The Dumbest Thing Jordan Peterson Has Said in a While 

He's not right wing. I had to stop the video there, due to ignorance, or bias.

@@Zoney06 I’m sorry that your ignorance and bias made you stop the video :(

@@Zoney06 In what possible way is Peterson anything but right wing?

@@PillarofGarbage its alright. JP's kind of dumb anyways. He uses big speech and pretends to be bigger than he is

​@@PillarofGarbage Facts and statistics don't have a political side. You're projecting your own biases. Too many ignorant people confuse acknowledging the existence of something, with supporting something, for example (inequality).

I can understand his appeal, but I'm not sure I can explain it without needing a few thousand words.

for some people, intelligence is just being a contrarian

Are they all legitimately mentally deficient or is this a matter of perception?

It's a matter of perception, culturally and environmentally

Peterson said in the Zizek debat intelligence is being able to tell apart the chaff from the meaningful stuff while displaying his superficial understanding of the Communist Manifesto. Peterson himself can't see his own idiocy.

The pot blaming the kettle at best.

I know from having being around vegans that they don’t live on salads. Curries, chillies, burgers, pasta, paninis, toast, cereals, fruit, chips, baked potatoes, roast dinners, snacks, sausage rolls and pies. And… salad 😂

@@finanigan6269 Also, doesn't he ONLY eat raw meat, with a bit of salt, or something?

@@J0MBiyea

To what do you attribute his recent penchant for tearing up? Is it just old age and the fear of oblivion?

@@brentwalker3300 Maybe. But I think having yourself put into a medically induced coma for a month probably doesn't help. There's a reason they only do that if you have a severe brain injury.

@@donnamurphy8551 he has become a preacher. they cry often.

It's hard to believe there was once a time when I found his messages meaningful and inspirational. I guess there has always been something wrong with his approach, but damn, he has recently fallen so low.

@@Eddison33 It seems that the same can be said for Tulsi Gabbard, Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, etc. A common refrain from all of these folks is that "the Democrats have gone crazy", yet I never hear a shred of evidence to support this claim. Personally, I think it's just that the right wing media grift pays better. Follow the money.

Is Lobster on the menu..?!

Yes, just imagine there was a report that talked about hunger being systemic and structural. Didn’t address who was starving and who wasn’t. Not the who, why or what was responsible for the shortage of food. Famine, war, soil erosion, soil nutrition, gaming..? No, just that it was ‘structural’ and ‘systemic’. Ingrained. That report would be absolutely useless. Which is exactly Peterson’s point. These buzzwords are vague to the point of meaninglessness. You’ve identified a problem but there can’t be any solution precisely because of its vagueness. Maybe that’s the point? So race and racism can be used as a political tool in perpetuity. A good report would identify specifics so they can be addressed.

Abstraction is just plain principle, and Peterson HAS no principles... and no class.

Uhhh, I mean isn't it kind of useful to know where people are starving? Like isn't that the whole reason parents say 'kids in africa are starving so eat your food' but never 'kids in america'? I feel like you're kind of targetting the wrong thing in the video here....

❤❤❤❤

Go clean ur room!.. lol

What is even “racism”?

And he's right?????

@@yusufhousini What?

It can be an easily answered question or not. For example here in Italy lots of women are fascist, specially in the city I come from, but fascism itself sees women as inferior beings. I asked those women (they were girls at that time) "So you are a girl AND a fascist. Does that mean you believe you are inferior?" The answer was a mixture of meaningless body movements and gestures and half sentences like "Nah" "You don't understand" etc. One of them even admitted she would K**l a baby of color (and she depicts herself as a "strong christian"). So we SHOULD know what is racism precisely and how it is intertwined with religion, money, politics etc. How it works and what triggers it. Also the vast majority of italian racists don't even know that so many other racists from abroad believe italians are inferior even if they are white. So, yes, what even is racism? Reducing it as a simple phenomenon does not help anybody

You lost me at the roaring dragon part. But the first bit is unironically a good point, though! If your 'room' is a metaphor for the place you live, you should be trying to make it better, which is what activism is. If it's a metaphor for your own personal mess, well, everyone else's mess is intertwined with yours, so maybe you need to actually look outside yourself to clean it.

