Support me at: Buymeacoffee: buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope Patreon: www.patreon.com/scienceisdope_ YT Membership: ruclips.net/channel/UCg--ENXdDpXh5LyLigolg2gjoin UPI: scienceisdope@icici (QR Code available on www.scienceisdope.com/support )
Man , it feels wierd and illogical but I believe I'm a conservative Athiest. The reasoning for my position is quite complex (wierd) but logical to me in a way. Either this comes because I was born in a conservative religious family or it's because of my intimate human nature.
@@fictionsolosanyverseyounam7599 conservativeness comes from emotion every person is conservative by emotion but if you use logic you will not be conservative so use logic instead emotion
Dr. Peterson was a great help to me when I was in depression through his videos. He compelled me to do the right thing and work on myself. And I am grateful for that. The real problem started when he started giving opinion about everything from history, religion, gender politics and everything under the sun. Being a girl initially I was too, sympathetic towards his views on feminism because I thought we have achieved everything for women. Then I realised it's not true for women in many countries like middle East and South Asia. My thought is that we should not allow an expert of one field to detect narrative on other unrelated fields. It's simply stupid.
@@beactivebehappy9894 it doesn't. I'm far from a JP fanboy, but criticising a movement as vast and global as feminism doesn't mean invalidating the success some localised versions of it achieve. JP specifically criticises the western version of feminism as it stands today, and its never ending crusade to appropriate victimhood for women even when there is none. Eastern/Western societies are vastly different with very different religious/social/gender dynamics, and conflating criticism of one with the other is a myopic thing to do. Just because one points out disenfranchisement of men in the west doesn't mean he's against improved rape laws in India.
@@beactivebehappy9894 JP doesn't dismiss feminism at all, I'd say he's a feminist himself, you should've heard about him helping many women out in their lives and how he's trained then to do better, his criticism is most against the extremists
Exactly this is what is happening. Earlier only film celebrities were in this position where they were asked every topic under the sun. Now people from other field who eventually become social media celebrities are facing this.
The biggest problem is not Peterson or any other "guru" or "influencer" figure. The problem is people who have extreme views and think they know more than they actually do, and only consume content that feeds their point of view. They see everything as black or white. Most things are nuanced and often multi-faceted. One needs and open mind, a logical brain, an empathetic heart, and a desire to seek balance.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 Theoretically yes! But when it comes to most human interactions, you need a blend of empathy and logic, with one weighing in heavier than the other depending on the particular circumstance. Otherwise people would be either histerical empaths or inhumane robots.
@@peacetoall1858 sure, if human interaction is involved, you could possibly be right But the dude is speaking to his audience through his videos, there's no point for empathy when he's trying to make others espouse his logic
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 I was talking about general life. As for this specific case, I would argue that his "logic" isn't pure logic. His views have come about as a consequence of his environment(real and virtual), experiences, interactions, internal and external reflections, and a lot more. That means his "logic" is not pure and is indeed (for lack of a better word) tainted with emotion. Part of that emotion is certainly empathy toward the men he addresses. Again, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but while what he says may seem logical to some, it may not to others. Which means it's not pure logic, as pure logic can't be argured against by anyone who isn't an obstuse imbacile. So the point is that he's not trying to "make others espouse his logic". He's trying to convey his thoughts and "feelings" on whatever subject he's on about in his vidos and interviews. Sorry about the long post, I just like to be clear.
I agree with you in the general sense that the problem isn't Peterson. But fundamentally, what you're promoting is indistinguishable from agnosism and pluralism. So where do we move from here?
Dude. I appreciate your honesty. I think there are many who take Jordan Peterson extremely seriously without digging any further. Especially because people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are much more visible than a Slavoj Žižek or a Sam Harris, it is not encountered either. I think there are several lessons to be learned from this: 1 - Just because someone speaks calmly and convincingly doesn't mean someone is right. And 2 - What is the agenda of someone with certain points of view?
OH MAN! right? One of the most ignorant aspects of his behavior is how he treats people when they ask him questions or when questions are posed about two opposing parties in a debate. He dismissively tells them that they are wrong, such as when he claimed someone was not an atheist despite their assertion. This can be quite disconcerting, as Jordan, being a clinical psychologist, should possess better conversational skills given his background in psychology. It is truly frustrating, and similar to Ben Shapiro, he resorts to talking quickly and talking over others in order to "win" the argument and create the illusion of being correct. While I hold a degree in psychology, I do not possess the same scholarly knowledge that Jordan does. However, he could easily accommodate others by simply asking for their name when engaging in conversation. If individuals use their preferred pronouns at work, it would be simple for him to acknowledge and respect their choices. If he struggles with pronouns during conversation, he could bypass his ignorance by using the person's name instead. In every debate he partakes in, he stubbornly maintains that he is right, regardless of the circumstances.
Speaking calmly and convincingly is a) how you should present yourself in a debate which is something others he faces don't do nearly as well if at all. b) him speaking convincingly using logic and reason and then others using their own logic and reason to ponder what he's saying, is why it may seem people take him seriously. Because he has intelligent things to say rather than saying there is a one word answer for injustice across the globe. We forgetting he's also a psychologist and has an authoritative say on many of these matters especially the GPG?
I honestly think his intention is to save the world and prevent it from repeating atrocities. He seems pretty self important, but maybe he should, because he's damn powerful. i feel pretty confident in that assessment. I doubt he crafted all of these ideas to conceal his bigotry.
@@Big_Tough_Guy Most people who don't have an ideology and aren't listening to what he's saying already angry at everything he stands for, come to similar conclusions you have made.
I was ready to disagree with you based on the title, but you've made some great arguments against JP views on religion, climate change, etc. But I have to disagree with your assertion that he's the "the most problematic intellectual of our time". The advice on psychology, putting your house in order, how to think, etc. is absolutely invaluable to a young mind. As critical thinkers, we have to always be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People are complicated, not all their views are consistent, not every belief is defensible with randomized controlled trials or double-blinded peer-reviewed studies. Right or left is almost never completely right or wrong, there is always a nuance in the middle. And understanding that nuance should be our goal.
The reality is that almost everyone that follows JP does so because of his politics and not because of his self-help. And his politics are awful, misogynistic, homophobic & sexist.
@@PreetvndI can bet you cannot even tell the meaning of the terms you used. He improved the lives of millions of women of all age groups. Better you learn to think
Pranav, how dare you call out a guy whom I base my whole personality upon? I spend 15 hours a day defending guys and girls who say bad things about Jordan. I refuse to entertain any opposing viewpoints, even though I have never ventured into the real world or engaged in meaningful conversations with women. I am inclined to believe that all women are merely after money and that any mention of feminism is just a product of ignorance. I am content in my self-proclaimed "sigma" bubble, where I consider myself superior and label others as "beta males." Please refrain from challenging my beliefs, as I am quite comfortable in this delusion. Whenever I come across a feminist post on Instagram or any discussion about equal rights, I automatically dismiss it and brand the person as uneducated. I arrogantly consider myself the most knowledgeable person in the world. Additionally, I use terms like "L" and "L generation" to degrade others, and I misuse the term "feminist" as if it were an insult. In my own little world, I believe I have solved all my problems, which is why I feel the need to meddle in other people's lives and make derogatory comments like "LGBT is unnatural" or "It's not biological." I perceive myself as the center of the universe, and everything revolves around me.
It's so refreshing to see such a balanced take on this by an Indian youtuber. I'm genuinely impressed by your way of articulating yourself. Looking forward to seeing more such content! I too am someone who has gone down the rabbit hole of watching too many Jordan Peterson videos. His eloquent manner of talking overpowers the fact that some of the arguments he makes are purposefully framed in a vague yet intellectual sounding way. The statistics he quotes often tend to be from studies with smaller sample sizes, and even then he only quotes the statistics which are in line with his personal views. And yet he makes his audience believe that anyone who doesn't agree with him simply doesn't want to accept reality (and just needs to clean their room 💀) I still do occassionally listen to him, because of course I love his eloquent manner of speaking, plus I still think there is a lot I can learn from him. It's also beneficial to listen to convincing arguments for things that you disagree on to really question why you disagree with these things in the first place. Would you perhaps also consider making a video about some of his claims in the field of psychology? For example he once mentioned that he doesn't believe in the Multiple Intelligence Theory. I would love to hear your perspective on that. Also I would love to hear your perspective on gender-affirming care for minors, trans people in sports and gender dysphoria (it's included in the diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders)
@@stravinskyfan but first you'll have to tell....what do you mean by "you", what do you mean "didn't", what do you mean by "have", what do you mean by "capability", what do you mean by "understand", what do you mean by "them"
@@Satire.with.Mayank I've watched his debates with Dillahunty and Harris so many times that i can almost recite them verbatim. This is because I have taken the position of "If it sounds like word salad to me, but makes perfect sense to, and has improved the lives of millions of other people, sheer probability would indicate that I'm the one who doesn't understand what's being said." What petersin haters seem not to notice is their disdain for him. It's not that he simply doesn't make sense to them, if that was the case they'd just ignore him and get on with life. There's this apparent desire to attack him and show outright agression to him whenever possible. Anyone with a psychology background knows that aggression toward someone is a threat response. You don't show such illwill to someone unless they pose some kind of threat to you. I guess what I'm saying is that people's hatred toward Jordan Peterson is an acknowledgement that you feel threatened by him
What is shocking and dangerous about JP is that he uses his psychology degree to bring credibility to the Christian worldview. I was obsessed with Peterson when he posted self-help lectures at the beginning, I was turning to atheism during this time and I thought it was odd that he was constantly synthesising Bible verses into his reading of post modern social dynamics. If I didn't have atheism to temper JP's influence I would've ended up a rabid, co-dependant fan-boy and would've never caught the misuse of Psychology and re-assessed post-modernism . Christianity like most religion has been very anti-science and post-modernism relies largely, if not entirely, on the might of science to bring positive and sustainable changes to society. So I completely understand why a closeted Christian would be against post-modernism.
Science and religion can't co-exist. One uses old ideas while other is continuously discovering new ones. I f you see anyone trying to link them, they must be upto something.
He is a conservative and so many people in India especially men are watching these videos of him and ben shapiro. I see people from India talking about woke and men right activist. It has already seeped in society
@@urooj09 I think that this sentiment was already there in indian society as we are comparatively WAY more patriarchal than the west. JP has simply given legitimacy to their pre-existing beliefs and they feel more emboldened to wear it on their sleeve. The internet somehow amplifies what people already think.
I think the main reason he was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
This was eye opening! Thanks for sharing, Pranav What helps me is, I try to not follow anyone (not even you. Although, I am subscriber :D). Rather, I try to follow advise that are actionable to my life. That way, I can test them and form an opinion/tweak my interpretations myself. I definitely like - 'thinking = writing'. It does help me be more articulate. I also like 'clean your room' - I see people (very close friends and family) who gives advices that they themselves don't follow.
I went through the same transitions as you, I was also an atheist from India, who got hugely influenced by the “intellectual dark web”. Now I know better
If you are the type of person to be hugely influenced by one group then chances are you are still able to be hugely influenced by another. To say you now know better is a deeply naive thing to say.
@@soulfuzz368It's the difference between believing someone at his word, and doing the actual fact check. Fact check Peterson, and a lot of what he's saying turns out to be, at best ill informed or at worst a lie.
@@harrynac6017 I agree but I would extend this level of criticism to all media personalities. Fame and attention makes liars of us all. Is there some other media guru you think speaks only the truth and deserve the attention and fame they receive?
It just occurred to me how much childhood emotional neglect can lead one to the horrors of Jordan Petersen fandom. He talks constantly about how young men aren’t seen, validated, or told they have inherent worth and their feelings matter. If your parents never provided those things, then those points will resonate with you. Throw in psychological patriarchy where these young men get mocked, bullied or ostracized for expressing their feelings or being vulnerable and it just makes it worse
The most hilarious thing about peterson was his debate with zizek. Peterson tells people to read 800 pages worth of reference books before putting forward their argument.. and he hadn't even read the communist manifesto
Peterson not only read the communist manifesto, but understands it deeply. Zizeks objections to Peterson were that he wasn't directly quoting the communist manifesto and was instead presenting the implications of it. Remember when you were in high school and the teacher told you to "write it in your own words"? That's to show that you actually understand the text well enough to express them accurately through your own unique words and perspective.
Wait? You mean the the opposite right? He had read it and analyzed it at great length in the debate. Zizek sidetracked him though since it turned out that he was a strange Marxist
@@jaxwhyland that's not what it came off as.. he refused to actually cite any material at all from the manifesto but wanted to present a grim picture of it. Zizek simply asked about the parts which peterson found objectionable and peterson couldn't come up with anything. It's a simple book meant for workers for Christ sake.. peterson loves to reference 800 pages thick random books but can't say which parts of CM he was talking about.
@@skumflum3768 lol.. he hadn't. He was describing how he thought the manifesto was.. but didn't say anything from the actual text. It's like me giving a movie review without actually talking about any plotpoints.
Pranav, let me tell you. You are basically me when it comes to the chronology of events that happened with you and who you followed and got influenced by. It was like i was doing self reflection. I'm now exactly where you are right now with my position. Loved the video. Cheers 😊
He is not self-reflecting. He has made assumptions about the world and probably share his world with people who hold those assumptions. He has not examined his world-view or even properly understand what it is.
