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?
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
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.
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.
@@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"
@@mynnkkk 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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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)
At 6:20, Peterson hasn't said that toxic masculinity isn't a thing. He has either stated that it's difficult to define and separate from toxic behavior overall, or that it's simply a neologism for toxic behavior. The short clip you cited shows a woman asking him to provide an alternative to "toxic masculinity," to which he responded with "responsible masculinity." However, the woman interrupted him and asked for a different answer, prompting Peterson to ask her to define what she means by the phrase. At 7:17, Peterson never denied the gender pay gap. His argument is that it's a multivariate problem, of which unfair discrimination is a part, as he clearly states. Peterson suggests that personality plays a significant role in the pay gap, as women tend to be more agreeable than men, which makes them less likely to negotiate for a raise. The NBER study you mentioned didn't take into account several variables in its full specification: Occupational segregation: Women are more likely to work in lower-paying occupations than men. Unconscious bias: The tendency to make judgments about people based on their gender, even without realizing it. Caregiving: Women are more likely to take time off from work to care for family members, resulting in a loss of income and a decrease in their earnings potential. Negotiation skills: Women are often less likely to negotiate for higher salaries than men. Work-life balance: Women are more likely to take on the majority of caregiving responsibilities in the home, which can lead to them working fewer hours or taking time off from work, affecting their earnings. Occupational prestige: Women are more likely to work in occupations that are seen as less prestigious than those dominated by men, resulting in lower pay even for the same work. At 9:36, Peterson isn't a "practicing" Christian. At 11:15, this definition of God is a psychological analysis of how humans "perceive" God, based on a value hierarchy. Peterson has written a book called "Maps of Meaning" where he explains religion and its formation solely through an anthropological and psychological lens, not through an ontological lens as you are arguing. At 13:29, now it's becoming shallow. You shouldn't touch topics you don't understand. This is genuine criticism, not ad hominem. Let me provide a brief introduction: The argument is that the logical end of rationality is based on its definition, which is the "use of knowledge to attain a goal." Therefore, if my goal is immoral, pursuing it would still be considered rational. Atheists claim that their morality comes from rationality, but how? It's technically impossible. How is causing suffering or reducing someone else's well-being for your own benefit irrational? What defines something as wrong? Don't bother trying to explain; you'll fall into circular reasoning. So not only is Matt wrong here, but he also lacks the intellect to comprehend Peterson's simple argument. Allow me to explain further to avoid any misunderstandings. Here's how it goes: Harming society is generally considered bad without further explanation. All explanations essentially state that harming society is bad for the individual, implying that the deeper definition of sin is "something that is harmful for the individual." Crimes have been and can be committed without consequences. Some argue that most successful ends result from immoral means. So, if one avoids self-harm (both short-term and long-term), would any action still be considered a sin? Let's say you overcome the first two points (which is impossible to do), would it be possible to convince yourself or others, through argumentation, to avoid committing the "sin"? Are people more likely to consider long-term consequences, and how likely is it that people won't be biased in their conclusions? At 15:32, you're not stupid, but you're ignorant. These topics are difficult to grasp for anyone who lacks context or exposure. At 16:00, Christ is both an ideal spirit that combines all the biblical stories (personification of it/spirit/something you can imitate) and a historical figure. It's a distinction between mythology and history. There's nothing complicated to understand here. At 17:40, this concept is challenging to grasp because the definition of supernatural is not ontological but psychological. This means that your subjective experience of the supernatural is the evidence of its existence, as it is the only form of supernatural that exists. I can provide more details if you'd like, but this topic is too complex to explain briefly. At 18:50, Peterson didn't technically misrepresent the study. He never claimed that the sample size was larger or that you could conclude that magic mushrooms can stop smoking. At 20:00, yes, preferred pronouns are a part of Bill C-16. The bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. This means that it is now illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression. Misgendering someone, which involves using the wrong pronouns for them, is included in this prohibition. Please read the bill thoroughly. At 21:00, the problem is technical, and you didn't address it. How do you define hate? The logic of political correctness is that "anything offensive to a group identity is considered hate speech." This definition is subjective. It's not surprising that The Lancet used "bodies with vaginas" instead of "women" since the term "women" is considered offensive by transgender women. So, it's justified. Imagine how much harm this can cause; imagine going to jail for using the term "women." That's the technicality of the issue. Watch Peterson's MOM lessons from his Harvard lectures in 1999. After that, I promise you'll laugh every time Harris says anything about religion, and as for Dillahunty, you'll simply block him. Please pin this comment if you truly value criticism.
The entirety of the video exhibited a marked lack of effort. I find it perplexing how Peterson's ideas are deemed difficult to comprehend. While I acknowledge that he does introduce complexities, it is not to the extent that would render one as misinformed as this guy (or most of his critiques). Good job with pointing out the errors.
@@Analysis.Paralysis I think the problem is that they don't like the term "conservative." Just ask them: are conserving liberal values considered conservative or liberal? It's ironic how they call Peterson a conservative Christian, but then argue for politically correct censorship. I wonder who's actually more liberal in this case.
@LITHIUM Thank you for your comment. You’ve articulated all of the logical holes in this video. Unfortunately it seems, Pranav is unprepared and too unsophisticated to fully understand and critique these subjects.
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.
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
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 💟
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.
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 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?
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.
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
A decade ago I found his clips on fixing my life. A clear perspective on everyday things, handling emotions, taking responsibility. A beacon of hope and encouragement in a constantly ignorant world. Instant fanhood. Years passed and his popularity grew, but his opinions went from Psychology lessons to literally everything he could get his hands on, especially socio-political and socio-economic issues. He went too far with his aspirations and fell to appeasing conservative frat boys. His arguemts became very polarising, as he started mixing his Christian Dogma with his established worldview. A rational person could see a new-found pattern of word salad with no logic. It was just a matter of time that his Right Wing bubble would burst, and it did. He got destroyed by Zizek in one of the most important debates in recent history. Rewatching his clips today gives no sense of credibility. So yea, he's not the same man we were once fond of. He gives the vibe of a boomer uncle in his echo chamber.
