However it's true the science say this now. But if we had an 100% equality sociaty, we could take data from that and see what happens. Perhaps the science change their view. In Sweden we are a science experiment for the world. If women don't want men anymore because they start to like things, that's when we are fucked. 😂 Another view on this would be, men likes people more and we start to live on an euphorian society.. 🤷🏻
@@sarajeanwiler1403 Sweden in a nutshell: Don’t say any word if you just think it might offend people. At school it was a discussion about gender equality and I raised the statistic Jordan raised. And they thought I was the most disgusting thing that walked into that class. Although I had read a scientific paper did not matter
That is what i am saying. he is not from the boroughs around london. therefore not the highest quality. but yes. he has mastered some words. and concepts@@michaelespeland
The most horrible thing about her disagreement with what the scientific consensus says, is that she thinks she's entitled to have an opinion on the topic and that her opinion is a valid answer against the scientific data.
@@EmilMToft Yeah exactly. She`s so entitled that she thinks she can have an opnion on that topic against the proven scientific data. Also against jordan who`ve studied and worked in that field for 30 years. I really don`t understand how so many people don`t want to believe science and biology. The world going on a downhill path
@@lennertcornette Maybe, but that would be a rare case of Honesty vs 'Fidelity towards the party line', which is the rule in Swedish politics. It is not by happenstance that all party leaders, out of the 8 parties that constitute the Swedish parliament has, not one - but a whole staff of - "press secretaries". Her party's line is already carved in stone for this 4 year election cycle, for better or for worse yet even so she does her best to defend it. So you may be right. Personally, i think Annie played a passable game with the abominable cards she was dealt.
I am a socialist in Sweden. And I am fascinated by JBP's intelligence, way of communicating and forwarding his message in such a respectful and educated manner. Even though I don't agree with precisely everything he has ever said, I still am not, and no one should, be ignorant to the scientific data. Well done JP! No one is close to having your level of experience and expertise in the field. I admire you as an individual and even more so by the way you care about humans and especially young, lost and demoralized children in our world. You are doing great things and while you're doing good, then a natural effect is to receive hate and a lot of friction. A natural force of good, prevailing over the lost, beaten and the ignorant. Great interview.
We have to ignore the data otherwise we are not getting a profit. The main profit is made by keeping the society with a lack of knowledge and also sleepy. I think we are on a good path achieving that. We might experience a change when people understand it's not the year we need to change but the actual rotten system .
I think the main thing that people don't seem to understand about Peterson when he's speaking about these topics is that he is citing data that come from studies. It's not a matter of opinion. Annie Lööf here seems more concerned about the human right of having choices in your life or the society in which you live and also that you are not oppressed from making those choices based on your gender. Peterson, however, is speaking about the results of societies adopting those ideologies. It's two separate conversations. The way to turn this into a gender issues is by twisting his words when it comes to the difference between men and women and which profession they choose. Men are more interested in things, women are more interested in people. Not only do I feel like this has been established long ago already, but wherever you go different occupations will pay differently. A man working in the service industry will not make as much as a woman working as an architect and vice versa. That's the gist of what he is saying. In a country like Sweden there are clear and basic laws that are gender neutral that establish a minimum wage and appropriate wage increase every year. It also takes into account years of experience or education. Nowhere does it say, "Man make this much" and "Woman make this much".
I learned about Jordan Peterson very recently. The more I listen to him and understand what he is saying, the more his messages become an eyeopener for me. The most important thing about him is that he speaks the truth, free from any artificially established trend, and based on proven facts. Feminism in Sweden is already so deeply cemented in the society as the only acceptable way of thinking, that almost everything he was saying in this program, no matter how true, was obviously falling on deaf ears. Which was, off course, expected :)
Ja haha, vilken pajas den rödtotten är - eller svenska politiker generellt - i jämförelse till den nivån Jordan ligger på i sitt sätt att kommunicera och svara på någons fråga. Tänk om Sverige hade fler politiker som hade samma skickliga förmåga att framföra ett budskap på ett sådant klockrent sätt som honom men också på ett sådant resktfullt sätt likaså.