Sadguru of the west is so accurate. Both talk of just enough of motivation to strap you in, to then take you for a ride with their misinformation and prejudice
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is trying to be needlessly confusing with his speech. He has always come across to me as sincere and genuine. I relate a lot to the way that he thinks and gets caught up in semantics. It’s hard for me to understand when people say that he just uses wordplay and has some hidden agenda. I think his beliefs are entirely genuine, but I think it would be beneficial if he used more conventional definitions and frameworks.
No, he is not. It's bullshit word salad. His fans often need help understanding what he's saying. That allows him to sound more intelligent than he is and allows people to project their prejudices and feelings onto whatever he's saying.
Did you even watched the video he literally say climate change is not real gender wage gape is not real and is against gay marriage. And thing people can't have morality without believing in religion
I gotta admit. Jordan Peterson is a brilliant speaker. He has the talent of charm, and a way of using words which is very impressing and is most of the time also the cause of his massive fan following. Before this video, I too looked at Peterson on a pedestal but after further learning about his misinformation, I associate it with his intellectualizing of everything. The way he speaks, and the fact that he is a clinical psychologist, these things give him a great stance to utter almost anything he wants and get away with it. The problem also lies in our generation who chooses to get most, if not all of their information from digital media platforms which can be filled with misinformation. That is why I try to lean more towards reading books, which atleast from what I have noticed, have a much lower likelihood of having misinformation and I think this is the ultimate solution.
Same here, I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. His audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into stupids. 😂
I used to watch Peterson clips and reels just an year ago lol and I found him fascinating at that point. I'm glad I've changed myself a lot since then.
I think the main reason Jordan Peterson was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
@@max-cs9ko the real problem isn’t even about trans rights Look the amount of attention people like him are giving to the trans movement in the first place.The more people talk about it more people get exposed to it.Otherwise trans people could have gone by as a small community of people.
This man Peterson is just so confident about whatever he speaks. It os this conviction that confused his opponents. However the only time I saw his tactics failed was when his opponent was Salvoj Zizek. That debate is really amazing.
Sad u r not getting sponsor.....I'm an unemployed viewer and can't support ur channel financially but keep telling friends about your videos that's the only support I can give right now.... please keep going 💟
Respect to you for keeping an open mind & learning where you went wrong & then correcting. It is an enormous problem that a large majority of people are impervious to information that contradicts their favored of self serving viewpoints. Cheers.
What the good thing about your channel pranav is that it saves my lot of time.Usually when I have to form an opinion about something or somebody,I want to do deep research but I don't have much time or energy,by watching you video,I would say I get pretty much idea about the thing or a person.
@@raven-888 It is interesting that you pointed out this thing. But i think there were no scientific claims in this video. But claims like gender pay gap,C-16,pranav already sited the sources in his discription. There was not much to verify also,this video was based on "someone" rather than "something". And his arguments were sound,because I personally have watched many videos of jordern peterson,and I used to thought approx. same about him.
@@loyisad1211 wow, if you knew anything about human endocrinology, you'd know that even high levels of natural testosterone in young women can't rival, low levels of testosterone in old men... plus a few months of being on castration meds doesn't negate the advantages gained from a lifetime of high testosterone levels.
I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. Your audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into waves of stupids. 😂
the thing is that half the world thinks you are stupid too. What you described is an echo chamber which is used to propagate confirmation bias in people. This guy pranav claimed the covid vax was safe when it came out, but only after its use, people started dying of random heart attacks. There was a detailed study on Cardio myopathy by an independent doctor from John Hopkins, yet this guy pranav just trolled Djokovic instead of getting into the science of vaccines. Because that would expose him right away. Both the left and right are fooling people left right and center. He is no different when it comes to serving the companies who are funded by the left. As for Peterson, he is a great psychiatrist and a doctor. But I wouldn't take religious advice from him. Its that simple. Social medias job is to confuse the people with opinions. Thats it.
It is not a debunk. It is a criticism. What exactly did he debunk? Nothing. Pranav just put forward his world-view. One that he holds but does not examine. To borrow a term used by Jordan Peterson in this video, Pranav is imposing moral hierarchy, which he assumes that all the viewers share and agree upon. There is no need to assume that LGBTQ categories are real or if real, then stable. There is no need to assume that protective classes need to be created based on those categories. There is no need to assume that protecting those people that fall within those categories are the greatest moral good. There is no need to assume that those that do that are "civilized" and those who don't are "barbaric". These are components of a belief system. If it is wrong to impose Christianity on those that are unwilling, why is it right to impose this ideology system on anyone?
@@82abhilash yeah it wasn't a debunk, per se. It was a criticism. Everything else you said was wild though. LGBTQ people do exist and are discriminated against all over the world. Hence, it makes sense to put them in a protected class. That is a moral good, I don't know if it's the greatest moral good but why does it have to be? And I would say that being against discrimination makes you more civilized and less barbaric for sure. Don't know what you mean by the last question, not all beliefs are the same. I have no problem imposing anti-discrimination beliefs while being against imposing religious beliefs. That's not hypocritical at all as my goal for society is a more peaceful and tolerant one.
@@Venksama There are labels called LGBTQ, and there are people labelled that way. Some people self-label with those categories. But that does not mean that those labels represent anything real. We have lot of old labels that intelligent people and even scientists believed in the past that have proven to be inadequate of even false. Human beings are social animals. It is very difficult to know if a human being is acting purely on instinct. Which is what makes the LGB labels suspect. For starters they are only found in Western societies, where such categories of people are given special rights. The argument is that they are oppressed in other countries. Again that seems more like a world view that anything else. It may be that some people have depended on those of the same gender for sexual stimulation, but that does not mean that they are some separate category. Some people like to watch birds and some people like to swim. Do we need separate interest groups for that too? It is an action that people do to better their life. If they are tolerated why not tolerate polygamy and polyandry as well.? Monogamy is a result of Christian indoctrination after all. Also, how far should you tolerate anything? What about people who involve children in such acts and what if the child likes it too? There is an effort now to relabel and normalize pedophilia calling them minor-attracted persons. Now for the T and Q, the new additions, even more problematic. It is just men dressed as stereotypical women to enter private spaces for women. Now you speak about religious imposition. LGBTQ are part of a religious imposition. It goes by the slang term woke. It has its own theology too. But it is presented as facts and masquerades as science.
"What sane person wouldn't want equal rights for all groups and individuals especially if given them rights wouldn't take anything away from you?" Most societal problems would be avoided if only everyone would adopt this fairly obvious principal, but unfortunately this isn't the case. There's always going to be selfish people out there that don't want equality or everyone to live good lives.
Not to bring humans are just another species of animals and in general may like to use their physical or social advantages to take advantage of the weaker groups or people , am I really wrong? I am highly doubting if these -selfish- people are a half if not majority of humans, at least today.
Matt Dillahunty debate was a classic. I liked him there still, as an ok religious interlocutor, relatively. I think JP really took defeat well towards the end. Then as you say, he's avoided debates altogether, especially Matt Dilahunty.
JP's biggest talent is his charm and that he is a very good speaker. Good language and big words. It impresses people and makes you want to believe him. I have listened to his videos. But me being a feminist found his videos very disappointing after some time. Then i heard him talking about lgbt pronouns but the final nail on the coffin was when he did a q and a with college students on climate change. He just kept talking bullshit, going round and round, nothing that made sense. As you said, he managed to confuse the kids and shut them up and his few supporters were cheering and clapping . But it was obvious that he didn't really know what he was talking about atleast about climate change. But he talked with so much of confidence and advanced vocabulary that i had to rethink all the videos i had seen of him till then. As he has some good general life advice, people tend to take everything he says as advice.
Dude this video didn't even scratch the surface. You should still read more and listen more, probably from both the sides to conclude on your opinions. This video was equally biased and was cherry picking arguments mostly
I basically took the same path as SiD concerning Peterson. He seemed bright at first but the more i watched the more I saw tremendous errors spewed with tremendous confidence. Sad, really. His sheep just baahhhh.
@@windscaar13 JP is a charlatan, what does a psychologist have to do with diets and climate? That's right nothing. I need no more proof I should not have to disprove every single instance of someone being wrong before I know they are lying for money.
Coming out of your internet bubble is one of the most challenging thing a person can do on the internet. You must have a strong fortitude and character to achieve that.
In what way does Jp advise(not his politics) making Indian men misogynist ???? Maybe you watched those out of context clips of him and anyways enjoy your eco chamber.
Being a bit older than the youth generation that watched Peterson, I am surprised by the amount of people that get sucked in by his non-arguments. However, I still find it hard to counter what he says. Thanks for making this video and helping me understand why I have misgivings about the man.
I'm also an atheist (since 2016). I started watching JBP in 2018 and by the end of 2022 to early 2023 I gradually stopped watching JBP's podcast. I see a pattern here.😂
His views on climate change are the most problematic. 3 of my juniors in college quoted Mr. Peterson and told me Climate Change is not real. They wouldn’t even listen to reason because of how polarising his content is.
instant sub. as an american i appreciate the work you're doing in bringing attention to the right wing idealogues and how harmful they rly are. if you want to know a little more about jp's ideology, some more news has an excellent video that explains it all. and most of all i appreciate you debinking the misinfo with your science content. thank you so much
He is western Deepak Chopra. Both are player of words and excellent individuals who can teach us How to debate without actual logic. Not to miss Sam Harris eta JK on live debate.
This is brilliant Pranav..I have watched both Peterson and Sadhguru back in 2018-20. They helped me in my darkest phases but somehow once I was in a bit of clarity and opened myself up for different views or more holistic perspectives, I found their flaws and their manipulation. Thanks a lot for debunking in a civilised manner ✌️👍🏻🫡
I like this, it feels like a genuine personal critique of Peterson. A year ago I would argue and put up arguments and whatnot, but I feel like you are very much like those students that the conservatives like to “destroy” - in that you have a very well constructed mindset that creates a coherent whole, but a few pokes into it would point out enormous loopholes.
that is one of the most efficient methods of manipulation, to act as if they have been on the other side, makes their argument seem that much more convincing. its quite funny seeing people watch a video all about Jordan deception and simultaneously falling prey to the same kind of deception.
Peterson has always been a dim person’s idea of what a smart person looks like. It is very difficult to follow his train of thought, and he continually over complicates, whereas genuinely smart people have a talent for presenting things simply. I suspect his appeal is more to do with the intensity of his emotion and self-regard, rather than the content of what he says per se, because the latter is incredibly nebulous.
The problem here is considering Peterson an intellectual. He’s not. He is instead (in his own words) the stupid person’s idea of what a smart person is. His followers believe he’s skilled at cloaking his meanings. But his endless streams of verbiage only appeal to the dim. He is actually quite easy to see through. His recent penchant for nasty emotional outbursts against any who do not hew to his positions is telling.
I completely agree with your point. Instead of disliking someone for having a different opinion just taking what is necessary from them is always the wise option.
Thank God that somebody said something about this man. He has been giving Gyan like there's no tomorrow. And I don't even understand most of the things he says. Same with Andrew Huberman.
This is because of his Great English vocabulary he looks like someone intellectual nd then he mix matches his word ( word salad ) so that most of audience doesn't even focus on what he is saying but just blindly agree with his stand
@@Satire.with.Mayank freedom of thought is such a wonderful thing. And I love how this community of nonconformist, logical & rational thinkers is growing.
Kudos~ You have great clarity and express your thoughts well. You also give great background with examples of the things you are speaking about and what your are attempting to get across. It is important, useful and it verifies. One thing I do not comprehend and personally do not see the point of is why you are moving toward wanting to be [I don't remember what you called it, but] challenged or proved wrong. What is the point of that~? I am not saying you shouldn't welcome challenge but I see no point in encouraging it. That is like saying you don't trust your own mind or that your thoughts and opinions are not valuable. You lean toward what a lot of us already see in J. Peterson and you are not alone. To hope someone comes along to disprove you is doing a disservice to young men and all those young Indian males we are concerned for. We have enough problems with young men in our world, who don't find genuine playfulness and happiness and female companionship. Just look at Hamas, ISIS and all the rest.
"Science may give us the truth but it seldom gives us hope" When you are at your lowest - hope is the only thing that will keep you going. Richard Dawkins himself said any form of philosophy or science is a privilege more than anything else (how can you think if you're struggling to eat 3 meals a day?) In 2023 ANY argument for religion will sound delusional when pitted against science. And even JP couldn’t make a convincing argument for it. But here’s why I think he’s still one of the most important thinkers of our generation. He raised awareness on free speech & trans rights - even if he misinterpreted c-16, he showed the world the dangers of forced speech. His book helped many young adults deal with chaos in its many forms ( as a former Christian I love how he presents practical, actionable learnings from the bible) His analysis of natural hierarchies & morality ( there is no morality in nature ) His message of hope to the angry young men of today His stance on traditionalism and critical thinking His take on religion took me from a militant atheist to someone who respects & learns from religion - even though i don’t agree with it. I really love Pranav’s approach & content but I think JP has far more to offer to the world, it would be wrong to dismiss him just because of his views on religion.
