Jordan makes me feel better about the World around me and beyond..... Everyone should hear him and read his books! He also makes me proud that someone my age, and from my hometown, can elevate himself this high....he makes me want to work harder to achieve my goals.
Hope this is useful for anyone else- So, when you say to your kid “it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose, it matters how you play the game”, what you’re saying is- don’t forget kid, what you’re doing here is trying to do well at life. And you need to practice the strategies that enable you to do well at life while you’re in any specific game. And you never want to compromise your ability to do well at life for the sake of winning any single game. There’s a deep ethic in that. It’s the ethic of reciprocity. Part of the reason we’re so obsessed with sports is that we like to see that dramatized. The person we really admire as an athlete, isn’t only the person who wins, we don’t like the narcissistic winners. They’re winners, and that’s a plus, but if they’re narcissistic they’re not good team players. They’re only out for themselves. Then we think, well you’re a winner in the narrow sense, but your character is suspect. You’re no role model even though you’re a winner. And it’s because we’re looking for something deeper. We’re looking for the manifestation of character that allows you to win across the set of all possible games. That’s a real thing. That’s an ethic. Jordan Peterson on JRE #1139 ~45min mark
@@PeterTheis if I read this book will I too leave vague comments in RUclips replies rather than articulating, to the best of my abilities, the connection I gathered between Jordan Peterson and the work? Come on man... you can’t just drive-by tell someone to read a whole book and smugly say “and get back to you”. All I’ve gathered is that perhaps YOU need to read the book again and come back to this comment so you can help others!
@@PeterTheis I’m insisting on you telling me why reading that book will bring value to me. Yes, you’re correct in that your original comment is a problematic approach to participating in the RUclips community. Your follow up comment should have been your original but even then you should be telling people the value they’ll get-which there definitely is value in having your mind changed. But again, the original reply was so poor in form. Just so it’s clear: my comment on this video is just transcribing Jordan Peterson not bringing another new perspective. The value was to have it able to be read and saved in a different format.
@@PeterTheis I’m all for transcending the hierarchy, which I believe we do by putting Christ-sacrificial God- at the top rather than eliminating competition from our world. It baptizes competition rather than discarding it forever. Your musical chairs tweak is close to a baptizing but may perhaps just be leaving it under the water forever. Peterson in his Carl Jung pr 1 lecture tells of the feeling we get from seeing a gymnast score a 9.8/10 and then the next gymnast score a 9.9/10. The latter is someone improving the game itself-a testament to the human spirit. Your use of USA as an example is interesting considering it’s a place that has clearly improved the game as a whole for all other nations, being a testament to the human spirit. Would we even have had this conversation if RUclips didn’t put a like button on the comment section?
The first half of the video can make you feel unsure about how you feel about what he is saying, but the second half of the video provides you with golden wisdom and you start smiling because you know what he is saying is right.
Losing and knowing how to lose is far more important than winning. Winning loses its significance if you never lose. Winning takes sacrifice, pain, blood sweat and tears, its not given its earned.
I've watched this podcast a few times and it actually just hit me what he said about the world poverty rate. Like really?? No one ever emphasized the world was getting better to me ever growing up.
H I G H E R W ØR L D S PR OD C TI ON i disagree, i think hes trying to slowly push a religious doctrine onto young impressionable minds. Im not hating but thats what im seeing.
noel halverson I don’t think he’s trying to push a religious doctrine as much as he’s trying to get us to understand that religion has been wrongly tossed aside, and that there are morals and truths from religion that we could re-learn to our society’s benefit
i will never understand how others can criticize JP so much. His level of analysis is so impressive not only because of its high level but because of how he can articulate his ideas in such a way that makes them almost seem obvious.
These guys have such great conversations because both are willing to learn and listen to each other. Joe is humble enough to acknowledge Jordan is much more knowledgeable than him in most of what they're discussing, so he listens and learns. But it's clear Jordan does not look down on Joe and respects his intelligence like when Joe went on about this topic, Jordan was listening and processing what Joe was saying.
If anyone is still doubtful of Dr. Peterson's claims of the quality of life rising for everyone worldwide, look at Nigerian tech startup culture. It's mind blowing how fast it's grown in the past 5 years _alone_ lol
I get so confused by US political discussion and thinking (yes I know JP is Canadian). Everything is so absurdly binary. "The left say..." "The Right..."- for a country so fundamentally constructed on personal liberty and responsibility there seems to be very little avenue for personal politics or thinking. It's just not realistic to simplify things into the extreme situation that you categorise people absolutely. "The left" (if we're still going to talk on that particular spectrum which could be seen as redundant now) do not behave uniformly because they're not an official group that has membership- it's an umbrella term for a group of political ideologies that we use because it makes it easy to talk about and not because it's useful. I've never seen another country that reduces politics in quite this way- normally the discussion is about specific groups that have official membership- otherwise your discussion is detrimentally unspecific and those in the dialogue could be discussing two different things- I mean look at the way "Liberal" has been colloquialised in the US to mean this strange Frankenstein's monster of ambiguous "Left Wing" 'stuff'. It's barely ever used accurately and more often than not used completely ignorantly. "Liberal's trying to ban our guns"/"Fascist Libtards" etc.: things which are completely nonsensical and often completely contradictory. It seems like indoctrination in the sense it's divide and conquer political campaigning. An "Either with us or against us" message that exacerbates the common feeling of "I've got to support this party because of X" thinking. You reduce the amount of specifics in your campaigning and reduce everything to emotional responses which means people need no actual foundational knowledge to discuss or debate things because the contentious issues aren't actually being debated on facts or evidence. I mean it becomes even more worrying when you hear about the involvement of Cambridge Analytica when these are explicitly their Modus Operandi. Maybe a more relevant way to "shake up the system" instead of Trump would be the introduction of more viable political parties so there isn't this see-saw effect of "Your turn, now my turn, now your turn"- even if they don't win a general election it has the effect of their support shaping the two larger parties and forcing them to speak ideologically and point by point rather than this "Let's trash them to win" divide and conquer stuff.
gonufc Dude wtf are you talking about? The left and the right has been the talk of politics no matter what country you’re in no matter what time period. Like wtf are you smoking?
