yes. i get Way too loud aggressive and excited.

Bruh I know right. Its really a hidden talent

This guy is extraordinary he explains things in such a deep way you cannot mistake his meaning

@Antiblonda mmm, wtf. Mistaking arrogance and narcisism for being right. I worry about this trend.

@GoinNuts who says he’s right? You should worry more about not reading into things your own judgment

A legend in his own mind, certainly can impress the less educated. Pretty much on the wrong side of every issue I can think of from racism to climate change to Ukraine to economics to women’s rights.

@danny Sullivan Well, evidently the very educated can also be impressed by him, no? If he can substantiate ideas, while opponents play the "wrong side/right side" label game, what exactly is so surprising?

@Yolo Mcswaggens I'm waiting for him or you to substantiate climate change denial or why sexism is good, or why siding with Russia's aggression is good.

He really is. Ida come for this cvnt the whole time.

@Baddonkey I count 1, 2, 3 strawmen. Why argue with someone who is unreasonable or dishonest? Or perhaps you can prove that you are just uneducated, but somehow I don't think that will happen

”Experience is something I always think I have until I get more of it.” Can you give more ideas on how you achieved success by practicing the words of Peterson? I want to do this.

To achieve success, a financial consultant is needed to achieve your goal. I engage in various investments through guidance from my financial consultant and have so far achieved great returns. (the amount is confidential).

To get more details about my consultant (Isabelle Chloe Scott), do internet research with her full name above, where you can get in touch and write her. Give her experience a try and achieve success.

The substantial approach you got here; we all need this, feels so good to be here. God bless you. 🙏

This is an observation observed by him and observed by you then by me of the world. Which he can simply say in two words

To see a woman receive this positively is so great

And achievable. Over the course of thirty years, prescribing yourself to improve in debate and speech will make you just like the greats

Especially not with a person being as manpulative as the lady sitting in front of Jordan is. I dont like how she causes them both to talk in a circle and come to no further new consens for almost 2h straight. Its like hes prying her eyes open from her ideologistic views while shes despritely clinging on to her rotten core values which she now lives by and has made it her lifes mission to preach it elsewjere. I respect Jordan a lot, I would never have the patience to repeat myself this many times to a whole grown woman.

For real. Although I only understood maybe 60% of it. It makes me feel so smart listening to it though. Made me realize I need to learn more about lobsters.

Well put.

Agree very much so, except that I don't think of Dr. Peterson as strictly an academic. He has a private practice and is, or was, at this juncture, still a practicing clinician. So, I consider him as in the trenches, so to speak. He isn't just a spectator and commentator, but someone out there helping people. He put himself out there. Even further so; he went on to be an author and to speak in person and to teach as well. He's been a professor for quite some time.

Total excellence imo too.

Natives Americans arent filthy rich

@Joshua Jim define rich

JP takin this tryhard to school. She gets cred for trying though

Funnily enough he went through an epiphany and re-evaluated himself and wether most of what he said was ego and then realised that he sometimes had in the past said something that he didn't believe so a lie and it changed him there's videos on here on it, it takes an honest person to admit that they may have been wrong in the past,, I know someone will ask define honest 😉

So cool!

men

@Jaroslav :) A teacher ? ;)

@Troip well...yes, as a matter of fact. An English teacher.

@Jaroslav Good to know. Yet as You surely know your mobile can play tricks on you while typing replacing words, letters, changing spelling :)

How do you know that you just haven't fallen for a different narrative? Sorry, I minored in Psych. Had to throw that back at ya 🤣

Every generation has a few men like Peterson. My goal is to build a time machine so I can listen to the highly intelligent and eloquent speech and diction of all the previous generational articulators.

@Luke Carroll lol

Agreed. Id also add Thomas Sowell.

@backdraft808 omg finally!! I totally agree.. isnt Dr Thomas Sowell just brilliant!! I love his books and listening to him. Facts matter!

xd

and then it also happens in the rest of the western world. For example in the Italian media anchormen, following an American trend, now say "Mr. Xyz tells us its truth". But the truth is the truth! There is no "my truth", there may be my interpretation of it, or how I perceive it. But the truth is one: the factual truth.

Trst

The guy is a genius he really does see reality and says it how it is

​@Giulio The term for that social phenomena is called diffusionism.

Why should she. Her job isn't the privilage that need to be addressed, her easier route to that job is.

She was fantastic! Well read and prepared.

She is not intelligent,just really vocal and outspoken about her clearly fallacious theories and reasoning

100% agree with you.

@Drago Well, compared to Cathy Newman she's a genius, but that isn't saying much.

💯

You could tell she wasn't listening and just waiting for him to mess up.