I am not aware of his religion based discussion, but the way western elites are promoting homosexuality is insane, the main reason why his twitter was suspended because he taken stand against gender transition surgery of minors and its promotion by hollywood celebrities and there’s nothing wrong in it, western elites are also promoting their own dogma on name of feminism and gender identity politics
I watched the Zizek decade a couple of months ago. And I disagree he destroyed Peterson. Both made good points. That's more of like human psyche, You and I follow someone and then get a kick out of saying that that person has lost it... He has just become popular. That's pretty much all that has happened. His opinions are as informed as they were a couple of years ago. You have just lost your ability to find value in what Peterson and Zizek were saying. They both made awesome points.
@@avisharma4576 lol you have been fangirlling over Peterson under this video with your comments, I really had no urge to reply to it, yet you come and tell me that I am getting a "kick" out of the fact he lost OR I don't have the "ability" to understand their greatness 🤡 I can say you're projecting the same "lack of understanding" that you accuse me of. Peterson's entire new-found personality has been about an invisible enemy - the post-modernist cultural marxists, yet when Zizek asks him that what does he know about these so called Marxists, JP said he doesn't understand Marxists as he hasn't read much about their beleifs, which means he's been locking horns with an entity he has no idea about. The entire debate is polite but Zizek wins and JP loses. Cope Harder
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 like JP, even after acknowledging every point you made in the video. Humans are very complex, you don't have to accept each of their belief. You can pick and choose what you want to takeaway or not. You mentioned in the video that you will not take JP by his word after some incident. Well you should not take anyone by word. Its very important to come at your own conclusion. People have beliefs and groups normalize them.
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 if he wishes to argue that this is happening, he needs evidence This idea that children are being transitioned at a young age is a very common one, but it's not something that reflects reality(no, puberty blockers don't count, they were used way before their implementation in trans healthcare to prevent onset of early puberty in women, they have been studied extensively since then) Moreover, he's a Christian right So he must've known about the common surgery of circumcision, something done involuntarily on babies without their consent(no, it being harmless is not reason enough, at least with puberty blockers the aim is to minimize any psychological stress and then to stop when the future path becomes clear to progress as per usual) That's worse than puberty blockers, at least there the children need to be both diagnosed with some kind of condition, and even then they're at least given some choice(especially when they reach an age where they can indeed consent for a surgery if they have retained those tendencies) Let's not sugarcoat this, it's mutilation And if he does care about 'irreversible changes that kids go through because of their parents', then he should at least mention his own Christianity's failing in this regard
@@max-cs9ko that's not true at all. None is west is doing gender transition surgery on minors. Heck he even attacked Elliott Paige for having a breast reduction surgery.
@@broeklien3817 Exactly! I think most people hating on JP are actually having also their own demons that cause them to pay attention to things that shouldnt really matter in the long run. You take the positive things out of your surroundings and ignore the negative things. I think that's the best outcome for every human to be able to do so.
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.
@@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.
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.
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 ✌️👍🏻🫡
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.
You should look around right wing youtuber in india , because they are now becoming famous and giving half bake fact and scientific terminology to justify their view. for example :some Vedic channel(veducation/jaipurdialogue )said ramsetu is said to 5000yr old by asi(so they assume to be build by Shri Ram) and said so why not look at Vedic text that said ramsetu Is older than million year so hence proved ramsetu is build million year old , they say it in a such way that this point will get accepted who adores shri ram ,and in such way they also glorify patriarchy with such explanation. 🙏sorry if you are not interested in this type of video , because I can understand it will be more controversial, but I don't want to stop you ,you have given me whole new perspective,I am religious but i believe it is so personal and it should not harm other , because it is base on faith not science.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@Nithin_sp 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.
@@Nithin_sp I see we differ on our definitions for "professional" philosopher. I won't argue further about that. Still, I stand by my recommendation :)
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
"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.
9:20 looks like you are misunderstanding things here because you are atheist. What he is saying that he needs to believe in something that is morally correct in every way. Some people respect god, some love the god or some fear the god. Thats how non-atheist manage their morals. If you listen his other interviews of his on the faith of god you will hear this a lot from him.
Hey my friend, you have a future. Nicely reasoned. What is this "traditional modes of being" to which Peterson refers? How silly is this? He often stresses having a wide view in human behavior which would automatically mean that he would understand that human behavior is wide and diverse. That is what would be traditional at one point of history is not in another. Keep these exploration of ideas coming.
@@vaibhavkaushik2966 This is what I don't like about you arrogant liberal atheist types. You call Peterson a Racist/Transphobe/whatnot and feel good about yourselves and then you proceed to make bad taste communal jokes like that you made to Abdul, hypocrite much?
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.
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.
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.
People who follow anyone blindly are fools for doing so. Even following this video blindly is dangerous. This video did not even scratch the surface of the topics it touched upon. People in general are biased so the onus is on us to hear views from both side and come to a conclusion.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Hey Pranav @ScienceIsDope , sharing some of my perspectives here(long read ahead): firstly, for 7:19 , JP didn't deny wage gap as you are claiming falsely(didn't expect this distorting facts from you tbh ), 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 correlation and 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 for 20:16, read the wiki page - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code where it is mentioned how JP raised a valid point on the possible classification of using incorrect pronoun as a kind of hate(a criminal act acc. to the bill) towards those people which was a freedom of speech issue. What is written in the bill and how things are interpreted by the society it applies to can having additional meaning. These are called loopholes in written laws. If you have some understanding of the mainstream thinking on these issues(victim mentality of these marginal groups) in Canada, you'll understand why it was necessary to raise this point. So, it was not a straw man as you claim here. Also do you know the number of pronouns circulating and constantly updating/adding. It is insane. No one can keep up with that. In this context, he said freedom of speech is important and no one can criminally prosecute for using incorrect pronouns. Besides, he also said if a person genuinely(and not narcissistically) needed to be called by some pronoun, he would call but shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for not being able to. 22:02 - how you came to this conclusion that he is against that community?? I think his position is quite opposite to your opinion in this case. for 28:30, I think JP is much better than Sadhguru in scientific thinking. You seem to be heavily biased against JP ever since you watched that video of his against Atheism with Matt. So, you do not seem to be listening to hime with open mind. Overall, a pretty biased video and I found only a little real debunking(mainly in the religion topic) on your part done against JP. Please, make unbiased videos researched with open mind in future. Also, consider pinning this comment if you truly value criticism.
Insane work bro, and just because he believes in God (which he doesn't and means it differently) and is conservative Christian Still doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to an intellectual mind like Mr.Jordan
@@grahitwaghe1894 Thanks! And yes, I think JP believes in God only in so far as the necessity for the society to practice the moral laws associated with respective religion whichever one follows otherwise there will be societal destabilization which is what we see in the western countries with the vanity, the broken families and heavy dependence of society on psychiatric drugs to function normally.