Yes but most countries don't talk in such binary extremes where left and right is all that needs saying: there is far more specifics and accuracy appreciated in discussion. Left could mean 10 different political parties with different motivations, right could mean a vast array from conservatism to absolute fascism. Most countries have these details in their politics which the US often doesn't. There are parties which are socially liberal and economically conservative and people appreciate these differences in discussions. This isn't an attack on political literacy in the US (Though that is a problem on some forums like any other country) but the way campaigning has happened has encouraged people to use these generalisations and simplistic approach to politics: because that can ostracise voters from one party and send them toward the other. This happens in all countries to some degree but the political spectrum has been diminished and narrowed so much in the US that it takes relatively little to massively sway large amounts of the electorate. My point is it seems to be simplified ad nauseam in America to the extent that it potentially decreases political knowledge en masse.
gonufc Okay that actually makes a lot more sense sorry I was just a little confused at first. You can literally look up charts that show how much the two sides converse with one another across social media. There is virtually no discourse between the two and if that isn’t a blatant example of the narrowness between them, then I dont know what is. As far as how much that’s the case around the world? I honestly can’t make that call.
gonufc you are correct. I view it not as right and left ( though that's what the labels are) it's actually "old America" (stay the way we were, but improve it) vs new America ( change the way we are completely to nothing like old America.) This is why it boils down to two groups. Because, in truth, at the raw core it IS one way or the other. Period. If you have 8 beliefs on the right and 2 on the left, you better choose one side to fight for, because they are absolutely in opposition of each other. That's why America is unique.
Can't work out if you're saying that's a positive or negative or neither. I wouldn't say it's unique like that- there are many countries that only have two relatively viable parties but those other countries have smaller parties which people will still discuss as they can have an effect in changing the big parties. I know there are technically other parties like the Libertarian party and a Green party but they don't seem to have any discernible effect on the major parties' policies or ideals. As much as I dislike them I have to give the example of UKIP in my country- they peaked and collapsed in terms of support but that's because they were in all practice a one issue party and eventually they had Cameron's Tories submit to the noise and organise a referendum on membership to the EU. These countries definitely feel the big waves made by the smaller parties but it always seems that the Republicans and Democrats are such huge tankers that none of those waves have any effect on them at all. I never know how strict campaign donor laws are actually enforced in the US- obviously the Stormy Daniels affair is partly about that but that's a fairly exceptional circumstance-what about generally? Because internationally we often hear these horror stories like the pipeline going through native American land and the huge donations of oil and gas companies. Out of things like that we often see how negative campaigning can be so effective in a two party system- things like "Pizza-gate" that are such obvious smear stories can still give you great gains in the polls; and the more of that you have the less idealistic, positive political ambitions you will get to actually do those things they really wanted to do before it all got tangled up in "The Game".
What jordan is basically trying to say is that the person who wins in life isnt the person who just tries to win for himself/herself but also has developed the kindness to allow other people to flourish and win aka a person who is eligible to lead because he is not just out for himself but for the whole team.
some kids, like me when I was a kid, was a very gentle, sensitive kid...to put me in a go kick ass world, at three would ve been really cruel. the idea for me, is to just play the game and enjoy it, and in little league. some kids are sensitive, and just need to get in there and try. to be brutally competitive at a young age, is then not a good thing. I d say you learn where I can compete and learn also what I can just get involved in. not everything should be a competition, that is , or can be damaging as a person. but there are things to compete in, and in life there is competition, and some people have illnesses and vulnerablilities, like me, and may not be able to compete like others. its getting in there, that is half the fight. the brutal person is everything is competition. to me living is also about humanity, not just competition.
I think to his point of winning by character is why some on the left assault the right, and speak so adamantly about systemic prejudice and racism. It’s felt that the game in America was played with unfair character and allowed certain groups of individuals to get ahead and not fairly, by imposing power and laws that didn’t allow for other groups to excel at the same rate. It’s almost like playing monopoly but certain groups got a couple of rolls before other groups get a chance to play, and to add to that, not necessarily teaching them how the game is played. Not only in the physical sense of acquisition but also psychologically.
It does matter if you win or lose, it also matters how you play the game. Is that better? I always understood that phrase as meaning you give it everything you got (within the rule set) if you win, awesome. If you lose, you get your ass back in there and try harder until you win, or at the very least till your satisfied you have given your peek performance.
I was always under the impression that the left was the side wanting total hierarchy and the right was the side wanting an agglomeration of free association
11:57 Building your character/identity/personality is the strategy to win as many future games as possible. (maximizing your potential in the realm of charisma/charm/sociability: operationalize this into its most basic/fundamental tasks/actions/behaviors and start with the most simple/easy one and act on it) "better ideas, having no ch, 11/25 in notes"
9:25 Empathy isn't feeling sorry for someone. That's sympathy. Empathy is understanding another's feelings. And before you demonize liberal's, remember that, supposedly, the "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." I have empathy for those people that give their children "participation" trophies, but for me, if we aren't keeping score, then I'm not playing...just my stupid opinion. Peace ya'll.