This interview is so important because it highlights the difference in IQ and scientific basis between a professor and a politician. It's like looking at a lifeform from an advanced alien civilization trying to explain the inner workings of a black hole to an aardvark. Scary that some want people like her in charge of our country.
I'm an asian immigrant living in Norway. When I was 18, I went to an electrician trade school. There were ZERO girls. Literally none, in four different classes. A lot of my female friends in asia are doctors, engineers and accountants. These are the same people whose parents raised them under the idea of "you need to have a good degree to succeed in life". No such thing exists in Norway, everyone lives comfortable here.
The language barrier plays an important role in scientific conversations but in his case I believe his terminologies and vocabularies are extensive and only people at the same field and level of expertise understand his entire conversation without asking what he means or in case of us watching on youtube going back and forth to get what he says. Educated and different!
@@trumbaron she didnt misinterpret him. She went with the politically correct answers completely disregarding the data. Swedes and Norwegians May have accents & some wrong vocabulary but these people are highly educated so im sure they understand everything he says.
@@Djdkdkdndkzn1 I think she did misinterpret him in some ways. Most Scandinavians can the everyday English language. Academic languages and more advanced and higher-educated words are not teached in everyday schools. It's why a lot of Scandinavian students might find it hard when some subjects are in English because the language used is different and new/more advanced from what we are taught. So I feel quite confident when I say a lot of the words used by Jordan were words going over people's heads. But because they were in context most people understood more or less what he was saying. A bit of an essay ahead: She was talking about equality of choice. Something Peterson agrees with. But when he talked about equality of outcome, she repeated her point in a different wording because (most likely) she didn't understand or catch those were two different things he was talking about. If you watch her, you see her listening intently to him, and not just preparing for a new argument. She is silent, and polite as she watches him. Clearly, she is listening as you see she has reactions as he speaks(and not all of them seem negative). You see when a light goes off in her when Jordan makes a point that connects in her head. And you see her breathing getting slightly deeper(I might be imagining that, but to me, it seems like her breathing changes ever so slightly) when he talks about things that seemingly go against what she has been probably learning all her life(her viewpoint is extremely common in Scandinavia as you might know). Probably things she immediately does not agree with as she made an indication of thoughts/distaste with her face. In fact, they actually agree if you listen to what they both say. She wants children/both genders to have equality of choice and for her daughter not to be hindered because of her gender. Meaning gender equality and equality of choice. The miscommunication(and her confusion as well as negative emotions, and her feeling a need to repeat her point again) seemed to happen when the equality of outcome and gender differences was the topic. Something that takes away or hinders equality of choice, and equality of choice is something she clearly finds extremely important. This is my observations at least. I only watched the video once, so I might be talking out of my ass here. But you can watch it again if you want to verify my observations/claims. *Edit: I don't know how much you actually care about this, but I find it interesting and watched a video about this right after I wrote this comment. "JORDAN PETERSON vs SVERIGE" is a great video to watch if you are interested in this and the miscommunication happening all over this interview.*
@@ottiliaeliasson5019 Honest question, do you think she is not very competent or maybe is a language difference. There are elections now in Sweden and i am just curious.
@@milanm403 She is the same way in debates in Swedish as well. So no it's not the language barrier. She seems to hear only what she wants to hear. Like someone else here said, she answeres way of topic.
Holy fuck you guys are judging. I’ve seen 10 comments about the "Scandinavian smirk". You guys simply can’t accept that people smile even if they know they are wrong. You believe she should be angry or sad. She is a truly happy, yes, maybe a bit delusional, but she is not smirking in a cocky way. It’s just the default face you make when your life is good. We Scandinavians even smile when things is going downhill. Even in the worst scenarios.