But he is not doing that. Pranav here cites how one must always be skeptical about J's opinions as he comes from his beliefs which are that of a conservative christian. His fall into the while Daily Wire rabbithole is a massive pointer for that btw
Agreed. Any person in their right mind would know where to stop believing JP, but everyone can actually erase nihilism and have a sense of purpose because of him without becoming theist.
man you earned a subscriber, i came across one of your videos and binged a few more of yours, while i do not agree with all your points because i too have certain beliefs and biases, i think you are doing an excellent job of being a critique and showing the other side of coin
Jordan's argument against Climate, as shown in this video, really made me giggle. Imagine amounting all that to a set of silly numbers. I bet he oversimplifies flood and natural disasters as an unbidden error in set of numbers/research 💀
Natural disasters have been around since time-immemorial. Man has tried to understand it and predict it and control it to protect himself from danger and harness the energies of nature to his advantage. And as long as there has been man, there has been con men trying to capitalize on natural disasters. Yogis, Babas, gurus and the witch doctors have attributed natural disasters to curses that only they can lift. Science was supposed to expose their fraud. But in the 21st century, scientists have usurped the language of science to perpetuate fraud. Scientists are human beings. And human beings can be corrupted. People can lie for money. For grants. It helps them buy big houses and assert great authority. The bigger the crisis, the greater the authority. No lasting solution is ever proposed. For if it works, they lost their cash cow. If it does not, they lose credibility.
Climate change dystopians often cite Pakistan as an example, highlighting devastating floods and a significant number of casualties. However, one important aspect that is often overlooked is the remarkable population growth of 200 million over the past 80 years
If you guys want other videos which criticise Jordan Peterson, I can recommend CosmicSkeptic, Vlad Vexler, and Carefree Wandering. All of them professional philosophers and criticise Peterson on different topics.
@@Djdu7228xnxj According to his website, he is "A graduate of philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University". I'm not sure if this qualifies him as a professional philosopher, but given that he's got a degree from one of the best schools in the world, he's certainly not uneducated in philosophy :)
@@Charlie-br8wp Yeah bro, a graduate isn't a professional Philosopher. PhD is generally considered as the threshold to be regarded as a professional Philosopher. The same applies to any field.
@@Djdu7228xnxj I see we differ on our definitions for "professional" philosopher. I won't argue further about that. Still, I stand by my recommendation :)
The problem is anyone can critique anyone. Unless they both have a dialogue. Someone can take this video and do criticism of it, show some other research etc etc and prove him wrong. And this goes on..
Hi Pranav,,, Can you make a video on the scientific basis for Transgenderism and Homosexuality. I always wonder what makes people homosexual or transgender against our natural evolutionary tendency to procreate for survival.
JP never denied the existence of gender pay gap, he just implied that radical means for eradicating gender pay gap might be at the expense of people's own free choice.
He literally denied its existence (when you control for variables of course). I have his quote in the video. Also the paper I linked shows that a paygap exists even when you control for those variables
@@scienceisdopeWell, he never denied the gender pay gap. Let me explain: He said that it doesn't exist in the context that Cathy was proposing, that was, basing patriarchy as the sole reason behind the existing gender pay gap. His argument was that there are multiple factors behind why women on average earn less than men, it's not just patriarchy or prejudice towards women. He literally said in the next line "Women in aggregate are paid less", then he goes on explaining all the factors.
@@scienceisdope JP didn't deny wage gap as you are claiming falsely(the quote of his in the video that you are referring to has a context to what Cathy was saying that pay gap is purely because of gender - "women are being dominated by men in pay" - which is what he countered with it's not purely because of gender, removing this context is called distorting facts which is what you did), he only said there are multiple factors causing that gap and one of which is gender but the proportion of the gender factor is much smaller in the overall gap than radical feminists claim. Literally quoting him, "I didn't deny it existed, I denied it existed because of gender". I think you got confused between the correlation-causation fallacy. Wage gap observed between men vs women - correlation(correlation of lower wages with women and correlation of higher wages with men on an average/median). Wage gap exists purely because they are men or women - causation. next, at 7:40, I think the measured variables that are controlled in the research paper results illustrated in the figures and tables are not exhaustive of what JP was referring to in that interview wrt the multivariate equation explaining the wage gap (eg. psychological factors like agreeableness, etc.). You can also find this thing as a kind of disclaimer in the research paper you mentioned as below that it needs more proper research(i.e. in field settings rather than lab settings) on these psychological factors to explain the 'wage gap'. www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21913/w21913.pdf - refer section 4 and subsections, also page 50 2nd para ("Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills...") So, this research paper neither proves wage gap exists purely based on gender discrimination(remember correlation not equal to causation), at least in developed nations, nor does it prove that JP was wrong nor it proves Cathy N. was right. I understand he didn't give any research source he was referring to while making those statements. However, based on the research paper you claimed he was probably referring to was also misrepresented by you in the context of what he said as explained above. I think you either didn't listen to the interview intently or did some twisting of the words JP said like mainstream media does usually and got misunderstanding of what exactly he said then did the above misrepresented referall to the research paper. I suggest you to watch that interview again with more focus on each word he says. Please watch below video to get more understanding/perspectives on the wage gap explanation: ruclips.net/video/W6IBFpVZIIE/видео.html&ab_channel=BigThink
Mad Respect to you brother! Even I used to watch a lot of Peterson’s videos. Thankyou for showing fellow men the truth. You have no idea how grateful I am to you. Thankyou so much for this! As long as we are able to change our views and challenge our opinions, we can grow and there is hope for humanity. :)
this video was really great. videos like these are hard to come by from Indian creators. it really made me happy seeing you talking about this topic so eloquently.
7:40 Jordan Peterson also wants to include different personality traits of male and female in the analysis of pay gap. The research which you are referring to does not take that into account, though certain other factors are accounted for in the paper.
What? *The paper cited in this video fully explains WHY personality is NOT a factor in GPG analysis.* It never has been and is unlikely to be in the near future, too. It explains how personality research is insufficient and unsuitable for the purposes of analysing GPG data. Too limited in scope and highly ambiguous. It simply cannot be used to explain any part of the GPG and is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of deriving any conclusions or outcomes. *The paper even speaks specifically to Petersons example - 'agreeableness' and 'negotiation'* ffs! It discusses how past research shows that women are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' engage in salary negotiations - by virtue of discriminatory attitudes in the labour market. And how there are other significant factors at play - for both men and women. Not only is discrimination a potential factor, personality traits - ALL of them - clearly work BOTH WAYS. The conclusion: specific research is required into the 'psyche' element of the GPG for personality to be relevant in any way. This was a year before his interview with Cathy Newman. Peterson knows the OCEAN/CANOE big five personality model. The big five has been the subject of ALL his research since 2003, for the purposes of his business selling his psychometric test (a recruitment tool) to Corporate Canada. BTW he also falsely claimed this to be 'scientifically proven unfakeable' for years. A fact uncovered by high court/appeal judges in a murder trial (Manitoba 2012/2014) where he tried to appear as an expert witness. He re-branded and re-launched it as an online personality test in 2017: 'Understand Myself'. But, just because he knows this stuff, doesn't mean he is honest about it. For eg women DO score marginally higher in 'agreeableness, but *so do outstandingly successful male CEO's* See 'Nice CEOs do finish first': by James Saft' Peterson misrepresented/distorted what he knows about personality, and simply MADE STUFF UP to support his view. *And his view is, in essence, just an intelligent-sounding, completely baseless and fancy form of victim-blaming*
Personality factor certainly is a big parameter in a social structure (We cannot just disregard it because it is difficult to measure). The Motherhood Penalty and such factors (3. Traditional Factors affecting GPG) are mentioned in the research paper. They also explain unexplained GPG to a large extent and there is substantial evidence for that. We really need to be thorough and consider many more parameters before concluding that discrimination is the major parameter driving the unexplained gap in that scenario, which is what JP is trying to say in that interview. I agree that he can make up things and be misleading, but we should focus on bringing the truth out. You can also refer to Claudia Goldin's papers.
@@shubhankardod965 My point is that Blau/Khan fully explain WHY personality is not part of GPG data analysis at this time, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. It is not simply disregarded because it is 'too difficult to measure'. Thus far no one has offered a good reason to introduce ANY 'psyche' factors into the mix - or indeed - a workable way of doing so which might be of any perceivable value. *But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the GPG as well as 'personality'* "Personality factor certainly is a big parameter in a social structure" *Is it? Says who? How/what impact re GPG?* What 'truth' do you believe personality assessment will 'bring out' vis a vis the GPG? Extant research into personality traits is inappropriate for the purpose of explaining any element of the GPG. Do you understand what has been 'measured' in the past and why? Which model was used and for what purpose? Do you understand that it is not just an individual which is usually assessed - but specific company culture? I refer you again to 'Nice CEOs do finish first': by James Saft' *WHO 'concludes that 'discrimination is the major parameter driving the unexplained gap'.... in ANY scenario?* What ARE you talking about? *Firstly, the GPG is NOT about discrimination* Overt discrimination - ie paying men/women differently for the same job is illegal and measured differently - eg tribunals. *Data gathered for GPG reporting/statistics, offers NO WAY of determining if men and/or women are being subjected to discrimination or bias.* Anyone who says: - there is no gender pay gap. Is wrong. - that the gender pay gap indicates discrimination primarily or in part. Is wrong. - that the gender pay gap indicates any cause whatsoever. IS WRONG *... and Peterson claimed all three* If he understands the GPG then he is wholly misrepresenting it. If he does not - and this seems most likely - he should keep his trap shut and leave it to those who do! The GPG talks ONLY to whether men and women are equally represented - and typically indicates that they are not. It does not speak to CAUSES. It surfaces gaps which may prompt further research/analysis into why a gap exists and what, if anything, might be done about it. Further research/analysis is done by a whole range of people eg employers, organisations, policy makers... etc. .... And economists like Blau/Khan - and Claudia Goldin. The Blau/Khan report is an analysis of 30 years of US GPG data. *Goldins work covers 200 years* THIS speaks to what is seen as 'the main sources of the remaining gender gap between men and women'. Her research concerns CHOICE - the changing factors that have restricted or supported options/opportunities and the impact this all has on women AND men. Her conclusion? She says: *“The important point is that both lose."* The bottom line is that a gender pay gap is not desirable - not good - for anyone. It negatively affects men, women and children - the family - as well as the economy, levels of poverty, the tax base and the burden placed on the welfare system. You want a 'truth'? Francine Blau is one of the few economists who has for years tried to get focus on the FACT girls out-perform boys educationally. They have for donkeys years in societies/cultures where education is deemed important and made accessible to both. To the point that this has become an entrenched, accepted, stereotype. That women are more highly educated than men is one of the acknowledged basic factors in Goldins work too - right up front. It is now finally being researched and addressed. See this article from the APA: 'Boys are facing key challenges in school. Inside the effort to support their success' A higher percentage of boys are diagnosed with learning difficulties, inattention and hyperactivity; are more likely to be subject to harsher discipline - suspension and expulsion; *the structure of the school system itself leaves them at a disadvantage* You'd think that Peterson would give a small and perfectly formed s11t about THAT long standing problem, wouldn't you? But no. It seems to me that he just wants to turn the whole thing into an old fashioned p1&&ing contest. His view is archaic, unsophisticated, banal and fundamentally inaccurate. He might just as well claim that god made women's feet smaller so they can closer to the kitchen sink! .
Yeah same here, I was really into him in 2019 and all through 2020 but after he came back from his coma (which I am glad he did) he struck me as something wasn't right and he was leaning more and more towards the alt-right. I slowly stopped keeping up with him as his content became more and more political. The last straw for me was when he defended the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm pretty apolitical and people's views don't really bother me but Jordan is way more of a political sensationalist who only stores up controversy and peddles his opinions as facts which is just wrong!
Something that needs to be spoken about is how people like Sam Harris and Hitchens have a really skewed way of arguing for atheism that leads young men toward bigotry. Most people who liked Dawkins, and Hitchens usually slide towards Jordan Peterson and slowly slide towards worse reactionary sides of the internet.
My respect for you and your content just skyrocketed. I’ve always been wary of Peterson from his initial days of virality and internet success. His grifting is legendary and his blunt overconfidence is what got him to get to the good books of many impressionable men. He became the intellectual lightning rod of the incels and right-wingers opposed to everything equality and in support of everything manliness. But he has been taken down in many debates with multiple intellectuals, thus he hasnt gone for one of those in the recent years mostly limiting his presence on platforms where he gets his ass kissed and BS legitimised. The same goes for his daughter. Ben Shapiro was and remains to be a ventriloquist parrot, with just nonsense talking points and a lack of spine to actually debate the likes of Sam Seder.
JP is a politician rather than an intellectual and it is east to be confused between a politician and an intellectual. As both use speech to justify their truth, whereas an intellectual is the one who is willing to be wrong, unbiased and change his views for the better.
I was told by my friend to listen to JBP in 2016, 5 minutes into his lecture, I was like, he sounds like an Indian professor who reads from a textbook and relies on generalization rather than elaborating nuances. After Trump became president, he realized Trump's followers as the most gullible idiots he can make immense money out of and he did just that. It is worth mentioning that psychology has always been geared and partial towards upper class rich white men while being exclusionary of the rest of the communities. Peterson continues to propagate that vision with regards to psychology, hence you see him dehumanizing others. I will never understand Indian stans of Peterson because he basically considers you as less human for not believing in the Christian God. And even further his belief that the Christian God is the only reason the west is developed while ignoring colonization and the exploitation along with the ill treatment of indigenous communities, black people, asians , latin americans, eastern and central europeans (under the pretext of the same God) who actually contributed to the growth in the west.
I must disagree on your statement that he ignores colonization. I've binged his content, sometimes same podcast multiple times. He makes it very clear what his stand is on colonial times, racism, slavery and prejudice. He never justifies that. What he disagrees is on the current World. He is a Christian and very well so. Just bcz he is white one must not fault him. He didn't ask for the burden of privilege on the basis of race. Instead of personal attacks on his personal beliefs, lets try to counter him on his intellectual rationale. It doesn't matter why he holds the opinion he does. It only matter if he is right and just in what he says.