Beautiful 😂 can imagine it in his squeaky voice

😂 brilliant

​@josephcowan6779 the "roaring dragon" as it were, I believe is a reference to his Maps of Meaning book wherein he posits that a "dragon" is the ever present chaos that sits outside our "doors." And when we don't strive for order in our lives - i.e. "cleaning our rooms," then we are inviting chaos and dysfunction into our lives. Peterson seems to take inspiration from the allegorical "hero's journey" which he uses to buttress his own -often derivative - philosophy on life.

"I am treated badly" because of a social structure "therefore, it is a problem of mine rather than the problem, of a social structure." Yet he keeps living in a destructive mess blaming the system while advertising for self correctness, therefore he is unable to see beyond his myopic preconceived fallacy. He is utterly confused mind. Sad!

@@mindsindialogue do you always take quotes out of context to prove your flawed points?

@@Iknowbetterthanyou how is my point flawed, mind to enlighten me?

@@room_threeothree arguing with a Peterson fantard is like arguing with Peterson. They'll just hit you with word salad and never answer the question.

Nonsense, he argues against radically replacing the existing system that has been tested and has several flaws with an untested system that could be even worse. He doesn't oppose improvements of the system. When sailing in a leaky boat, you don't demolish the boat to build a new one, you try to patch the leaks and bail at least untill you get to shore. Misrepresentation of his ideas followed by poisoning the well fallacies are not the same as a convincing argument.

Dude, seriously! It boggles the mind that people take him seriously.

@@fishdude666ify its the same kind of personality type that falls for get rich quick schemes and stuff. They think life fixes and personal growth just needs a simple/quick fixes. People that find motovation from a random quote...they refuse any shades of grey in life.

So it is nothing when he speaks in depth on Dostoevsky, Jung and Solzhenitsyn ? He might have something to say about Wodehouse.

@@johnhaggerty4396 dude Peterson literally said Hitler's motivations regarding the genocide of the Jews was motivated by an obsession with cleanliness, and then he sights Zyclon B as an example, because it was previously used as a pesticide. This is the stupidest thing, anyone has said to justify Hitler...Using Zyclon B wasnt even his idea...it was the idea of a commendant in Aushwitz under Rudolph Höss. And derivitives of Zyclon B were created as chemical weapons long before world war 2. He mimics "smart" but its all just verbal nonsense.

Or saying things stupid people don’t understand.

I call him a pillfiend

what is that mean

Braaavo ! That's exactly what I call him.

He is the modern day sophist

He is a dishonest person and I don't understand why... he is a smart person and he acts the way he does making it actually evil.

Intellectually Dishonest, he is.

He's bought and paid for now. He discovered how much money Ben Shabeebo was making at the Daily Wire and said hey me too! He's now a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry as a climate change denier. The guy has zero credibility left. Wouldn't surprise me if he became a regular guest of Faux and Fiends @@AntitheistHuman

E x a c t l y But that's too much to grasp for him and his followers....

The whole concept of institutional racism is just a handful of people who feel the need to be a victim throughout all situations for as they have read from progressive medias that they are oppressed. There are no laws explicitly discriminating against minorities. One hell of a delusion you live in. It’s the bubble where you only seek what you want to see, not the actual reality.

Not it isn't, it's proof that there wasn't sufficient proof that there were any slurs uttered to begin with.

😂 the mental gymnastics

No, proof of structural racism is everyone being able to openly and constantly be racist toward white people and receive no repercussions whatsoever, no matter how much time goes by. Whatever slurs you're referring to are replicated every six seconds on Black Twitter.

I guess they see themselves: 1d10ts. It maddens me how much followers he has. And when you point out his BS, you get his fans call us toxic. Twisted view all around..... Peterson IS the toxic one. All the fame and money made on spreading hatred and growing his ego....

verbiage is an effective method for hiding ignorance

Hes so guilty of word salad

I binge watched a ton of your videos since yesterday and this is by far my favorite. I wish it wasnt so hard to find comic book content creators that have an iota of dignity an ethics, so I'm making a point of sharing your videos with a lot of friends. Thank you for making content, for real.

