SHOW NOTES 📝 0:00 Welcome; lobster notice; positive comparison to Tony Robbins 1:25 "Competency hierarchy" discussion, also, "dominance hierarchy"; pure power is an unstable basis; chimpanzee and crustacean examples 9:08 Economic success and IQ; job performance and trait conscientiousness; both saying AND doing the thing 14:10 Hierarchy maintenance includes other hard-working people not in power; "more fat people than starving people" 17:25 Responsibility goes up as you go up the hierarchy; more on competence and its benefits 19:00 Oppression discussion, "wise king and tyrant"; Brothers Karamazov "Grand Inquisitor" story 24:15 Radical left despises competence; the definitive way to make an IQ test and Big 5 model; statistical correlations 28:35 The statistical reality of distributions; listening to the tails 30:26 Career choices by sex, things and/or people 32:28 "There are no right-wing conservatives in psychology; none." 34:36 Confusing theory with fact; more gender difference in occupations 38:15 "Success is disproportionately rewarded"; nonlinear-ness; Google and diversity discussion; "The Great Leveler" by Walter Scheidel mention; Gini coefficients ever-present throughout history 44:34 More on inequality and societal instability and status; "Monopoly", stacking up at zero 48:30 Tech as a resource multiplier; U.S. Armed Forces/83 IQ discussion 51:55 You can't train creativity; MBA screening process; overestimating training 53:50 Liberals and conservatives are BOTH wrong on work; everyone is not the same; "genetic lottery" in Silicon Valley 57:20 Working with cocaine addicts in personal practice; hope for the future 1:01:00 More on inequality, moral burdens, not-simple problems; "Scrooge McDuck money bin" idea; Bill Gates' polio and malaria initiatives mention 1:04:20 Putting money to societal problems; things parents should teach children; positivity across species; Jaak Panksepp research on rats for touch and play questions 1:11:30 More Panksepp, on iterative games, esp. dogs and rats; "emergent reciprocity" points to development of ethics 1:14:18 Universal ethics trading game "brief story"; winning the game vs. winning the set of games; ethics around the game 1:18:46 "Quick dive into science and God"; informed decision-making; Biopreparat story 1:24:01 Ethical direction of scientific query discussion; facts and/or/vs. values; the bomb 1:26:25 Intellectual Dark Web and conversations in society; Carl Rogers mention; "can't force someone to be better"; being intellectually honest is the most interesting 1:30:20 More on having real conversations; "meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts"; life is suffering 1:34:00 State of flow is the primary religious experience; more on religious experiences 1:35:03 Simulation Q1: Are we in a computer simulation? "Is A, B?" 1:37:57 Acknowledgement/thanks for Dr. Peterson 1:38:47 Credits Thanks for tuning in everyone! What do you think is the nature of reality? Let us know in the comments below! :)
Would you mind explaining to me why in some views they seem to switch sides? Like some of the camera angles are viewed through a mirror and others appear to show them directly??
That didnt age well. Same as Jordans examples of Bill Gates and bio weapons. In all honesty m8, humanity has run its course. Jordan actually says here (and ive been saying the same for some 15 years) that its yet to be proven that science is a blessing. As things are and again, as ive been saying, it is science that brings all our deaths. You want me to give examples or do you happily want to believe what you believe untill its there? The only piece of light is that it may actually be so that there is a god. And smth after death. But i cannnot fathom what that is or means even. But if you want to believe that, there is no science that can refute it.
This is the best Jordan Peterson talk I've heard. All of the others focus on the politics, left vs right, arguments but here we see him discussing the other problems and phenomena in nuance and detail. I wish it was much longer.
Yeah well people get distracted by the politics but the same issues and concerns exist regardless of who is in office. Truths are truths and people respond differently to situations depending on their own experiences or personality.
Agreed. The tone seemed to be set immediately from the seeming accidental admission that he didn't know where to start at the beginning, to which Dr. Peterson jokingly reminded him, "You're the interviewer." He seemed to repeatedly use buzz words as a crutch to sound intelligent, but many of the questions were confusing or incoherent. Dr. Peterson kindly extracted a useful question out of them (rephrasing them to clarify or outright asking the interviewer at least once to explain what he meant) before moving forward. Like another commenter said, I found myself wishing the interviewer would stop trying to poorly engage in discussion or to interrupt with his bad ideas or useless comments, so that he would instead just let Dr. Peterson lecture, as that was considerably more interesting and less awkward.
Peterson never fails to impress. The whole Tony Robbins into could’ve been done without but Peterson wins. He’s a tonic in a world where empathy has eclipsed reality
You also grew up in the time that ALLOWED this to happen, so stop trying to act like you had no part to play in the changes in society, your generation WAS the change.
There are a lot of good reasons to understand the differences. I found "The Female Brain" to be very informative and usefful. John Gray's work is useful as well.
It was a great privilege to be here. Thank you Simulation for hosting. Thanks a million for coming Jordan. You have no idea what a blessing you are, well, I suppose you must know by now. I hear you’re coming back to SF in May!! I think the ‘reciprocity with generosity’ moment was a fine one. I wanted to hold up my book as an example of that. Buy a ticket, get a free book thrown in. Next time I won’t be so timid. I’m almost done with self-authoring. Its a great tool and I have benefitted from it in many ways (at age 59). I always chuckle when I read it on the instructions that it may take up to five hours. How about a year????
How does Peterson align reciprocity to the big five personality traits? I'm a fan of reciprocity theory, particuarly Adam Grant's work. And I'm a fan of Peterson, so I know he maps many things back to the big five, such as emotional intelligence which he says doesn't exist, along with many others that are absorbed by the big five and/or IQ. How is reciprocity connected to or distinct from the big five and general IQ?
@@platoscavealum902 Good observation. Adam Grant, one of the authorities on reciprocity specifically addresses agreeableness. ruclips.net/video/YyXRYgjQXX0/видео.html. I agree with your observation, but Grant also differentiates it. Thanks for giving me something to ponder.
Looks like that is supposed to accentuate the 'simulation' theme of this channel. However, it takes away from the intended content. I see what they were trying to do, but its ineffective.
Agreed. I noticed this right away and was like, "what the fuck?". Whoever did that editing broke a cardinal rule of camera work and presentation. Doing that would be acceptable (I guess) in an art-piece, but doing it for an interview is flat-out stupid.
This is not confusing camera or even editing work. Someone literally flipped (mirrored) the image repeatedly in post, for some unknown reason. It's totally disorienting and serves no purpose I can see except to interrupt the coherence of the interview.
I feel like the Joaquin Phoenix Character meeting the Robert De Niro Character in The Joker right now. The Jordan Peterson Character is a Self written Architect. Something to aspire towards in many respects a very good g.o.d or global operative descriptor
If you're interested we have a curated playlist with many guests we have featured on the show discussing the topic of ethics! We would love to hear your thoughts on those talk if you feel so inclined!
How to reduce inequality: We need to encourage successful people to be more generous in providing opportunities and resources for others. I like that-That is a win-win. And what goes around comes around too.
At least that's a better approach than trying to force people to just give up their earned money (aka. stealing it). They already pay for all of society as is (with taxes alone).
It may take a few more rough decades before at least, the countries that have modernized by then can afford something like basic income. If the research Peterson is citing on IQ is that strong, the best a sufficiently wealthy society might be able to do is afford such people a moderately comfortable existence.
sole21000 That's a lazy way of thinking. Firstly, it makes a huge difference where you live - in rural areas or in big cities. Costs of living vary extremely, from $120/month to $2000+/month just for rent. So, you can't pay a waitress in a small town the same wage (due to lower traffic/earnings of the business) as one in a big city. And you wouldn't have to, since costs of living are also cheaper. So, in that sense, equality already exists there. Secondly, I believe that people with an IQ of 85 & below affects about 15% of the US population. That is about 50mil people. Which means, everyone else has to either voluntarily (or forced, like the left wants it) take care of those people. And that's just based on IQ. Imagine other factors like health/disabilities. "Comfortable existence" is *way* too vague, in the same way as "living wage" is.
GT83 Yeah, but we're funding that with a healthy capitalist system that optimizes for meritocracy otherwise, and giving it _decades_ (who knows what's going to be invented in this century). In the mean time, violence will increase inevitably as we lack _any_ good solution and homicide rate invariably increases in any population-dense area (I'm not worried about the country outside of absolute poverty, which obviously also has an affect on well-being). Peterson's basic point is: -The Left is naive about the difficulty of inequality, handling money is hard bureaucratically and by individual people at the bottom. -The Right is also naive because training doesn't work/people on the bottom tend to have low IQ & conscientiousness, that is nearly immune to remedial efforts. -The link between inequality and violence is as strong as any other correlation he cited. -Capitalism is excellent at abolishing poverty. It also produces inequality exponentially to scale. -We implicitly don't want the poor (and unfortunately, basically useless economically) to starve or rob everyone else. -People at the top work hard. They also won a genetic lottery. People at the bottom are those who lost the lottery to the extent _they couldn't join the army_ if they wanted to because nothing they could do is useful. I would say that's an argument that if moderate redistribution isn't the answer, you better pray for some future tech to solve the problem. Edit: The specifics of something like basic income would definitely need to be weighted on the state of the economy by then, it's impossible to know that far ahead. Maybe condition it on moving to a low-density area to keep costs low? That's pretty much the plot of Ready Player One. Either way, if Peterson is correct, it's a stark problem with no painless solution. It's either figure out effective redistribution (which is clearly extremely difficult) or let social instability increase unchecked except by potential repression. You think politics are bad now...
sole21000 You're absolutely correct & I agree with everything. Which is why I have such a problem with simplified statements/demands for "living wage" or "comfortable existence". The fact of the matter is, that there is already one specific demographic that finances most of the state to begin with. Rich people, which are usually also males. So, I find it very dangerous to try to absolutely exploit those even more, just because they worked harder/better; which is basically punishing excellence. And that's why there will have to be had *many* conversations, & difficult ones at that. "Easy solutions" are no solutions at all. But yea, who knows where we will go from here. I wish that more people would actually think about the problems that exist, as much as Dr. Peterson does. Instead of just making empty & useless utopian promises, that the communist/socialist types are purporting. Equally, things can't stay the same for too long either, as it is the basis of conservatism. Need many more dialogues & actual information & viable solutions. Which is why I love listening to Dr. Peterson so much as well. *Edit* : Didn't address the state economics part but in my opinion it would have 3 major outcomes. 1) Someone evaluates lower wages for an area & employees make less money. 2) Wages stay the same & taxpayer money is wasted on nothing. 3) Wages increase but businesses can't make it up in revenue & have to let people go and/or close. So, to me it's not a viable approach at all. The market usually handles that itself & if one doesn't like the wages, go elsewhere.