No competitiveness is killing humanity, the hierarchy is bullshit and built to keep one man on top the other. It’s not about IQ, it’s about capitalism and a work/slave wage mentality. Inequality is the problem, working collectively wins because everyone wins. That’s not about our kids being soft, if everyone had a chance to eat healthy we’d be healthier but the pharmaceutical & hospital industry would not. The hierarchy wants you to compete, it’s better for them. It’s not actually better for society. If we all worked together the world would be better for all but Society is based on competition & it’s exhausting. That’s why America is obese and dying. The stress of competition everyday. It’s not a good thing. & it kills me that these people claim to follow Christ who speaks of working as one body (together collectively in harmony) yet society is based on competition.
A voice of truth in a sea of soft entitled boys clamoring for significance. We need more authentic masculinity today and the courage to exist in the face of liberal hate and intolerance.
It says to enjoy the game and let others enjoy it to. Otherwise why play the game if you are not enjoying yourself? And make winning the only thing that matters. More winners are enjoying what they are doing rather than making winning the only reason. That type of behavior usually losses.
Perhaps its different in Canada but his analogy of sport shows just how in the dark he is about american sport. The best player within any given sport and the "character" of the athlete(s) who sit atop is almost always in question. Sport, or rather the athlete at its highest levels is antithetical to everything he stated. Well at least here in the food ole USA it is.
What JP is proposing here as a solution to achieve "proper morality" is literally setting the ground for a Fake Morality. Let me go further in that: - The idea is to view the hockey/soccer whatever game as the beginning of a series of games, as a part of a championship. And that would allow for the idea of the star player to develop all of his team members rather than just boasting with his expertise and skills. Why? Because the end goal is to win the championship, not the single game in itself. So that basically translates to the reality that "morality" here is a mere tool for a material gain, and that fundamentally bankrupts the essence of Morality. The main interest remains tied to winning, ultimately, and that turns his team players to mere tools to attain that goal. Suppose the star player just shifted teams after 2 or 3 games for some example, his previous team players will instantly become his new competitors. New elements whose failure is necessary for his success. And that turns Morality into a mere pragmatic tool to survive, and not to do what's good or right in itself. And that's Fake Morality. Competitive systems no matter how sophisticated or complex they are, they prioritise extrinsic motivations over intrinsic ones by nature. Morality is fundamentally an intrinsic motivation. When he says "we feel/know that's wrong" we don't do that because of some money to get or a position to reach. It is an intrinsic motivation relating to ourselves not to something exterior. Competition renders that as secondary, because it doesn't matter at the end of it whether you were moral or not, and even if you were it would be a means to an end, and that is winning the game or the championship or whatever broader scale you might come up with. This is how the essence of Collaboration literally dies in a competitive system. In addition to that, notice how he says that "*most of the time* a game is the beginning of a series of games". So this "solution" won't really have any weight in scenarios where games aren't really in the context of a broader setting like championships. And saying that Life is an all time broader context is a dangerous assumption, cuz that entails that life is necessarily a series of *competitive* games, which is not really true. Making non-competitiveness seem like a fairy tale when we can clearly come up with alternatives and systems that are cooperative, far more productive, far healthier, and more importantly far more humane, is an attitude that we should radically rethink. Another disturbing thing JP uttered.. "One way to not do very well in any hierarchy is to *have a low IQ*" How do we deal with that? *We don't know*. And you really want people to accept that as a fact of life and just live with it? That echoes his thoughts on the Pareto distribution as a natural law we cannot change. And that is quite appalling. Especially in light of all the possibilities of non-competitive mechanisms we can slowly work on achieving and spreading. فلنواصل الإيمان. #KeepBelieving 🌅
No you've got that wrong there. You have misunderstood a key point and taken a metaphor as a literal fact and created a counter argument based on something JP didnt really state.
@@alexandercummins Hi, can you elaborate more? I'd like to know what is the key point that I misunderstood and how did I misrepresent what JP did state in my response. Thanks.
🎵People living in competition.🎶 They say that competition is good. So let’s give the Beast (Revelation chapter 13) some competition. “WELCOME TO THE MONSTER”.
Shaolin monks are not allowed to partake in competitions because they would be too strong, and they get that strong without any competition whatsoever. If that's the case, then what's the point in competition?
I’m watching Jordan B Peterson videos trying to determine the correlation between intelligence and drive. Any ideas? The reason I want to know is because if people aren’t sufficiently similarly driven to do or learn something, how can we be sure that IQ tests are testing one’s intelligence rather than the sum of one’s intelligence and drive?
Now, when i'm able to understand what you were saying i have question for you. Do you see that "drive" as Determination? (and btw IQ test from what i know operate on your ability to see scheme and patterns, so there is no space for that drive) if you have diffrent opinion i will hear it with pleasure.
@@Jezykminator According to Jordan, any general cognitive test is technically an IQ test. The ACT and SAT are actually IQ tests. See what I’m getting at? The idea is the better the programmer, (the more intelligent), the better the program, (the more knowledgeable). What he doesn’t seem to take into account is one’s drive, or lack thereof, to acquire knowledge. I do think fluid IQ tests do a good job. Drive isn’t much of a factor, if one at all, regarding fluid intelligence. But IQ consists of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
@@CalebJNelson I'm just making sure but you know that there is Intelligence, wisdom and knowledge? I asks because i have a feeling that you correlate does things.
so what if he's not fun to play with. not a fan of physical contact? I was at a loss with my son. Made me understand even though you have kids they might not be even close to your "wave length" and how do I deal with it was a question.
Which Guyon marking said, Be nought agrieu'd, Sir Knight, that thus ye now subdewed arre: Was neuer man, who most conquestes atchieu'd But sometimes had the worse, and lost by warre, Yet shortly gaynd, that losse exceeded farre: Losse is no shame, nor to be lesse then foe, But to be lesser, then himselfe, doth marre Both loosers lot, and victours prayse alsoe. Vaine others ouerthrowes, who selfe doth ouerthrowe.