Reminds me of an old saying. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, just baffle them with bullshit" That's him.

he's just playing free jazz with words

If you haven’t seen already, I dropped another one like this recently 😎

Lol you've got issues.

@@KagedTyrant Why yes, I do have a strong understanding of many issues :)

@@PillarofGarbage I wasn't talking to you sir.

It's because Peterson's ideology (Conservatism) is fundamentally flawed. Because Conservatism is an anti-democratic and anti-social ideology that is incompatible with modern civil democratic society, because it places the "rights" of the individual above the good of society. We cannot have a sustainably functioning society under such terms where society can be exploited and undermined by a select few individuals who have few to no checks or balances on their influence and power. Conservatism is an antiquated, unsustainable, and failed ideology, much like Feudalism and Monarchism, and it no longer deserves to be given serious consideration, beyond being examined as a historical curiosity.

Every instinct in my body tells me he is a bigot

because liberals gone too far in the leftist shuthole. talking common sense is considered as conservative. like there is a difference between men and women.

@@alexmason8557 If that's what you tell yourself to sleep at night

Doesnt we all do that in a debate about politics?

His political ideal is vastly apolitical. He despises ideologues, and is intelligent enough to see the fact that ideas of structural racism are not politically neutral, but in fact are born of far-leftist ideology. The idea that the West is a fundamentally racist place is absurd and deserves to be completely dismissed as Peterson does. It is not "middle ground" to assume that structural racism exists, it is far from it.

@@vignesh1065 No, actually it's what a lot of people who've been liberal their entire lives are thinking while watching the world around us turn into a divided mess.

Yea, just like most poeople would consider the 300+ pages of proof for 1+1=2 to be incoherent symbol salad nonsense. Quite often 'word salad' accusations turn out to be argument from ignorance fallacies. What evidence do you have that this is not the case here? Just the fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's nonsense, it merely means you didn't get it. Decent people generally ask for a reformulation or clarification when they don't understand something someone else said. The mathematical proof isn't invalid just because you are not familiar with the symbols or too lazy too read throught the 300+ pages of the proof.

It must suck to be a snowflake

"...and it's like, yeah! Of course! And you might not like that, but that's reality, sunshine!"

It’s typically not incoherent or nonsense, it’s wordy basic sense ironically lacking nuance.

Lmao😂

Well said.

Also, he's an addict with serious drug problems and yet he feels he is entitled to tell everyone how to act. So, other people must get their shit together before telling others how to behave but somehow he doesn't. He's a complete joke.

One of his former colleagues, can't recall the name, said he wasn't a good professor. He would state his opinions as facts, even when called on it by other members of faculty. And he seemed to want “followers” not students. He wanted to be a mini cult leader. A Peterson stan would say that former colleague is jealous, but from what I've seen of Peterson, that behavior fits.

Sounds more like a generally scary thing about mobs and masses than that it has anything to do with specifically Peterson.

@@BlacksmithTWD yes, except for he's the type to enjoy followers in my opinion.

@@Wishfull171 Do you happen to know of someone with thousands of followers who doesn't enjoy followers?

The comments are always the scariest part.

You are assuming the claims of structural racism are true, a claim is not fact or evidence. You are making a faulty comparison between biological disease, and something societal and psychological. Racism is not a structural/societal problem, it's a human problem, humans are tribal in nature. Jumping to ignorant divisive conclusions is counter productive.

@@Zoney06 couldn't agree more

@@Zoney06 I am not “jumping to ignorant divisive conclusions.” My point is that by only looking at the symptoms and not even attempting to address the core issue, racism is allowed to thrive. The system itself may not be inherently racist, in that it cannot exist without racism. However, if people are allowed to get away with racism on a regular basis with no consequences, like in the above example and many others, that makes the system racist. The system allows racism to thrive, and that is a fact. P.s. You can’t say that racism is a problem with human tribalism while simultaneously saying that it’s not a societal problem. Those two are intertwined. Tribalism is a societal problem. Racism is a problem with tribalism. Therefore, racism is a societal problem.