You can go for an hour straight listening to this man and still not losing interest not even for a single moment. Watching him speaking is like watching an artist doing his job (dancing, painting, singing etc) live.
To anyone wondering: I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd during this talk, and I can confirm that JBP and the interviewer switched places many times mid-sentence
I had a feminist UCSC student get miffed at me last week because I told her I was reading a book, "The Female Brain" written by a feminist woman MD, who also wrote a book, "The Male Brain", nothing would satisfy her. Feminism is disgusting.
I had to look this one up: a fly in the ointment phrase of fly noun: fly in the ointment 1. a minor irritation that spoils the success or enjoyment of something. synonyms: snag, hitch, catch, drawback, difficulty, problem, weakness, defect, pitfall, complication; More obstacle, hurdle, barrier, stumbling block, bar, hindrance, impediment, handicap, disadvantage, restriction, limitation; disbenefit; informalhiccup, facer; informalspanner in the works; informalmonkey wrench in the works "the only fly in the ointment was Adrian" Translate fly in the ointment to
It was great to see Dr Peterson Live, thankfully the host had questions for him that I have not heard him discuss before. Unfortunately there is slight microphone distortion in the video and also the camera angles keeps inverting in the video which is a bit confusing as it constantly shows Dr Peterson sitting on the left and then on the right. Thank you for posting the discussion on RUclips, keep it up!
Yay glad you saw it live. It's so important to ask challenging questions our world is facing that leaders haven't answered before on RUclips. That's a main goal of our vodcast and live event series. We will get better with A/V!
Jordan is so brilliant here. I always learn something from him, even when he keeps covering similar topics. The final piece, in my view, is not only that those with more than enough have a morality about helping others who cannot (not will not) lift themselves out of poverty, is to set the free market on this problem. Why? Because we have ample evidence that this is the most effective ways to solve this kind of problem, rather than the massive waste inherent it trying to delegate this to the state. Therefore, the solution to the problem Jordan claims "we don't know how to solve" is to make private charities that actually get results a focus. This means the state limiting their competition in this area, and also building a culture that deeply reveres charity... not for "religious" reasons, but... for lack of a better term... for a shared sense that finding meaning is important. The pace at which this will happen depends mostly on the sticky fingers of the state getting out of the way, and perhaps to give tax incentives to charity.... there are some of these, but they are difficult and limited. The true leftist instinct is a very good one, when it is channeled towards running charities that are actually and provably helpful. You can't run compassion through the law, which is ultimately about force.
I don't understand how a charity is more effective than using the state to distribute money. Governments design specific programs to encourage people to seek employment or what have you. Charities gather cash from people who are nice enough to bother donating it, and do various things...but in the end isn't a 'hand out" a hand out?
The reason is that government is a monolithic entity that attempts to apply one solution and has no incentives to succeed, and no real penalties when it fails. The free market, on the other hand, allows for experimentation with hundreds of different approaches, where the approaches that work can advertise the statistics on how efficient they are and thereby get more donations, where those that do a poor job get quickly de-funded. This is vastly more efficient, and is the efficiency argument, which should be very high priority for anyone who cares about those who are struggling. Then there is the moral argument. Let's look at abortion. If I think it is murder, and you think it is compassion to help someone who can't afford one but wants to do it, then how do we have a state welfare system that doesn't either force me to fund what I consider to be murder (could there be a greater injustice?) or denies what you see as compassion? With private charities, I can fund an organization that helps to promote bringing the baby to term and adoption, and you can fund one that pays for abortions. Then there is the honeypot argument, where because the state is so large and can put billions of dollars into a project, the temptation to abuse power to get control over those fund is very large. So we have identity politics being funded to push things like affirmative action, and this sort of problem is often caused by vying for the pile of money available through state power. In free markets while you do indeed have a vying for funding, it is all out in the open when you come home with 10 brochures on various charities you are considering funding, and choose the ones you think will do the most good. So the diffuse (and peaceful!) nature of the problem solving mechanism makes abuse of power more difficult. These are very strong arguments, and I have never seen any kind of refutation for them. People will say things like, "What if there aren't enough donations?" But my question is, "Enough for what?" Enough to make sure that every struggling person has a iPhone? Who decides if handing money out to someone is better than helping them to find a job? People dying of curable diseases? My own view is that this would be among the first sorts of things to be funded (see Bill Gates), however, in my own case, I would choose to fund a charity that focused on prevention, and indeed do things like deny saving someone who keeps going back to booze after their liver was replaced once. But you might want to keep helping pay for endless livers. Therefore, by definition there will always be "enough" where enough is exactly as much as people feel truly good about giving in ways they care about giving. The good news is that we already know that this is a huge amount based on looking at donations to charities. These donations would rise dramatically if people didn't have the hope/excuse that "the state is handling that". As a final note, there is one more argument that is my personal favorite: the pleasure argument. When I help someone in an effective manner it is more than just meaningful, it is pleasurable. When taxes are run through a state mechanism, I don't get this pleasurable feeling at all. I do get it when I have donated to a charity that I know is being effective. This is a sort of connecting with meaning/loving that is something that I feel is a great tragedy to deny people.
@@konberner170 I definitely agree with most of what you're saying. But for the last part, the unfortunate part is that the big government progressives DO receive the pleasure. They think casting their vote every 2-4 years is the same as getting involved in a charity. And not only do they get the pleasurable (but false) sense that they're actually helping, they also get the social kudos from their virtue signaling. This is why conservatives and libertarians should take the lead on solving problems outside of the government and then throwing them (gently) into the lefties' faces and shaming them for accomplishing nothing of value. They need to be shamed for their false virtue. If they actually put their empathy to good use, who knows how many problems could have been completely resolved by now. Also, end Drug Prohibition.
@@gussampson5029 I agree. But in the spirit of Jordan's overall message, the real answer is for people to grow up and realize that real responsibility is a good thing and not a burden all things considered. Such people will realize that the virtue signals are not meaningful and will start to see the importance of liberty and justice.
Those that are complaining about the host have zero skin in the game. This young man does have his skin in the game. He’s delivering a product of quality conversation with top thinkers, curating and distributing this to his audience. Rather than complain, give it a chance or watch something else. Complain only if you’ve sold at least 1000 tickets putting 1000 butts in 1000 seats speaking in front of 1000 faces. It’s not easy. Give the new kid on the block some encouragement and if you’re smart and patient you’ll look forward to what he has coming next. Silicon Valley absolutely needs different and new approaches to media, education and entertainment.
Jackson Blazensky Dude, I learned that I can critisise this fake marketeer hype bs. This is what has to go. Don't try to sell me your or your guests ideas. Getting sick of that shit.
Don't try to defend him - who cares about skin in the game... We all have skin in the human game and each of us is discerning enough in our own right to determine wether or not this content is worth our while. In my opinion, this format needs some serious improvement (both in video/audio quality and in regards to properly briefing the interviewer) in order to provide a learning environment where people can enjoy the experience and be challenged by the deeper issues which the interviewee will bring forth in response to proper coaxing by the interviewer. I think Allan is young and inexperienced and needs but with time will become a seasoned interviewer. I'm hopeful for the platform and look forward to following the evolution of Simulation Series from ints infancy into this next season.
People can and should criticize. There is no growth without critical observation. If the host is willing and is truly desirous of growth and has a drive to make this project as good as he seems to want to, then even when it is biting, it should be read and taken. It still needs to be weighed but it cannot simply be tossed out the window. That being said, there is certainly too much of a kitschy feel to how he comported himself. You don't need to clap, that is for the audience. You need to have purpose behind your more foundation shaking questions. The most annoying example was when Allen kept asking if it would help if all parents would tell their kids about evolution. Why? What morality or ethic or improvement in the interaction of people comes from that? Don't ask questions simply to attempt to look clever. Dr. Peterson has an IQ of 157 and has been at this line of work for longer than Allen has been alive. IF he were more disagreeable, he would intellectually smack you for something like that. The question could have and should have been asked in a far more elusive fashion with only a generalization so that Jordan could pick from whatever he wanted without the patronizing interjection of a complete non sequitur. Myself though, I still think it is good enough even with this (And more that I could grumble about but others have done it already), I have subscribed. Just one extra thing to remember Allen. Science is the formalized and structured process of inquiry and research. It is amoral and devoid of all feeling. It is this way to ensure that research and inquiry arrives at provable things, consistently and repeatedly. That is all. Nothing from it is fundamentally good or bad. Jordan was pretty clear on this on his own but it cannot be stated frequently enough as the word science has been transformed in it's use to such a point that it is not accurate as it is used in every day conversation. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. WHAT we do with the knowledge is the more important aspect than the knowledge itself. Therein lies the ultimate challenge to morals and ethics.