This was not an interviewer, this was an activist pushing an agenda hoping to debunk things he said. In a article about this “interview” she said that she “stumped him” on multiple points. This woman is full of herself. Also you know how she made a point that a woman like her is married? She admitted to cheating on her husband and divorced lol

Feminism👏🙌

In fairness, he deflects quite a lot, too.

ShallowDramatic he came in for an interview not a political trap

He almost died but thank God he didn't

​@Reid MartinWhat? When?

He is highly trained for years

Isn't that non sense? Women were not considered person under English common law until recently. They had no civil rights and they could not own property. When they demanded these rights they were treated violently. Was this a tyrannical patriarchy or not ?

​@DSGI O Because, for women to have property in the first place men have to create urbanisation and cities and all that. Ofcourse, patriarchy is oppressive relatively to women, but it is the natural order of things. If their was a matriarchy,then men could also say it was oppressive . If not for sir isaac newton and steam engine, most women would have been in the kitchens and men would have been ploughing in the fields. By the by, i am not denying what you said.

@DSGI O Viewing human history exclusively through the sense of what is and what is not codified by law is a terrible folly. Most men were not recognised enough to vote until the last century either - were they not considered people either? This is the problem with these sorts of arguments is that not only are they preposterously reductive, historically and mathematically illiterate, but that they focus only on one tiny fragment of a massively complex and multi-dimensional picture. It was men who gave women the vote, was it not? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing a tyrannical system would allow. The preposterousness of also invoking the idea of violence when it is overwhelmingly men who are subject to violence. Legal recognition is not a prerequisite for personhood or inherent value as a human being. The absence of a specific group or characteristic in the law does not diminish the personhood of individuals who belong to that group. Every person, regardless of legal recognition, possesses fundamental human recognition and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. The law is an evolving system that often lags behind societal progress and changing perspectives. It is the responsibility of legal systems and societies to continually reassess and update laws to ensure inclusivity and equal recognition for all individuals, regardless of their characteristics or identities. Recognition of personhood and protection of rights should extend beyond legal frameworks and be rooted in our shared understanding of human dignity and equality.

​@Rich Media No one "exclusively" see history through law codification; however the facts remain. And the rights of different classes are crystalized and codified into laws. This is ONE of the few modes to evaluate a civilization. 1. True - some groups of men were excluded from the political process even until the 60s. But ALL WOMEN were excluded not just some groups. You don't need higher Math to realize that the status of women as a group was FAR worse than these groups. Women could not vote, own property , there were not legally persons, they were owned and transferred they had NO political rights ..ANd they did ALL family work for free. Aren't these enough for you to use the world oppression and tyrannical patriarchy ? 2. The question "It was men who gave women the vote, was it not?" is really shockingly naif to articulate and easy to answer : No they did not "give" this right. When they were asking for this right they were treated violently by the ruling class.. Just look it up your self .... After increasing social political pressure it was "given" to them .. 3. What you say about legal recognition of personhood is just false. If the law does not recognize you as person you cannot own property, or even to serve at a jury The ...Civil Rights Act of ....1957 - gave women the right to serve on federal juries, but it only in 1973 all 50 states passed similar laws. 4. Ideally - yes all individuals should act to modify immoral laws but if your interest are against a specific moral change then it is more difficult to take and/or support similar actions. Example: if you owned slaves and made a fortune from the labor you were most likely to argue FOR slavery... as history has showed us.

A toddler arm wrestling a giant

Perfect analogy.

Saving Private Ryan against the tank

Or blocking roads just coz your favorite candidate didn't get elected

You mean tampons

That's the power you gain when you know and stand firmly by your beliefs and morals.

She gets destroyed in every argument and then immediately changes topic , so disrespectful.

@Saad K By switching the topic after loosing an argument, she is not wasting more of his time than necessary. I think Jordan, just like us knows that he debunked whatever she argued.

@Saad K true. no accountability, no learning, no open mindedness. She cannot grow

The cost he is paying to say the truth, it's sad, but it's very admirable.

HE KNOWS! Smart man!

I know!! Hahaha he's awesome, agreed 100%

We need him now more then ever

Dang, well said.

He actually said this in a different video that he "tamed and integrated his inner monster" into his personality. Now he can appropriately use it when he sees fit. An incredible man for sure.

You are so right. So brilliant he's scary.

And it was with that statement Jordan Peterson won the psychological debate.

rEDiStriButioN

There all talk If women want more women in stem they should quit there job and do it why force others to do it if they wont themselves there telling other men and women what they should do for a job

@HD SINGH exactly they don't really believe what they're saying. They want the world to contort to their will without sacrifice. That's straight up unrealistic and illogical.

Have a read up on appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

Sam Harris was his best adversary

Clear evidence of selfish and unwise feminist.

Cognitive dissonance at its best. Everyone else give up your privilege but me. Also who is the privileged one here? The white European or the Canadian Native American? Hmmm who exploited who for centuries?

oh yeah.. that one stops these people in their tracks. lol

Of course it's easy to say someone else needs to give something up. Typical of these people to not want to give up anything themselves. Hypocrites.

