Anyone watch Jordan Peterson hammer this retarded blond bitch on Channel 4?
>youtube.com
>Her arguments are pure Strawman
>JBP brings up Serotonin and heirarchies in Lobsters, she responds by saying that we should organize societies like lobsters
>Destroys her arguments against the wage gap
>Wrecks the idea of forced pronouns
>Proves once again that he is the only uncucked leaf in Canada.
>Take a shot every time she says "You're saying.."
Other urls found in this thread:
scientificamerican.com
twitter.com
No. I watched Jordan Peterson make a fool out of himself by coming human hierarchy to lobster hierarchy to human hierarchy,
Peterson is a psychologist, a fake science, not a biologist.
He has an insufficient understanding of biologal science and evolutionary biology and should probably refrain from making such analogies in the future.. He should stick with kook biology.
He clearly lost this debate.
Fucking autocorrect.
Humans are not lobsters and we don’t function the same.
Not just "some dumb cunt" - some JEWISH cunt.
>Cathy (((Newman)))
Don't just say "he shouldn't make that comparison because he isn't a biologist", explain how he is wrong dickhead.
His point is ultimately that people care about social rank. Do you dispute this?
I was genuinely shocked by the level of debate, she doesn't deserve even minimum wage.
That such a fag would be blessed by digis
I don’t care what she is but I don’t expect a PhD to make multiple arguments solely based on logical fallacies and pretend that he won a debate.
She controlled the pace of the debate and look unstable and aggressive towards women.
kill yourself liberal
She wasn't even on his level. Shows you how bad open debate is in the UK.
I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t predict whether or not people care about social rank. I really doubt we could 3ven agree on what social rank is outside of some tribal jungles in Africa where social functions solely on rank.
Either excellent bait or terminal autism.
A journalist's job should be finding the truth, but it's not, it's getting ratings. It's making money. She is doing her job, but her job is (potentially) terribly destructive, it has been since money became more important than integrity in journalism. To be more accurate, people are now repelled by ideas they don't agree with. So you are a small news studio (or an enormous one), and you are losing your viewer base. What do you do? You start feeding them candy, you give them what they want.
She is doing that. She is intelligent, and she is attacking Jordan Peterson for ratings. And Jordan Peterson is probably one of the most intelligent people alive today, in the ways he has pushed himself. I wouldn't try to debate him in any field he has studied in.
She is potentially less self aware than I give her credit for (I don't know who she is), but her bosses don't care what she is saying. They care about how much money she is making them. So, long story short, her job is to make money for her bosses. Not spread "truthful" information.
>liberal
>communist flag
Fuck off kike.
Lmao, no reply
Clearly, it is your perceived rank within society
>Jordan Person is probably one of the most intelligent people alive today
Is this a joke? He doesn’t even understand basic biology and evolution.
If by "debating" you mean blatantly lying and accusing Jordan of saying things he never said, you are right, she won. She wasn't questioning him. She was accusing him. This is more representative of a trial than an interview, and she doesn't appear to be a prosecutor.
Can you define social rank?
Not gunna lie this man can talk. Cudos to the host who was doing MUCH better than your average American Broadcasting
I would define it as how important you perceive yourself to be within society. Does that work for you?
Fuck off shill. Already been multiple of these today. Peterson has already proven he's a clueless boomer who doesn't understand the root problem of western society, which is cancerous individualism and adherence to imaginary political principles while our nations get taken over by subhumans. So make sure you don't fall into IDENTITY POLITICS. He's another brainlet who made a lot of money opposing the easiest possible target while reinforcing the cancerous ideas that got us here.
>I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t predict whether or not people care about social rank.
You are either blind or have zero human interaction.
Yeah, saw it! Damn that was sum gud sheit.
No it doesn’t, because it’s not objective and relies solely on your own belief. You can believe things that are false, but it doesn’t make them true.
I've never seen someone who is assumed to be reasonable by the average normie be completely exposed for the ideologue they are. Her response to everything he says is almost religious. She completely ignores the content of his words and jumps to her next tactic as soon as he stops talking.
H.A.N.K pls leave
Who ever said your own perception needs to be objective?
I would have respected her more if she just bent over and let him fuck her ass.
He was talking about serotonin release in the brain. Clearly, this will only depend on your perception of the world, whether or not that conflicts with the perception of others.
There may be cases where my definition is not useful, but in this case, I'd say it fits the bill.
very obvious weak bait
guaranteed (you)s
Well I was asking for a definition of social rank and if you could provide one it would be easier for us to understand whether or not it has any relation to lobsters.
hes not for sure but hes for sure very intelligent. He also understands both of those you're just retarded. Everyone understands those
From what I've seen he's just talking about crestations having a nervous system that works like our own because it reacts similarly to chemicals the same way we do based on studies done by biologists proving this, what's the issue lard? That God isn't mentioned?
Are you saying that humans can’t believe false things to be true?
(You)
i like to watch jordan peterson because my father figure in my life left early so i need a replacement :))
It's getting fairly clear to us all that you don't understand in the slightest what it is Jordan Peterson is saying.
Your own self esteem regulates your seratonin and it's the same for Lobsters - that's what he's saying.
I felt so uncomfortable watching this.
J P a saint simply due to the fact he didn't grow impatient and call her a dumb cunt
She absolutely was nor even trying to listen
It's irrelevant. Peterson's claim was that the brain rewards us when we perceive ourselves as being important in society. This will lead us to develop hierarchies. That's the argument.
Sure, people are sometimes wrong about their importance. But I'd say that more often than not, people understand their place.
I’m asking for a definition of social rank. Can you provide one other than an innane comparison of the human nervous system to the lobster?