I'm going to listen to this over and over in some times to catch and digest the mere wisdom of it. it's so much to eat in one time. Thanks Jordan Peterson for these remarkable knowledge spreading.
Jordan laces his talk with more humour now. He gets speedier and wiser. He addresses many of the big questions as we progress into the 21st century, following in the footsteps of earlier geniuses like Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, etc. and his contemporary worldwide colleagues and associates. He and his family have to sacrifice some things to do this. Keep it up, man!
41:22 This is the most clear monologue about life and most things I have ever heard. Learn excel. I asked my old high school buddy (who has a great career in economics) if he had a lot of use for his (mediocre(yep double parenthesis) higher education which would be equal to something like "state school" or what you call it, lets say "non ivy league") as I said, I asked him if he had a lot of use for any skills he learned in college. He answered -NONE, almost none! and added: -I got skilled in excel at my first job as a junior which have gained me a lot in rest of my career, the rest in school in retrospect felt pretty unneccesary. Noit even contacts? I asked. No, not in my business he answered. He has a salary in the six figures in London today. (we´re around forty years old today) I also asked him if fancy Ivy league schools gave any advantage over a random (like state) school when hiring? He said, "nah, not really, in the second interview its almost only about the personality, they cant learn personality in school" This might not help everyone... but you know if you are an underachiever, it might be the main reason why you feel miserable. It is worth to do something of yourself and be a decent person. Go get´em.
Brilliant! Really enjoyed hearing Jordan Peterson operationally phrase, in such a precise manner, the inescapable contextual input needed to be able to understand language. PC is wrong in equating nouns or noun-phrases with bounded concepts per se. Imposing normative speech and thus normative thought is the death of both. Lots of other good content as well. JP is intellectually brilliant. Thanks for the conversation.
As part of my job, I write virtually all day and I often review other people's writing. One of the hardest things I had to learn was to separate style from error during that review process. Similarly, when I first started listening to this video, I found myself judging Allen Saakyan's style rather than his ability, or the content of the video. I see that now as unjust. He is clearly an intelligent young man, and that he does things differently than I might is likely a good thing. He helped guide JP into territories that were new for the audience, and me, and helped bring us new perspectives. I will certainly be listening to him again.
I've been friends with this guy since the end of high school and he has been going to university for the last 12 years or so settling in the area of cognitive science and neuro science etc. He's doing his PHD this year and part of his thesis involves a scientific paper written by Peterson which took my friend by surprise. He didint even realise at first. This is cutting edge science on the brain. On consciousness. Not some pseudo science or doctrine to support political ideas of his. Its ridiculous people try reduce him to whatever suits them
This is awesome-one of my favorite interviews of JP!!! My favorite is when he absolutely unequivocally supports the science. That is how you save the world. Objective Truth first, and everything else later… but only if you like people, peace, harmony and stuff like that. 🤷♀️ 😂 best interview ever. I have known JP for 20 years and the thing he did with the context of meaning in words for the simulation question at the end is the example I gave him when I was starting my work on meaning as the key to everything 20 years ago ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😎 He still uses it. Because we are long lost brothers. 😂 plus we’re both hella smart… except I live in my car now. Because I am too busy thinking to have a career. I left school to write books and stuff. Stay in school kids. Don’t be too revolutionary. I even figured out what gravity is along the way but no one is listening because they don’t have the gear to cross that river.
6 лет назад+27
Tony Robbins? Seriously? Beyond that tho...another seriously enlightening conversation. And no protests, bullshit, etc...good to know the Bay Area isn't as daft as the stereotype.
Great job Allen! I've interviewed dozens of people on my radio show and know how challenging it can be. I would have been nervous as hell interviewing him and it was great to hear him talk about science this way. One of the best interviews with him anywhere on the net.
Am I the only one who doesn't have an issue with the video and audio? Yeah, it's not a movie, but the visuals are effectively pointless and the audio is completely understandable. At least, I've had absolutely 0 issues understanding what anyone says. Most of you seem to care more about production than content, and I just cannot understand why you'd watch this. I mean, I feel privileged just to be able to get this for free. Also, a lot of comments seem to say the host's introduction is weird. You guys know you can toggle and skip it? I don't know if the intro is weird, didn't watch it. Idk, listening to the introduction of a podcast or lecture always kinda seemed pointless to me. I read the title, I know what I'm in for.
I didn't have a problem with the audio at all. Absolutely clear enough for an interview. But I did have a problem with the video because half the video was mirrored and it was kind of disorienting. Even though I prefer watching lectures and interviews wherever I can, I eventually stopped watching and just listened. And everything was okay again.
Is Jordan left or right handed? If he’s right handed then his watch would be on his left wrist. If so Jordan is on stage left. My God this is annoying.
If anyone can see which side of the suit the buttons are on, you could figure the original mirror; men's suits have the buttons on the right, which means Peterson's watch is on his right hand and he's to the left of the host. Unless he's wearing a woman's suit...
This host fellow seems extremely pleased with and proud of himself, for not very much reason that I can see. But hey, any excuse to hear JBP say things, I'll take it and tolerate the silly hosts.
This is all the hosts production so I could see him being proud that he got someone this interesting to do something with him, I'd certainly be pleased if I got to speak with Jordan Peterson and got him to do a show with me or whatever. I get what you're saying though, he needs to accept people are watching for Mr. Peterson and shut up, affirming everything Jordan says and breathing into his mic is only detracting from the presentation. I would literally rather have had Peterson up there by himself with a list of questions than have this guy host it, his stupid little laugh sounds like he's slowly dying and exhaling his last.
One of his more important talks I feel because he really drives home the notion that people aren't equal and that measurements of this in the social sciences are actually solid mainstream science of which there's surprisingly little disagreement or debate in the field itself. A huge amount of the social justice movement is predicated on people being equal and social constructivism (blank slate theory) that humans can be programmed to do whatever you like, if you have a strict enough environment. Not only are those ideas wrong but they're also extremely divisive because when you assume equality and what you measure is inequality then it turns into a witch hunt to weed out all these negative social pressures, which don't actually exist. Everyone just ends up chasing their tail and becoming increasingly divided over whose fault it is.
Great to hear JBP answer questions we haven't heard him answer before. As the interviewer develops his own unique style of asking questions, I look forward to seeing more thought provoking conversations such as these. Perhaps Sam Harris could be next? ;)
Thanks Luke! We had our PTZ robo cams hanging upside down from magic arms off the wall and forgot to flip the image. We'll keep getting better over time. Sorry for the annoyance it may be causing on this video.
a word of advice for Allen and co : no matter how terrifying or humiliating or otherwise harsh that owning up to the truth of your existence currently might seem, there will always be something worse. that worst outcome would be the ultimate triumph of pretense in your thought and action, that renders you into nothing but an empty shell, in the end. therefor, it is always better for your person, to deal with truth and do without pretense, as much as you can.
Speaking of "multiple intelligences", I think the idea of "emotional intelligence" is nothing more than the agreeable projecting their paradigm onto all humans. Their metric contends that I am terribly emotionally unintelligent, yet I can still recognize that the agreeable types are operating on nothing more than "I personally don't like it = bad", and "It doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities = good", and that that is exceptionally emotionally unintelligent/undeveloped.
EQ was launched by Salovay and Mayer, somewhere round 1990. They picked it up from a student that invented the term. They launched it, but the first definition they gave was completely nonsensical, so they had to change their definition a year later. It still was utter nonsense. Nonetheless media picked up on it and ofc, all the no brain fools used it to try to gain same status as real high IQ people, saying it was just as important to be high EQ. And they also automatically assumed that someone with high IQ, would have low EQ. I did nothing but counter those fools in the 90ies and early 2000's. Was almost a day job. Thank god its mostly gone now. There is no such thing as EQ.
Another reason why people who go to private schools (from my own experience) and probably Harvard and Yale (I presume) is because of networking. You get to meet and hopefully make friends with, or at the least connect with, lots of other people who are going to succeed in life in many areas. These people then support each others promotions. As the old saying goes... It 's not WHAT you know but WHO you know.
It's a great conversation, and I liked the interviewer, but I feel like he was missing Peterson's point about inequality. He's not saying he thinks a solution is impossible, just that we haven't come up with a good one yet and our current remedies aren't productive. It's a tougher puzzle than we originally thought, and so is going to take something more imaginative than the current social programs to solve. It's really nice to see him speak in more liberal areas, because he gets to talk about different subjects than when he's speaking to conservatives, as well as articulate where's he's in agreement with the Left.
i can't stress how important this whole interview is. . . i cannot even explain why to anyone that refuse to listen to facts....otherwise, listen carefully :)
I was referring to the attitude toward the value of people at the bottom of the IQ pile. The question which is always posed is "What do we do with these people?' and never answered. How about just being with them and finding out who they are as individuals instead of lumping them into a group who are perceived first and foremost as lacking the ability to do anything socially worthwhile. There is other value besides social and many ways people can contribute just by being who they are.
It seems that Jordan Peterson is excited by quite a bit of things. Just on the right moment he talks about things that cut deep or things that are very primal within us. I liked his multiple perspectives on the universe. The sense of wonder you can get from it feeling like a curious little kid, or the nihilistic gloom and doom and is inescapable. I get the feeling he has experienced both perspectives.