@@krypton189 Thanks! I think everyone has some strong biases but Pranav here promoting his biases with Atheism and painting those who don't believe in it as wrong by distorting what they said and meant really is what's wrong and isn't pro science either. He has misrepresented what JP said and scientific research to suit his biases without looking at them with open mind and healthy skepticism. I'm disappointed! It will be great to see him correct his mistakes though if he is really promoting real scientific temperament on this channel.
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
Jordan Peterson was great at the beginning with his lectures on personality and maps of meaning, he turned into that chattering religious grandfather over time. We shouldn't allow expert of one field to detect narrative on other unrelated fields. It just sounds stupid.
I do agree with you that people shouldn't argue on things that are unrelated to their fields. But, theology and philosophy are very much related. Maybe even the same thing, but from different viewpoints. JP has good knowledge in both Philosophy and theology. So, him talking about relegion isn't just some old man without knowledge talking about relegion
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'.
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.
Hello, my name is Phan and I come from Vietnam. I'm a Jordan Peterson fan first, and your fan second since my belief was more aligned with J.P. than you. I got to know your channel about 2 years ago when you made a video debunking the pseudo-science buzzwords. That video was great and I even translated it to Vietnamese and put it on my channel (it wasn't monetized btw) because in Vietnam where I live, the new age bullcrap that you mentioned in that video (like dimension, quantum entanglement...) was prevalent and affect our critical thinking ability. So I'm saying that to let you know that I've loved your channel for a long time and respected you for exposing those insane frauds like Sadhguru, Osho... Here are my criticisms as a Jordan Peterson fan, and as a long-time viewer of your channel: 1. About the gender pay gap: You are misrepresenting feminism's argument about the gender pay gap because: A. Their argument were (1) the pink tax (which is the product for female is more costly than the product for the male, for example, the pink helmet is more costly) and J.P. have debunked this within the interview and (2) the illegal pay rate (which is woman's salary is less than man's salary in the same occupation) and J.P. have also debunked this within the video as well. B. Your argument that "the research shows that there are still a 9% pay gap between gender and therefore J.P. is wrong" failed to mention the feminist's interpretations I have mentioned above made you come to a wrong conclusion. 2. There are a lot of criticisms of J.P. online full of personal attacks and strawman arguments. I agree but also need to point out that you don't represent his viewpoint or argument in a clear sense. 3. You misrepresent J.P. interpretation of God. He simply said that "God is transcendental and can't be described with words" and "the definition of God in the dictionary is not enough". So when you said that "this definition of God is so vague in all-encompassing", then I missed his point entirely. He was in the top 15 most cited psychometricians at some point so he knows how to define things like personality traits. What's wrong with him saying that the attributes of the Christian God can't be described with words? 4. The "atheists are murderers" argument is another misunderstanding as well. Dostoevsky (and Peterson) argue that "without God, everything is permissible", which basically means that only transcendental ideals would override logic and forbid you to not do something like murder. It doesn't mean that all atheists are murderers but instead means some limitations that are transcendental would create a moral barrier that you wouldn't cross. A famous example is the fact that Sam Harris defended Hunter Biden's laptop. 5. For the heavily addicted smoker or substance abuser, need to create a new lifestyle/new mental system to control the previous system (that set up and encourage negative behaviors) in order to have any positive effects. He have researched alcohol and substance abuse for over 30 years btw. The fact that you choose to represent his argument like that is abit misleading, but I would give it to you that the psychedelic research that he used is terrible. I would recommend his lecture about the limbic system instead. 6. About Bill C-16. A bit wrong on the misgendering being a legal non-issue. A.Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, RSBC 1996, c. 210 The Whatcott dude was fined. $55,000, and if he didn’t pay, he would have been gone to jail. B. B.C. server who was fired after asking to be addressed by correct pronouns awarded $30K And many more example, especially about woman space, sport and many other related areas. I have loved your content and will always support your fight against the new-age scammer, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this specific video. Have a good day.
@@prasadshinde1092if there's a dog constantly barking in the street and the residents decide to shut it up in some way or other, that's not because of "frustration". It's because they are legitimately concerned about the peace in their street.
A POOR CRITICISM. Here's why: In JP's discussions, the concept of God is discussed in a philosophical context and not in a scientific context. An endeavour at conflating the two distinct approaches is just naive and ludicrous. There was little to none metaphysical element in this criticism. Approaching JP's arguments with a philosophical skepticism would have been a much better approach. I'd recommend a criticism of JP by @CosmicSkeptic , you'd get what I mean. Complicated topics that deserve hours of videos, and a thorough cultural, historical and political context are boiled down to surface level simple ideas, definately not ideal for a good criticism. "was a fanboy and now I detest him", here lies the problem. You should detest the ideas and not the person. "Is the value they bring worth the harm they cause?" Spreading misinformation is harmful but that is rarely the case with JP, he is rarely wrong with his scientific citations. Having opinions on social issues is NOT being harmful. You can disagree with them, you can criticise them but there is nothing wrong with their existence. A free society needs varied arguments to make balanced decisions, that is the point of Liberty. You cannot objectively deem opinions "harmful" just because you don't agree with them, if YOU find it "harmful", that is fine, but specify that.
It was impressive when this guy made videos on some misinformed ideologies that may cause a negative impact on society and criticised them. JP might have pissed him by his take on LGBTQ cause this guy sounds super gayish. I’d rather gravitate towards somehow being critical and strong 💪.
I disagree- here's why:- I think the point the creator was trying to make with the religious part is that Jordan Peterson attempts to over-complicate many of his arguments in an effort to sound like he knows what he's talking about while being impossible to counter due to the lack of true meaning in what he says. Peterson did try to include "Scientific evidence" with the whole psilocybin argument so we cant really say he was debating it philosophically. But yes I like cosmic skeptics criticism too I think it allows you to criticize his points on a more one to one basis. "was a fanboy and now I detest him" is not really a problematic sentence since he spent a whole video countering his ideas not hating him as a person. yes it is a sentence that on its own is more about hating JP and not his ideas but when he spent a whole video doing that it doesn't make sense to take this one sentence out and say its poor criticism. JP has been wrong about multiple citations. the wage gap one discussed here, Bill C-16, his definition of postmodern neo-Marxism is also wrong (and he often diverts the question in trying to answer what he thinks it means), in his "Maps of Meaning" he misrepresents historical contexts of several the examples he uses to argue for his universal archetypes, also a big one is climate change. Climate change is very real and he simply does not understand the science of it yet chooses to speak on it. So I cant say it's rarely the case.