Stupidity, simply. She may have been chosen to confront him in his own language, but she probably struggles to even register what he answers to the questions. Also, and more importantly, arrogance. She probably doesn't completely grasp the intellectual challenge it takes to combat an academic at JBP:s level, which she may regard as her mission. She may have a pre-concieved, self-boosted trust in her own ability to oppress her opponent by her meer presence.
JP: the evidence does not support the fact that cultural changes will flatten gender differences in occupations. Swedish politician: we need to teach boys to play with dolls.
And she is a Politician? God help the Swedes . The difference in intellect between JP and the others is bordering embarrassment. Their inability to grasp another person's concepts, especially of such academic magnitude, is scary.
It’s like they all agree on the same thing as far as what they want, but the panel has been so skewed by propaganda in these thoughts of late that they sit there, dumbfounded when he explains simple known science.
Some people are just too stupid to understand what he is saying 😂 “what do you mean” I think he said what he means, they clearly don’t understand him, maybe because the language difference
I wish it was just a language barrier, but people from the US, Briten, Canada and Australia struggle with it at times too. It's just people being stupid in general, coming into the conversation with preconceived notions of what he's going to say and what that means - and so they end up not listen to what he's actually saying.
I think the panel should have included at least a Swedish expert in the same caliber at JP but with a different view so as to get a real debate. JP just steam rolled everybody by the wealth of his knowledge.
@@stuartwayne4978 no they weren't. one is a Swedish politician, the other is a Norwegian author while the interviewer is a Norwegian tv personality. so none of them has any expertise at all on the subject
The swedish politician quit her career some years later, she got overwhelming criticism in sweden for her general act and politics, its also funny to see that she smiles alot when he makes good points but tries to hide the smile, she knows hes right but her society currently dont allow thoose opinions
Notice her eyes when he talks. To me it should not be accepted, to roll your eyes and judge others this way. Of course I know its just a thing but personally I find it highly disrespectful.
It is sad that everyone who interviews Jordan peterson try to gutpunch him with questions other people often dont get, i have seen that show many times and they are always much softer to the other guests
Jordan is playing chess and the rest of them checkers. I would definitely insist on gjetting an answer from the bold regarding the equality of outcome as she only comments on the equality of opportunity
The difference between Dr Peterson and politicians is that not only does Dr Peterson answer questions he wants To answer them honestly whereas politicians don't want to be pinned to an answer and will only say what they think will benefit them, forward there politics and it's a problem when they won't take a stand for truth because they are terrified of not getting votes or upsetting their political base, even worse they lie for the same reasons.
The difference in this discussion is comprehension, equality to feminism is on leadership roles against men but choices makes it against the idea in reality.
Their questions were progressively getting lame. Went from political, psychological, sociological questions to them grappling to get a better idea of jp personally because he stupefied him. Unlike other hosts that belligerently continue to paint some oppositional agenda on him and argue without resolution, they genuinely seemed to question the slanderous reputation he’s been given within themselves, and had to figure out who he was to better reflect his ideologies. I feel bad for the one guy that never talked. He seemed interested but didn’t interject as much as maybe he wanted to.
Times are changing. This shows that shallow policies and a "nose in the air" attitude are bad for you. Almost murdered and sacked from the job as party leader.
Parents should stay together... unless it is an abusive relationship. Physically and/or mentally. Data for that definitely shows the children to be better off if the parents separate.
usually our choices are influenced by social and cultural norms, but if you try to remove these norms the only thing remaining "controlling" our choices is our biological biases..(dna) ex: women are more people oriented while men are more thing oriented. People will choose different if you leave them to their own devices.
@@yhvrfc32 Ok but I don't get it still. If it is based on norm, then girls will pick the nurse job and men the engineering job, but if they are able to choose, then the outcome will result in more female nurses and more male engineers? Is that what JP is saying? Why is that? I hear it is because of bio reasons. I am not denying its true, I am just trying to understand why?