@@apocalypticbluegrass yes, sometimes people will be racist, whether the system is racist or not. However, that’s not evidence that the system is not racist. Frogs can live away from the water, but that doesn’t mean that when you see one it isn’t a sign that water’s nearby.

​@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ If the foundation is human tribalism, then obviously that will affect all the levels above, including societal. If you don't focus on the foundation you won't solve the problem, focusing on the social and societal level is the wrong place to focus, because the foundation will be the same. Plus it just divides people further, which is happening now. Focusing on individuals, and individual differences moves away from tribalism and groups. Teaching people to focus on individual differences targets the problem at the very core.

exactly, he so easily folds, as he stands behind nothing in truth, nothing other than the grift that is

So what you're saying, what you feel is -- and this is to choose another quote -- is that 'a healthy society must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil'?

Can't share links in RU-vid comments sections, but you might like to search for an article called 'Tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonaton Zunger. The entire article is worth reading, but here's a salient quote: '[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.'

Voilà. But according to his fans, we're all st0p1d. I wonder what that makes them....

I’m disappointed, but not - at all - surprised by the latest saga :(

Well, you talk about coincidence like that's a socially deterministic norm that isn't subject to individualistic presuppositionalism, and that it's like, yeah! This is kind of a beeg deal! But the postmodernist marxist will say "well, okay, but that's an unfalsifiable juxtaposition of nonconformity" and it's like, yeah, but you can't unconfirm the reality of the undeniable duality that exists in all of society!

Let me help you with that. Beginning*. You don’t use the past simple tense on the auxiliary verb after putting the verb “to be” in the same tense. So it’s going to be “I was beginning to doubt”. Hope this helps.

@@Littleknockoutkidmac That was not the point.

@@rbvp45 well he helped him. Do you always attack people who want to help other people? Why the hate? Is your life so empty?

@@Iknowbetterthanyou preach

@@Littleknockoutkidmac god damn bro you didn’t let up on the guy. I actually thought he had good English considering the fact that it’s his third language

Love this. Using this name to describe him from now on 😂

That's what people who don't understand him say, yes.

Okay, but, does the system keep its own room tidy? Let's start from there!

Man you just doing the same thing - taking words out of context and making him look EVIL. He just want to talk to the observation that whenever his criticism increased the donation from Peter account soared like anything.Nobody is foolish enough to give up his money it means that whenever people listen to him consider him to be right because he’s. No you may judge me that I am I am conditioned person and let me tell you I always see his debates and I have never seen anyone, All the left ideology journalist tried to put words in his mouth but he thrashed them in debates, Cathy Newman.

@@YashRaj-fm8sz All the things he said on Kathy Newman I tervuew have come back to haunt Peterson. Of course she was bamboozled by his word salads. On the surface Peterson can sound very reasonable but when you dig deeper it's very apparent he makes lots of assumptions and likes to cherry pick the data he picks from. Whenever he's gone against people as well prepared as him like matt dillahunty and Sam Harris he's shown all the flaws in his arguments. Which is why he prefers lectures now rather than debates. It had took me hours and hours of watching Peterson videos to come to this conclusion. I'm not interested in converting you in any way. I do have sympathy for the health problems he and his family have had. I'm just answering what you said in your comment.

That comment on Rogan was supposed to be funny.

@@hooligan9794 Many a true word is spoken in jest

@@redmed10 right. OK.

What exactly is wrong with inequality? Why does someone having more money than you affect you negatively?

@@apexdisease6030 You're doing the same thing. Oversimplification. Rich people DO exploit the poor and that's not even debatable.

go back a hundred years and compare the equalities of now and then.

@@jeielkamei4452 Go back 45 years and we were a lot less unequal.

@@Coneman3 And in the 21st century, women are far better off than they were 45 years back

As it happens, there’s more coming in the next couple of weeks!

* subscribes *

He thrives on the people who aren’t capable of finding coherency in more complex matters.

Oh yeah, nothing against ‘fixing ourselves’, but it can’t be a prerequisite for trying to do stuff in the wider world. Another Peterson video coming out this weekend btw!