1:18:00 An explanation of MGTOW right here. If the deal isn't approximately 50/50, the party that gets the worse deal will say "no, go to hell, I'm not doing it!"
Thank you for making this video. The problems, though there, are not insurmountable and I believe that this format is worth continuing. Keep up the hard work man.
As stated in the talk, intelligence is statistically speaking a good predictor for success. And it has been admitted, that defining and measuring success is in itself problematic. Even the impact (or luxury) of morality - which sometimes can be detrimental to success - over the spectrum of various degrees of success was mentioned in this interesting monologue. Yet, it remained unaddressed, that a society (or the "leading class" of a society) also defines what success means. Of course, also necessities do that. But once such a success metric has been established, it is in the interest of those who are well suited for it, to maintain, preserve and defend said metric. Comparing the pre- industrial era with modern society, it is obvious, that certain talents which would have granted a "successful life" in the past will now at best be good enough to make it to lower middle class at best. In that sense, when Jordan Peterson denied, that there could be aspects/skill sets, not covered by IQ tests (such as e.g. craftsmanship), he spoke in the context of our current society. Had he been more aware of the normative forces at work, he might have recognized one more factor contributing to the destabilizing tendencies of a pure merit based distribution of wealth. There are more contributions, groups of the population could provide, than are earning merit. And such groups, naturally will not be very much in favor of the status quo. Not being an american, the statement that "only intelligent people make it into private schools" appeared to be the low point in the whole talk. As far as I understand the american school system, people who get into private schools are people with rich parents, first and foremost.
Here's the question I have within all of this. Why exactly ARE we so goddamn Adamant about Men and Women being the same biologically, or at least psychologically? Cause that's what truly drives most of this hysteria. There's this obscure public NEED to see Men and Women as essentially "The Same". Where the hell did THAT "thing" come from and why the hell is it still here?
I think people have been trying to sort out why inequality between men and women exists. We had to explore whether it was all socialization or not. There's no doubt that boys and girls are treated differently in childhood, which surely affects people all their life. Now we are beginning to understand that it's real, but there's also innate biological differences that give men and women different motivations. It's going to take a while for society to understand it. Who cares about the young "non binary" kids screaming blue murder about all this. They will grow up eventually.
I appreciate it man, but you didn't really touch on my question....like....at all lol so I'm not sure where to go from here xD For what it's worth, you still seem rather thoughtful and polite. That's gotta count for something lol
Yes Mr Peterson, you can teach people to be creative. I do it everyday in secondary school and it takes about 6 months of steady effort to turn around the fortunes of most dysfunctional students.
Wow. wth does dysfunctional children and creativity have to do with one another? And if you seriously can't tell the difference, perhaps you should be categorized in the same group as these college kids who need to clear their room before they criticize the world.
Eh? I think you fired off a reply without thinking there buddy! Jordan (who I think is superbly spot-on 99% of the time BTW) claims in this talk that you can't teach creativity! Well, I know you can and I do it every day and I do it with the most atypically-behaving/thinking children in society (children that society commonly 'writes off' as 'unteachable'). I'm just using my personal anecdote to highlight this claim as uninformed BS - a rare incidence in JP history no doubt, but to be fair, the guy can't know everything about everything.
ffs... if you're a teacher we're all fucked. Slowly now. 1) Your anecdotal subjective experience with few kids have nothing to do with actual scientific fact. And NO you can't TEACH creativity. 2) And I can't believe I have to explain this to a "teacher" but.. what you're describing are DYSFUNCTIONAL children. You're just helping them "cure" that. That is NOT the same thing as fundamentally teaching creativity. Get it? Fixing a psychological issue that has caused dysfunction and alienation from the norm by offering them crafts as means of coping is NOT the same as teaching creativity. You're just using art as a therapy measure to unblock their dysfunction. And last, so you dont have to believe internet person... www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/imagine/201104/can-creativity-be-taught No it can't be taught.
WeirdViking I just knew when I typed the word ‘anecdote’ it risked a stupid reply if the recipient never had an original thought of their own and didn’t understand anything more than what other people tell them to think or just had an IQ less than 83. You didn’t disappoint on any of those points. Well done for the dumbest response on RUclips award 2018. I think I’ll leave this argument here because, quite frankly, you make about as much sense as a law dictating that immigrant children should be locked up in cages away from their parents.
Yeah, you're not a teacher and you dont work with any kids. I just linked you psychologytoday article proving my point and you reply with ad hominem. What kind of satisfaction do you get lying in the internet?
SHOW NOTES 📝
0:00 Welcome; lobster notice; positive comparison to Tony Robbins
1:25 "Competency hierarchy" discussion, also, "dominance hierarchy"; pure power is an unstable basis; chimpanzee and crustacean examples
9:08 Economic success and IQ; job performance and trait conscientiousness; both saying AND doing the thing
14:10 Hierarchy maintenance includes other hard-working people not in power; "more fat people than starving people"
17:25 Responsibility goes up as you go up the hierarchy; more on competence and its benefits
19:00 Oppression discussion, "wise king and tyrant"; Brothers Karamazov "Grand Inquisitor" story
24:15 Radical left despises competence; the definitive way to make an IQ test and Big 5 model; statistical correlations
28:35 The statistical reality of distributions; listening to the tails
30:26 Career choices by sex, things and/or people
32:28 "There are no right-wing conservatives in psychology; none."
34:36 Confusing theory with fact; more gender difference in occupations
38:15 "Success is disproportionately rewarded"; nonlinear-ness; Google and diversity discussion; "The Great Leveler" by Walter Scheidel mention; Gini coefficients ever-present throughout history
44:34 More on inequality and societal instability and status; "Monopoly", stacking up at zero
48:30 Tech as a resource multiplier; U.S. Armed Forces/83 IQ discussion
51:55 You can't train creativity; MBA screening process; overestimating training
53:50 Liberals and conservatives are BOTH wrong on work; everyone is not the same; "genetic lottery" in Silicon Valley
57:20 Working with cocaine addicts in personal practice; hope for the future
1:01:00 More on inequality, moral burdens, not-simple problems; "Scrooge McDuck money bin" idea; Bill Gates' polio and malaria initiatives mention
1:04:20 Putting money to societal problems; things parents should teach children; positivity across species; Jaak Panksepp research on rats for touch and play questions
1:11:30 More Panksepp, on iterative games, esp. dogs and rats; "emergent reciprocity" points to development of ethics
1:14:18 Universal ethics trading game "brief story"; winning the game vs. winning the set of games; ethics around the game
1:18:46 "Quick dive into science and God"; informed decision-making; Biopreparat story
1:24:01 Ethical direction of scientific query discussion; facts and/or/vs. values; the bomb
1:26:25 Intellectual Dark Web and conversations in society; Carl Rogers mention; "can't force someone to be better"; being intellectually honest is the most interesting
1:30:20 More on having real conversations; "meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts"; life is suffering
1:34:00 State of flow is the primary religious experience; more on religious experiences
1:35:03 Simulation Q1: Are we in a computer simulation? "Is A, B?"
1:37:57 Acknowledgement/thanks for Dr. Peterson
1:38:47 Credits
Thanks for tuning in everyone! What do you think is the nature of reality? Let us know in the comments below! :)
Would you mind explaining to me why in some views they seem to switch sides? Like some of the camera angles are viewed through a mirror and others appear to show them directly??
Listening to this guy gives me hope for humanity, for life, for civilization.
I wish I could say the same... Not really
Hes the best.
It depends on what you mean by hope, humanity and civilization.
That didnt age well.
Same as Jordans examples of Bill Gates and bio weapons.
In all honesty m8, humanity has run its course.
Jordan actually says here (and ive been saying the same for some 15 years) that its yet to be proven that science is a blessing. As things are and again, as ive been saying, it is science that brings all our deaths. You want me to give examples or do you happily want to believe what you believe untill its there?
The only piece of light is that it may actually be so that there is a god. And smth after death. But i cannnot fathom what that is or means even. But if you want to believe that, there is no science that can refute it.
Jordan Peterson Starter Pack:
Generally Speaking
The Data On That Is Crystal Clear
And That's That
So Yeah
“Yeah, no”
“how about no”
“that’s wrong, it’s not just a little bit wrong, it’s mindboggingly/unbelievably/[insert adjective] wrong”
😂😂😂
OK buckoo
Roughly speaking
Lobster
This is the best Jordan Peterson talk I've heard. All of the others focus on the politics, left vs right, arguments but here we see him discussing the other problems and phenomena in nuance and detail. I wish it was much longer.
Thank you Ahmad, that was our intention, lots more to discuss with Jordan hopefully soon!
Yeah well people get distracted by the politics but the same issues and concerns exist regardless of who is in office. Truths are truths and people respond differently to situations depending on their own experiences or personality.
I am absolutely thrilled to see silicon valley give the brilliant Dr. Jordan Peterson a platform to speak. It's about bloody time.
These are people who wanted to see him, not your typical silicon valley radical leftist.
The interviewer was not well prepared for the conversation but it was fantastic anyways. Thank you for posting
carlotapuig oddly that might be why it was a bit more interesting then some others, usually the short interviews seem to parrot each other.
Leftist "thinking" does not prepare people for an intelligent life
I agree Peterson is a great interview subject. I found the poor interviewer. camera work, sound and editing distracting.