*learns to not prioritize winning the game above all others* *hopes he becomes fun to play with and others like him* *others cruelly take advantage of said person, having prioritized winning the game over all else* and repeat
But if you shouldn’t compare yourself to who someone else is and compare yourself to who you were yesterday, then why should you compete publicly in competitions? To be second place is to be compared to the first and third place participants.
3:30 Jordan's axiom "you have to pursue things of value" in a social space, which in turn leads to differential outcome because people will be equally good at "it" (i assume the pursuit of value), doesn't make sense as values are dynamic and subjective. I think he confuses monetary value with ethical, moral, and community values. Worshiping the golden calf
So you train your kid to win and he or she becomes a world champion, thats great an all in the moment, but what does than actually for you, bragging rights? Your devote a large amount of your time in impressing others?
Nothing is perfect and seeking utopia is the road to rune it's bin try and and leads to catastrophe. That doesn't mean you don't try to make things better. And it makes fixing the real problems like say aggressive police on power trips because no one will take the real problems seriously at that point
Competition isn't good, it leads to a worse outcome. This competitive mentality is why we're more divided then ever as we are now in some bs gang ideology that doesn't help society, it hurts it. Hell, name anything non sports/game related and I can point out why competition is bad in EVERY aspect of it. Add in that a society is weaker when divided, not stronger, and that's further proof that competition is bad.
So when Peterson keeps in this very specific lane, particularly when they got past the stuff about “enforced monogamy,” he makes a ton of sense. If he would stay away from the mythology and religious crap I’d be much less inclined to roll my eyes when my buddies try to tell me how life changing he is.
He's mentioned that a lot of his followers are self-proclaimed "Atheist Christians." This means they appreciate the overall morals and meanings found within the stories of the Bible, but they don't believe any of it to have *really* happened. That made it a lot easier for me to listen to all the mythology and religious stuff, since he goes into such depth about the human condition and life using these stories as a means of getting to his point. They have such amazing principles when looking at them in depth, but that's all they are... just stories.
So you are opposed to a person who's reasoning is backed by a moral compass that is guided by their spritual or religious beliefs? Well I feel sorry for you because most people believe in something and 9 times out of 10 they are grounded by thier faith. Just because you lack faith in God doesn't mean the person who does is not a viable candidate for you to receive information from. You cannot as a person think that intelligent people are not spritual or religious. Jordan peterson and Christopher Hitchens found religion and spiritual inheritance later in life and still maintained thier own narrative and set of skills.
Too many kids only find the game fun when they are winning. Kids aren't thinking about developing one another, and when they do make that pass to the weaker player and they fumble or whatever, all it teaches them is to distrust their coach's advices. What does this say about cooperation and competition?
You can enjoy something without being great at it. But it's hard to enjoy team sports when people dont play as a team. I'm talking about mostly about children's games. As adults most of us freely associate. But children really feel animosity and alienation, and can be bullied by their team when they don't play (as) well (win or lose).
I think a good coach would try to foster what Peterson is talking about, definately... I'm just curious about ways to bring the lesson home, & make it more rewarding.
This man is helping me raise myself. Bless him
Joe "I Sit Up Straight When I Perceive My Guest As Intelligent*" Rogan
lmaooo he's sittin up so straight Loooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
so would you
Intelligent*
Intelligent.
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Jordan makes me feel better about the World around me and beyond.....
Everyone should hear him and read his books! He also makes me proud that someone my age, and from my hometown, can elevate himself this high....he makes me want to work harder to achieve my goals.
Hope this is useful for anyone else-
So, when you say to your kid “it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose, it matters how you play the game”, what you’re saying is- don’t forget kid, what you’re doing here is trying to do well at life. And you need to practice the strategies that enable you to do well at life while you’re in any specific game. And you never want to compromise your ability to do well at life for the sake of winning any single game.
There’s a deep ethic in that. It’s the ethic of reciprocity.
Part of the reason we’re so obsessed with sports is that we like to see that dramatized. The person we really admire as an athlete, isn’t only the person who wins, we don’t like the narcissistic winners. They’re winners, and that’s a plus, but if they’re narcissistic they’re not good team players. They’re only out for themselves. Then we think, well you’re a winner in the narrow sense, but your character is suspect. You’re no role model even though you’re a winner. And it’s because we’re looking for something deeper. We’re looking for the manifestation of character that allows you to win across the set of all possible games. That’s a real thing. That’s an ethic.
Jordan Peterson on JRE #1139 ~45min mark
@@PeterTheis if I read this book will I too leave vague comments in RUclips replies rather than articulating, to the best of my abilities, the connection I gathered between Jordan Peterson and the work? Come on man... you can’t just drive-by tell someone to read a whole book and smugly say “and get back to you”. All I’ve gathered is that perhaps YOU need to read the book again and come back to this comment so you can help others!
@@PeterTheis I’m insisting on you telling me why reading that book will bring value to me. Yes, you’re correct in that your original comment is a problematic approach to participating in the RUclips community.
Your follow up comment should have been your original but even then you should be telling people the value they’ll get-which there definitely is value in having your mind changed. But again, the original reply was so poor in form.
Just so it’s clear: my comment on this video is just transcribing Jordan Peterson not bringing another new perspective. The value was to have it able to be read and saved in a different format.
@@PeterTheis I’m all for transcending the hierarchy, which I believe we do by putting Christ-sacrificial God- at the top rather than eliminating competition from our world. It baptizes competition rather than discarding it forever. Your musical chairs tweak is close to a baptizing but may perhaps just be leaving it under the water forever.
Peterson in his Carl Jung pr 1 lecture tells of the feeling we get from seeing a gymnast score a 9.8/10 and then the next gymnast score a 9.9/10. The latter is someone improving the game itself-a testament to the human spirit. Your use of USA as an example is interesting considering it’s a place that has clearly improved the game as a whole for all other nations, being a testament to the human spirit.