True. So many women say things contrary to so called male dominated psychology nonsense, but all opinions are mostly rejected. Psychology as science is highly biased towards certain group of people So many psychologists still "treat" gays and lesbians. I
@@stk6997 if you look at what he says about iq, i think that would contradict a lot of what he claims his beliefs on racism and prejudice are. he's basically a stealth advocate for eugenics. as in, he never actually says it because that would be bad, but his faulty conclusions on the nature of humanity and society and so on lead to no other alternative. peterson thinks iq is an accurate measure of someone's intelligence (this is highly dubious, scientifically, and a lot of psychologists spend their careers arguing about it). he believes people's iqs are some sort of innate thing (he provides poor evidence for this that is mostly misinterpreted and ignores swathes of evidence that contradict him) that different races have different iqs (some evidence for this, not enough to make a definitive statement and definitely not enough to say it's innate rather than environmental) and that people in the lowest few percentile of iq can't add to society in any productive way because no jobs exist for them (practically no evidence for this). he believes you shouldn't just give them money because they'll throw it all away (again, no evidence). he believes you can't just teach them to be better at stuff so they can get a job (no evidence for this). so look at the world he lays out - iq is an accurate measure of people's intelligence - iq is innate - some races are inherently more stupid than other races - there aren't any jobs for stupid people - stupid people can't be supported through social programs because they're too stupid - stupid people can't become smarter/smart enough to get one of those jobs through training or studying or any other solution we could possibly come up with this is stealth eugenics. he's laid out the full argument for eugenics and he just stops shy of saying the word and instead says shit like "yeah its a huge problem and we should discuss what to do about it in the marketplace of ideas". he also uses a study done in south africa shortly after apartheid ended to support his "black people are more stupid than white people" claim so the him taking colonization seriously thing is just a farce. no one who actually takes colonization seriously takes disparate scores in what was recently an apartheid nation as evidence of anything other than proof of the evils of apartheid
You are looking at this from Indian perspective which is incorrect. You don't know what is going here in politics in the name of LQBT rights, trans issues, etc etc. And Peterson argument against Bill B-16 was that it could potentially force individuals to use specific pronouns or language that they disagreed with or found objectionable specially when there can be any number of pronouns. And comparing him with Sadhguru was just dumb. My advice would be to focus more on the religious scriptures, practices and not the politics.
bill C 16 doesn't EVEN speak about pronouns. www.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/utlj.2017-0073#:~:text=Bill%20C%2D16%20adds%20the,specific%20references%20to%20gender%20pronouns.
I mean as far as LGBT goes , JPs right . This channel is using feelings instead of science . Why should society consider a man who has male characteristics and XY chromosomes to be a lady . This creator uses rationality only when it suits his agenda
Bill c 16 required him to acknowledge not only transgenders but also every other group of people who claimed that they were of a gender that didn't make sense on a biological level ( now i could define what I mean by biological, but i don't want to sound like someone making things unnecessarily complex- hint- sarcasm). It required him as common citizen to not question someone's claim on what their gender is, because that would at some point fall under "discrimination". For a person who actively engages in field of science, with regards to psychology and philosophy, that felt like a direct attack on their ability to think and act as if they are the ones thinking and acting, jorden Peterson himself has said and acted out acknowledging transgender woman on a debate about bill c16 on a Canadian channel The video on RUclips is on a channel called 'TheAgenda l Today'.
There are glaring issues with Peterson, however, this video fails to critic him and does not do justice to him. Genetically Modified Skeptic on the other hand did a wonderful job at his critique, actually countering his points rather than using "he just has complicated wordplay and jargon" fallacy in logic and butchering his viewpoint entirely. Ciao.
As a practicing psychologist, academic and someone who has admitted his own health and mental health issues his lecture series Maps Of Meaning and Personality Lectures Jordan Peterson gives so much valuable information on the human condition. His political, social and cultural commentaries are polarizing to say the least.
I really appreciate you covering this content. I think for a lot of Indians who grew up on the internet, JP is a familiar figure. I have had former schoolmates forward JP videos to me and I have struggled to explain my position and frankly, i think if one is caught up in that space, they also think in terms of that. I do think atheism and critical thinking are the way forward to a better brighter future and it is the easiest way to expose JP. Great use of long-form content, Pranav. Looking forward to more great videos!
I don't like Peterson for many reasons, but I think he was right about the bill c16. I am French and a teacher and similar bills have been introduced here without publicity. However, I was once accused by my hierarchy of not addressing properly one of my transgender student. I nearly lost my job over that, but fortunately it wasn't me but another worker who had not used the proper pronouns. In schools here now, if any student decides they want to identify as anything, we have to use the name or pronoun they want, regardless of what they look like or what their family wants. I think it's a total disservice for most kids.
Ah no. He lied through his teeth about Bill C-16 - and the law in Canada. Not one claim he made about it was accurate or true. I am not familiar with the law in France, but I *guarantee* whatever bills have been introduced, they are not anything like C-16 - which, effectively, changed nothing in Canada.
I applaud you for recognizing your fallacies and coming out of them. These men like Peterson, tate and Shapiro are damaging to the growing minds. Few years ago when I came across Peterson's videos on feminism I thought hmm this guy is wrong but that didn't enrage me or caused any emotional reaction because I thought there is this guy who is trying hard to stay relevant and I felt bad for his desperation, I had no idea that he had this much impression on young men, I thought he is a professional psychologist who is trying to make a name for himself by coming up with ridiculous ideas to kind of immortalize his name but one can only act with in the bounds of their intelligence. While tate's content actually enraged me because you can see the deception and hatred in it and the damage it can cause. I am glad you are making these videos elucidating your journey with such content and creating awareness so young men don't have to go through the spirals you had to.
There are two layers to content that come out from JP or Sadhguru. First - generic sentences that are useful/relatable. Write things down for clarity, people not feeling heard, etc etc. Anyone can gain these simple insights of life with time. This is where they are likeable/worshipped. The second layer is never saying - I don't know. Personally, I take it as a red flag when a person has an answer for everything, usually presented as criticism, like JP's take on climate change. It's human not to know everything. Few of us are indeed genius, probably have eidetic memories, but they still don't know it all. This behavior is preachy, like the Bible has all the answers. 🤷🏻♀️ Anyway, good video! 👏
Hey Pranav, love you videos. I am just wondering if you would make a video on book called "skeptics guide to universe". I think anyone who would love to learn Critical thinking outside of CT class, its magnificient book. 10/10 recommned it to everyone.
15:37 You weren't too stupid to understand what he was saying. His words are almost always a word salad of uncommon words that if written out you will find to not make common sense. He has a deliberate debating style where one interrupts their opponent by calling out or taking issue with, essentially the definition of a word they just used and then turning the discussion in a completely different direction. He is what would be better known as a self-made-faux-scholar.
Wonderful video. I always tried to learn about him, why is he so famous, but I never understood what he is talking. Even I used to think that I am not good at understanding English, or I need to be more mature to understand what he is saying. But he turns out to be another Deepak Chopra who sprinkles interesting words to form a statement that makes no sense at all. Thanks for the video Pranay.
Deepak Chopra is in a league of his own, I wouldn’t put these two in the same bucket. JP makes way more sense - except for maybe when talking about his stance on God.
@@praveen25 I disagree. I watched the debate with Dillahunty, he made no sense at all in any topic. He just chooses to use confusing words to make himself sound sophisticated but his sentences made no sense at all.
Hey Man I’m curious to know your opinion/answer to the below four questions 1. What’s your take on his other series like Maps of Meaning and Psychological Significance of Biblical Stories? 2. What do you suggest as a solution to your question - “Is the benefit overweights the harm they are creating?”? 3. How would you feel/react if someone in the future comes along and points out flaws in the argument you presented today? 4. What do you think he meant when he mentioned “Crime and Punishment” for the atheist question?
I really appreciate you SID, i do see a lot of reactionary sentiments coming from even educated south asian men, i think with the rise of women's rights and lgbt rights, a lot of young men in patriarchal cultures feel threatened, i see this sentiment a lot from indian men, but its reassuring to see some pushing back against that. In fact a lot of like anti "social justice" stuff i see online comes from muslims and south asians, which i think makes sense as in an interconnected world people in these more patriarchal cultures are exposed to more challenges to their assumptions.
not everyone, a lot of us are sick of biased laws, unfair stereotyping and mental gymnastics and strawman to justify discrimination against men. We arent looking to take away womens rights.
Support me at:
Buymeacoffee: buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope
Patreon: www.patreon.com/scienceisdope_
YT Membership: ruclips.net/channel/UCg--ENXdDpXh5LyLigolg2gjoin
UPI: scienceisdope@icici (QR Code available on www.scienceisdope.com/support )
Man , it feels wierd and illogical but I believe I'm a conservative Athiest. The reasoning for my position is quite complex (wierd) but logical to me in a way.
Either this comes because I was born in a conservative religious family or it's because of my intimate human nature.
Who is Jordan Peterson ?
@@fictionsolosanyverseyounam7599 conservativeness comes from emotion every person is conservative by emotion but if you use logic you will not be conservative so use logic instead emotion
@@motherisape where do you get that reasoning buddy? I find conservatives are more ruthless than liberals.
Thank you so much Pranav for making this video... I have seen many people who are atheist/rationalist fall for him...
Dr. Peterson was a great help to me when I was in depression through his videos. He compelled me to do the right thing and work on myself. And I am grateful for that.
The real problem started when he started giving opinion about everything from history, religion, gender politics and everything under the sun. Being a girl initially I was too, sympathetic towards his views on feminism because I thought we have achieved everything for women. Then I realised it's not true for women in many countries like middle East and South Asia.
My thought is that we should not allow an expert of one field to detect narrative on other unrelated fields. It's simply stupid.
When has JP tried to discredit women's movement in middle east/SE Asia?
@@EvilSapphireR I don’t know if he has done it specifically but dismissing feminist movement as a whole kind of also dismisses around the world
@@beactivebehappy9894 it doesn't. I'm far from a JP fanboy, but criticising a movement as vast and global as feminism doesn't mean invalidating the success some localised versions of it achieve. JP specifically criticises the western version of feminism as it stands today, and its never ending crusade to appropriate victimhood for women even when there is none. Eastern/Western societies are vastly different with very different religious/social/gender dynamics, and conflating criticism of one with the other is a myopic thing to do. Just because one points out disenfranchisement of men in the west doesn't mean he's against improved rape laws in India.
@@beactivebehappy9894 JP doesn't dismiss feminism at all, I'd say he's a feminist himself, you should've heard about him helping many women out in their lives and how he's trained then to do better, his criticism is most against the extremists
Exactly this is what is happening. Earlier only film celebrities were in this position where they were asked every topic under the sun. Now people from other field who eventually become social media celebrities are facing this.
The biggest problem is not Peterson or any other "guru" or "influencer" figure. The problem is people who have extreme views and think they know more than they actually do, and only consume content that feeds their point of view. They see everything as black or white. Most things are nuanced and often multi-faceted. One needs and open mind, a logical brain, an empathetic heart, and a desire to seek balance.
Empathy literally has no value when logic is at play
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 Theoretically yes! But when it comes to most human interactions, you need a blend of empathy and logic, with one weighing in heavier than the other depending on the particular circumstance. Otherwise people would be either histerical empaths or inhumane robots.
@@peacetoall1858 sure, if human interaction is involved, you could possibly be right
But the dude is speaking to his audience through his videos, there's no point for empathy when he's trying to make others espouse his logic
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 I was talking about general life. As for this specific case, I would argue that his "logic" isn't pure logic. His views have come about as a consequence of his environment(real and virtual), experiences, interactions, internal and external reflections, and a lot more. That means his "logic" is not pure and is indeed (for lack of a better word) tainted with emotion. Part of that emotion is certainly empathy toward the men he addresses. Again, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but while what he says may seem logical to some, it may not to others. Which means it's not pure logic, as pure logic can't be argured against by anyone who isn't an obstuse imbacile. So the point is that he's not trying to "make others espouse his logic". He's trying to convey his thoughts and "feelings" on whatever subject he's on about in his vidos and interviews. Sorry about the long post, I just like to be clear.
I agree with you in the general sense that the problem isn't Peterson. But fundamentally, what you're promoting is indistinguishable from agnosism and pluralism. So where do we move from here?
Dude. I appreciate your honesty. I think there are many who take Jordan Peterson extremely seriously without digging any further. Especially because people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are much more visible than a Slavoj Žižek or a Sam Harris, it is not encountered either. I think there are several lessons to be learned from this: 1 - Just because someone speaks calmly and convincingly doesn't mean someone is right. And 2 - What is the agenda of someone with certain points of view?
You described observational assessments of the act, which I believe is called, discernment.
OH MAN! right?
One of the most ignorant aspects of his behavior is how he treats people when they ask him questions or when questions are posed about two opposing parties in a debate. He dismissively tells them that they are wrong, such as when he claimed someone was not an atheist despite their assertion. This can be quite disconcerting, as Jordan, being a clinical psychologist, should possess better conversational skills given his background in psychology. It is truly frustrating, and similar to Ben Shapiro, he resorts to talking quickly and talking over others in order to "win" the argument and create the illusion of being correct.