I felt angry every time he was interrupting him to say some dull shit
Agreed. The tone seemed to be set immediately from the seeming accidental admission that he didn't know where to start at the beginning, to which Dr. Peterson jokingly reminded him, "You're the interviewer." He seemed to repeatedly use buzz words as a crutch to sound intelligent, but many of the questions were confusing or incoherent. Dr. Peterson kindly extracted a useful question out of them (rephrasing them to clarify or outright asking the interviewer at least once to explain what he meant) before moving forward. Like another commenter said, I found myself wishing the interviewer would stop trying to poorly engage in discussion or to interrupt with his bad ideas or useless comments, so that he would instead just let Dr. Peterson lecture, as that was considerably more interesting and less awkward.
Peterson never fails to impress. The whole Tony Robbins into could’ve been done without but Peterson wins. He’s a tonic in a world where empathy has eclipsed reality
"If you tickle rats with an eraser, they laugh ultrasonically." -J.B.P.
1:10:16
ruclips.net/video/d-84UJpYFRM/видео.html
[Laughing ultrasonically]
28:00 multiple intelligence, personality
32:49 career choice are based on personality & interest, gender difference
49:45 wealth inequality and iq
I grew up in a time where we knew men and woman are different and it didn't take billions of dollars to prove it
Luka K. Wow very lucky to grow up like that and how very sad that children do not know kind of loving family
It became a great intellectual revolution to through away all the old ideas. So now we must discover them again.
Dius276 basically don’t blindly believe shit
You also grew up in the time that ALLOWED this to happen, so stop trying to act like you had no part to play in the changes in society, your generation WAS the change.
There are a lot of good reasons to understand the differences. I found "The Female Brain" to be very informative and usefful. John Gray's work is useful as well.
It was a great privilege to be here. Thank you Simulation for hosting. Thanks a million for coming Jordan. You have no idea what a blessing you are, well, I suppose you must know by now. I hear you’re coming back to SF in May!!
I think the ‘reciprocity with generosity’ moment was a fine one. I wanted to hold up my book as an example of that. Buy a ticket, get a free book thrown in. Next time I won’t be so timid.
I’m almost done with self-authoring. Its a great tool and I have benefitted from it in many ways (at age 59). I always chuckle when I read it on the instructions that it may take up to five hours. How about a year????
How does Peterson align reciprocity to the big five personality traits? I'm a fan of reciprocity theory, particuarly Adam Grant's work. And I'm a fan of Peterson, so I know he maps many things back to the big five, such as emotional intelligence which he says doesn't exist, along with many others that are absorbed by the big five and/or IQ. How is reciprocity connected to or distinct from the big five and general IQ?
👍 @@TheRadicalCentrist.1776, interesting comment.
It seems that reciprocity would map on to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness from the Big 5.
@@platoscavealum902 Good observation. Adam Grant, one of the authorities on reciprocity specifically addresses agreeableness. ruclips.net/video/YyXRYgjQXX0/видео.html. I agree with your observation, but Grant also differentiates it. Thanks for giving me something to ponder.
Confusing camera work. Doesn't produce a coherent view of the room. Left-right switched between shots etc.
Looks like that is supposed to accentuate the 'simulation' theme of this channel. However, it takes away from the intended content. I see what they were trying to do, but its ineffective.
Agreed. I noticed this right away and was like, "what the fuck?". Whoever did that editing broke a cardinal rule of camera work and presentation. Doing that would be acceptable (I guess) in an art-piece, but doing it for an interview is flat-out stupid.
This is not confusing camera or even editing work. Someone literally flipped (mirrored) the image repeatedly in post, for some unknown reason. It's totally disorienting and serves no purpose I can see except to interrupt the coherence of the interview.
1 minute in and I thought I was tripping. Haha
The host going on about the lobster was a lot more annoying to me than the camera work.
The editor just broke the 180 degree rule 3000 times 😂💔 I’m listening to this like a podcast because it’s visually killing me 😶
It’s killing me, what side is Peterson sitting on?? Lol
😂😂😂😂
I feel like the Joaquin Phoenix Character meeting the Robert De Niro Character in The Joker right now. The Jordan Peterson Character is a Self written Architect. Something to aspire towards in many respects a very good g.o.d or global operative descriptor
Even the audio hurts.. every time they pause the mic just cuts off completely with no background noise, it's so unsettling 😮💨
Just when you thought JBP was on the right, BAM!, he's on the left.
Secret Agent Paul ....seemingly.
@Articulate Management yes
@Articulate Management How is he a libertarian?
The wit in this comment is highly underestimated. It refers to both the camera work and politics AND it's funny. Cheers to you.
Who tf cares
This is one of the best JP interviews out there.
From kenya one of those from subsaharan africa watching this
Hello! Happy to hear that you found our content! What was your favorite topic from this talk?
Emergence of ethic
If you're interested we have a curated playlist with many guests we have featured on the show discussing the topic of ethics! We would love to hear your thoughts on those talk if you feel so inclined!
Peterson is a fascinating human being.
I can't get enough of his lectures.
Thank you.
How to reduce inequality: We need to encourage successful people to be more generous in providing opportunities and resources for others. I like that-That is a win-win. And what goes around comes around too.
At least that's a better approach than trying to force people to just give up their earned money (aka. stealing it).
They already pay for all of society as is (with taxes alone).
It may take a few more rough decades before at least, the countries that have modernized by then can afford something like basic income. If the research Peterson is citing on IQ is that strong, the best a sufficiently wealthy society might be able to do is afford such people a moderately comfortable existence.
sole21000
That's a lazy way of thinking.
Firstly, it makes a huge difference where you live - in rural areas or in big cities.
Costs of living vary extremely, from $120/month to $2000+/month just for rent.
So, you can't pay a waitress in a small town the same wage (due to lower traffic/earnings of the business) as one in a big city.
And you wouldn't have to, since costs of living are also cheaper.
So, in that sense, equality already exists there.
Secondly, I believe that people with an IQ of 85 & below affects about 15% of the US population.
That is about 50mil people.
Which means, everyone else has to either voluntarily (or forced, like the left wants it) take care of those people.
And that's just based on IQ.
Imagine other factors like health/disabilities.
"Comfortable existence" is *way* too vague, in the same way as "living wage" is.
GT83 Yeah, but we're funding that with a healthy capitalist system that optimizes for meritocracy otherwise, and giving it _decades_ (who knows what's going to be invented in this century). In the mean time, violence will increase inevitably as we lack _any_ good solution and homicide rate invariably increases in any population-dense area (I'm not worried about the country outside of absolute poverty, which obviously also has an affect on well-being).
Peterson's basic point is:
-The Left is naive about the difficulty of inequality, handling money is hard bureaucratically and by individual people at the bottom.
-The Right is also naive because training doesn't work/people on the bottom tend to have low IQ & conscientiousness, that is nearly immune to remedial efforts.
-The link between inequality and violence is as strong as any other correlation he cited.
-Capitalism is excellent at abolishing poverty. It also produces inequality exponentially to scale.
-We implicitly don't want the poor (and unfortunately, basically useless economically) to starve or rob everyone else.
-People at the top work hard. They also won a genetic lottery. People at the bottom are those who lost the lottery to the extent _they couldn't join the army_ if they wanted to because nothing they could do is useful.
I would say that's an argument that if moderate redistribution isn't the answer, you better pray for some future tech to solve the problem.
Edit: The specifics of something like basic income would definitely need to be weighted on the state of the economy by then, it's impossible to know that far ahead. Maybe condition it on moving to a low-density area to keep costs low? That's pretty much the plot of Ready Player One.
Either way, if Peterson is correct, it's a stark problem with no painless solution. It's either figure out effective redistribution (which is clearly extremely difficult) or let social instability increase unchecked except by potential repression. You think politics are bad now...
sole21000
You're absolutely correct & I agree with everything.
Which is why I have such a problem with simplified statements/demands for "living wage" or "comfortable existence".
The fact of the matter is, that there is already one specific demographic that finances most of the state to begin with.
Rich people, which are usually also males.
So, I find it very dangerous to try to absolutely exploit those even more, just because they worked harder/better; which is basically punishing excellence.
And that's why there will have to be had *many* conversations, & difficult ones at that.
"Easy solutions" are no solutions at all.
But yea, who knows where we will go from here.
I wish that more people would actually think about the problems that exist, as much as Dr. Peterson does.
Instead of just making empty & useless utopian promises, that the communist/socialist types are purporting.
Equally, things can't stay the same for too long either, as it is the basis of conservatism.
Need many more dialogues & actual information & viable solutions.
Which is why I love listening to Dr. Peterson so much as well.
*Edit* : Didn't address the state economics part but in my opinion it would have 3 major outcomes.
1) Someone evaluates lower wages for an area & employees make less money.
2) Wages stay the same & taxpayer money is wasted on nothing.
3) Wages increase but businesses can't make it up in revenue & have to let people go and/or close.
So, to me it's not a viable approach at all.
The market usually handles that itself & if one doesn't like the wages, go elsewhere.
"You remind me of Tony Robbins"
"I think he's taller..."
"....okay. 'Tiny' Robbins."
Im sorry but.... Jordan >>>> Robbins. And Robbins is a 90% all-time speaker/philosopher.
You can go for an hour straight listening to this man and still not losing interest not even for a single moment. Watching him speaking is like watching an artist doing his job (dancing, painting, singing etc) live.
To anyone wondering: I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd during this talk, and I can confirm that JBP and the interviewer switched places many times mid-sentence
It was great to see you in person Dr Peterson!
This man is a gift from GOD for our insane immoral times he is totally fascinating I cannot get enough of his mind and the goodness of his heart
I love this comment
I had a feminist UCSC student get miffed at me last week because I told her I was reading a book, "The Female Brain" written by a feminist woman MD, who also wrote a book, "The Male Brain", nothing would satisfy her. Feminism is disgusting.