Would we even have had this conversation if RUclips didn’t put a like button on the comment section?
The first half of the video can make you feel unsure about how you feel about what he is saying, but the second half of the video provides you with golden wisdom and you start smiling because you know what he is saying is right.
I love how Joe Rogan is just letting him talk and taking a step back and absorbing the knowledge himself.
i give credit to Joe for not interrupting. I hate when a guest loses his train of thought because the host cant shut it
Omg you nailed it!
That's the most important part of learning. You can't learn anything if you can't shut up enough to absorb or rethink.
Losing and knowing how to lose is far more important than winning. Winning loses its significance if you never lose. Winning takes sacrifice, pain, blood sweat and tears, its not given its earned.
Competition is the enemy of the lazy
Peanuts are the enemy of the allergic.
Seán O'Nilbud lmfao
Humanity is the enemy of the parasite. Just ask anyone in Syria or Palestine.
and those that cry and complain all the time
Then lets get rid of all professional sports and the olympics.
I've watched this podcast a few times and it actually just hit me what he said about the world poverty rate. Like really?? No one ever emphasized the world was getting better to me ever growing up.
i got respect for Peterson. seems like a very genuine guy with his heart and mind in the right place
H I G H E R W ØR L D S PR OD C TI ON i disagree, i think hes trying to slowly push a religious doctrine onto young impressionable minds. Im not hating but thats what im seeing.
noel halverson I don’t think he’s trying to push a religious doctrine as much as he’s trying to get us to understand that religion has been wrongly tossed aside, and that there are morals and truths from religion that we could re-learn to our society’s benefit
@@JSO-bn6qj I agree
Loving the tan Jordan, looking fresh!
Shane Lannister he’s not so much tan as he is red, like a lobster c;
He is devolving haha
i will never understand how others can criticize JP so much. His level of analysis is so impressive not only because of its high level but because of how he can articulate his ideas in such a way that makes them almost seem obvious.
These guys have such great conversations because both are willing to learn and listen to each other. Joe is humble enough to acknowledge Jordan is much more knowledgeable than him in most of what they're discussing, so he listens and learns. But it's clear Jordan does not look down on Joe and respects his intelligence like when Joe went on about this topic, Jordan was listening and processing what Joe was saying.
If anyone is still doubtful of Dr. Peterson's claims of the quality of life rising for everyone worldwide, look at Nigerian tech startup culture.
It's mind blowing how fast it's grown in the past 5 years _alone_ lol
Oli Vyae - and ignore the 39million Americans living below the poverty line?
Binshou What point are you trying to make?
Future Hindsight lazy stereotyping.
Jay C True, but the poor standard of living in the US has drastically improved (for the most part).
Who is doubtful? People aren't that ignorant as you like to fantasize.
I fucking love Jordan Peterson what a g
The last 5 minutes or so of this clip is awesome.
Joe "I look like a thumb with two thumbs" Rogan
13:47 - Kobe Bryant
Whoa. That is a deep understanding and explanation.
This clip is so profound, balancing the risk/benefit ratio of both competitiveness and togetherness.
Very wise man
I get so confused by US political discussion and thinking (yes I know JP is Canadian). Everything is so absurdly binary. "The left say..." "The Right..."- for a country so fundamentally constructed on personal liberty and responsibility there seems to be very little avenue for personal politics or thinking. It's just not realistic to simplify things into the extreme situation that you categorise people absolutely. "The left" (if we're still going to talk on that particular spectrum which could be seen as redundant now) do not behave uniformly because they're not an official group that has membership- it's an umbrella term for a group of political ideologies that we use because it makes it easy to talk about and not because it's useful.
I've never seen another country that reduces politics in quite this way- normally the discussion is about specific groups that have official membership- otherwise your discussion is detrimentally unspecific and those in the dialogue could be discussing two different things- I mean look at the way "Liberal" has been colloquialised in the US to mean this strange Frankenstein's monster of ambiguous "Left Wing" 'stuff'. It's barely ever used accurately and more often than not used completely ignorantly. "Liberal's trying to ban our guns"/"Fascist Libtards" etc.: things which are completely nonsensical and often completely contradictory.
It seems like indoctrination in the sense it's divide and conquer political campaigning. An "Either with us or against us" message that exacerbates the common feeling of "I've got to support this party because of X" thinking. You reduce the amount of specifics in your campaigning and reduce everything to emotional responses which means people need no actual foundational knowledge to discuss or debate things because the contentious issues aren't actually being debated on facts or evidence. I mean it becomes even more worrying when you hear about the involvement of Cambridge Analytica when these are explicitly their Modus Operandi.
Maybe a more relevant way to "shake up the system" instead of Trump would be the introduction of more viable political parties so there isn't this see-saw effect of "Your turn, now my turn, now your turn"- even if they don't win a general election it has the effect of their support shaping the two larger parties and forcing them to speak ideologically and point by point rather than this "Let's trash them to win" divide and conquer stuff.
gonufc Dude wtf are you talking about? The left and the right has been the talk of politics no matter what country you’re in no matter what time period. Like wtf are you smoking?
Yes but most countries don't talk in such binary extremes where left and right is all that needs saying: there is far more specifics and accuracy appreciated in discussion. Left could mean 10 different political parties with different motivations, right could mean a vast array from conservatism to absolute fascism. Most countries have these details in their politics which the US often doesn't. There are parties which are socially liberal and economically conservative and people appreciate these differences in discussions.