54% of adults in the USA cannot read at a middle school level. 21% are functionally illiterate. Guess which Americans are the Jordan Peterson followers

That's the mark of a true scammer, tho Use grains of truth to get your mark nodding - once they are agreeing with you, it's easier to convince them of your nonsense

​​@@danielcrafter9349using popular name to get attention isnt any different.

The jokes write themselves

I second this

I was in the cult for a bit, not proud of it.

I don't think that many of them do idolize him anymore. Not if they're still actually listeninng to the crapfest that comes out of his mouth on topics he knows nothing about.

@@DarkEagle01 me too. At least we're out now. Some people may never leave.

Honestly. You can hardly make sense of what he’s saying, and when you do it’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard

He is the kind of person who will let you figure out how to move past it and help you find reason to keep living despite the pain. This video should not give you reason to say what you have said about him. You should learn more about him. That you would ignore the fact that he has helped thousands of people improve their lives, including rape victims, tells me all I need to know about you. Would you appreciate someone saying something like that about you if you were in Jordan’s shoes?

@Shanks RedHair All I need is to know how to build a house in order to help someone who rebuild their home. I need to have gone through the experience of losing my house to a storm before I can help. Your dad was wrong. All it takes is kindness and empathy to want to help someone deal with a difficult emotional problem. You don’t have to be a messed up crack head. Maybe you could be wiser than your father.

Or he'd ask if their room was clean, and if it wasn't, say, "well that's your problem."

@@graemelaubach3106 nope. He’d say clean your room. And after you clean room, fix your relationships, get a job, add value to others lives. Then you can go change the world once you have proven that you can make positive changes in those smaller ways. That’s is wisdom. That you would fight this man on whatever he says without proving why his advice is wrong and providing a better alternative shows your lack of it - wisdom.

Me too :(

That's because he tells them they need to try to make their bed in the morning rather than just sit around the house and mope all day. If you made up your bed, at least you did SOMETHING. He also says life is about responsibilities and not just rights. Is he incorrect about that?

@@theboombodyno, but then he also says that women solely exist to create babies and make men miserable

@@theboombodyThat‘s probably the least problematic statement he made haha. It‘s just mind-boggling to me how long he takes to explain what you just stated in two sentences. Problematic is his political discourse.

@@theboombody Congrats, I guess? You found one small thing he said that is good advice (as well as unoriginal and unimpressive) out of a massive laundry list of horrible and malformed opinions he's had. You could have picked any one of those opinions, but you chose the one normal argument he's made out of hundreds to represent him. That's a very dishonest framing.

Mistake number 1: trying to think logically about something JP said

It’s a sad state of affairs :(

Well, maybe he thinks it self explanatory. Just think about it. Don't be biased. What would be the consequences of his oppositions solution and the other solution?

Lol I’ve always said it’s like he pulls “truth” out of his pocket and rarely ever gives actually data or proof to show for this, as well as at some points picks one small existing thing to prove his thought on a large scale. Though some people just eat it up and support it fully without their own research and it’s wild to me.

Sophistry 101. People have been doing it for centuries.

Genuine question: what does this comment have to do with video?

A lot

@@unknownuser2897 He's basically saying that in some instances Peterson's overgeneralisations lead to him saying that more clear cut structural problems are not being well defined, hence the "justice demands" example. Justice might just be a concept but there is a transition to reality when real world issues relating to it become more relevant. I think rather than using word salad and psychobabble and falling back into what he knows best, Peterson should probably research the topic he is on the panel to discuss, rather than just relying on his audience being ignorant while being captivated by the illusion of profundity.

Isn't Peterson basically doing exactly the same as he complains about? He's always talking about morals, good, God... He's a sophist, he doesn't believe anything he's saying, he always has an ulterior motive. And he's not even good at hiding it out, he has slipped many many times losing his temper and having the most outrageous reactions like when he said that Elliot Page's surgeon was a criminal. He's a wacko that knows how to manipulate people via dialogue thanks to his psychology degree (nothing against psychology as a profession).