Jordan Peterson always talks in forms of, let me give you and example. A simple analogy to the problem, that makes it easy to understand. Thank you.
I had to look this one up:
a fly in the ointment
phrase of fly
noun: fly in the ointment
1.
a minor irritation that spoils the success or enjoyment of something.
synonyms: snag, hitch, catch, drawback, difficulty, problem, weakness, defect, pitfall, complication; More
obstacle, hurdle, barrier, stumbling block, bar, hindrance, impediment, handicap, disadvantage, restriction, limitation;
disbenefit;
informalhiccup, facer;
informalspanner in the works;
informalmonkey wrench in the works
"the only fly in the ointment was Adrian"
Translate fly in the ointment to
It is such a joy to watch Jordan Peterson on RUclips!
Yes Daniel! :) Appreciate you watching & commenting
I had a great time at this event, seeing JBP has been a goal of mine for awhile so I'm glad the Simulation Series was able help me achieve that!
It was great to see Dr Peterson Live, thankfully the host had questions for him that I have not heard him discuss before.
Unfortunately there is slight microphone distortion in the video and also the camera angles keeps inverting in the video which is a bit confusing as it constantly shows Dr Peterson sitting on the left and then on the right. Thank you for posting the discussion on RUclips, keep it up!
Yay glad you saw it live. It's so important to ask challenging questions our world is facing that leaders haven't answered before on RUclips. That's a main goal of our vodcast and live event series. We will get better with A/V!
The camera flipping effect is really quite bad.
Thank god, I thought I was tripping balls!
@@SimulationSeries related to the camera angles... I am curious how the camera produced such an effect? (not complaining, just curious)
1:17:00 "let's play a Trading game"; JBP Brilliantly explains Ethics.
Jordan is so brilliant here. I always learn something from him, even when he keeps covering similar topics. The final piece, in my view, is not only that those with more than enough have a morality about helping others who cannot (not will not) lift themselves out of poverty, is to set the free market on this problem. Why? Because we have ample evidence that this is the most effective ways to solve this kind of problem, rather than the massive waste inherent it trying to delegate this to the state. Therefore, the solution to the problem Jordan claims "we don't know how to solve" is to make private charities that actually get results a focus. This means the state limiting their competition in this area, and also building a culture that deeply reveres charity... not for "religious" reasons, but... for lack of a better term... for a shared sense that finding meaning is important.
The pace at which this will happen depends mostly on the sticky fingers of the state getting out of the way, and perhaps to give tax incentives to charity.... there are some of these, but they are difficult and limited. The true leftist instinct is a very good one, when it is channeled towards running charities that are actually and provably helpful. You can't run compassion through the law, which is ultimately about force.
I don't understand how a charity is more effective than using the state to distribute money. Governments design specific programs to encourage people to seek employment or what have you. Charities gather cash from people who are nice enough to bother donating it, and do various things...but in the end isn't a 'hand out" a hand out?
The reason is that government is a monolithic entity that attempts to apply one solution and has no incentives to succeed, and no real penalties when it fails. The free market, on the other hand, allows for experimentation with hundreds of different approaches, where the approaches that work can advertise the statistics on how efficient they are and thereby get more donations, where those that do a poor job get quickly de-funded. This is vastly more efficient, and is the efficiency argument, which should be very high priority for anyone who cares about those who are struggling.
Then there is the moral argument. Let's look at abortion. If I think it is murder, and you think it is compassion to help someone who can't afford one but wants to do it, then how do we have a state welfare system that doesn't either force me to fund what I consider to be murder (could there be a greater injustice?) or denies what you see as compassion? With private charities, I can fund an organization that helps to promote bringing the baby to term and adoption, and you can fund one that pays for abortions.
Then there is the honeypot argument, where because the state is so large and can put billions of dollars into a project, the temptation to abuse power to get control over those fund is very large. So we have identity politics being funded to push things like affirmative action, and this sort of problem is often caused by vying for the pile of money available through state power. In free markets while you do indeed have a vying for funding, it is all out in the open when you come home with 10 brochures on various charities you are considering funding, and choose the ones you think will do the most good. So the diffuse (and peaceful!) nature of the problem solving mechanism makes abuse of power more difficult.
These are very strong arguments, and I have never seen any kind of refutation for them. People will say things like, "What if there aren't enough donations?" But my question is, "Enough for what?" Enough to make sure that every struggling person has a iPhone? Who decides if handing money out to someone is better than helping them to find a job? People dying of curable diseases? My own view is that this would be among the first sorts of things to be funded (see Bill Gates), however, in my own case, I would choose to fund a charity that focused on prevention, and indeed do things like deny saving someone who keeps going back to booze after their liver was replaced once. But you might want to keep helping pay for endless livers. Therefore, by definition there will always be "enough" where enough is exactly as much as people feel truly good about giving in ways they care about giving. The good news is that we already know that this is a huge amount based on looking at donations to charities. These donations would rise dramatically if people didn't have the hope/excuse that "the state is handling that".
As a final note, there is one more argument that is my personal favorite: the pleasure argument. When I help someone in an effective manner it is more than just meaningful, it is pleasurable. When taxes are run through a state mechanism, I don't get this pleasurable feeling at all. I do get it when I have donated to a charity that I know is being effective. This is a sort of connecting with meaning/loving that is something that I feel is a great tragedy to deny people.
Kon Berner
clown pampered millenial sheet.
@@konberner170 I definitely agree with most of what you're saying. But for the last part, the unfortunate part is that the big government progressives DO receive the pleasure. They think casting their vote every 2-4 years is the same as getting involved in a charity. And not only do they get the pleasurable (but false) sense that they're actually helping, they also get the social kudos from their virtue signaling.
This is why conservatives and libertarians should take the lead on solving problems outside of the government and then throwing them (gently) into the lefties' faces and shaming them for accomplishing nothing of value. They need to be shamed for their false virtue. If they actually put their empathy to good use, who knows how many problems could have been completely resolved by now.
Also, end Drug Prohibition.
@@gussampson5029 I agree. But in the spirit of Jordan's overall message, the real answer is for people to grow up and realize that real responsibility is a good thing and not a burden all things considered. Such people will realize that the virtue signals are not meaningful and will start to see the importance of liberty and justice.
Those that are complaining about the host have zero skin in the game. This young man does have his skin in the game. He’s delivering a product of quality conversation with top thinkers, curating and distributing this to his audience. Rather than complain, give it a chance or watch something else. Complain only if you’ve sold at least 1000 tickets putting 1000 butts in 1000 seats speaking in front of 1000 faces. It’s not easy. Give the new kid on the block some encouragement and if you’re smart and patient you’ll look forward to what he has coming next. Silicon Valley absolutely needs different and new approaches to media, education and entertainment.
Jackson Blazensky Dude, I learned that I can critisise this fake marketeer hype bs. This is what has to go. Don't try to sell me your or your guests ideas. Getting sick of that shit.
Thanks Jackson! Probably one of the best summaries of how to treat others who are trying to build a better world.
Also Skin In The Game by Nassim Taleb is a must read for those who haven't. We're aiming to line him up as a future guest.
Don't try to defend him - who cares about skin in the game... We all have skin in the human game and each of us is discerning enough in our own right to determine wether or not this content is worth our while. In my opinion, this format needs some serious improvement (both in video/audio quality and in regards to properly briefing the interviewer) in order to provide a learning environment where people can enjoy the experience and be challenged by the deeper issues which the interviewee will bring forth in response to proper coaxing by the interviewer. I think Allan is young and inexperienced and needs but with time will become a seasoned interviewer. I'm hopeful for the platform and look forward to following the evolution of Simulation Series from ints infancy into this next season.
People can and should criticize. There is no growth without critical observation. If the host is willing and is truly desirous of growth and has a drive to make this project as good as he seems to want to, then even when it is biting, it should be read and taken. It still needs to be weighed but it cannot simply be tossed out the window.
That being said, there is certainly too much of a kitschy feel to how he comported himself. You don't need to clap, that is for the audience. You need to have purpose behind your more foundation shaking questions. The most annoying example was when Allen kept asking if it would help if all parents would tell their kids about evolution. Why? What morality or ethic or improvement in the interaction of people comes from that? Don't ask questions simply to attempt to look clever. Dr. Peterson has an IQ of 157 and has been at this line of work for longer than Allen has been alive. IF he were more disagreeable, he would intellectually smack you for something like that. The question could have and should have been asked in a far more elusive fashion with only a generalization so that Jordan could pick from whatever he wanted without the patronizing interjection of a complete non sequitur.
Myself though, I still think it is good enough even with this (And more that I could grumble about but others have done it already), I have subscribed.
Just one extra thing to remember Allen. Science is the formalized and structured process of inquiry and research. It is amoral and devoid of all feeling. It is this way to ensure that research and inquiry arrives at provable things, consistently and repeatedly. That is all. Nothing from it is fundamentally good or bad. Jordan was pretty clear on this on his own but it cannot be stated frequently enough as the word science has been transformed in it's use to such a point that it is not accurate as it is used in every day conversation.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. WHAT we do with the knowledge is the more important aspect than the knowledge itself. Therein lies the ultimate challenge to morals and ethics.
1:34:37 "trying to see if everyone is engaged in the conversation" - aaand the camera finds the one sleeping woman in the audience.
To be fair I think it is actually two teenage girls perhaps sisters, bored to exhaustion...