This isn't an attack on political literacy in the US (Though that is a problem on some forums like any other country) but the way campaigning has happened has encouraged people to use these generalisations and simplistic approach to politics: because that can ostracise voters from one party and send them toward the other. This happens in all countries to some degree but the political spectrum has been diminished and narrowed so much in the US that it takes relatively little to massively sway large amounts of the electorate. My point is it seems to be simplified ad nauseam in America to the extent that it potentially decreases political knowledge en masse.
gonufc Okay that actually makes a lot more sense sorry I was just a little confused at first. You can literally look up charts that show how much the two sides converse with one another across social media. There is virtually no discourse between the two and if that isn’t a blatant example of the narrowness between them, then I dont know what is. As far as how much that’s the case around the world? I honestly can’t make that call.
gonufc you are correct. I view it not as right and left ( though that's what the labels are) it's actually "old America" (stay the way we were, but improve it) vs new America ( change the way we are completely to nothing like old America.)
This is why it boils down to two groups. Because, in truth, at the raw core it IS one way or the other. Period. If you have 8 beliefs on the right and 2 on the left, you better choose one side to fight for, because they are absolutely in opposition of each other. That's why America is unique.
Can't work out if you're saying that's a positive or negative or neither. I wouldn't say it's unique like that- there are many countries that only have two relatively viable parties but those other countries have smaller parties which people will still discuss as they can have an effect in changing the big parties. I know there are technically other parties like the Libertarian party and a Green party but they don't seem to have any discernible effect on the major parties' policies or ideals.
As much as I dislike them I have to give the example of UKIP in my country- they peaked and collapsed in terms of support but that's because they were in all practice a one issue party and eventually they had Cameron's Tories submit to the noise and organise a referendum on membership to the EU. These countries definitely feel the big waves made by the smaller parties but it always seems that the Republicans and Democrats are such huge tankers that none of those waves have any effect on them at all.
I never know how strict campaign donor laws are actually enforced in the US- obviously the Stormy Daniels affair is partly about that but that's a fairly exceptional circumstance-what about generally? Because internationally we often hear these horror stories like the pipeline going through native American land and the huge donations of oil and gas companies. Out of things like that we often see how negative campaigning can be so effective in a two party system- things like "Pizza-gate" that are such obvious smear stories can still give you great gains in the polls; and the more of that you have the less idealistic, positive political ambitions you will get to actually do those things they really wanted to do before it all got tangled up in "The Game".
What jordan is basically trying to say is that the person who wins in life isnt the person who just tries to win for himself/herself but also has developed the kindness to allow other people to flourish and win aka a person who is eligible to lead because he is not just out for himself but for the whole team.
some kids, like me when I was a kid, was a very gentle, sensitive kid...to put me in a go kick ass world, at three would ve been really cruel. the idea for me, is to just play the game and enjoy it, and in little league. some kids are sensitive, and just need to get in there and try. to be brutally competitive at a young age, is then not a good thing. I d say you learn where I can compete and learn also what I can just get involved in. not everything should be a competition, that is , or can be damaging as a person. but there are things to compete in, and in life there is competition, and some people have illnesses and vulnerablilities, like me, and may not be able to compete like others. its getting in there, that is half the fight. the brutal person is everything is competition. to me living is also about humanity, not just competition.
I think to his point of winning by character is why some on the left assault the right, and speak so adamantly about systemic prejudice and racism.
It’s felt that the game in America was played with unfair character and allowed certain groups of individuals to get ahead and not fairly, by imposing power and laws that didn’t allow for other groups to excel at the same rate.
It’s almost like playing monopoly but certain groups got a couple of rolls before other groups get a chance to play, and to add to that, not necessarily teaching them how the game is played.
Not only in the physical sense of acquisition but also psychologically.
Damn this was hot!
Amazing explanation and insight.
JP delivers
Canadas hero!
JP is simply what this world needs.
agreed, he gets past a lot of obliviousness
This is the video I've been looking for
It does matter if you win or lose, it also matters how you play the game. Is that better? I always understood that phrase as meaning you give it everything you got (within the rule set) if you win, awesome. If you lose, you get your ass back in there and try harder until you win, or at the very least till your satisfied you have given your peek performance.
Jordan Peterson 2020
It took me a long time to realize that they were teaching my kid work/ exercise before competition.
Competition isn't a subject neither is work.
I was always under the impression that the left was the side wanting total hierarchy and the right was the side wanting an agglomeration of free association
This clips are like trailers before the movie, quite brilliant.
11:57 Building your character/identity/personality is the strategy to win as many future games as possible.
(maximizing your potential in the realm of charisma/charm/sociability: operationalize this into its most basic/fundamental tasks/actions/behaviors and start with the most simple/easy one and act on it) "better ideas, having no ch, 11/25 in notes"
The comments about how relativly good we’re doing is something I needed, this environment shit is discouraging
9:25 Empathy isn't feeling sorry for someone. That's sympathy. Empathy is understanding another's feelings. And before you demonize liberal's, remember that, supposedly, the "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." I have empathy for those people that give their children "participation" trophies, but for me, if we aren't keeping score, then I'm not playing...just my stupid opinion. Peace ya'll.
I love Jordan Peterson, Papa bless dear friend of humanity 😊
No competitiveness is killing humanity, the hierarchy is bullshit and built to keep one man on top the other. It’s not about IQ, it’s about capitalism and a work/slave wage mentality. Inequality is the problem, working collectively wins because everyone wins. That’s not about our kids being soft, if everyone had a chance to eat healthy we’d be healthier but the pharmaceutical & hospital industry would not. The hierarchy wants you to compete, it’s better for them. It’s not actually better for society. If we all worked together the world would be better for all but Society is based on competition & it’s exhausting. That’s why America is obese and dying. The stress of competition everyday. It’s not a good thing. & it kills me that these people claim to follow Christ who speaks of working as one body (together collectively in harmony) yet society is based on competition.