@@ankitadasgupta8666 Ok let me break it down for you: "JP over-complicates the topic of God" He does that because it is a complex problem. Everyone from modern to ancient philosophers have endlessly contemplated and debated on this. It is beyond the scope of rudimentary definitions like "God is something supernatural". It is best construed in metaphoric and symbolistic terms. Ofcourse for all practical reasons the rudimentary definitions are ideal, and that's why in a scientific context God has no value, and it should have no value in such a context. But when discussing moral issues, an augmented, open, and "sophisticated" approach towards God is to be expected rather than a unidimensional empirical analysis. Now, JP's concept of God fails to make a clear distinction between The Real and The Metaphor and this was the gist of the criticism of CosmicSkeptic. Unlike Pranav, he confronts the "sophisticated" idea, breaks it down, and delienate an appropriate criticism and like Pranav he does not evades it by deeming it too sophisticated to confront. I pointed that phrase out because it shows a clear bias against JP. The whole video is self-evident of this fact. He took topics that deserve elaborate separate videos and crammed it into one single half an hour video, cherry picking a few clips to represent complicated stances. First of all, I specifically said "scientific citations". If that's not clear enough I meant citation of results that came out of an empirical research. Secondly, JP's stance on Gender Pay Gap was misrepresented in this video (I did a seperate comment addressing this, check it out, Pranav replied to it so it would not be that difficult to find). Not only that, Bill C-16 was summarised in a vague way not considering the nuances. There is no absolute definition of "Neo-Marxism", it is construed differently by different people. Even if he was wrong about it I wouldn't deem it as a misinformation but a misinterpretation because information is something that is absolute. Science is information, ideologies are not.
Loved the video ❤ Just somethings I wanted to point out 1) I think you didn't actually refute the claim that he made at 23:15 in the video 2) I don't think he said or meant at 13:25 what you condensed his statement to Bro so should we verify the information he provides in his personality and maps of meaning lecture series too, or can we take his word for it, assuming that if he is teaching the subject at a university, he would know what he is talking about and wouldn't spread misinformation that suits his agenda?
Matt Dillahunty: Are there no Godless artists and poets? Jordan Peterson: There are artist and poets who THINK they're Godless. (laughter in the audience) lmao 😂
Matt Dillahunty is the guy who yells at strangers on a radio show right..Self proclaimed expert of all without qualifications in any field. No wonder atheists, the custodians of nothingness like his so much 😂😂😂
"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.
Hi Pranav. I found your channel after searching for "indian mythology scam?' because I forgot the name Praveen. I find most of view-points very interesting and although I may not agree with all of them, I enjoy the intellectual confusions you force me into. Keeps me thinking and forces an retrospection, which I enjoy. Regarding the topic of JP in this video, I too watch (still) talks of him, Shapiro and such, and I think most of the right wing vs left wing disputes in the west hardly affects us in India; but some points like gender ideology, and the trans issue, do. As far his thoughts on atheism or christianity, I have no thoughts as I simply do not care about them. I take what I want fromhis speeches, and make my own inferences after I have done my own study on the matter, whichever that may be. Apologies as I may have not written everything well, as I think I have difficulty articulating all my thoughts into text.
I listened to the whole video, and I do agree with some of ur talking points. But I'd say I'm still a fan of JP. He's one of the few that have common sense and has helped me understand and overcome a lot of me negative thoughts and depression. He is a Christian, but I don't think he wants to specify that he is bc he knows that he'll probably loose a lot of followers and ppl will correlate EVERYTHING he says to being religious. No one is perfect, everyone is wrong sometimes too. But that's just my respectful opinion
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?
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?
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.
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. 🤣🤣🤣
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😂
@@mynnkkk 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
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.
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
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
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
?"
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
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)
At 6:20, Peterson hasn't said that toxic masculinity isn't a thing. He has either stated that it's difficult to define and separate from toxic behavior overall, or that it's simply a neologism for toxic behavior. The short clip you cited shows a woman asking him to provide an alternative to "toxic masculinity," to which he responded with "responsible masculinity." However, the woman interrupted him and asked for a different answer, prompting Peterson to ask her to define what she means by the phrase.
At 7:17, Peterson never denied the gender pay gap. His argument is that it's a multivariate problem, of which unfair discrimination is a part, as he clearly states. Peterson suggests that personality plays a significant role in the pay gap, as women tend to be more agreeable than men, which makes them less likely to negotiate for a raise.
The NBER study you mentioned didn't take into account several variables in its full specification:
Occupational segregation: Women are more likely to work in lower-paying occupations than men.
Unconscious bias: The tendency to make judgments about people based on their gender, even without realizing it.
Caregiving: Women are more likely to take time off from work to care for family members, resulting in a loss of income and a decrease in their earnings potential.
Negotiation skills: Women are often less likely to negotiate for higher salaries than men.
Work-life balance: Women are more likely to take on the majority of caregiving responsibilities in the home, which can lead to them working fewer hours or taking time off from work, affecting their earnings.
Occupational prestige: Women are more likely to work in occupations that are seen as less prestigious than those dominated by men, resulting in lower pay even for the same work.
At 9:36, Peterson isn't a "practicing" Christian.
At 11:15, this definition of God is a psychological analysis of how humans "perceive" God, based on a value hierarchy. Peterson has written a book called "Maps of Meaning" where he explains religion and its formation solely through an anthropological and psychological lens, not through an ontological lens as you are arguing.
At 13:29, now it's becoming shallow. You shouldn't touch topics you don't understand. This is genuine criticism, not ad hominem. Let me provide a brief introduction: The argument is that the logical end of rationality is based on its definition, which is the "use of knowledge to attain a goal." Therefore, if my goal is immoral, pursuing it would still be considered rational. Atheists claim that their morality comes from rationality, but how? It's technically impossible. How is causing suffering or reducing someone else's well-being for your own benefit irrational? What defines something as wrong? Don't bother trying to explain; you'll fall into circular reasoning. So not only is Matt wrong here, but he also lacks the intellect to comprehend Peterson's simple argument.
