are like. I'm hoping that the majority of people are reasonable and have the self-confidence and critical thinking ability to see that the world is made up of shades of grey but are sensibly staying mute to avoid the vitriol from both sides.

flexcon

xckjoo wrote: »

You have to be 100% for or 100% against something. You can't listen to someone like Peterson and say "He has some interesting points. I could do with taking X on-board but I disagree with him on Y".

I'm hoping that the majority of people are reasonable and have the self-confidence and critical thinking ability to see that the world is made up of shades of grey but are sensibly staying mute to avoid the vitriol from both sides.

These two specifically.

Plenty of videos and some even well known people have come out and said the downfall with the leftish side will be ....the leftish side.

I think JP has some fascinating thoughts and gets my brain thinking. Dam - now I'm a Nazi.

Standman

Jordan Peterson knows his molecular meteorology (e.g. weather), he's an established science professor!

Akrasia

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Wow, I feel like JP defense force here today.

How is he a dangerous character for questioning the common beliefs on climate change?

It's not the 'common beliefs on climate change' it's the established science on climate change. And it's dangerous because climate change is an extremely important issue that is also extremely time sensitive, and JP has influence, and if he influences thousands of people to go out and oppose action on climate change, this can delay action further with very real consequences down the line

You say we know how to solve it but do we? I mean, if we say we know what's causing it and we know what avenues we could explore does that mean we know how to solve the issue?

We know how to solve it. We need to transition to a carbon neutral energy system. This involves large scale investment in infrastructure regulations, and market incentives. It's a political and economic problem, not a technological one. And JP's statements make him part of the political and economic problem.

There is a difference between "there is an issue and I know how to solve it" and "there is an issue but we don't know how to solve it". It's not "dangerous" to be on team "we don't know how".

We do know how to solve it. At last for now, before it becomes a runaway effect. It's not going to be easy, but we already have the technology. We just need to implement it.

It's like any deviation from pretending we all care so much about the environment is met with anger but I don't get that.

"The only uncertainty is whether inaction is going to be lead mere disaster, or total catastrophy."

Right and what you obviously haven't considered is that there are some actions that could potentially ALSO lead to disaster or catastrophe.

There are, but nobody is proposing those yet. If things get really bad geo engineering might be required to stabilise the climate, but by that stage, it'll be the lesser of two evils but for now, we need investment in renewables and nuclear power.

So we just need the political will to invest yeah? Invest what? Who pays the price?

Money. Banks loan the money, governments pay it back over decades. It's cheaper to do this than to not act now, have to pay all the costs of mitigation as well as the costs of rebuilding our infrastructure when the penny finally drops

It's basic economics. It's worthwhile to trade, even if at a loss, if by not trading you lose even more money.

Choosing whether to reduce poverty or tackle climate change MIGHT be a false dichotomy but there is plenty to suggest that maybe it's not.

Plenty of what?
What about all the other choices we make? Why not choose to reduce spending on nuclear weapons to cover the cost of international development?
Its a false dichotomy because there are more than two choices.

It's easy for you to say with your internet access etc BUT in some parts of the world ALL that matters is where your next meal is coming from.

Ok, then. Whats your point? When there are severe famines and droughts linked to climate change it will be too late to act (this has already started and is likely to get worse

Why is there a point blank refusal to look at this in any other way?

The debate is over. It was dragged on far too long by ideologues who refused to accept the evidence. We need to act now

Guys, if we just stop using up the resources then we can save the planet! It's that simple, eh?

nope. We should use the resources efficiently and sustainably

You even seem to admit it yourself... "not tackling climate change will be much more devastating for the worlds poor".

Much more devastating, yeah? So if tackling it is devastating well it's alright because YOU are willing to make that sacrifice?

Except you're not willing to make the sacrifice, are you? You want someone else, from somewhere else, to make it.

Nope. I don't accept the false dichotomy. I think the wealthy industrial countries should pay the cost and development aid should cover the cost of mitigation and adaptation and infrastructure development for the worlds poor.