While I hold a degree in psychology, I do not possess the same scholarly knowledge that Jordan does. However, he could easily accommodate others by simply asking for their name when engaging in conversation. If individuals use their preferred pronouns at work, it would be simple for him to acknowledge and respect their choices. If he struggles with pronouns during conversation, he could bypass his ignorance by using the person's name instead. In every debate he partakes in, he stubbornly maintains that he is right, regardless of the circumstances.
Speaking calmly and convincingly is a) how you should present yourself in a debate which is something others he faces don't do nearly as well if at all. b) him speaking convincingly using logic and reason and then others using their own logic and reason to ponder what he's saying, is why it may seem people take him seriously.
Because he has intelligent things to say rather than saying there is a one word answer for injustice across the globe.
We forgetting he's also a psychologist and has an authoritative say on many of these matters especially the GPG?
I honestly think his intention is to save the world and prevent it from repeating atrocities. He seems pretty self important, but maybe he should, because he's damn powerful. i feel pretty confident in that assessment. I doubt he crafted all of these ideas to conceal his bigotry.
@@Big_Tough_Guy Most people who don't have an ideology and aren't listening to what he's saying already angry at everything he stands for, come to similar conclusions you have made.
I was ready to disagree with you based on the title, but you've made some great arguments against JP views on religion, climate change, etc.
But I have to disagree with your assertion that he's the "the most problematic intellectual of our time". The advice on psychology, putting your house in order, how to think, etc. is absolutely invaluable to a young mind.
As critical thinkers, we have to always be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People are complicated, not all their views are consistent, not every belief is defensible with randomized controlled trials or double-blinded peer-reviewed studies. Right or left is almost never completely right or wrong, there is always a nuance in the middle. And understanding that nuance should be our goal.
1.5 million subs 🙀
The reality is that almost everyone that follows JP does so because of his politics and not because of his self-help. And his politics are awful, misogynistic, homophobic & sexist.
But what arguments did he make ..... he is just lying ?
@@PreetvndI can bet you cannot even tell the meaning of the terms you used. He improved the lives of millions of women of all age groups. Better you learn to think
@@Preetvndso?
Pranav, how dare you call out a guy whom I base my whole personality upon? I spend 15 hours a day defending guys and girls who say bad things about Jordan. I refuse to entertain any opposing viewpoints, even though I have never ventured into the real world or engaged in meaningful conversations with women. I am inclined to believe that all women are merely after money and that any mention of feminism is just a product of ignorance. I am content in my self-proclaimed "sigma" bubble, where I consider myself superior and label others as "beta males." Please refrain from challenging my beliefs, as I am quite comfortable in this delusion. Whenever I come across a feminist post on Instagram or any discussion about equal rights, I automatically dismiss it and brand the person as uneducated. I arrogantly consider myself the most knowledgeable person in the world. Additionally, I use terms like "L" and "L generation" to degrade others, and I misuse the term "feminist" as if it were an insult. In my own little world, I believe I have solved all my problems, which is why I feel the need to meddle in other people's lives and make derogatory comments like "LGBT is unnatural" or "It's not biological." I perceive myself as the center of the universe, and everything revolves around me.
Dude your sarcasm 😂
😂😂
Butthurt right winger crying after reading this 😂
Right winger crying after reading this 😂
Damn, You destroyed the manosphere guys like Andrew Tate. 🤣🤣🤣
It's so refreshing to see such a balanced take on this by an Indian youtuber. I'm genuinely impressed by your way of articulating yourself. Looking forward to seeing more such content!
I too am someone who has gone down the rabbit hole of watching too many Jordan Peterson videos. His eloquent manner of talking overpowers the fact that some of the arguments he makes are purposefully framed in a vague yet intellectual sounding way. The statistics he quotes often tend to be from studies with smaller sample sizes, and even then he only quotes the statistics which are in line with his personal views. And yet he makes his audience believe that anyone who doesn't agree with him simply doesn't want to accept reality (and just needs to clean their room 💀)
I still do occassionally listen to him, because of course I love his eloquent manner of speaking, plus I still think there is a lot I can learn from him. It's also beneficial to listen to convincing arguments for things that you disagree on to really question why you disagree with these things in the first place.
Would you perhaps also consider making a video about some of his claims in the field of psychology? For example he once mentioned that he doesn't believe in the Multiple Intelligence Theory. I would love to hear your perspective on that.
Also I would love to hear your perspective on gender-affirming care for minors, trans people in sports and gender dysphoria (it's included in the diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders)
Word salad is Peterson's favourite dish
You just didn't have that capability to understand them.
@@stravinskyfanonly lobsters can
@@stravinskyfan but first you'll have to tell....what do you mean by "you", what do you mean "didn't", what do you mean by "have", what do you mean by "capability", what do you mean by "understand", what do you mean by "them"
@@neerajvashisht5364lmao😂
@@Satire.with.Mayank I've watched his debates with Dillahunty and Harris so many times that i can almost recite them verbatim. This is because I have taken the position of "If it sounds like word salad to me, but makes perfect sense to, and has improved the lives of millions of other people, sheer probability would indicate that I'm the one who doesn't understand what's being said."
What petersin haters seem not to notice is their disdain for him. It's not that he simply doesn't make sense to them, if that was the case they'd just ignore him and get on with life. There's this apparent desire to attack him and show outright agression to him whenever possible. Anyone with a psychology background knows that aggression toward someone is a threat response. You don't show such illwill to someone unless they pose some kind of threat to you. I guess what I'm saying is that people's hatred toward Jordan Peterson is an acknowledgement that you feel threatened by him
What is shocking and dangerous about JP is that he uses his psychology degree to bring credibility to the Christian worldview. I was obsessed with Peterson when he posted self-help lectures at the beginning, I was turning to atheism during this time and I thought it was odd that he was constantly synthesising Bible verses into his reading of post modern social dynamics. If I didn't have atheism to temper JP's influence I would've ended up a rabid, co-dependant fan-boy and would've never caught the misuse of Psychology and re-assessed post-modernism . Christianity like most religion has been very anti-science and post-modernism relies largely, if not entirely, on the might of science to bring positive and sustainable changes to society. So I completely understand why a closeted Christian would be against post-modernism.
Science and religion can't co-exist. One uses old ideas while other is continuously discovering new ones. I f you see anyone trying to link them, they must be upto something.
Exactly my thoughts
He is a conservative and so many people in India especially men are watching these videos of him and ben shapiro. I see people from India talking about woke and men right activist. It has already seeped in society
@@urooj09 I think that this sentiment was already there in indian society as we are comparatively WAY more patriarchal than the west. JP has simply given legitimacy to their pre-existing beliefs and they feel more emboldened to wear it on their sleeve. The internet somehow amplifies what people already think.
I think the main reason he was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
This was eye opening!
Thanks for sharing, Pranav
What helps me is, I try to not follow anyone (not even you. Although, I am subscriber :D).
Rather, I try to follow advise that are actionable to my life. That way, I can test them and form an opinion/tweak my interpretations myself.
I definitely like - 'thinking = writing'. It does help me be more articulate.
I also like 'clean your room' - I see people (very close friends and family) who gives advices that they themselves don't follow.
I went through the same transitions as you, I was also an atheist from India, who got hugely influenced by the “intellectual dark web”. Now I know better
Do you? Or have you fell into another trap. Maybe time will tell.
@@82abhilashexactly. It’s amazing how little self awareness people have.
If you are the type of person to be hugely influenced by one group then chances are you are still able to be hugely influenced by another. To say you now know better is a deeply naive thing to say.
@@soulfuzz368It's the difference between believing someone at his word, and doing the actual fact check. Fact check Peterson, and a lot of what he's saying turns out to be, at best ill informed or at worst a lie.
@@harrynac6017 I agree but I would extend this level of criticism to all media personalities. Fame and attention makes liars of us all. Is there some other media guru you think speaks only the truth and deserve the attention and fame they receive?
It just occurred to me how much childhood emotional neglect can lead one to the horrors of Jordan Petersen fandom. He talks constantly about how young men aren’t seen, validated, or told they have inherent worth and their feelings matter.
If your parents never provided those things, then those points will resonate with you. Throw in psychological patriarchy where these young men get mocked, bullied or ostracized for expressing their feelings or being vulnerable and it just makes it worse
The most hilarious thing about peterson was his debate with zizek. Peterson tells people to read 800 pages worth of reference books before putting forward their argument.. and he hadn't even read the communist manifesto
Peterson not only read the communist manifesto, but understands it deeply.
Zizeks objections to Peterson were that he wasn't directly quoting the communist manifesto and was instead presenting the implications of it.
Remember when you were in high school and the teacher told you to "write it in your own words"? That's to show that you actually understand the text well enough to express them accurately through your own unique words and perspective.
Wait? You mean the the opposite right? He had read it and analyzed it at great length in the debate. Zizek sidetracked him though since it turned out that he was a strange Marxist
@@jaxwhyland that's not what it came off as.. he refused to actually cite any material at all from the manifesto but wanted to present a grim picture of it. Zizek simply asked about the parts which peterson found objectionable and peterson couldn't come up with anything.
It's a simple book meant for workers for Christ sake.. peterson loves to reference 800 pages thick random books but can't say which parts of CM he was talking about.
@@skumflum3768 lol.. he hadn't. He was describing how he thought the manifesto was.. but didn't say anything from the actual text.
It's like me giving a movie review without actually talking about any plotpoints.
@@pm6127 did you expect him to read it out loud? It was a perfectly reasonable analysis
Pranav, let me tell you. You are basically me when it comes to the chronology of events that happened with you and who you followed and got influenced by. It was like i was doing self reflection. I'm now exactly where you are right now with my position. Loved the video.
Cheers 😊
He is not self-reflecting. He has made assumptions about the world and probably share his world with people who hold those assumptions. He has not examined his world-view or even properly understand what it is.
@@82abhilash well i never said he was, but what you said might be true. He is only to answer
@@82abhilash How do you know?
@@potts995 read what I have written elsewhere.
Sadguru of the west is so accurate.
Both talk of just enough of motivation to strap you in, to then take you for a ride with their misinformation and prejudice
Yes, they are so good at the strapping in part. Extraordinary even.
Woi JP baba
What prejudice and misinformation?
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is trying to be needlessly confusing with his speech. He has always come across to me as sincere and genuine. I relate a lot to the way that he thinks and gets caught up in semantics. It’s hard for me to understand when people say that he just uses wordplay and has some hidden agenda. I think his beliefs are entirely genuine, but I think it would be beneficial if he used more conventional definitions and frameworks.
No, he is not. It's bullshit word salad. His fans often need help understanding what he's saying. That allows him to sound more intelligent than he is and allows people to project their prejudices and feelings onto whatever he's saying.
Style, confidence, intelligence. Important characteristics to attract consumers. Probably why he has become a successful businessman.
Watch his interview with Alex O’Connor, he is a grifter.
Did you even watched the video he literally say climate change is not real gender wage gape is not real and is against gay marriage. And thing people can't have morality without believing in religion
if you think "What do you mean by do, what do you mean by You, what do you mean by believe
?"
I gotta admit. Jordan Peterson is a brilliant speaker. He has the talent of charm, and a way of using words which is very impressing and is most of the time also the cause of his massive fan following. Before this video, I too looked at Peterson on a pedestal but after further learning about his misinformation, I associate it with his intellectualizing of everything. The way he speaks, and the fact that he is a clinical psychologist, these things give him a great stance to utter almost anything he wants and get away with it.
The problem also lies in our generation who chooses to get most, if not all of their information from digital media platforms which can be filled with misinformation. That is why I try to lean more towards reading books, which atleast from what I have noticed, have a much lower likelihood of having misinformation and I think this is the ultimate solution.
“I have figured out a way to monetise the Social Justice Warriors”- Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast
I am amazed at how we had almost the exact same journey. Loved the video!
Same here, I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. His audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into stupids. 😂
@@amityadav-lt5bc Yes.
I used to watch Peterson clips and reels just an year ago lol and I found him fascinating at that point. I'm glad I've changed myself a lot since then.
I think the main reason Jordan Peterson was attacked he spoken against gender transition surgery of minors and promotions of homosexuality in western schools and thats why his twitter was suspended, tbh there’s nothing wrong if someone stand for protection of childrens from gender politics, even though I admire this channel work this video is completely biased
@@max-cs9ko true. Apart from Jordan's religious views, i mostly agree with his social outlook.
I still love his work I just don't care about the other stuffs he talks about 🥲
@@max-cs9ko the real problem isn’t even about trans rights
Look the amount of attention people like him are giving to the trans movement in the first place.The more people talk about it more people get exposed to it.Otherwise trans people could have gone by as a small community of people.
Why? Because he is a transphobe? There is no reason to believe that Pranav is less flawed than JP.
This man Peterson is just so confident about whatever he speaks. It os this conviction that confused his opponents. However the only time I saw his tactics failed was when his opponent was Salvoj Zizek. That debate is really amazing.
I just can't tolerate Zizek's accent. I've personally found it to be really disturbing. I can't listen to the guy for more than 5 mins lol 😅💀
I’m half-Slovenian. I don’t mind Zizkek’s accent, but I find him somewhat uncouth.
Man no one could do what zizek did to Peterson in that debate.
Have you watched Dillahunty's conversation with Peterson? Worth a watch
Title is kind of misleading, i was in dedepression in my teenage. Listening to lectures it really helps me.