Yup, he’s a certified moron…

I'm no fan of Jordan Peterson, but he was right, he never said that women are dumber than men it's just a fact that men have accomplished way more in science than women and that men are generally more interested in STEM fields than women, if mere facts offend you you're as full of shit as him

Total bullshit. Citation needed.

Source?

@@PillarofGarbage This sounds outlandish. You aren't gonna ask him for citation?

He attracts the angry white males, who can’t handle the fact that they aren’t receiving all their privilege at their expense anymore

Honest question: what answer do you expect? Cause he's deep or Everybody is dumb?

What do you mean "How"?, what do you mean "does"? what do you mean "anybody"? I haven't even gotten to the end of your question, bucko - and I'm already exploring the metaphysical substrate of consciousness. You might want to use fewer words, or we're going to be here by sundown.

@@aaad3552 "What answer do you expect?" I'm not sure you understand how questions work...

@@SaurianSavior you sound like a professor now you just need to pass the exam

That is a very good question. I doubt most clinical psychologists would agree with Peterson.

​@@marthaworc7873 Yeah but where are they? We NEED them desperately, someone need to shut that lunatic up. So many people are siding with him, he needs actual smart individuals to show his true face to the world. It cant go on this way.... He's so famous and making so much money off his hypocrisy!

The will say he was talking at high abstraction level that normal people cannot understand, whatever garbage that means.

No we're not ! We're all getting perfectly along !! ;)

@@train_cam * presses x to doubt *

Besides, he never takes this individualistic approach when talking about those the ideologically opposes. You could literally use his argument against him. "Oh, but what is a SJW, Jordan?. Who did that, when he did it, why? You can't use Social Justice as a concept, it's too broad, yada yada". He's a sophist because he never helps himself to the same rules he demands for others, which either means he's very dense, lacks self awareness or he plainly doesn't believe in what he says.

Peoples experience with literature and expertise in their fields are exactly why they think his philosophical views and opinions are flawed. Those who simply take him at his word, on the other hand, betray their dogmatic belief in a spoon fed ideology that claims to be backed up by sources, whilst never actually citing them without biased distortion.

@@hrishiv27 He cites every study behind the claims he makes, by name. One of his 12 rules for life is to avoid lying and another to always assume the other person knows something you don’t. He has consistently said he does not want to be idolized or viewed as some sort of supreme or superior being, which is why he actually takes time to speak to those who tell him their stories of how his literature has changed their lives for the better.

You know, I’d agree. Speaking as someone who holds multiple minor qualifications in history, and both a Bachelor’s (1st class) and Masters’ (distinction) in Literature, Peterson’s a pseudo-intellectual grifter.

@@PillarofGarbage I’ve heard this many times but I’ve never really received an explanation or a reference as to why some might believe that. Not something concrete at least.