Allow me to explain further to avoid any misunderstandings. Here's how it goes:
Harming society is generally considered bad without further explanation. All explanations essentially state that harming society is bad for the individual, implying that the deeper definition of sin is "something that is harmful for the individual."
Crimes have been and can be committed without consequences. Some argue that most successful ends result from immoral means. So, if one avoids self-harm (both short-term and long-term), would any action still be considered a sin?
Let's say you overcome the first two points (which is impossible to do), would it be possible to convince yourself or others, through argumentation, to avoid committing the "sin"? Are people more likely to consider long-term consequences, and how likely is it that people won't be biased in their conclusions?
At 15:32, you're not stupid, but you're ignorant. These topics are difficult to grasp for anyone who lacks context or exposure.
At 16:00, Christ is both an ideal spirit that combines all the biblical stories (personification of it/spirit/something you can imitate) and a historical figure. It's a distinction between mythology and history. There's nothing complicated to understand here.
At 17:40, this concept is challenging to grasp because the definition of supernatural is not ontological but psychological. This means that your subjective experience of the supernatural is the evidence of its existence, as it is the only form of supernatural that exists. I can provide more details if you'd like, but this topic is too complex to explain briefly.
At 18:50, Peterson didn't technically misrepresent the study. He never claimed that the sample size was larger or that you could conclude that magic mushrooms can stop smoking.
At 20:00, yes, preferred pronouns are a part of Bill C-16. The bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. This means that it is now illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression. Misgendering someone, which involves using the wrong pronouns for them, is included in this prohibition. Please read the bill thoroughly.
At 21:00, the problem is technical, and you didn't address it. How do you define hate? The logic of political correctness is that "anything offensive to a group identity is considered hate speech." This definition is subjective. It's not surprising that The Lancet used "bodies with vaginas" instead of "women" since the term "women" is considered offensive by transgender women. So, it's justified. Imagine how much harm this can cause; imagine going to jail for using the term "women." That's the technicality of the issue.
Watch Peterson's MOM lessons from his Harvard lectures in 1999. After that, I promise you'll laugh every time Harris says anything about religion, and as for Dillahunty, you'll simply block him.
Please pin this comment if you truly value criticism.
The entirety of the video exhibited a marked lack of effort. I find it perplexing how Peterson's ideas are deemed difficult to comprehend. While I acknowledge that he does introduce complexities, it is not to the extent that would render one as misinformed as this guy (or most of his critiques). Good job with pointing out the errors.
Great job pointing out the flaws and articulating them so effectively.
@@Analysis.Paralysis I think the problem is that they don't like the term "conservative." Just ask them: are conserving liberal values considered conservative or liberal? It's ironic how they call Peterson a conservative Christian, but then argue for politically correct censorship. I wonder who's actually more liberal in this case.
Wow! So good! I hope he pins it.
@LITHIUM Thank you for your comment. You’ve articulated all of the logical holes in this video. Unfortunately it seems, Pranav is unprepared and too unsophisticated to fully understand and critique these subjects.
Calling him an intellectual is like calling Sadguru a scientist.
Cold😱😱
He's way wiser than you will ever be
He is an intellectual, just because you don't agree with him doesn't makes him stupid.
@@jerniganantonym2684 atleast i don't think people need to believe in god to have morality
Nah calling him intellectual means calling Muhammad pdfile 😂
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.
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
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.
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
You are a breath of fresh air. I Appreciate your video.
Good video, I am off to disorganize my room
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.
“I have figured out a way to monetise the Social Justice Warriors”- Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast
Well, if I'd wish for one breakthrough, it would be that. Unironically the pinnicale of modern archievment.
Bit of a stretch to call him an intellectual
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 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?
Title is kind of misleading, i was in dedepression in my teenage. Listening to lectures it really helps me.
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.
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?
A decade ago I found his clips on fixing my life. A clear perspective on everyday things, handling emotions, taking responsibility. A beacon of hope and encouragement in a constantly ignorant world. Instant fanhood.
Years passed and his popularity grew, but his opinions went from Psychology lessons to literally everything he could get his hands on, especially socio-political and socio-economic issues. He went too far with his aspirations and fell to appeasing conservative frat boys. His arguemts became very polarising, as he started mixing his Christian Dogma with his established worldview. A rational person could see a new-found pattern of word salad with no logic. It was just a matter of time that his Right Wing bubble would burst, and it did. He got destroyed by Zizek in one of the most important debates in recent history. Rewatching his clips today gives no sense of credibility.
So yea, he's not the same man we were once fond of. He gives the vibe of a boomer uncle in his echo chamber.
wow. perfectly put.
I am not aware of his religion based discussion, but the way western elites are promoting homosexuality is insane, the main reason why his twitter was suspended because he taken stand against gender transition surgery of minors and its promotion by hollywood celebrities and there’s nothing wrong in it, western elites are also promoting their own dogma on name of feminism and gender identity politics
Power corrupts everyone
I watched the Zizek decade a couple of months ago.
And I disagree he destroyed Peterson.
Both made good points.
That's more of like human psyche,
You and I follow someone and then get a kick out of saying that that person has lost it...
He has just become popular.
That's pretty much all that has happened.
His opinions are as informed as they were a couple of years ago.
You have just lost your ability to find value in what Peterson and Zizek were saying.
They both made awesome points.
@@avisharma4576 lol you have been fangirlling over Peterson under this video with your comments, I really had no urge to reply to it, yet you come and tell me that I am getting a "kick" out of the fact he lost OR I don't have the "ability" to understand their greatness 🤡
I can say you're projecting the same "lack of understanding" that you accuse me of.
Peterson's entire new-found personality has been about an invisible enemy - the post-modernist cultural marxists, yet when Zizek asks him that what does he know about these so called Marxists, JP said he doesn't understand Marxists as he hasn't read much about their beleifs, which means he's been locking horns with an entity he has no idea about. The entire debate is polite but Zizek wins and JP loses.
Cope Harder
Hey Pranav,
What is a Woman?
hahahahaha
Opinion.
What do you mean by 'what is'?
His opinion on climate change especially is so ignorant, it's absolutely infuriating
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.
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
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.
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.
Finally, the video I was eagerly waiting for! 🔥
Ok member
@@motherisape yeah. 🤓
Only ₹29.😉
@@jangwan 😂
18:00 18:05 18:07 18:08
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.
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.