You don't suppose that similar biological mechanics that play a part in lobster hierarchies could also be present in the human hierarchies?
Should we also not draw comparisons between chimpanzee societies and human societies even though we have good evidence that we share a common ancestor?
Comparison is not the same thing as claiming something is absolutely equal.
Reading posts like:
is 100% proof that shills are trying to character assassinate Peterson
which means hes fundamentally GOOD
and needs to be listened to more.
Let’s define social rank though. Is it your own belief or the collective belief?
>Are you saying that
600k views
he abslolutely btfo'd her
Lobsters don’t have free will and I can’t comprehend how you could compare lobster social rank to human social rank, unless you’re looking at African societies whether free will exists at a bare minimum level.
Why does anyone need to define social rank? Why would his comparison of Humans to lobsters hinge on the definition of social rank? It's irrelevant!
He's talking about perceived social rank, self esteem, and that definition is different for ever person.
For what purpose do you want to define an objective social rank? You need to give me some context. Clearly, you are not talking about the same concept as Peterson, as he was talking about a perceived social rank.
So lobsters have actual social rank and humans only have perceived social rank?
>i like to watch jordan peterson because my father figure in my life left early so i need a replacement
Godspeed Tyrone
There is a pay gap
In my country, women and niggers are prioritized over white men
Fucking jews
Why would those two categories be mutually exclusive? In most cases feedback from the collective perception helps form your own perception.
So how do you objectively determine the social rank of lobsters? Since the claim is that lobsters possess a social rank, there must be an objective way to measure it,
Nope, they also only have perceived social rank, inside their head. They may also have some easily observable actual rank, but that isn't what gets the serotonin goin'!
>tfw feminist prime minister
>tfw gender neutral parliament
>tfw bill c-16
seriously Sup Forums could the cuckening get any worse
>crestations
What would lead you to believe that?
Because humans have false beliefs?
see
So how do humans objectively determine that lobsters have a social rank?
It's MULTIVARIATE you dumb shit
multivariate
multivariate
multivariate
although strictly speaking, the analyses he's talking about are simply multivariable, because they only have one outcome (pay) and not multiple. t. PhD statistician
Yet I'm sure you're perfectly okay with Bill Nye the Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering Guy saying that the gender spectrum is a scientific fact.
Shills go
Does she have any kids?
It's more likely that they are off by a little bit, rather than being completely wrong. For the most part, a single man living with his mom knows he is worth less than a CEO of a multi-national.
Actually I’m not. I studied biology, not psychology.
But don't they also have true beliefs?
We observe it, presumably
The ever mysterious Kek: woe is us to recognize you
You come to this Polynesian underwater basketweaving internet chatbox and you dangle your hilarious bait.
Woe is us to watch your farce; worse, to be entangled and exacerbated!
yah psychology is completely made up we'd need magic crystal balls to predict human behavior and thought patterns.
Right..
I’m not so sure you can prove that. Death seems to be the ultimate arbiter of human psychology.
So if we observe lobster social rank we should be able to observe human social rank. Thus it should be easy to define it.
>it should be easy to define
Even if the definition of social rank were relevant in any way to this discussion (it's not) why would it be easy?
Human society is infinitely more complicated than lobster society.
Now you’re just making words and shit up. Stop trying to build an imaginary argument.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Death is the only motivator, and humans are not motivated by trying to improve their social status?
If you like, you can define it as a human's importance within their society. Although, what's more important is your perception of your rank.
That is not what we are discussing, free will is a philosophical concept and not tangible, we are talking about biological causes for difference in behaviour.
Why do you deprive human beings, in your tought experiment, of any biological mechanics? JBP is not meaning lobsters and humans are absolutely identical but he is merely
pointing behavioural differences that have biological causes. To claim that something similar can't be present in humans is contrary to what modern science is telling us.
We have absolutely no reason to believe, either biologically or historically, that there isn't and always has been a distinct difference between males and females.
So what exactly does lobster social rank have to do with human social rank?
Why did he use the analogy?
I’m asking for a definition of social rank since he seems to imply it’s created in the genes of the central nervous systems,.
We both have a very similar nervous system which controls seratonin based on our perceived rank in our own respective hierarchies.
Do you understand yet?
Serotonin is released in the brain when humans feel they have high status. This causes them to want to reach a higher status, and naturally they develop hierarchies within society. We have observed the same behavior in lobsters, with whom we share a common ancestor.
Check this out:
scientificamerican.com
Our nervous systems aren’t similar at all. I think you’re delusional.
>that one obvious shill who accounts for half the posts in the thread
So taking anti depressants increases your social rank?
I'm on your side
Oh well, Jordan thinks they're similar!
>a pathetic attempt at understanding turns into a pathetic attempt at trolling, when understanding doesn't go so well
Goodbye
>le "not real science" autism
Ok, keep drinking the koolaide.
>24 replies
Not directly but it changes your behaviour and that COULD elevate your social rank.
Peterson is a fraud. You guys should just accept it.
If you're depressed and they enable you to be more productive and achieve more then why wouldn't they?
Well there ya go. Same digits confirm the answer.
Still waiting for you to explain how he is wrong....
so what youre saying is basically hes legit, got it
Quads of truth.
We haven’t yet determined what social risk actually is.
Peterson claims social rank exists in lobsters. So I will assume this is true which means social rank is objectively observable in lobsters.
What is the equivalent objective measure of observable social rank in humans?
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke.""You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke.""You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke.""You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke.""You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."
"You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke.""You're lucky Jews rule over us". They are smarter than you. Be grateful. All of my friends are Jews because they are smarter, and I am your father, Luke."