I'm going to listen to this over and over in some times to catch and digest the mere wisdom of it. it's so much to eat in one time.
Thanks Jordan Peterson for these remarkable knowledge spreading.
Jordan laces his talk with more humour now. He gets speedier and wiser. He addresses many of the big questions as we progress into the 21st century, following in the footsteps of earlier geniuses like Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, etc. and his contemporary worldwide colleagues and associates. He and his family have to sacrifice some things to do this. Keep it up, man!
The absolute removal of sound in-between pauses is really off putting. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
LostinChina I think it's for coyright purposes. I might be wrong
I didn't notice, but audio equipment can do this automatically.
As a bad producer i know that they put the gater on their sound on to high a setting. It's a tool that removes sound below a certain level.
Might be to save time. Many podcast apps have this as a feature.
The microphone of the interviewer, at least, seems to be sound activated.
41:22 This is the most clear monologue about life and most things I have ever heard.
Learn excel.
I asked my old high school buddy (who has a great career in economics) if he had a lot of use for his (mediocre(yep double parenthesis) higher education which would be equal to something like "state school" or what you call it, lets say "non ivy league")
as I said, I asked him if he had a lot of use for any skills he learned in college.
He answered -NONE, almost none! and added: -I got skilled in excel at my first job as a junior which have gained me a lot in rest of my career, the rest in school in retrospect felt pretty unneccesary.
Noit even contacts? I asked.
No, not in my business he answered.
He has a salary in the six figures in London today. (we´re around forty years old today)
I also asked him if fancy Ivy league schools gave any advantage over a random (like state) school when hiring?
He said, "nah, not really, in the second interview its almost only about the personality, they cant learn personality in school"
This might not help everyone... but you know if you are an underachiever, it might be the main reason why you feel miserable.
It is worth to do something of yourself and be a decent person.
Go get´em.
Brilliant! Really enjoyed hearing Jordan Peterson operationally phrase, in such a precise manner, the inescapable contextual input needed to be able to understand language. PC is wrong in equating nouns or noun-phrases with bounded concepts per se. Imposing normative speech and thus normative thought is the death of both. Lots of other good content as well. JP is intellectually brilliant. Thanks for the conversation.
1:32:15 "… To see if everyone is engaged in the conversation."
[Cut to audience member who is fast asleep]
At least the editor has a sense of humour.
hhaaha.. true
As part of my job, I write virtually all day and I often review other people's writing. One of the hardest things I had to learn was to separate style from error during that review process. Similarly, when I first started listening to this video, I found myself judging Allen Saakyan's style rather than his ability, or the content of the video. I see that now as unjust. He is clearly an intelligent young man, and that he does things differently than I might is likely a good thing. He helped guide JP into territories that were new for the audience, and me, and helped bring us new perspectives. I will certainly be listening to him again.
Wow Mikedeela! Warmly received & very well said. We strive to see things similarly with other creators! Thank you!
Question dude: "so.. do you think..."
Peterson: "No."
Grumpy Peterson
😹 yeah i noticed this often !
What a wonderful conversation! On a side note, I found it amusing that Peterson enjoys Trailer Park Boys.
He's very very Canadian, which makes all this much more fun!
A Little Nonsense Now and Then is Relished by the Wisest Men
Facinating discussion! Camera mirroring changes is a tad distracting, but the discussion was very profitable! This is how we find solutions!
This is one of my favorite JP discussions
I've been friends with this guy since the end of high school and he has been going to university for the last 12 years or so settling in the area of cognitive science and neuro science etc. He's doing his PHD this year and part of his thesis involves a scientific paper written by Peterson which took my friend by surprise. He didint even realise at first. This is cutting edge science on the brain. On consciousness. Not some pseudo science or doctrine to support political ideas of his. Its ridiculous people try reduce him to whatever suits them
Thank you for your comment, what paper by Peterson was your friend working on for his thesis?
Simulation www.jacobhirsh.com/Hirsh,%20Mar,%20&%20Peterson%20-%20Psychological%20Entropy.pdf
Simulation let me know what u think
Jordan would make an excellent Presidential advisor.
This is awesome-one of my favorite interviews of JP!!! My favorite is when he absolutely unequivocally supports the science. That is how you save the world. Objective Truth first, and everything else later… but only if you like people, peace, harmony and stuff like that. 🤷♀️ 😂 best interview ever.
I have known JP for 20 years and the thing he did with the context of meaning in words for the simulation question at the end is the example I gave him when I was starting my work on meaning as the key to everything 20 years ago ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😎 He still uses it. Because we are long lost brothers. 😂 plus we’re both hella smart… except I live in my car now. Because I am too busy thinking to have a career. I left school to write books and stuff. Stay in school kids. Don’t be too revolutionary. I even figured out what gravity is along the way but no one is listening because they don’t have the gear to cross that river.
Tony Robbins? Seriously? Beyond that tho...another seriously enlightening conversation. And no protests, bullshit, etc...good to know the Bay Area isn't as daft as the stereotype.
T Clark If I were Jordan, that would have been an insult to me.
I view him as a modern, inspired, brilliant version of Joseph Campbell.
When JBP said "Well, you're the interviewer", he should've answered "SO YOU'RE SAYING you cannot start a conversation yourself?"
That would be epic.
Great job Allen! I've interviewed dozens of people on my radio show and know how challenging it can be. I would have been nervous as hell interviewing him and it was great to hear him talk about science this way. One of the best interviews with him anywhere on the net.
This is Peterson at his absolute best.
Am I the only one who doesn't have an issue with the video and audio? Yeah, it's not a movie, but the visuals are effectively pointless and the audio is completely understandable. At least, I've had absolutely 0 issues understanding what anyone says. Most of you seem to care more about production than content, and I just cannot understand why you'd watch this. I mean, I feel privileged just to be able to get this for free.
Also, a lot of comments seem to say the host's introduction is weird. You guys know you can toggle and skip it? I don't know if the intro is weird, didn't watch it. Idk, listening to the introduction of a podcast or lecture always kinda seemed pointless to me. I read the title, I know what I'm in for.
I didn't have a problem with the audio at all. Absolutely clear enough for an interview. But I did have a problem with the video because half the video was mirrored and it was kind of disorienting. Even though I prefer watching lectures and interviews wherever I can, I eventually stopped watching and just listened. And everything was okay again.
I wish they would have shown the crowd more, or just for a bit longer on each of the cuts. Their snub reactions are priceless.
ARE THEY ROTATING THE VIDEO ON PURPOSE?
Johnny Gootz I noticed that too.
Makes you wonder which way it's supposed to be.
Is Jordan left or right handed? If he’s right handed then his watch would be on his left wrist. If so Jordan is on stage left. My God this is annoying.
its mirroring, not rotating, that's why It hurts the brain.
If anyone can see which side of the suit the buttons are on, you could figure the original mirror; men's suits have the buttons on the right, which means Peterson's watch is on his right hand and he's to the left of the host.
Unless he's wearing a woman's suit...
I love this. Ive been lpoking for the thoughts and knowledge from intelligent and trustable experts like Jordan Peterson.
I’ve heard if you say “dominance hierarchy” 3 times in the mirror, Jordan Peterson will appear behind you.
underrated comment
Christianity is the way you solve the problem of inequality. Moral duty and all. Jordan you make the case so well from a secular viewpoint.
Excellent discussion, thanks for coming to California!
It was amazing! Thank you!
Very enjoyable interview with the best kinds of topics to talk about. Thank you
I like those chairs lol. I'm shopping for chairs
36:30 Woman in the audience is in women's studies and is insulted! 😂
she must be a snowflake......
"...reciprocity with erring on the side of generosity because there's just no downside to that in an iterated game." Jordan Peterson
This host fellow seems extremely pleased with and proud of himself, for not very much reason that I can see. But hey, any excuse to hear JBP say things, I'll take it and tolerate the silly hosts.
I disagree, i think thats put on. He seems extremely nervous to me, you can see his unease when he started the conversation.
He kept debating without fully listening at some points...it was irritating.
He’s trying to put an arrogant face cuz he’s insecure, despite being dominated by JP.
This is all the hosts production so I could see him being proud that he got someone this interesting to do something with him, I'd certainly be pleased if I got to speak with Jordan Peterson and got him to do a show with me or whatever. I get what you're saying though, he needs to accept people are watching for Mr. Peterson and shut up, affirming everything Jordan says and breathing into his mic is only detracting from the presentation. I would literally rather have had Peterson up there by himself with a list of questions than have this guy host it, his stupid little laugh sounds like he's slowly dying and exhaling his last.
Should give you pause. Obviously very few people would platform such a pseudo-thinker as Peterson.
One of his more important talks I feel because he really drives home the notion that people aren't equal and that measurements of this in the social sciences are actually solid mainstream science of which there's surprisingly little disagreement or debate in the field itself. A huge amount of the social justice movement is predicated on people being equal and social constructivism (blank slate theory) that humans can be programmed to do whatever you like, if you have a strict enough environment. Not only are those ideas wrong but they're also extremely divisive because when you assume equality and what you measure is inequality then it turns into a witch hunt to weed out all these negative social pressures, which don't actually exist. Everyone just ends up chasing their tail and becoming increasingly divided over whose fault it is.
He is right on about the reason men are far more represented in STEM. I have been saying this for years.
Great to hear JBP answer questions we haven't heard him answer before. As the interviewer develops his own unique style of asking questions, I look forward to seeing more thought provoking conversations such as these. Perhaps Sam Harris could be next? ;)
Thanks Max! We have inquired about Sam and will keep you all posted.