Sad u r not getting sponsor.....I'm an unemployed viewer and can't support ur channel financially but keep telling friends about your videos that's the only support I can give right now.... please keep going 💟
Same here😢
Obviously stupid people are unemployed. Get a job man leave philosophy until you get one.
Respect to you for keeping an open mind & learning where you went wrong & then correcting.
It is an enormous problem that a large majority of people are impervious to information that contradicts their favored of self serving viewpoints.
Cheers.
Finally, the video I was eagerly waiting for! 🔥
Ok member
@@motherisape yeah. 🤓
Only ₹29.😉
@@jangwan 😂
18:00 18:05 18:07 18:08
What the good thing about your channel pranav is that it saves my lot of time.Usually when I have to form an opinion about something or somebody,I want to do deep research but I don't have much time or energy,by watching you video,I would say I get pretty much idea about the thing or a person.
then you are doing exactly the opposite of what he's suggesting here. accepting someone else's claim without verification
@@raven-888 It is interesting that you pointed out this thing.
But i think there were no scientific claims in this video.
But claims like gender pay gap,C-16,pranav already sited the sources in his discription.
There was not much to verify also,this video was based on "someone" rather than "something".
And his arguments were sound,because I personally have watched many videos of jordern peterson,and I used to thought approx. same about him.
@@ReshabSharma-q8e Several people have debunked Pranav in the comments but he hasn't responded to any of those comments. How convenient!
As an intellectual atheist, I'd love to hear you science based opinion on trans women in women's sports.
What of it? There are cis women in sports with high testosterone. You know that right?
Yes😂, i wanna see his scientific explanation on so called LGBTQ as well
@@indcollections
no he wont do that he has a particular way of operating as far as i have seen he slants a particular way in analysis.
@@loyisad1211 wow, if you knew anything about human endocrinology, you'd know that even high levels of natural testosterone in young women can't rival, low levels of testosterone in old men... plus a few months of being on castration meds doesn't negate the advantages gained from a lifetime of high testosterone levels.
I'm so relieved to find out that there are people who are really rational. Your audience is amazing. A comment section where you can scroll through without bumping into waves of stupids. 😂
Yeah consider it a safe space ❤️
the thing is that half the world thinks you are stupid too. What you described is an echo chamber which is used to propagate confirmation bias in people. This guy pranav claimed the covid vax was safe when it came out, but only after its use, people started dying of random heart attacks. There was a detailed study on Cardio myopathy by an independent doctor from John Hopkins, yet this guy pranav just trolled Djokovic instead of getting into the science of vaccines. Because that would expose him right away. Both the left and right are fooling people left right and center. He is no different when it comes to serving the companies who are funded by the left. As for Peterson, he is a great psychiatrist and a doctor. But I wouldn't take religious advice from him. Its that simple. Social medias job is to confuse the people with opinions. Thats it.
I too feel relieved here.
@@zany4132 or an echo chamber ironically
or you can say... an echo chamber of your own world views, delusions and stupidity.
I've seen a lot of peterson debunks, this is definitely one of the best. Awesome work, Pranav.
It is not a debunk. It is a criticism. What exactly did he debunk? Nothing. Pranav just put forward his world-view. One that he holds but does not examine. To borrow a term used by Jordan Peterson in this video, Pranav is imposing moral hierarchy, which he assumes that all the viewers share and agree upon.
There is no need to assume that LGBTQ categories are real or if real, then stable. There is no need to assume that protective classes need to be created based on those categories. There is no need to assume that protecting those people that fall within those categories are the greatest moral good. There is no need to assume that those that do that are "civilized" and those who don't are "barbaric". These are components of a belief system. If it is wrong to impose Christianity on those that are unwilling, why is it right to impose this ideology system on anyone?
@@82abhilash yeah it wasn't a debunk, per se. It was a criticism. Everything else you said was wild though.
LGBTQ people do exist and are discriminated against all over the world. Hence, it makes sense to put them in a protected class. That is a moral good, I don't know if it's the greatest moral good but why does it have to be?
And I would say that being against discrimination makes you more civilized and less barbaric for sure.
Don't know what you mean by the last question, not all beliefs are the same. I have no problem imposing anti-discrimination beliefs while being against imposing religious beliefs. That's not hypocritical at all as my goal for society is a more peaceful and tolerant one.
@@Venksama There are labels called LGBTQ, and there are people labelled that way. Some people self-label with those categories. But that does not mean that those labels represent anything real. We have lot of old labels that intelligent people and even scientists believed in the past that have proven to be inadequate of even false. Human beings are social animals. It is very difficult to know if a human being is acting purely on instinct. Which is what makes the LGB labels suspect. For starters they are only found in Western societies, where such categories of people are given special rights. The argument is that they are oppressed in other countries. Again that seems more like a world view that anything else. It may be that some people have depended on those of the same gender for sexual stimulation, but that does not mean that they are some separate category. Some people like to watch birds and some people like to swim. Do we need separate interest groups for that too?
It is an action that people do to better their life. If they are tolerated why not tolerate polygamy and polyandry as well.? Monogamy is a result of Christian indoctrination after all. Also, how far should you tolerate anything? What about people who involve children in such acts and what if the child likes it too? There is an effort now to relabel and normalize pedophilia calling them minor-attracted persons. Now for the T and Q, the new additions, even more problematic. It is just men dressed as stereotypical women to enter private spaces for women.
Now you speak about religious imposition. LGBTQ are part of a religious imposition. It goes by the slang term woke. It has its own theology too. But it is presented as facts and masquerades as science.
Left wing in the western civilization are just mentally unstable people
@@82abhilashThat's just bullshit. LGBTQ is not a " tag" without meaning. It is you who has no idea about science.
"What sane person wouldn't want equal rights for all groups and individuals especially if given them rights wouldn't take anything away from you?"
Most societal problems would be avoided if only everyone would adopt this fairly obvious principal, but unfortunately this isn't the case. There's always going to be selfish people out there that don't want equality or everyone to live good lives.
Not to bring humans are just another species of animals and in general may like to use their physical or social advantages to take advantage of the weaker groups or people , am I really wrong? I am highly doubting if these -selfish- people are a half if not majority of humans, at least today.
Good video, I am off to disorganize my room
Matt Dillahunty debate was a classic. I liked him there still, as an ok religious interlocutor, relatively. I think JP really took defeat well towards the end. Then as you say, he's avoided debates altogether, especially Matt Dilahunty.
JP's biggest talent is his charm and that he is a very good speaker. Good language and big words. It impresses people and makes you want to believe him. I have listened to his videos. But me being a feminist found his videos very disappointing after some time. Then i heard him talking about lgbt pronouns but the final nail on the coffin was when he did a q and a with college students on climate change. He just kept talking bullshit, going round and round, nothing that made sense. As you said, he managed to confuse the kids and shut them up and his few supporters were cheering and clapping . But it was obvious that he didn't really know what he was talking about atleast about climate change. But he talked with so much of confidence and advanced vocabulary that i had to rethink all the videos i had seen of him till then. As he has some good general life advice, people tend to take everything he says as advice.
i used to have exact opposite views but creators like you made me think critically and made me rational. thank you and keep up the good work.
Dude this video didn't even scratch the surface. You should still read more and listen more, probably from both the sides to conclude on your opinions. This video was equally biased and was cherry picking arguments mostly
I basically took the same path as SiD concerning Peterson.
He seemed bright at first but the more i watched the more I saw tremendous errors spewed with tremendous confidence. Sad, really. His sheep just baahhhh.
@@windscaar13 JP is a charlatan, what does a psychologist have to do with diets and climate? That's right nothing. I need no more proof I should not have to disprove every single instance of someone being wrong before I know they are lying for money.
Coming out of your internet bubble is one of the most challenging thing a person can do on the internet. You must have a strong fortitude and character to achieve that.
His opinion on climate change especially is so ignorant, it's absolutely infuriating
Damn, this video really did change how I viewed Jordan Peterson.
Please debunk Sudhanshu Trivedi, He is making pseudoscientific claims on every platform
Even a person with the least understanding will cross check his claims before accepting.
Never heard of him. Who is this guy?
He already did 2 - 3 short videos in his second channel.
@@girdharsingh4287 Hindu sceince minister.
That clown should not get any footage
Good work Pranav! JP is a big influence among young Indian men in a negative way. I see a lot of young men becoming misogynists these days.
Thank you!!
so watching jp is misogyny? in what context? wtf is wrong with you bro
@Kai 🏳️🌈 ⃠卍 😢you are so naive and cute
My Alpha boi 🤭
@Kai 🏳️🌈 ⃠卍 you are so alpha
That you need to be misandrist to gain attention
In what way does Jp advise(not his politics) making Indian men misogynist ????
Maybe you watched those out of context clips of him and anyways enjoy your eco chamber.
Being a bit older than the youth generation that watched Peterson, I am surprised by the amount of people that get sucked in by his non-arguments. However, I still find it hard to counter what he says. Thanks for making this video and helping me understand why I have misgivings about the man.
I'm also an atheist (since 2016). I started watching JBP in 2018 and by the end of 2022 to early 2023 I gradually stopped watching JBP's podcast. I see a pattern here.😂
His views on climate change are the most problematic. 3 of my juniors in college quoted Mr. Peterson and told me Climate Change is not real. They wouldn’t even listen to reason because of how polarising his content is.
instant sub. as an american i appreciate the work you're doing in bringing attention to the right wing idealogues and how harmful they rly are. if you want to know a little more about jp's ideology, some more news has an excellent video that explains it all. and most of all i appreciate you debinking the misinfo with your science content. thank you so much
The guy is basically a far right fanatic. The people who follow him are either fanatics themselves or dont know about that side of him.
He is western Deepak Chopra. Both are player of words and excellent individuals who can teach us How to debate without actual logic.
Not to miss Sam Harris eta JK on live debate.
lol
Sam is weird. No god but does meditation which derives directly from eastern religions.
Ham Sarris can look convincing debating anything under the sun, since his logic matches with 19 year old internet atheist
@@gnanasabaapatirg7376 Meditation is less about religion tho
This is brilliant Pranav..I have watched both Peterson and Sadhguru back in 2018-20. They helped me in my darkest phases but somehow once I was in a bit of clarity and opened myself up for different views or more holistic perspectives, I found their flaws and their manipulation. Thanks a lot for debunking in a civilised manner ✌️👍🏻🫡
I like this, it feels like a genuine personal critique of Peterson. A year ago I would argue and put up arguments and whatnot, but I feel like you are very much like those students that the conservatives like to “destroy” - in that you have a very well constructed mindset that creates a coherent whole, but a few pokes into it would point out enormous loopholes.
His videos around religion , psychology and self help is great.. Haven't watched him on politics and gender things
Not religion
Not psychology
@@zany4132 lol his videos on psychology are pretty insightful
I really appreciate someone who admits that they have grown and evolved and come from a place where you were less educated and are honest about that
yeah but thats only that. Dont think because of such a claim you can take him for his word for everything.
that is one of the most efficient methods of manipulation, to act as if they have been on the other side, makes their argument seem that much more convincing. its quite funny seeing people watch a video all about Jordan deception and simultaneously falling prey to the same kind of deception.
Just because they’ve changed, doesn’t mean they’ve changed for the better or are somehow more correct now. Sorry.
Bro you have really good communication skills. Really well thought out and spoken peice.
I've become such fan of your work. Just unable to renew membership using UPI 😢
Peterson has always been a dim person’s idea of what a smart person looks like. It is very difficult to follow his train of thought, and he continually over complicates, whereas genuinely smart people have a talent for presenting things simply. I suspect his appeal is more to do with the intensity of his emotion and self-regard, rather than the content of what he says per se, because the latter is incredibly nebulous.
The problem here is considering Peterson an intellectual. He’s not. He is instead (in his own words) the stupid person’s idea of what a smart person is. His followers believe he’s skilled at cloaking his meanings. But his endless streams of verbiage only appeal to the dim. He is actually quite easy to see through. His recent penchant for nasty emotional outbursts against any who do not hew to his positions is telling.
I too was taken aback by Peterson's religious intonations, but soon began to ignore all of it and sieve to the parts where he did make sense.
I completely agree with your point. Instead of disliking someone for having a different opinion just taking what is necessary from them is always the wise option.
@@windscaar13 the guy is bought by daily wire now.. there's not much we can get other than what daily wire audience loves to hear.
@@pm6127 I agree that he is not like how he used to be. If that's all he has to offer then nothing wrong looking elsewhere I guess.
Thank God that somebody said something about this man. He has been giving Gyan like there's no tomorrow. And I don't even understand most of the things he says. Same with Andrew Huberman.
This is because of his Great English vocabulary he looks like someone intellectual nd then he mix matches his word ( word salad ) so that most of audience doesn't even focus on what he is saying but just blindly agree with his stand
@@Satire.with.Mayank He's exploiting the whole Big words=definitely correct mentality of the commoners.
@@Satire.with.Mayank similar to shapiro " say things fast and confuse people "
@@Satire.with.Mayank freedom of thought is such a wonderful thing. And I love how this community of nonconformist, logical & rational thinkers is growing.
@@alpeshmittal3779 exactly, these guys also cleverly use logical fallacies like "Strawman" to win arguments
Kudos~ You have great clarity and express your thoughts well. You also give great background with examples of the things you are speaking about and what your are attempting to get across. It is important, useful and it verifies. One thing I do not comprehend and personally do not see the point of is why you are moving toward wanting to be [I don't remember what you called it, but] challenged or proved wrong. What is the point of that~? I am not saying you shouldn't welcome challenge but I see no point in encouraging it. That is like saying you don't trust your own mind or that your thoughts and opinions are not valuable. You lean toward what a lot of us already see in J. Peterson and you are not alone. To hope someone comes along to disprove you is doing a disservice to young men and all those young Indian males we are concerned for. We have enough problems with young men in our world, who don't find genuine playfulness and happiness and female companionship. Just look at Hamas, ISIS and all the rest.