You are wrong
Equality dont exist
A voice of truth in a sea of soft entitled boys clamoring for significance. We need more authentic masculinity today and the courage to exist in the face of liberal hate and intolerance.
i think this is why a lot of people root for tim tebow.
Feminists think if a man is too competitive it's toxic masculinity 😂
This video is godlike.
“Doing alright”lol
Life is a game
Its a big game that consists of countless minigames
I can listen all day.
It says to enjoy the game and let others enjoy it to.
Otherwise why play the game if you are not enjoying yourself?
And make winning the only thing that matters.
More winners are enjoying what they are doing rather than making winning the only reason. That type of behavior usually losses.
You need to have Sam Seder on, with Jordan Peterson.....
That would be a fucking disaster, but I'd def watch.
Perhaps its different in Canada but his analogy of sport shows just how in the dark he is about american sport. The best player within any given sport and the "character" of the athlete(s) who sit atop is almost always in question. Sport, or rather the athlete at its highest levels is antithetical to everything he stated. Well at least here in the food ole USA it is.
The guy Peterson was talking about at the end of the video is exactly Sergio Perez at Red Bull...
At @3:00 when Joe says "So, when they see these Hierarchy's" my Siri comes on my iphone....
Jordan “The Boss” Peterson
What JP is proposing here as a solution to achieve "proper morality" is literally setting the ground for a Fake Morality. Let me go further in that:
- The idea is to view the hockey/soccer whatever game as the beginning of a series of games, as a part of a championship. And that would allow for the idea of the star player to develop all of his team members rather than just boasting with his expertise and skills. Why? Because the end goal is to win the championship, not the single game in itself. So that basically translates to the reality that "morality" here is a mere tool for a material gain, and that fundamentally bankrupts the essence of Morality.
The main interest remains tied to winning, ultimately, and that turns his team players to mere tools to attain that goal. Suppose the star player just shifted teams after 2 or 3 games for some example, his previous team players will instantly become his new competitors. New elements whose failure is necessary for his success. And that turns Morality into a mere pragmatic tool to survive, and not to do what's good or right in itself. And that's Fake Morality. Competitive systems no matter how sophisticated or complex they are, they prioritise extrinsic motivations over intrinsic ones by nature. Morality is fundamentally an intrinsic motivation. When he says "we feel/know that's wrong" we don't do that because of some money to get or a position to reach. It is an intrinsic motivation relating to ourselves not to something exterior. Competition renders that as secondary, because it doesn't matter at the end of it whether you were moral or not, and even if you were it would be a means to an end, and that is winning the game or the championship or whatever broader scale you might come up with. This is how the essence of Collaboration literally dies in a competitive system.
In addition to that, notice how he says that "*most of the time* a game is the beginning of a series of games". So this "solution" won't really have any weight in scenarios where games aren't really in the context of a broader setting like championships. And saying that Life is an all time broader context is a dangerous assumption, cuz that entails that life is necessarily a series of *competitive* games, which is not really true.
Making non-competitiveness seem like a fairy tale when we can clearly come up with alternatives and systems that are cooperative, far more productive, far healthier, and more importantly far more humane, is an attitude that we should radically rethink.
Another disturbing thing JP uttered..
"One way to not do very well in any hierarchy is to *have a low IQ*"
How do we deal with that? *We don't know*. And you really want people to accept that as a fact of life and just live with it? That echoes his thoughts on the Pareto distribution as a natural law we cannot change. And that is quite appalling. Especially in light of all the possibilities of non-competitive mechanisms we can slowly work on achieving and spreading.
فلنواصل الإيمان.
#KeepBelieving 🌅
No you've got that wrong there. You have misunderstood a key point and taken a metaphor as a literal fact and created a counter argument based on something JP didnt really state.
@@alexandercummins Hi, can you elaborate more? I'd like to know what is the key point that I misunderstood and how did I misrepresent what JP did state in my response.
Thanks.
“The left” is only a direction
You may like Jordan or not, but this guy is frank. There is no bullshit on him, he gives his opinion and you know he won't change it tomorrow.
🎵People living in competition.🎶
They say that competition is good. So let’s give the Beast (Revelation chapter 13) some competition. “WELCOME TO THE MONSTER”.
that was super profound. when is a parenting book coming out?
Where can I find the full podcast from this?
The meek will inherit an ass-whoopin!
Jordan 'The hierarchy' Peterson
Shaolin monks are not allowed to partake in competitions because they would be too strong, and they get that strong without any competition whatsoever. If that's the case, then what's the point in competition?
winners often say the importance of competition
You want to try your best wether you win or lose.
I’m watching Jordan B Peterson videos trying to determine the correlation between intelligence and drive. Any ideas?
The reason I want to know is because if people aren’t sufficiently similarly driven to do or learn something, how can we be sure that IQ tests are testing one’s intelligence rather than the sum of one’s intelligence and drive?
I know it was long time but can you try to explain me what that "drive" you talked about mean?
@@Jezykminator The desire to be superior to peers, competitiveness.
Now, when i'm able to understand what you were saying i have question for you. Do you see that "drive" as Determination? (and btw IQ test from what i know operate on your ability to see scheme and patterns, so there is no space for that drive) if you have diffrent opinion i will hear it with pleasure.
@@Jezykminator According to Jordan, any general cognitive test is technically an IQ test. The ACT and SAT are actually IQ tests. See what I’m getting at?
The idea is the better the programmer, (the more intelligent), the better the program, (the more knowledgeable). What he doesn’t seem to take into account is one’s drive, or lack thereof, to acquire knowledge.
I do think fluid IQ tests do a good job. Drive isn’t much of a factor, if one at all, regarding fluid intelligence. But IQ consists of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
@@CalebJNelson I'm just making sure but you know that there is Intelligence, wisdom and knowledge? I asks because i have a feeling that you correlate does things.