Zorya

Akrasia wrote: »

The debate is over. It was dragged on far too long by ideologues who refused to accept the evidence. We need to act now

This is just not true. There has never been a debate, never been any dragging out of anything by 'ideologues'. There has been accepted mainstream science on climate change or as it used to be known, global warming, which has been upheld from the very beginning by the vast majority of scientists.

Those who had any doubts were always treated as cranks, oddballs, lunatics and a derisible minority.

There have been powerful international organisations, supported from the UN and top levels of governments etc, plugging away constantly at this climate change thing for decades, huge investment in lobbying, administration, policy making, education etc etc. It has literally been stuffed down our throats for ages now that we pesky rotters are eating too much, breeding too much, driving too much, flying too much, being careless with our shampoo bottles etc etc ad nauseum, to the point where our very existence on this planet is an insult to the Malthusian demagogues of climate change propaganda.

And what has been the result of all the efforts? Apart from new and insidious ways to tax people, groom them for wealth, there has been sweet fcuk all done about anything that might matter. The global petro-chemical business has kept right on despoiling earth and water and air and peoples, because that is where the elites had their money invested, the same elites who attend meetings in their fancy private jets to tell us how we are ruining the gaff.

So when people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong et al have been piously scolding the rest of us for existing they have as fast as they could been pocketing the profits to made on the very things they preach against. Heck, some of them even made a damn good living out of being environmental scolds.

So no, it was not some vague fringe element of climate change deniers who have interfered with SAVING THE EARTH - it has always been the global elite who have ploughed right on ahead sucking in all the wealth with their filthy mercenary industrial practices and spitting out poverty, pollution and dead forests of carbon tax credit style policy documents and laws in their wake.

Not the fault of the few ''nutters'' at all.

Brian?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You're doing it again.

I don't think you are dumb, so that's not an insult. You are smart enough to come up with these "tricky" statements like "she is bucking the trend".

So that's not an insult. I'll clear it up anyway. I'm not saying you are dumb.

I do think you are being disingenuous not just in that post but now in your response to me.

If you find that to be insulting then I don't know what to tell you. That's my perception. I say "worst of all" because it doesn't have to be that way and it really shouldn't be that way.

She concedes only that a small part of it is biological. She still wants to say that it's "largely" a social construct. Largely is obviously not quantifiable but I'd suspect she is thinking almost entirely social construct.

How does that buck the trend?

"Gender is a social construct" and "Gender is largely a social construct" are distinguishable, sure, but it's hardly bucking the trend is it?

You took "gender is LARGELY socially constructed" as a win like a massive "gotcha" moment when you know that she is playing it incredibly safe.

If she had come right out and said "no, I think there are only 2 genders" then she would have got him right there on the spot. She couldn't though.

She wasn't bucking the trend. She was saying just enough for JP to be "technically wrong" about her but not enough that she would betray her ideology.

I do not for one second believe that you did not see that.

I find it interesting that you’re arguing this point when the esteemed Dr Peterson acknowledged he was surprised by her opinion on transgender issues.

Tell me. What is her “ideology” exactly?

On a more pertinent note, do people actually watch interviews to hear what the interviewer has to say

pumpkin4life

Jordan Peterson is full of crap. He's a con artist, who admittedly fooled me.

Akrasia

Zorya wrote: »

This is just not true. There has never been a debate, never been any dragging out of anything by 'ideologues'. There has been accepted mainstream science on climate change or as it used to be known, global warming, which has been upheld from the very beginning by the vast majority of scientists.

Those who had any doubts were always treated as cranks, oddballs, lunatics and a derisible minority.

There have been powerful international organisations, supported from the UN and top levels of governments etc, plugging away constantly at this climate change thing for decades, huge investment in lobbying, administration, policy making, education etc etc. It has literally been stuffed down our throats for ages now that we pesky rotters are eating too much, breeding too much, driving too much, flying too much, being careless with our shampoo bottles etc etc ad nauseum, to the point where our very existence on this planet is an insult to the Malthusian demagogues of climate change propaganda.

And what has been the result of all the efforts? Apart from new and insidious ways to tax people, groom them for wealth, there has been sweet fcuk all done about anything that might matter. The global petro-chemical business has kept right on despoiling earth and water and air and peoples, because that is where the elites had their money invested, the same elites who attend meetings in their fancy private jets to tell us how we are ruining the gaff.