Peterson isn't an intellectual he's a rank opportunist.
I like JP, even after acknowledging every point you made in the video. Humans are very complex, you don't have to accept each of their belief. You can pick and choose what you want to takeaway or not. You mentioned in the video that you will not take JP by his word after some incident. Well you should not take anyone by word. Its very important to come at your own conclusion. People have beliefs and groups normalize them.
Agree
They Idolize Peterson, and when he then appears to be a flawed human being, suddenly they blame him for not being god like anymore?
Thats silly
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 if he wishes to argue that this is happening, he needs evidence
This idea that children are being transitioned at a young age is a very common one, but it's not something that reflects reality(no, puberty blockers don't count, they were used way before their implementation in trans healthcare to prevent onset of early puberty in women, they have been studied extensively since then)
Moreover, he's a Christian right
So he must've known about the common surgery of circumcision, something done involuntarily on babies without their consent(no, it being harmless is not reason enough, at least with puberty blockers the aim is to minimize any psychological stress and then to stop when the future path becomes clear to progress as per usual)
That's worse than puberty blockers, at least there the children need to be both diagnosed with some kind of condition, and even then they're at least given some choice(especially when they reach an age where they can indeed consent for a surgery if they have retained those tendencies)
Let's not sugarcoat this, it's mutilation
And if he does care about 'irreversible changes that kids go through because of their parents', then he should at least mention his own Christianity's failing in this regard
@@max-cs9ko that's not true at all. None is west is doing gender transition surgery on minors. Heck he even attacked Elliott Paige for having a breast reduction surgery.
@@broeklien3817 Exactly! I think most people hating on JP are actually having also their own demons that cause them to pay attention to things that shouldnt really matter in the long run. You take the positive things out of your surroundings and ignore the negative things. I think that's the best outcome for every human to be able to do so.
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.
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
@@nixombie
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 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.
Listen to Jordan's debate with Sam Harris.
Jordan basically talks non sense throughout.
Even destiny made him seethe lol
@@siddharthkashyap4251 I like Destiny, lost his girlfriend but still not losing braincells.
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 ✌️👍🏻🫡
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 like him before. He just talks endlessly without saying anything.
You should look around right wing youtuber in india , because they are now becoming famous and giving half bake fact and scientific terminology to justify their view.
for example :some Vedic channel(veducation/jaipurdialogue )said ramsetu is said to 5000yr old by asi(so they assume to be build by Shri Ram) and said so why not look at Vedic text that said ramsetu
Is older than million year so hence proved ramsetu is build million year old , they say it in a such way that this point will get accepted who adores shri ram ,and in such way they also glorify patriarchy with such explanation.
🙏sorry if you are not interested in this type of video , because I can understand it will be more controversial, but I don't want to stop you ,you have given me whole new perspective,I am religious but i believe it is so personal and it should not harm other , because it is base on faith not science.
No jaipur dialogue is great channel they alway speak about facts and ved education also speak logicly .you cannot understand about Vedas like them.
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.
Why is my comment getting removed?
What did u write
Hate speech is generally censored by YT
Surya i saw you on vimoh's channel
Am I the only one who never really believed in god
Nope.
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.
@@user-bb1rn4cc5z Several people have debunked Pranav in the comments but he hasn't responded to any of those comments. How convenient!
Peterson is definitely not the most problematic intellectual, because in order to be a problematic intellectual, you must first be an intellectual.
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.
I've become such fan of your work. Just unable to renew membership using UPI 😢
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
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 😂
@@Nithin_sp 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.
@@Nithin_sp 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! 😊👍🏻
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
@@mynnkkk He's exploiting the whole Big words=definitely correct mentality of the commoners.
@@mynnkkk similar to shapiro " say things fast and confuse people "
@@mynnkkk 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
"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.
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
I love the move towards the video essayist style of content
9:20 looks like you are misunderstanding things here because you are atheist. What he is saying that he needs to believe in something that is morally correct in every way. Some people respect god, some love the god or some fear the god. Thats how non-atheist manage their morals. If you listen his other interviews of his on the faith of god you will hear this a lot from him.
Hey my friend, you have a future. Nicely reasoned. What is this "traditional modes of being" to which Peterson refers? How silly is this? He often stresses having a wide view in human behavior which would automatically mean that he would understand that human behavior is wide and diverse. That is what would be traditional at one point of history is not in another. Keep these exploration of ideas coming.
"Why do you need to be legally protected to be a dick!" - I'm dying 🤣🤣🤣
His videos around religion , psychology and self help is great.. Haven't watched him on politics and gender things
Not religion
Not psychology
And he could make use of some of that self help.
@@zany4132 lol his videos on psychology are pretty insightful
Never knew Peterson was this silly 😂😂
Oh from this video you got to understand he's silly and from previous one's you saw you had different idea? Guess where the issue is?
@@abdulwarees840 i didn't saw all the previous ones Abdul. Plus I had a puncture in my bike.
Because he's not.
@@vaibhavkaushik2966 This is what I don't like about you arrogant liberal atheist types. You call Peterson a Racist/Transphobe/whatnot and feel good about yourselves and then you proceed to make bad taste communal jokes like that you made to Abdul, hypocrite much?
@@vaibhavkaushik2966I get that reference 😂.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for making this! , So many people follow his rhetoric blindly.
And why do you think people follow him blindly? He lays out a pure facts and a logical way of thinking? Simple as that :)
@@boyamitrovic5858yeah 👍
@@boyamitrovic5858 facts paired with specific contexts and absence of other facts cause people to have a bias
I think you are being blindly for saying something so blindly.
People who follow anyone blindly are fools for doing so. Even following this video blindly is dangerous. This video did not even scratch the surface of the topics it touched upon. People in general are biased so the onus is on us to hear views from both side and come to a conclusion.
JP: I believe in Christainity.
Also JP: What do u mean by Believe???
Whenever I listen to Jordan Peterson all I hear is noise .
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
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.
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.
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
He will write an essay to a yes or no question.
Because life is not an mcq exam. Complex Questions require complex answers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey Pranav @ScienceIsDope , sharing some of my perspectives here(long read ahead):
firstly, for 7:19 , JP didn't deny wage gap as you are claiming falsely(didn't expect this distorting facts from you tbh ), 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 correlation and 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
for 20:16, read the wiki page - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code
where it is mentioned how JP raised a valid point on the possible classification of using incorrect pronoun as a kind of hate(a criminal act acc. to the bill) towards those people which was a freedom of speech issue. What is written in the bill and how things are interpreted by the society it applies to can having additional meaning. These are called loopholes in written laws. If you have some understanding of the mainstream thinking on these issues(victim mentality of these marginal groups) in Canada, you'll understand why it was necessary to raise this point. So, it was not a straw man as you claim here.