Jordan “Can’t throw the baby out with the bath water” Peterson
so what if he's not fun to play with. not a fan of physical contact? I was at a loss with my son. Made me understand even though you have kids they might not be even close to your "wave length" and how do I deal with it was a question.
Which Guyon marking said, Be nought agrieu'd,
Sir Knight, that thus ye now subdewed arre:
Was neuer man, who most conquestes atchieu'd
But sometimes had the worse, and lost by warre,
Yet shortly gaynd, that losse exceeded farre:
Losse is no shame, nor to be lesse then foe,
But to be lesser, then himselfe, doth marre
Both loosers lot, and victours prayse alsoe.
Vaine others ouerthrowes, who selfe doth ouerthrowe.
How can you start competing if you're too far behind?
Joe Rogan is the fucking Man!
“You absolute son a bitch” 😂😂
*learns to not prioritize winning the game above all others*
*hopes he becomes fun to play with and others like him*
*others cruelly take advantage of said person, having prioritized winning the game over all else*
and repeat
Relatable
Im here because of Serena Williams
ROGAN “THE ALMIGHTY GOD” JOE
where is the podcast Jordan mentioned? (mundaine non-trivial stuff)
this makes up for that nugent bs...
however competicion is overrated
it isn't as important as petersson says it is
It's important for progression, but not so much for self emotional preservation
You can't even smell competition and didn't even both stating your case. Fucking dumbass, your comment holds no credibility or merit to anyone
too much competicion is bad though
I don’t know what “competicion” is, but competition is beautiful
Serena Williams brought me here...
But if you shouldn’t compare yourself to who someone else is and compare yourself to who you were yesterday, then why should you compete publicly in competitions?
To be second place is to be compared to the first and third place participants.
what world do these people live in that these are real problems?
Where to find the full vid??
Think it could be this one:
ruclips.net/video/9Xc7DN-noAc/видео.html
What episode number is this from?!
I'm confident it's from Joe Rogan Experience #1139 - Jordan Peterson
Well he's my dad lol
I think everyone knows he's shooting blanks.
Adopted son
3:30 Jordan's axiom "you have to pursue things of value" in a social space, which in turn leads to differential outcome because people will be equally good at "it" (i assume the pursuit of value), doesn't make sense as values are dynamic and subjective. I think he confuses monetary value with ethical, moral, and community values. Worshiping the golden calf
Because people will be differently good at it*
JP Fans, is JP against a UBI?
So you train your kid to win and he or she becomes a world champion, thats great an all in the moment, but what does than actually for you, bragging rights? Your devote a large amount of your time in impressing others?
i wonder if JRE is so mainstream now, that he hired a make up artist for his guests
Jordan Peterson is so egotistical he had his makeup done for the Joe Rogan podcast.
Okay, so who wants to make a comment about racism or Trump?
Nothing is perfect and seeking utopia is the road to rune it's bin try and and leads to catastrophe. That doesn't mean you don't try to make things better. And it makes fixing the real problems like say aggressive police on power trips because no one will take the real problems seriously at that point
thats the 20th time hes told that story ha
Brilliant, but then Peterson advocated voting for Trump. Whoops. Actions matter, not words Mr. Peterson.
God's and clouds..
Sports are the stupid people Yu Gi Oh!
Competition isn't good, it leads to a worse outcome. This competitive mentality is why we're more divided then ever as we are now in some bs gang ideology that doesn't help society, it hurts it. Hell, name anything non sports/game related and I can point out why competition is bad in EVERY aspect of it. Add in that a society is weaker when divided, not stronger, and that's further proof that competition is bad.
So when Peterson keeps in this very specific lane, particularly when they got past the stuff about “enforced monogamy,” he makes a ton of sense. If he would stay away from the mythology and religious crap I’d be much less inclined to roll my eyes when my buddies try to tell me how life changing he is.
Roll your eyes all you want. You don't have to agree with him on everything. And what makes sense to others may not make sense to you.
He's mentioned that a lot of his followers are self-proclaimed "Atheist Christians." This means they appreciate the overall morals and meanings found within the stories of the Bible, but they don't believe any of it to have *really* happened. That made it a lot easier for me to listen to all the mythology and religious stuff, since he goes into such depth about the human condition and life using these stories as a means of getting to his point. They have such amazing principles when looking at them in depth, but that's all they are... just stories.
benwhitnell So throw away the baby with the bath water? Do you only hear what you want to hear?
So you are opposed to a person who's reasoning is backed by a moral compass that is guided by their spritual or religious beliefs? Well I feel sorry for you because most people believe in something and 9 times out of 10 they are grounded by thier faith. Just because you lack faith in God doesn't mean the person who does is not a viable candidate for you to receive information from. You cannot as a person think that intelligent people are not spritual or religious. Jordan peterson and Christopher Hitchens found religion and spiritual inheritance later in life and still maintained thier own narrative and set of skills.
Cristiano Ronaldo anyone?? lol
Yeah he met him the other day
Too many kids only find the game fun when they are winning. Kids aren't thinking about developing one another, and when they do make that pass to the weaker player and they fumble or whatever, all it teaches them is to distrust their coach's advices. What does this say about cooperation and competition?
You can enjoy something without being great at it. But it's hard to enjoy team sports when people dont play as a team. I'm talking about mostly about children's games. As adults most of us freely associate. But children really feel animosity and alienation, and can be bullied by their team when they don't play (as) well (win or lose).
I think a good coach would try to foster what Peterson is talking about, definately... I'm just curious about ways to bring the lesson home, & make it more rewarding.
work like horse payed like chicken
Jordan Peterson next up on the #metoo movement..