"Science may give us the truth but it seldom gives us hope"
When you are at your lowest - hope is the only thing that will keep you going.
Richard Dawkins himself said any form of philosophy or science is a privilege more than anything else (how can you think if you're struggling to eat 3 meals a day?) In 2023 ANY argument for religion will sound delusional when pitted against science.
And even JP couldn’t make a convincing argument for it.
But here’s why I think he’s still one of the most important thinkers of our generation.
He raised awareness on free speech & trans rights - even if he misinterpreted c-16, he showed the world the dangers of forced speech.
His book helped many young adults deal with chaos in its many forms ( as a former Christian I love how he presents practical, actionable learnings from the bible)
His analysis of natural hierarchies & morality ( there is no morality in nature )
His message of hope to the angry young men of today
His stance on traditionalism and critical thinking
His take on religion took me from a militant atheist to someone who respects & learns from religion - even though i don’t agree with it.
I really love Pranav’s approach & content but I think JP has far more to offer to the world, it would be wrong to dismiss him just because of his views on religion.
But he is not doing that. Pranav here cites how one must always be skeptical about J's opinions as he comes from his beliefs which are that of a conservative christian.
His fall into the while Daily Wire rabbithole is a massive pointer for that btw
Agreed. Any person in their right mind would know where to stop believing JP, but everyone can actually erase nihilism and have a sense of purpose because of him without becoming theist.
You are a breath of fresh air. I Appreciate your video.
man you earned a subscriber, i came across one of your videos and binged a few more of yours, while i do not agree with all your points because i too have certain beliefs and biases, i think you are doing an excellent job of being a critique and showing the other side of coin
Jordan's argument against Climate, as shown in this video, really made me giggle. Imagine amounting all that to a set of silly numbers. I bet he oversimplifies flood and natural disasters as an unbidden error in set of numbers/research 💀
Natural disasters have been around since time-immemorial. Man has tried to understand it and predict it and control it to protect himself from danger and harness the energies of nature to his advantage. And as long as there has been man, there has been con men trying to capitalize on natural disasters. Yogis, Babas, gurus and the witch doctors have attributed natural disasters to curses that only they can lift. Science was supposed to expose their fraud. But in the 21st century, scientists have usurped the language of science to perpetuate fraud. Scientists are human beings. And human beings can be corrupted. People can lie for money. For grants. It helps them buy big houses and assert great authority. The bigger the crisis, the greater the authority. No lasting solution is ever proposed. For if it works, they lost their cash cow. If it does not, they lose credibility.
Climate change dystopians often cite Pakistan as an example, highlighting devastating floods and a significant number of casualties. However, one important aspect that is often overlooked is the remarkable population growth of 200 million over the past 80 years
@@skumflum3768Overpopulation is a myth
@@mcboat3467 it really depends on what you’re referring to
@@mcboat3467 well did we ever have such population of humans in the past?
If you guys want other videos which criticise Jordan Peterson, I can recommend CosmicSkeptic, Vlad Vexler, and Carefree Wandering. All of them professional philosophers and criticise Peterson on different topics.
I don't know the other two guys but Cosmic Skeptic isn't a professional Philosopher LMFAO 😂
@@Djdu7228xnxj According to his website, he is "A graduate of philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University". I'm not sure if this qualifies him as a professional philosopher, but given that he's got a degree from one of the best schools in the world, he's certainly not uneducated in philosophy :)
@@Charlie-br8wp Yeah bro, a graduate isn't a professional Philosopher. PhD is generally considered as the threshold to be regarded as a professional Philosopher. The same applies to any field.
@@Djdu7228xnxj I see we differ on our definitions for "professional" philosopher. I won't argue further about that. Still, I stand by my recommendation :)
@@Charlie-br8wp Cool! 😊👍🏻
The problem is anyone can critique anyone. Unless they both have a dialogue. Someone can take this video and do criticism of it, show some other research etc etc and prove him wrong. And this goes on..
Hi Pranav,,, Can you make a video on the scientific basis for Transgenderism and Homosexuality. I always wonder what makes people homosexual or transgender against our natural evolutionary tendency to procreate for survival.
JP never denied the existence of gender pay gap, he just implied that radical means for eradicating gender pay gap might be at the expense of people's own free choice.
He literally denied its existence (when you control for variables of course). I have his quote in the video. Also the paper I linked shows that a paygap exists even when you control for those variables
@@scienceisdopeWell, he never denied the gender pay gap. Let me explain:
He said that it doesn't exist in the context that Cathy was proposing, that was, basing patriarchy as the sole reason behind the existing gender pay gap. His argument was that there are multiple factors behind why women on average earn less than men, it's not just patriarchy or prejudice towards women.
He literally said in the next line "Women in aggregate are paid less", then he goes on explaining all the factors.
@@scienceisdope
JP didn't deny wage gap as you are claiming falsely(the quote of his in the video that you are referring to has a context to what Cathy was saying that pay gap is purely because of gender - "women are being dominated by men in pay" - which is what he countered with it's not purely because of gender, removing this context is called distorting facts which is what you did), he only said there are multiple factors causing that gap and one of which is gender but the proportion of the gender factor is much smaller in the overall gap than radical feminists claim. Literally quoting him, "I didn't deny it existed, I denied it existed because of gender". I think you got confused between the correlation-causation fallacy. Wage gap observed between men vs women - correlation(correlation of lower wages with women and correlation of higher wages with men on an average/median). Wage gap exists purely because they are men or women - causation.
next, at 7:40, I think the measured variables that are controlled in the research paper results illustrated in the figures and tables are not exhaustive of what JP was referring to in that interview wrt the multivariate equation explaining the wage gap (eg. psychological factors like agreeableness, etc.). You can also find this thing as a kind of disclaimer in the research paper you mentioned as below that it needs more proper research(i.e. in field settings rather than lab settings) on these psychological factors to explain the 'wage gap'.
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21913/w21913.pdf - refer section 4 and subsections, also page 50 2nd para ("Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills...")
So, this research paper neither proves wage gap exists purely based on gender discrimination(remember correlation not equal to causation), at least in developed nations, nor does it prove that JP was wrong nor it proves Cathy N. was right.
I understand he didn't give any research source he was referring to while making those statements. However, based on the research paper you claimed he was probably referring to was also misrepresented by you in the context of what he said as explained above. I think you either didn't listen to the interview intently or did some twisting of the words JP said like mainstream media does usually and got misunderstanding of what exactly he said then did the above misrepresented referall to the research paper. I suggest you to watch that interview again with more focus on each word he says.
Please watch below video to get more understanding/perspectives on the wage gap explanation:
ruclips.net/video/W6IBFpVZIIE/видео.html&ab_channel=BigThink
@@bigdamnhero4982ucks how pranav doesn't reply when backed into a corner. Makes him look like the people he 'debunks'
@@ofAwxen ikr
JP: I believe in Christainity.
Also JP: What do u mean by Believe???
Mad Respect to you brother! Even I used to watch a lot of Peterson’s videos. Thankyou for showing fellow men the truth. You have no idea how grateful I am to you. Thankyou so much for this! As long as we are able to change our views and challenge our opinions, we can grow and there is hope for humanity. :)
this video was really great. videos like these are hard to come by from Indian creators. it really made me happy seeing you talking about this topic so eloquently.
7:40 Jordan Peterson also wants to include different personality traits of male and female in the analysis of pay gap. The research which you are referring to does not take that into account, though certain other factors are accounted for in the paper.
What? *The paper cited in this video fully explains WHY personality is NOT a factor in GPG analysis.*
It never has been and is unlikely to be in the near future, too.
It explains how personality research is insufficient and unsuitable for the purposes of analysing GPG data.
Too limited in scope and highly ambiguous. It simply cannot be used to explain any part of the GPG and is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of deriving any conclusions or outcomes.
*The paper even speaks specifically to Petersons example - 'agreeableness' and 'negotiation'* ffs!
It discusses how past research shows that women are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' engage in salary negotiations - by virtue of discriminatory attitudes in the labour market. And how there are other significant factors at play - for both men and women. Not only is discrimination a potential factor, personality traits - ALL of them - clearly work BOTH WAYS.
The conclusion: specific research is required into the 'psyche' element of the GPG for personality to be relevant in any way.
This was a year before his interview with Cathy Newman.
Peterson knows the OCEAN/CANOE big five personality model. The big five has been the subject of ALL his research since 2003, for the purposes of his business selling his psychometric test (a recruitment tool) to Corporate Canada.
BTW he also falsely claimed this to be 'scientifically proven unfakeable' for years. A fact uncovered by high court/appeal judges in a murder trial (Manitoba 2012/2014) where he tried to appear as an expert witness.
He re-branded and re-launched it as an online personality test in 2017: 'Understand Myself'.
But, just because he knows this stuff, doesn't mean he is honest about it.
For eg women DO score marginally higher in 'agreeableness, but *so do outstandingly successful male CEO's*
See 'Nice CEOs do finish first': by James Saft'
Peterson misrepresented/distorted what he knows about personality, and simply MADE STUFF UP to support his view.
*And his view is, in essence, just an intelligent-sounding, completely baseless and fancy form of victim-blaming*
Personality factor certainly is a big parameter in a social structure (We cannot just disregard it because it is difficult to measure). The Motherhood Penalty and such factors (3. Traditional Factors affecting GPG) are mentioned in the research paper. They also explain unexplained GPG to a large extent and there is substantial evidence for that. We really need to be thorough and consider many more parameters before concluding that discrimination is the major parameter driving the unexplained gap in that scenario, which is what JP is trying to say in that interview. I agree that he can make up things and be misleading, but we should focus on bringing the truth out. You can also refer to Claudia Goldin's papers.
@@shubhankardod965 My point is that Blau/Khan fully explain WHY personality is not part of GPG data analysis at this time, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. It is not simply disregarded because it is 'too difficult to measure'.
Thus far no one has offered a good reason to introduce ANY 'psyche' factors into the mix - or indeed - a workable way of doing so which might be of any perceivable value.
*But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the GPG as well as 'personality'*
"Personality factor certainly is a big parameter in a social structure" *Is it? Says who? How/what impact re GPG?*
What 'truth' do you believe personality assessment will 'bring out' vis a vis the GPG?
Extant research into personality traits is inappropriate for the purpose of explaining any element of the GPG. Do you understand what has been 'measured' in the past and why? Which model was used and for what purpose? Do you understand that it is not just an individual which is usually assessed - but specific company culture?
I refer you again to 'Nice CEOs do finish first': by James Saft'
*WHO 'concludes that 'discrimination is the major parameter driving the unexplained gap'.... in ANY scenario?*
What ARE you talking about?
*Firstly, the GPG is NOT about discrimination*
Overt discrimination - ie paying men/women differently for the same job is illegal and measured differently - eg tribunals.
*Data gathered for GPG reporting/statistics, offers NO WAY of determining if men and/or women are being subjected to discrimination or bias.*
Anyone who says:
- there is no gender pay gap. Is wrong.
- that the gender pay gap indicates discrimination primarily or in part. Is wrong.
- that the gender pay gap indicates any cause whatsoever. IS WRONG
*... and Peterson claimed all three*
If he understands the GPG then he is wholly misrepresenting it.
If he does not - and this seems most likely - he should keep his trap shut and leave it to those who do!
The GPG talks ONLY to whether men and women are equally represented - and typically indicates that they are not.
It does not speak to CAUSES.
It surfaces gaps which may prompt further research/analysis into why a gap exists and what, if anything, might be done about it. Further research/analysis is done by a whole range of people eg employers, organisations, policy makers... etc.
.... And economists like Blau/Khan - and Claudia Goldin.
The Blau/Khan report is an analysis of 30 years of US GPG data. *Goldins work covers 200 years*
THIS speaks to what is seen as 'the main sources of the remaining gender gap between men and women'.
Her research concerns CHOICE - the changing factors that have restricted or supported options/opportunities and the impact this all has on women AND men. Her conclusion? She says: *“The important point is that both lose."*
The bottom line is that a gender pay gap is not desirable - not good - for anyone. It negatively affects men, women and children - the family - as well as the economy, levels of poverty, the tax base and the burden placed on the welfare system.
You want a 'truth'?
Francine Blau is one of the few economists who has for years tried to get focus on the FACT girls out-perform boys educationally. They have for donkeys years in societies/cultures where education is deemed important and made accessible to both.
To the point that this has become an entrenched, accepted, stereotype.
That women are more highly educated than men is one of the acknowledged basic factors in Goldins work too - right up front.
It is now finally being researched and addressed.
See this article from the APA: 'Boys are facing key challenges in school. Inside the effort to support their success'
A higher percentage of boys are diagnosed with learning difficulties, inattention and hyperactivity; are more likely to be subject to harsher discipline - suspension and expulsion; *the structure of the school system itself leaves them at a disadvantage*
You'd think that Peterson would give a small and perfectly formed s11t about THAT long standing problem, wouldn't you?
But no. It seems to me that he just wants to turn the whole thing into an old fashioned p1&&ing contest.
His view is archaic, unsophisticated, banal and fundamentally inaccurate.