So when people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong et al have been piously scolding the rest of us for existing they have as fast as they could been pocketing the profits to made on the very things they preach against. Heck, some of them even made a damn good living out of being environmental scolds.

So no, it was not some vague fringe element of climate change deniers who have interfered with SAVING THE EARTH - it has always been the global elite who have ploughed right on ahead sucking in all the wealth with their filthy mercenary industrial practices and spitting out poverty, pollution and dead forests of carbon tax credit style policy documents and laws in their wake.

Not the fault of the few ''nutters'' at all.

This is a conspiracy theory. You might not like the 'elites' but the thousands of research scientists who gather and analyse the data are not elites, and it is crazy to suggest that the vast majority of them have been convinced to lie about the science for (insert reason here)

The Energy companies who have been opposing action on climate change because that's their job as profit maximising entities, are not the same people as the scientists who do the research and have been warning us to act before it's too late.

flexcon

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is full of crap. He's a con artist, who admittedly fooled me.

As someone who finds JP interesting, the first video is very hard to watch. I'm not sure if that's my attention span or what but man - that took effort to go all the way.

The more I read this thread and the more I watch and read about JP I've sort of come to two conclusion how I feel about this whole thing

1) I find his points and views and delivery of the message quite interesting and it just speaks sense to me in many ways

2) Based on the above point I wouldn't defend the man beyond that. I don't agree with everything he says therefore I would defend the points he makes and not the man himself.

Still going through this Journey but it's great.

Zorya

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a conspiracy theory. You might not like the 'elites' but the thousands of research scientists who gather and analyse the data are not elites, and it is crazy to suggest that the vast majority of them have been convinced to lie about the science for (insert reason here)

The Energy companies who have been opposing action on climate change because that's their job as profit maximising entities, are not the same people as the scientists who do the research and have been warning us to act before it's too late.

I never suggested that the scientists had been convinced to lie about the science for (insert your imaginary reason here), nowhere did I say anything of the sort. I said quite clearly that the majority of scientists have been plugging away agreeing on the climate change theory and that the theory has had the support of the biggest global organisations in the world - and yet....? Nada, Zilch, Nothing. New taxes. Lots of speeching and preaching. Book deals. Films. Advertising. Laws. Policies. Lots of talk basically. Lots of money to environmentalists. (Lots of money to some of the big mouths too from their secret oil wealth). And the pollution continues apace. None of that is a conspiracy theory. Its the facts of life.

ToddyDoody

Who'd like a Jordan Peterson audiobook for Christmas?

Raging_Ninja

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is full of crap. He's a con artist, who admittedly fooled me.

Vox Day is a neo nazi cancer upon our society.

PopePalpatine

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Vox Day is a neo nazi cancer upon our society.

What the hell do you think you're doing?! Don't you know that pointing out Nazis/fascists/Graham Dwyers is just going to drive otherwise-moderates into their arms?!

AllForIt

flexcon wrote: »

As someone who finds JP interesting, the first video is very hard to watch. I'm not sure if that's my attention span or what but man - that took effort to go all the way.

The more I read this thread and the more I watch and read about JP I've sort of come to two conclusion how I feel about this whole thing

1) I find his points and views and delivery of the message quite interesting and it just speaks sense to me in many ways

2) Based on the above point I wouldn't defend the man beyond that. I don't agree with everything he says therefore I would defend the points he makes and not the man himself.

Still going through this Journey but it's great.

I was about to say more or less the same thing. What I like about him is althought the topics are intellectilual stuff he's very easy to listen to and comprehend his points whether one agrees with the points or not. Sometimes intellectuals waffle but he never waffles always clear and to the point.

Also most interviews Ive seen the interviewer goes in all guns blazing. They ask a question, make a point, Peterson answeres deftly, wins the point and interview jumps swiftly onto a different topic. I suppose it is hard in an interview to admit one was wrong but they could at least say interesting point Peter or something like that.

Another point is some have spread the idea that he's a bit techey in interviews. Given the combative way a lot of them go such as the famous C4 interview I actually think he keeps his cool remarkably well.