@@nilspils5223 That norm is because of biology. Woke and extreme feminism tries to enforce new norms. For exampel to blindly try to eleminate the "pay gap" between sexes. Social engineering. Jordan says that without tinkering with norms the bio-norms (peoples free will) will "dominate" the field to a larger extent, which is good.
What I appriciate with Annie Lööf is that AT LEAST you see she is trying to listen and understand, I mean look at the rest of the sociopath socialdemocrat politicians we have in Sweden. Oh well, now they are angry because they cant fund their bogus with lotteries anymore at least!
Dette er helt sjukt. Hvem er det som har satt opp det glasstaket over damene våre i Norden? Jeg har ikke sett det. Kanskje det bare ligger over Sverige, jeg vet ikke?!?!?
Although I somehow understand what Peterson is trying to say, I think he is describing it all in a very overly complicated, intellectualized manner, that quite gravely overestimates the intellectual capacity of his audience. Initially, I thought Annie was judging Peterson before he even said anything, but I ultimately think she defied Peterson's theories with a somewhat healthy skepticism, common sense, and lack of understanding
At my work we have several female ingeneers who switched from technical positions and over to people management and HR as they wanted to work with people and not things, jordan is right.
This is confusing to watch. I mean are they having trouble understanding him? They dont seem very engaged. Its sort of embarrassing how bad their English is.
Jeg er fra Norge som det ser ut som du er også. De fleste 60-åringer fra Norge snakker ikke så utrolig bra engelsk akkurat i min erfaring akkurat. De fleste 60 åringer fra Norge kan ikke ha en helt flytende samtale i engelsk
Yeah i would not read ALL the comments but read mine. Im from....that is my clncern and golgles but the way jordan speaks and the way the other ones are listening all through (almost) gives hope.... Because this city is on candles and wine now. Piss and beer or straight out too woke people, infringing on me - versus skinny politicians pointing their judgy little finger on anybody, TRYING to hit back on them.
Jordan Peterson wants equality of OUTCOME, not equality of opportunity. Pressuring people into having children when they have no desire for children= equality of outcome. Talking about men as a homogenous group= equality of outcome. Talking about women as a homogenous group= equality of outcome. If you want real equality of opportunity, stop generalizing men and women and start talking about individuals, not men and women. Equality of opportunity= realizing that there are variations within the sexes.
@@somethingelse9535 But he is prescribing the same medicine for ALL individuals. «Create a family. Have children!». It is obvious that he wants an outcome! He wants an equal/similar outcome for us all. Not diversity. Not acceptance of minorities. Not all people want the same in life. Some people are childfree. Not all women become depressed after age 40 if they don’t have a family. I think Peterson generalizes all women by calling them hypergamous. This is not true for 100% of women. He also generalizes men. If he is the individualist he claims he is, he should stop generalizing and support all individuals in their choices in life! He should stop his war against trans people, childfree and feminists.
@@nadiacassandra4557 When equality of outcome is discussed it is always in the context of the workplace. Anyway, when talking about people all we can do is talk about the majority, i.e. generalise. The feminist doctrine says women can have a career and not suffer is wrong. Women do have an urge to start a family. Actually, men do to. Bachelorhood does get pointless even for them if it goes on for decades. (Why work hard if all you do is come home to an empty house?) Peterson is not against women having careers. It would be better if women learned that many women regret the 100% career choice, and that finding an acceptable partner at age 30 is much harder. Making these choices with eyes open is better than blindly obeying feminist dogma.
@@somethingelse9535 Equality of outcome is talked upon in all aspects of life. Not just the workplace. No. Not ALL women have an urge to start a family. There ARE childfree women out there and I am one of them. If ALL women and men had an urge to start a family, why do both women and men voluntarily get sterilized? Studies show that most childfree people don’t regret their choice to not have children. Feminism is necessary in the world. In many parts of the world, women cannot get a passport without the permission of a male guardian. The patriarchy does exist, even if Peterson denies it.