Also do you know the number of pronouns circulating and constantly updating/adding. It is insane. No one can keep up with that. In this context, he said freedom of speech is important and no one can criminally prosecute for using incorrect pronouns. Besides, he also said if a person genuinely(and not narcissistically) needed to be called by some pronoun, he would call but shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for not being able to.
22:02 - how you came to this conclusion that he is against that community?? I think his position is quite opposite to your opinion in this case.
for 28:30, I think JP is much better than Sadhguru in scientific thinking. You seem to be heavily biased against JP ever since you watched that video of his against Atheism with Matt. So, you do not seem to be listening to hime with open mind.
Overall, a pretty biased video and I found only a little real debunking(mainly in the religion topic) on your part done against JP. Please, make unbiased videos researched with open mind in future.
Also, consider pinning this comment if you truly value criticism.
Insane work bro, and just because he believes in God (which he doesn't and means it differently) and is conservative Christian
Still doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to an intellectual mind like Mr.Jordan
Thanks! I also felt almost the same points
@@grahitwaghe1894 Thanks! And yes, I think JP believes in God only in so far as the necessity for the society to practice the moral laws associated with respective religion whichever one follows otherwise there will be societal destabilization which is what we see in the western countries with the vanity, the broken families and heavy dependence of society on psychiatric drugs to function normally.
Well Done! This is pretty much what I thought about this video as well.
@@krypton189 Thanks! I think everyone has some strong biases but Pranav here promoting his biases with Atheism and painting those who don't believe in it as wrong by distorting what they said and meant really is what's wrong and isn't pro science either. He has misrepresented what JP said and scientific research to suit his biases without looking at them with open mind and healthy skepticism. I'm disappointed! It will be great to see him correct his mistakes though if he is really promoting real scientific temperament on this channel.
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.
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
He saw the dollars in weighing in on things he had no academic authority to once he saw those internet view dollar signs.
Jordan Peterson was great at the beginning with his lectures on personality and maps of meaning, he turned into that chattering religious grandfather over time.
We shouldn't allow expert of one field to detect narrative on other unrelated fields. It just sounds stupid.
I do agree with you that people shouldn't argue on things that are unrelated to their fields. But, theology and philosophy are very much related. Maybe even the same thing, but from different viewpoints. JP has good knowledge in both Philosophy and theology. So, him talking about relegion isn't just some old man without knowledge talking about relegion
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'.
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.
Hello, my name is Phan and I come from Vietnam. I'm a Jordan Peterson fan first, and your fan second since my belief was more aligned with J.P. than you. I got to know your channel about 2 years ago when you made a video debunking the pseudo-science buzzwords. That video was great and I even translated it to Vietnamese and put it on my channel (it wasn't monetized btw) because in Vietnam where I live, the new age bullcrap that you mentioned in that video (like dimension, quantum entanglement...) was prevalent and affect our critical thinking ability. So I'm saying that to let you know that I've loved your channel for a long time and respected you for exposing those insane frauds like Sadhguru, Osho...
Here are my criticisms as a Jordan Peterson fan, and as a long-time viewer of your channel:
1. About the gender pay gap: You are misrepresenting feminism's argument about the gender pay gap because:
A. Their argument were (1) the pink tax (which is the product for female is more costly than the product for the male, for example, the pink helmet is more costly) and J.P. have debunked this within the interview and (2) the illegal pay rate (which is woman's salary is less than man's salary in the same occupation) and J.P. have also debunked this within the video as well.
B. Your argument that "the research shows that there are still a 9% pay gap between gender and therefore J.P. is wrong" failed to mention the feminist's interpretations I have mentioned above made you come to a wrong conclusion.
2. There are a lot of criticisms of J.P. online full of personal attacks and strawman arguments. I agree but also need to point out that you don't represent his viewpoint or argument in a clear sense.
3. You misrepresent J.P. interpretation of God. He simply said that "God is transcendental and can't be described with words" and "the definition of God in the dictionary is not enough".
So when you said that "this definition of God is so vague in all-encompassing", then I missed his point entirely. He was in the top 15 most cited psychometricians at some point so he knows how to define things like personality traits. What's wrong with him saying that the attributes of the Christian God can't be described with words?
4. The "atheists are murderers" argument is another misunderstanding as well. Dostoevsky (and Peterson) argue that "without God, everything is permissible", which basically means that only transcendental ideals would override logic and forbid you to not do something like murder. It doesn't mean that all atheists are murderers but instead means some limitations that are transcendental would create a moral barrier that you wouldn't cross. A famous example is the fact that Sam Harris defended Hunter Biden's laptop.
5. For the heavily addicted smoker or substance abuser, need to create a new lifestyle/new mental system to control the previous system (that set up and encourage negative behaviors) in order to have any positive effects. He have researched alcohol and substance abuse for over 30 years btw. The fact that you choose to represent his argument like that is abit misleading, but I would give it to you that the psychedelic research that he used is terrible. I would recommend his lecture about the limbic system instead.
6. About Bill C-16. A bit wrong on the misgendering being a legal non-issue.
A.Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, RSBC 1996, c. 210
The Whatcott dude was fined. $55,000, and if he didn’t pay, he would have been gone to jail.
B. B.C. server who was fired after asking to be addressed by correct pronouns awarded $30K
And many more example, especially about woman space, sport and many other related areas.
I have loved your content and will always support your fight against the new-age scammer, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this specific video. Have a good day.
One of the only few sane comment in this entire comment list on this videos. Very well balanced summed up.
I'm from India and I'm in Vietnam rn. Such a beautiful country! 🇻🇳❤️
Nice broo, see how some people are also following this guy blindly.
Do smthg on j Sai Deepak
He is history, science is dope doesn't talk about history.
Hearing to him gives me brain damage
Frustration of left wingers 😂😂😂
@@Just9n__of course rice bags and muslim don't accept history they like to live in delusion
@@prasadshinde1092if there's a dog constantly barking in the street and the residents decide to shut it up in some way or other, that's not because of "frustration". It's because they are legitimately concerned about the peace in their street.