RandomName2

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is full of crap. He's a con artist, who admittedly fooled me.

Those videos are low quality. The speakers have no script, they are rambling, they don't edit themselves. They have put in minimum effort.

The first guy seems to be complaining that Peterson gets lots of money by talking and the second guy seems toe be complaining that Peterson repeats himself. Do I have that about right - I couldn't make it through most of either video.

Akrasia wrote: »

We do know how to solve it. At last for now, before it becomes a runaway effect. It's not going to be easy, but we already have the technology. We just need to implement it.

Okay, but who's this 'we'. The only 'we' that is important is China. Nothing else counts. A solution which does not affect China is pointless.

Zorya wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s

That's a genuinely good interview. It's nice to see an interviewer who is half way decent.

Raging_Ninja

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What the hell do you think you're doing?! Don't you know that pointing out Nazis/fascists/Graham Dwyers is just going to drive otherwise-moderates into their arms?!

He's a white nationalist who is a follower of the so called the 14 words neo nazi manifesto. He's a genuine neo nazi.

Zorya

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's a genuinely good interview. It's nice to see an interviewer who is half way decent.

Yeah its quite good comparatively.

I've a good pal who is very clever and JP drives him into a cold rage. He agrees with me that Peterson called out the bullsh!t of present times but says he offers little further substance and is little more than a pop psychologist. He undermines true intellectuality according to my pal, and I think there is some substance to that. The unfortunate thing is the wider lack of thinkers of substance to provide real worthy opposition to so called progressive or neoliberal ideology. Guess we will all have to think critically for ourselves and not follow anyone blindly.

SterlingArcher

https://youtu.be/GNywzm2oDrI

This was kinda interesting. Not so serious.

It's the guy on comedian theo von.

El_Duderino 09

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is full of crap. He's a con artist, who admittedly fooled me.

I’m not a fan of Peterson in general but I wouldn’t take anything those guys said serious either.

Were you testing to see how people would respond 2 wild characters criticising JP? Because those guys are not reliable witnesses in my book.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

I would also say that the interviewer doesn't come across as a mouthpiece for an ideology at all. She bucks that trend on transgender issues for a start. She comes across as quite reasonable.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

She did until she turned around and said something along the lines of "about the lobsters... the science in your book is bollocks". Additionally, she couldn't really rationalise her position and just moved on to the next question several times instead of exposing herself.

I enjoyed that interview. She lost some points occasionally but she often had interesting points to bounce the conversation back into an interesting plane.
She's a good listener, and also good at putting her point across, so however weak or strong one thinks the point may be is not the be all and end all of the discussion.
Both were happy enough with potentially being the one who's perceived as wrong imo, and that's the kind of discussion I like.

xckjoo wrote: »

I think you've done a decent job of summarizing things here. Peterson is a microcosm of how society is these days; or at least "online" society (I still think people are at least semi-moderate in real life). The so-called "outrage culture" is all part of it. You have to be 100% for or 100% against something. You can't listen to someone like Peterson and say "He has some interesting points. I could do with taking X on-board but I disagree with him on Y". People who like him become zealots who change their every belief to whatever he's last said, or crusaders who must destroy the false messiah, sent here to destroy us all. Or at least that's what the most vocal are like. I'm hoping that the majority of people are reasonable and have the self-confidence and critical thinking ability to see that the world is made up of shades of grey but are sensibly staying mute to avoid the vitriol from both sides.

True, and it has been very apparent on here, where some posters were really putting a lot of effort into trying to polarize others in earlier discussions.

It's nice to come back to this thread and find mixed opinions and mitigated views.

I agree with poster that said he has been made into a caricatural character that he is not.

He's certainly passionate about his own ideas, that's a nice thing I think, and that is the part a lot of people seem to misinterpret as him being imperious, when really he relishes the opportunity to think more about ... what he thinks.

mcmoustache

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m not a fan of Peterson in general but I wouldn’t take anything those guys said serious either.

We’re you testing to see what people would I response to 2 wild characters criticising JP? Because those guys are not reliable witnesses in my book.

Those videos are about as informative as "JORDAN PETERSON CRUSHES LIB CUCK FEMINIST ON HER OWN SHOW" type videos.