He might just as well claim that god made women's feet smaller so they can closer to the kitchen sink!
.
Yeah same here, I was really into him in 2019 and all through 2020 but after he came back from his coma (which I am glad he did) he struck me as something wasn't right and he was leaning more and more towards the alt-right. I slowly stopped keeping up with him as his content became more and more political. The last straw for me was when he defended the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm pretty apolitical and people's views don't really bother me but Jordan is way more of a political sensationalist who only stores up controversy and peddles his opinions as facts which is just wrong!
War might never be the right solution but I defend Russia's rights to defend itself.
@@ivorynails i also defend russia's right to occupy ukrainian land and kidnap ukrainian children
Something that needs to be spoken about is how people like Sam Harris and Hitchens have a really skewed way of arguing for atheism that leads young men toward bigotry. Most people who liked Dawkins, and Hitchens usually slide towards Jordan Peterson and slowly slide towards worse reactionary sides of the internet.
Evidence?
Entire red pill movement is evidence for you
damn.. loved this one. Keep it going Pranav! excellent episode!
My respect for you and your content just skyrocketed. I’ve always been wary of Peterson from his initial days of virality and internet success. His grifting is legendary and his blunt overconfidence is what got him to get to the good books of many impressionable men. He became the intellectual lightning rod of the incels and right-wingers opposed to everything equality and in support of everything manliness. But he has been taken down in many debates with multiple intellectuals, thus he hasnt gone for one of those in the recent years mostly limiting his presence on platforms where he gets his ass kissed and BS legitimised. The same goes for his daughter.
Ben Shapiro was and remains to be a ventriloquist parrot, with just nonsense talking points and a lack of spine to actually debate the likes of Sam Seder.
Sam Seder who?🤔
Why does it seem to be some kind of political disagreement here, both of them are Right wing in some extent.
Peterson is a businessman. He preys on people's insecurities. So its quite accurate to compare him to Jaggi Vasudev who does the same thing
Pranav. I'm so happy you made a video on him. I often say that he's the S. JAISHANKAR of the USA. Thank you again for making this video.
One is a psychologist and one is in Foreign relations, different fields dude
@@divyanshraiswal6969 both speaks bullshit. Field of work doesn't matter if you shit the same poop.
What are your thoughts on transgender people participating in women's sport?
Peterson isn't an intellectual he's a rank opportunist.
JP is a politician rather than an intellectual and it is east to be confused between a politician and an intellectual. As both use speech to justify their truth, whereas an intellectual is the one who is willing to be wrong, unbiased and change his views for the better.
I was told by my friend to listen to JBP in 2016, 5 minutes into his lecture, I was like, he sounds like an Indian professor who reads from a textbook and relies on generalization rather than elaborating nuances. After Trump became president, he realized Trump's followers as the most gullible idiots he can make immense money out of and he did just that. It is worth mentioning that psychology has always been geared and partial towards upper class rich white men while being exclusionary of the rest of the communities. Peterson continues to propagate that vision with regards to psychology, hence you see him dehumanizing others. I will never understand Indian stans of Peterson because he basically considers you as less human for not believing in the Christian God. And even further his belief that the Christian God is the only reason the west is developed while ignoring colonization and the exploitation along with the ill treatment of indigenous communities, black people, asians , latin americans, eastern and central europeans (under the pretext of the same God) who actually contributed to the growth in the west.
Pretty much my experience as well .
Check out his interactions with Muslims. It's quite interesting. He does open up to other ideas even though he sticks to his own for most part.
I must disagree on your statement that he ignores colonization.
I've binged his content, sometimes same podcast multiple times. He makes it very clear what his stand is on colonial times, racism, slavery and prejudice. He never justifies that.
What he disagrees is on the current World.
He is a Christian and very well so. Just bcz he is white one must not fault him. He didn't ask for the burden of privilege on the basis of race.
Instead of personal attacks on his personal beliefs, lets try to counter him on his intellectual rationale. It doesn't matter why he holds the opinion he does. It only matter if he is right and just in what he says.
True.
So many women say things contrary to so called male dominated psychology nonsense, but all opinions are mostly rejected.
Psychology as science is highly biased towards certain group of people
So many psychologists still "treat" gays and lesbians.
I
@@stk6997 if you look at what he says about iq, i think that would contradict a lot of what he claims his beliefs on racism and prejudice are. he's basically a stealth advocate for eugenics. as in, he never actually says it because that would be bad, but his faulty conclusions on the nature of humanity and society and so on lead to no other alternative.
peterson thinks iq is an accurate measure of someone's intelligence (this is highly dubious, scientifically, and a lot of psychologists spend their careers arguing about it). he believes people's iqs are some sort of innate thing (he provides poor evidence for this that is mostly misinterpreted and ignores swathes of evidence that contradict him) that different races have different iqs (some evidence for this, not enough to make a definitive statement and definitely not enough to say it's innate rather than environmental) and that people in the lowest few percentile of iq can't add to society in any productive way because no jobs exist for them (practically no evidence for this). he believes you shouldn't just give them money because they'll throw it all away (again, no evidence). he believes you can't just teach them to be better at stuff so they can get a job (no evidence for this).
so look at the world he lays out
- iq is an accurate measure of people's intelligence
- iq is innate
- some races are inherently more stupid than other races
- there aren't any jobs for stupid people
- stupid people can't be supported through social programs because they're too stupid
- stupid people can't become smarter/smart enough to get one of those jobs through training or studying or any other solution we could possibly come up with
this is stealth eugenics. he's laid out the full argument for eugenics and he just stops shy of saying the word and instead says shit like "yeah its a huge problem and we should discuss what to do about it in the marketplace of ideas". he also uses a study done in south africa shortly after apartheid ended to support his "black people are more stupid than white people" claim so the him taking colonization seriously thing is just a farce. no one who actually takes colonization seriously takes disparate scores in what was recently an apartheid nation as evidence of anything other than proof of the evils of apartheid
You are looking at this from Indian perspective which is incorrect. You don't know what is going here in politics in the name of LQBT rights, trans issues, etc etc. And Peterson argument against Bill B-16 was that it could potentially force individuals to use specific pronouns or language that they disagreed with or found objectionable specially when there can be any number of pronouns. And comparing him with Sadhguru was just dumb. My advice would be to focus more on the religious scriptures, practices and not the politics.
@@tathagatquandaliusganesh1082 Because he doesn't understand it.
bill C 16 doesn't EVEN speak about pronouns. www.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/utlj.2017-0073#:~:text=Bill%20C%2D16%20adds%20the,specific%20references%20to%20gender%20pronouns.
Sir! Your definition of free speech is perfect! The best illustration of it that can be translated across the entire world. Brilliant! Thank you 🙏🏽!
Jordan fans really need to see this
I mean as far as LGBT goes , JPs right .
This channel is using feelings instead of science .
Why should society consider a man who has male characteristics and XY chromosomes to be a lady .
This creator uses rationality only when it suits his agenda
I used to like him before. He just talks endlessly without saying anything.
Bill c 16 required him to acknowledge not only transgenders but also every other group of people who claimed that they were of a gender that didn't make sense on a biological level ( now i could define what I mean by biological, but i don't want to sound like someone making things unnecessarily complex- hint- sarcasm). It required him as common citizen to not question someone's claim on what their gender is, because that would at some point fall under "discrimination". For a person who actively engages in field of science, with regards to psychology and philosophy, that felt like a direct attack on their ability to think and act as if they are the ones thinking and acting, jorden Peterson himself has said and acted out acknowledging transgender woman on a debate about bill c16 on a Canadian channel
The video on RUclips is on a channel called 'TheAgenda l Today'.
There are glaring issues with Peterson, however, this video fails to critic him and does not do justice to him. Genetically Modified Skeptic on the other hand did a wonderful job at his critique, actually countering his points rather than using "he just has complicated wordplay and jargon" fallacy in logic and butchering his viewpoint entirely.
Ciao.
He saw the dollars in weighing in on things he had no academic authority to once he saw those internet view dollar signs.
Hi Pranav, would you be able to make a video on your observations on the pay gap? either the article or other citations? Good day.
Bit of a stretch to call him an intellectual
Whenever I listen to Jordan Peterson all I hear is noise .
As a practicing psychologist, academic and someone who has admitted his own health and mental health issues his lecture series Maps Of Meaning and Personality Lectures Jordan Peterson gives so much valuable information on the human condition.
His political, social and cultural commentaries are polarizing to say the least.
I really appreciate you covering this content. I think for a lot of Indians who grew up on the internet, JP is a familiar figure. I have had former schoolmates forward JP videos to me and I have struggled to explain my position and frankly, i think if one is caught up in that space, they also think in terms of that. I do think atheism and critical thinking are the way forward to a better brighter future and it is the easiest way to expose JP. Great use of long-form content, Pranav. Looking forward to more great videos!
I don't like Peterson for many reasons, but I think he was right about the bill c16. I am French and a teacher and similar bills have been introduced here without publicity. However, I was once accused by my hierarchy of not addressing properly one of my transgender student. I nearly lost my job over that, but fortunately it wasn't me but another worker who had not used the proper pronouns. In schools here now, if any student decides they want to identify as anything, we have to use the name or pronoun they want, regardless of what they look like or what their family wants. I think it's a total disservice for most kids.
Ah no. He lied through his teeth about Bill C-16 - and the law in Canada. Not one claim he made about it was accurate or true.
I am not familiar with the law in France, but I *guarantee* whatever bills have been introduced, they are not anything like C-16 - which, effectively, changed nothing in Canada.
I applaud you for recognizing your fallacies and coming out of them. These men like Peterson, tate and Shapiro are damaging to the growing minds. Few years ago when I came across Peterson's videos on feminism I thought hmm this guy is wrong but that didn't enrage me or caused any emotional reaction because I thought there is this guy who is trying hard to stay relevant and I felt bad for his desperation, I had no idea that he had this much impression on young men, I thought he is a professional psychologist who is trying to make a name for himself by coming up with ridiculous ideas to kind of immortalize his name but one can only act with in the bounds of their intelligence. While tate's content actually enraged me because you can see the deception and hatred in it and the damage it can cause. I am glad you are making these videos elucidating your journey with such content and creating awareness so young men don't have to go through the spirals you had to.
There are two layers to content that come out from JP or Sadhguru.
First - generic sentences that are useful/relatable. Write things down for clarity, people not feeling heard, etc etc. Anyone can gain these simple insights of life with time. This is where they are likeable/worshipped.
The second layer is never saying - I don't know. Personally, I take it as a red flag when a person has an answer for everything, usually presented as criticism, like JP's take on climate change.
It's human not to know everything. Few of us are indeed genius, probably have eidetic memories, but they still don't know it all. This behavior is preachy, like the Bible has all the answers. 🤷🏻♀️
Anyway, good video! 👏
If Jordan Peterson is an intellectual then I'm a sex god.
There are so many ideologies being floated by different speakers. We need to have our inner filters strong to separate chaff from grain.
Peterson is definitely not the most problematic intellectual, because in order to be a problematic intellectual, you must first be an intellectual.
Hey Pranav, love you videos. I am just wondering if you would make a video on book called "skeptics guide to universe". I think anyone who would love to learn Critical thinking outside of CT class, its magnificient book. 10/10 recommned it to everyone.
15:37 You weren't too stupid to understand what he was saying. His words are almost always a word salad of uncommon words that if written out you will find to not make common sense. He has a deliberate debating style where one interrupts their opponent by calling out or taking issue with, essentially the definition of a word they just used and then turning the discussion in a completely different direction. He is what would be better known as a self-made-faux-scholar.
Wonderful video. I always tried to learn about him, why is he so famous, but I never understood what he is talking. Even I used to think that I am not good at understanding English, or I need to be more mature to understand what he is saying. But he turns out to be another Deepak Chopra who sprinkles interesting words to form a statement that makes no sense at all. Thanks for the video Pranay.
Deepak Chopra is in a league of his own, I wouldn’t put these two in the same bucket. JP makes way more sense - except for maybe when talking about his stance on God.
@@praveen25 lol, when did god ever made any sense?
@@RockyKarthik I meant that he doesn’t make any sense when talking about God. Resorts to Deepak Chopra talk.
@@praveen25 I disagree. I watched the debate with Dillahunty, he made no sense at all in any topic.
He just chooses to use confusing words to make himself sound sophisticated but his sentences made no sense at all.
@@RockyKarthik yeah I agree, I meant he makes sense relative to Deepak Chopra lol. The bar is pretty low.
Hey Man
I’m curious to know your opinion/answer to the below four questions
1. What’s your take on his other series like Maps of Meaning and Psychological Significance of Biblical Stories?
2. What do you suggest as a solution to your question - “Is the benefit overweights the harm they are creating?”?
3. How would you feel/react if someone in the future comes along and points out flaws in the argument you presented today?
4. What do you think he meant when he mentioned “Crime and Punishment” for the atheist question?
I really appreciate you SID, i do see a lot of reactionary sentiments coming from even educated south asian men, i think with the rise of women's rights and lgbt rights, a lot of young men in patriarchal cultures feel threatened, i see this sentiment a lot from indian men, but its reassuring to see some pushing back against that. In fact a lot of like anti "social justice" stuff i see online comes from muslims and south asians, which i think makes sense as in an interconnected world people in these more patriarchal cultures are exposed to more challenges to their assumptions.
not everyone, a lot of us are sick of biased laws, unfair stereotyping and mental gymnastics and strawman to justify discrimination against men. We arent looking to take away womens rights.