A POOR CRITICISM. Here's why:
In JP's discussions, the concept of God is discussed in a philosophical context and not in a scientific context. An endeavour at conflating the two distinct approaches is just naive and ludicrous. There was little to none metaphysical element in this criticism. Approaching JP's arguments with a philosophical skepticism would have been a much better approach. I'd recommend a criticism of JP by @CosmicSkeptic , you'd get what I mean.
Complicated topics that deserve hours of videos, and a thorough cultural, historical and political context are boiled down to surface level simple ideas, definately not ideal for a good criticism.
"was a fanboy and now I detest him", here lies the problem. You should detest the ideas and not the person.
"Is the value they bring worth the harm they cause?"
Spreading misinformation is harmful but that is rarely the case with JP, he is rarely wrong with his scientific citations. Having opinions on social issues is NOT being harmful. You can disagree with them, you can criticise them but there is nothing wrong with their existence. A free society needs varied arguments to make balanced decisions, that is the point of Liberty. You cannot objectively deem opinions "harmful" just because you don't agree with them, if YOU find it "harmful", that is fine, but specify that.
It was impressive when this guy made videos on some misinformed ideologies that may cause a negative impact on society and criticised them.
JP might have pissed him by his take on LGBTQ cause this guy sounds super gayish.
I’d rather gravitate towards somehow being critical and strong 💪.
I disagree- here's why:-
I think the point the creator was trying to make with the religious part is that Jordan Peterson attempts to over-complicate many of his arguments in an effort to sound like he knows what he's talking about while being impossible to counter due to the lack of true meaning in what he says. Peterson did try to include "Scientific evidence" with the whole psilocybin argument so we cant really say he was debating it philosophically. But yes I like cosmic skeptics criticism too I think it allows you to criticize his points on a more one to one basis.
"was a fanboy and now I detest him" is not really a problematic sentence since he spent a whole video countering his ideas not hating him as a person. yes it is a sentence that on its own is more about hating JP and not his ideas but when he spent a whole video doing that it doesn't make sense to take this one sentence out and say its poor criticism.
JP has been wrong about multiple citations. the wage gap one discussed here, Bill C-16, his definition of postmodern neo-Marxism is also wrong (and he often diverts the question in trying to answer what he thinks it means), in his "Maps of Meaning" he misrepresents historical contexts of several the examples he uses to argue for his universal archetypes, also a big one is climate change. Climate change is very real and he simply does not understand the science of it yet chooses to speak on it. So I cant say it's rarely the case.
@@ankitadasgupta8666 Ok let me break it down for you:
"JP over-complicates the topic of God"
He does that because it is a complex problem. Everyone from modern to ancient philosophers have endlessly contemplated and debated on this. It is beyond the scope of rudimentary definitions like "God is something supernatural". It is best construed in metaphoric and symbolistic terms. Ofcourse for all practical reasons the rudimentary definitions are ideal, and that's why in a scientific context God has no value, and it should have no value in such a context. But when discussing moral issues, an augmented, open, and "sophisticated" approach towards God is to be expected rather than a unidimensional empirical analysis.
Now, JP's concept of God fails to make a clear distinction between The Real and The Metaphor and this was the gist of the criticism of CosmicSkeptic. Unlike Pranav, he confronts the "sophisticated" idea, breaks it down, and delienate an appropriate criticism and like Pranav he does not evades it by deeming it too sophisticated to confront.
I pointed that phrase out because it shows a clear bias against JP. The whole video is self-evident of this fact. He took topics that deserve elaborate separate videos and crammed it into one single half an hour video, cherry picking a few clips to represent complicated stances.
First of all, I specifically said "scientific citations". If that's not clear enough I meant citation of results that came out of an empirical research. Secondly, JP's stance on Gender Pay Gap was misrepresented in this video (I did a seperate comment addressing this, check it out, Pranav replied to it so it would not be that difficult to find).
Not only that, Bill C-16 was summarised in a vague way not considering the nuances.
There is no absolute definition of "Neo-Marxism", it is construed differently by different people. Even if he was wrong about it I wouldn't deem it as a misinformation but a misinterpretation because information is something that is absolute. Science is information, ideologies are not.
Bro you have really good communication skills. Really well thought out and spoken peice.
Loved the video ❤
Just somethings I wanted to point out
1) I think you didn't actually refute the claim that he made at 23:15 in the video
2) I don't think he said or meant at 13:25 what you condensed his statement to
Bro so should we verify the information he provides in his personality and maps of meaning lecture series too, or can we take his word for it, assuming that if he is teaching the subject at a university, he would know what he is talking about and wouldn't spread misinformation that suits his agenda?
Please do dubunking of dinosaur in hindusium
😅😅😅😅😂
ah yes the dino-asur
Dinosaur in Hinduism 🤯🤣
Kaha Suna bhai?
What 😂😂 dinosaurs in hinduism??
Matt Dillahunty: Are there no Godless artists and poets?
Jordan Peterson: There are artist and poets who THINK they're Godless.
(laughter in the audience) lmao 😂
Matt Dillahunty is the guy who yells at strangers on a radio show right..Self proclaimed expert of all without qualifications in any field.
No wonder atheists, the custodians of nothingness like his so much 😂😂😂
"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.
Hi Pranav. I found your channel after searching for "indian mythology scam?' because I forgot the name Praveen. I find most of view-points very interesting and although I may not agree with all of them, I enjoy the intellectual confusions you force me into. Keeps me thinking and forces an retrospection, which I enjoy. Regarding the topic of JP in this video, I too watch (still) talks of him, Shapiro and such, and I think most of the right wing vs left wing disputes in the west hardly affects us in India; but some points like gender ideology, and the trans issue, do. As far his thoughts on atheism or christianity, I have no thoughts as I simply do not care about them. I take what I want fromhis speeches, and make my own inferences after I have done my own study on the matter, whichever that may be. Apologies as I may have not written everything well, as I think I have difficulty articulating all my thoughts into text.
I listened to the whole video, and I do agree with some of ur talking points. But I'd say I'm still a fan of JP. He's one of the few that have common sense and has helped me understand and overcome a lot of me negative thoughts and depression. He is a Christian, but I don't think he wants to specify that he is bc he knows that he'll probably loose a lot of followers and ppl will correlate EVERYTHING he says to being religious. No one is perfect, everyone is wrong sometimes too. But that's just my respectful opinion