@@toxxinvevo9354 But he rose to fame on a lie! And a damaging lie at that. He has persisted in misrepresenting Canadian legislation for years, now, too. As a result, untold numbers of people around the world STILL firmly believe that trans people have somehow sought and received special treatment in Canada. Worse - that they are to blame for undermining basic freedoms/rights which are dearly held. See: The Canadian Bar Association - CBA Position on Bill C-16 for a bit of that concrete. In his Cambridge Union address Peterson claimed that he 'worked for a UN committee on sustainable economic and ecological development'. *He did not* (He advised the former CEO of Blackberry who DID work for a panel on sustainability.) On BBC's HardTALK Peterson claimed to be an 'evolutionary biologist' and an 'expert' no less. *He is not* Speaking with 'Dr Oz', he claimed to be a 'social scientist'. *He is not* In ‘12 Rules’, his biography stated he had been “inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe,” This prompted a comment from Pankaj Mishra, the NYT critic reviewing 12 Rules. To which Peterson replied as follows via twitter: ‘You say “Peterson claims that he has been inducted into ‘the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe’ Just what do you mean by “claims” you peddler of nasty, underhanded innuendo, you dealer in lies and halftruths?’ He also called Mishra a “sanctimonious prick”, an “arrogant racist son of a bitch” and threatened to “slap him” in one of his (now familiar) Peterson twitter meltdowns which he ended with the words “fuck you”. It subsequently became clear that *Peterson was NOT inducted* as he claimed. The bio was amended. So much for 'tell the truth, or at least, don't lie'. He may well cite studies behind his claims, but how much of it do you checkout for yourself? Are you SURE it is represented accurately/correctly? Do you look for corroboration from those QUALIFIED to speak on the matter? For EG, the research on which Peterson based his lobster thesis (dominance/hierarchy/serotonin/anti-depressants) was a minor study of captive lobsters, published in 1997. This looked at the effect serotonin and prozac, had on a lobster's 'decision' to fight or retreat. HOWEVER, the study findings were largely undermined within three years. Further research in 2000 discovered that the large doses of serotonin used - several magnitudes higher than normal levels - had effectively paralysed the lobster. It fixed them in a 'flexion' stance - which Peterson sometimes demonstrates and likens to that of a triumphant boxer after a knock out fight. In fact, the flexion stance immediately precedes flight, but the huge amounts of serotonin injected into them had rendered the lobsters physically unable to even initiate, let alone carry out, this natural response. Ergo, all bets were off, when it came to related results and conclusions of the 1997 study. *BTW these studies predate 12 Rules by 21 and 18 years respectively.* Just to be clear, a great deal of research has been done since 1997, thanks to the concerns of the lobster fishing industry in the Gulf of Maine, which has funded most of it. Furthermore, you won't find anyone qualified in any relevant field who supports Petersons observations. In fact, they were challenged/debunked at the time, by the likes of evolutionary biologist PZ Myers and Marine Biologist, Bailey Steinworth to name but two. The question is this: do you STILL believe that human hierarchies are 'hard wired' - inevitable - part of our DNA due to evolutionary processes? If so, WHY? Peterson has quite a reputation for his selective approach to research, knowledge or data, as well as a somewhat biased interpretation of it. His observations on 'agreeableness' and the gender pay gap, the Nordic paradox and biological sex - QED. None bear close scrutiny. He also has a well documented history of speaking at length on matters in which he has no expertise and misrepresenting himself/his work in the doing of it. Am happy to supply 'concrete' on that, too, if you like. *But, with regard to history* Either his knowledge is appalling or his recounting of it is disingenuous - specifically designed to push a highly questionable narrative. One of his nastier habits is blithely skipping over 600+ hugely significant years in his recounting of modern European history. He does this, particularly, when speaking on the Bible/Christianity and Western Civilisation. For example, in the first lecture of his Biblical series, he leaps from the Bible to Nietzsche like a ruddy gazelle! That's over 1000 years! Given the subject matter, it boggles the mind that he should completely ignore The Reformation, The Renaissance and The Enlightenment (including the Scientific Revolution). In that BBC HARDtalk interview, Stephen Sakur raised this question and quoted Paul Thagard, a Canadian Philosopher who had also observed Petersons omission in his review of Maps of Meaning. Petersons response was to simply dismiss Thagard ('that person') and, with a wave of his hand, blew off circa 400 years of the Enlightenment - not only in it's significance, he even tried to reduce its duration to little more than 100 years! Thats just bonkers. Oh and he has no problem pulling the atheist attrocities fallacy out of his back passage, as and when it suits him, too. You've heard him referred to as a pseudo-intellectual grifter many times but apparently have not been moved to check anything for yourself. So much for 'always assume the other person knows something you don’t' Well, now you have a few things to go on. You should *TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE* What field of expertise does Peterson excel at? How well does HE understand human history? And how much literature has HE read and fully understood? He is NOT a philosopher, biologist, evolutionary biologist, social scientist, historian, theologian, Biblical scholar or lawyer. He just ain't. He's a psychologist who well understands the power of pathologising discourse, the internet and the algorithm. Think on. .

I’m quite familiar with Peterson’s positions and rhetoric, and disagree fundamentally with most of it.

@@PillarofGarbage ok, man. I respect that, I only meant to point out a check because I think even with your knowledge of Peterson's, you are not exposing a satisfactory interpretation of what I he actually said (thought, you view maybe more correct than mine.)