Love jordan peterson and the LOBSTER stores
Love this Allen! Although you should talk to your editor, because it looks like some of the shots have been mirrored.
It's so disorienting and annoying.
When people's misplaced creativity attack! Either that or a lack of competence of legendary proportions.
Thanks Luke! We had our PTZ robo cams hanging upside down from magic arms off the wall and forgot to flip the image. We'll keep getting better over time. Sorry for the annoyance it may be causing on this video.
You mean you simply flipped the video vertically instead of just rotating it, right?
Gary Parker 1 in 10 people huh
At 9:15 the cameraman went "What are those!?"
a word of advice for Allen and co :
no matter how terrifying or humiliating or otherwise harsh that owning up to the truth of your existence currently might seem, there will always be something worse.
that worst outcome would be the ultimate triumph of pretense in your thought and action, that renders you into nothing but an empty shell, in the end.
therefor, it is always better for your person, to deal with truth and do without pretense, as much as you can.
Speaking of "multiple intelligences", I think the idea of "emotional intelligence" is nothing more than the agreeable projecting their paradigm onto all humans.
Their metric contends that I am terribly emotionally unintelligent, yet I can still recognize that the agreeable types are operating on nothing more than "I personally don't like it = bad", and "It doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities = good", and that that is exceptionally emotionally unintelligent/undeveloped.
It's actually the agreeable version of narcissim aka BPD that causes people to think like that.
EQ was launched by Salovay and Mayer, somewhere round 1990. They picked it up from a student that invented the term. They launched it, but the first definition they gave was completely nonsensical, so they had to change their definition a year later. It still was utter nonsense.
Nonetheless media picked up on it and ofc, all the no brain fools used it to try to gain same status as real high IQ people, saying it was just as important to be high EQ. And they also automatically assumed that someone with high IQ, would have low EQ. I did nothing but counter those fools in the 90ies and early 2000's. Was almost a day job. Thank god its mostly gone now. There is no such thing as EQ.
I've not seen anybody more assertive than JP
9:45 - A wild Paul VanderKlay appears!
And Eric Weinstein about 2 rows behind him too
You are an artist.Thank you for your work!
Alexander Freeman you can hear his distinctly loud jolly laugh a number of times too!!
Alexander Freeman paul is awesome, post petersonian theology : )
LOL - this brought me much belly laugh.
Amazing talk Jordan Peterson is brilliant
💯 🙏 exactly super looking forward to more of JBP coming alive & inspiring us
Excelent talk by Dr. Peterson, despite the awkward moderator...
Ok Peterson just increased my respect for him. Well done very interessting topics and awesome presentation
Another reason why people who go to private schools (from my own experience) and probably Harvard and Yale (I presume) is because of networking.
You get to meet and hopefully make friends with, or at the least connect with, lots of other people who are going to succeed in life in many areas.
These people then support each others promotions.
As the old saying goes...
It 's not WHAT you know but WHO you know.
It's a great conversation, and I liked the interviewer, but I feel like he was missing Peterson's point about inequality. He's not saying he thinks a solution is impossible, just that we haven't come up with a good one yet and our current remedies aren't productive. It's a tougher puzzle than we originally thought, and so is going to take something more imaginative than the current social programs to solve.
It's really nice to see him speak in more liberal areas, because he gets to talk about different subjects than when he's speaking to conservatives, as well as articulate where's he's in agreement with the Left.
Dear God, Peterson likes Trailer Park Boys... I'M SO FRIGGIN' IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!
He is Canadian
i can't stress how important this whole interview is. . . i cannot even explain why to anyone that refuse to listen to facts....otherwise, listen carefully :)
I was referring to the attitude toward the value of people at the bottom of the IQ pile. The question which is always posed is "What do we do with these people?' and never answered. How about just being with them and finding out who they are as individuals instead of lumping them into a group who are perceived first and foremost as lacking the ability to do anything socially worthwhile. There is other value besides social and many ways people can contribute just by being who they are.
Completely off topic, but I really love those chairs! Wish I knew where to get some. Maybe a nice dark mustard yellow or burnt orange...
Tony Robbins ???????? Wooooooooow...
Me at 10 minutes before going to bed: this seems interesting.
Well done, Allen!
Thoroughly enjoyed this important conversation. Looking forward to going to the next live Simulation show!
*Peterson riding a lobster:* 🦞🧙♂️
It seems that Jordan Peterson is excited by quite a bit of things. Just on the right moment he talks about things that cut deep or things that are very primal within us. I liked his multiple perspectives on the universe. The sense of wonder you can get from it feeling like a curious little kid, or the nihilistic gloom and doom and is inescapable. I get the feeling he has experienced both perspectives.
Very thoughtfully articulated summary of JBP. This resonates with us!
I like the moon landing socks :)
one of my favorite interviews! thank you!
So glad you enjoyed it!
1:18:00 An explanation of MGTOW right here. If the deal isn't approximately 50/50, the party that gets the worse deal will say "no, go to hell, I'm not doing it!"
grow up baby
Excellent argument, shows what a grown-up you are :)
Thank you for making this video. The problems, though there, are not insurmountable and I believe that this format is worth continuing. Keep up the hard work man.
That was beyond fascinating.
Imagine having the opportunity to Listen to Jordan Peterson and sleeping through out!!
Is the host a real estate agent or used car salesman?
As stated in the talk, intelligence is statistically speaking a good predictor for success. And it has been admitted, that defining and measuring success is in itself problematic. Even the impact (or luxury) of morality - which sometimes can be detrimental to success - over the spectrum of various degrees of success was mentioned in this interesting monologue. Yet, it remained unaddressed, that a society (or the "leading class" of a society) also defines what success means. Of course, also necessities do that. But once such a success metric has been established, it is in the interest of those who are well suited for it, to maintain, preserve and defend said metric. Comparing the pre- industrial era with modern society, it is obvious, that certain talents which would have granted a "successful life" in the past will now at best be good enough to make it to lower middle class at best. In that sense, when Jordan Peterson denied, that there could be aspects/skill sets, not covered by IQ tests (such as e.g. craftsmanship), he spoke in the context of our current society. Had he been more aware of the normative forces at work, he might have recognized one more factor contributing to the destabilizing tendencies of a pure merit based distribution of wealth. There are more contributions, groups of the population could provide, than are earning merit. And such groups, naturally will not be very much in favor of the status quo.
Not being an american, the statement that "only intelligent people make it into private schools" appeared to be the low point in the whole talk. As far as I understand the american school system, people who get into private schools are people with rich parents, first and foremost.
Here's the question I have within all of this. Why exactly ARE we so goddamn Adamant about Men and Women being the same biologically, or at least psychologically? Cause that's what truly drives most of this hysteria. There's this obscure public NEED to see Men and Women as essentially "The Same".
Where the hell did THAT "thing" come from and why the hell is it still here?
I think people have been trying to sort out why inequality between men and women exists. We had to explore whether it was all socialization or not. There's no doubt that boys and girls are treated differently in childhood, which surely affects people all their life. Now we are beginning to understand that it's real, but there's also innate biological differences that give men and women different motivations. It's going to take a while for society to understand it.
Who cares about the young "non binary" kids screaming blue murder about all this. They will grow up eventually.
I appreciate it man, but you didn't really touch on my question....like....at all lol so I'm not sure where to go from here xD For what it's worth, you still seem rather thoughtful and polite. That's gotta count for something lol
Soviet system. Look up Yuri Besmenov
Yes Mr Peterson, you can teach people to be creative. I do it everyday in secondary school and it takes about 6 months of steady effort to turn around the fortunes of most dysfunctional students.
Wow. wth does dysfunctional children and creativity have to do with one another? And if you seriously can't tell the difference, perhaps you should be categorized in the same group as these college kids who need to clear their room before they criticize the world.
Eh? I think you fired off a reply without thinking there buddy! Jordan (who I think is superbly spot-on 99% of the time BTW) claims in this talk that you can't teach creativity! Well, I know you can and I do it every day and I do it with the most atypically-behaving/thinking children in society (children that society commonly 'writes off' as 'unteachable'). I'm just using my personal anecdote to highlight this claim as uninformed BS - a rare incidence in JP history no doubt, but to be fair, the guy can't know everything about everything.
ffs... if you're a teacher we're all fucked.
Slowly now. 1) Your anecdotal subjective experience with few kids have nothing to do with actual scientific fact. And NO you can't TEACH creativity.
2) And I can't believe I have to explain this to a "teacher" but.. what you're describing are DYSFUNCTIONAL children. You're just helping them "cure" that. That is NOT the same thing as fundamentally teaching creativity. Get it? Fixing a psychological issue that has caused dysfunction and alienation from the norm by offering them crafts as means of coping is NOT the same as teaching creativity. You're just using art as a therapy measure to unblock their dysfunction.
And last, so you dont have to believe internet person... www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/imagine/201104/can-creativity-be-taught
No it can't be taught.
WeirdViking I just knew when I typed the word ‘anecdote’ it risked a stupid reply if the recipient never had an original thought of their own and didn’t understand anything more than what other people tell them to think or just had an IQ less than 83. You didn’t disappoint on any of those points. Well done for the dumbest response on RUclips award 2018. I think I’ll leave this argument here because, quite frankly, you make about as much sense as a law dictating that immigrant children should be locked up in cages away from their parents.
Yeah, you're not a teacher and you dont work with any kids.
I just linked you psychologytoday article proving my point and you reply with ad hominem. What kind of satisfaction do you get lying in the internet?
you break the 180 rule with your other camera
Incredibly potent! Thank you gentlemen.