I know feminist hypocrite

I swear they forget he is a professor and a well rounded one at that, first foremost.

@Roman von ungern-sternberg I think the same.

He's never lost for an educated response. He knows his stuff. I like that he does command respect with his answers. I think interviewers end up respecting him more in the end. If there were more conservatives like him who are NOT AFRAID to boldy oppose radical nonsense ... we be a LOT better off today!!!

@Free ThePeople jp isn't a conservative. Like Trump he is in what used to be the middle but the extreme radical left now refer to it as the "far right" to delude their viewers. Thinking for yourself and using facts regardless of emotions is now frowned upon.

At 52:30 why did they cut that part of the conversation?! I wanted to hear their discussion. Now I wonder how much more points they cut from this interview. 🙄

LOL, she was rubbish... she couldn't even argue why she believes what she believes... She thinks there's a patriarchy and that it's bad, she's also admitting to benefitting from that... but she wants to change it without giving up her wins.

I disagree that she was logical.

She didn’t demonstrate really any ability to think, she would only revert to her superficial talking points and that’s why this discussion seemed so disconnected IMHO.

Honestly the interview became much better after he told her that. I think she kinda knew he was right about that lol

Can you pin the minute, pls?

@Ti O 1:08:55

Possibly the meanest thing you could say to someone.

​@Phil L. Yeah, after that you can clearly feel that both of them are much softer than before like tension suddenly de-escalated.

Maybe it’s his competence in his ability to communicate his though process

I think it's the confidence 😁

Best comment in this thread so far. Thank you for pointing this out...i had not noticed this garbage. JP is EXACTLY what this western world needs. Men and women . My 14yo daughter introduced me to JP 😂 we both love his truth.

Lol, awesome joke Paragjyoti :)

Tiktaalik pathetic. name something he was wrong about?

It was a dig at the interviewer as well as an answer.

@npc #3467 Christian altruism as the ethical ideal. Sacrifice in all forms is unacceptable on rational grounds - that's why he reverts to the supernatural. He's a neo-mystic driving us to the next dark ages.

@Michael Svoboda And feminism and liberals are super honest....right?

This wasn't a rap battle. Her interview style is phenomenal. She was able to escalate and de-escalate the heat of the conversation as she desired, he was clearly in control of the flow of the conversation. He is also a phenomenal interviewee and I respect a lot of the things he has to say. This was a very even balance in fact. This wasn't meant to be a battle of the brains.

*she was clearly in control...

@Meghann Davies I understand you can relate to her but this was embarrassing since this was who they sent to challenge this man they need to send a woman who doesn't listen or talk with their emotions

Mu D nope, she was straight up rude, and she kept deleting comments that is against her

Mu D She did interrupt him tons of times, and she talked over him a bunch of times as well. Not saying she was bad, but what you are saying is wrong, she did interrupt, she was not tolerant, and she lacked the ability to argue based on the facts he pretended. And again, she was not bad.

Mutual respect? I dont see any respect from her

Respect? Almost all her questions tried to attack his character, the two twitter ones for example, the first insinuating he was an angry man because of twits, and then he defended himself very well, she just says "Then why did you end up doing this job, arguing with people?" Again trying to dismiss him and even his job as just an angry raving man. These were just two examples, the whole interview she tried this. Is this the respect you speak of it?

She's a lot of things but a Great mind isn't one of them

amazing to think that this interview is over 4 years old yet you and I can still watch it from beginning to end and find it relevant and interesting.

Microphone equality!

they did that on purpose cuz their argument is so weak

You do hear his mic in the later part of the interview. They may have forgotten to turn it up earlier, which could mean they never tested their equipment before beginning their work.

I wish you could have seen my reaction to reading this. I almost spot soda all over my desk.

Dude she is writing book about feminism.

Good luck man 🤞

@tkac345 Thank you.

@John Smith Thank you for your kind words.

You got to see what they're trying to do to him in Canada.

Agreed, except when it comes to the moon landings and the faking of going to space.

@dfdfdgg gjhjjh I live in Canada and although I agree with his stance on human interactions he is completely out of touch when it comes to faking space or believing that man landed on the moon. All Canadians are not indoctrinated.

@MysticNomad You could be right, I haven't looked into the moon landing, and the moon landing was not even on my radar with what I was talking about lol

Is that a joke?

@Rich Media 😂 Not a joke. She’s still a left winger. But she asked questions and then let Jordan speak rather than putting words in his mouth like Cathy Newman.

Me too. This lady makes me sick in a very nuanced way

well said!

Right i think she went into this thinking she was an equal to him on debating issues from her view points. He definitely proved that she wasnt.

@Joe Noonan Did you find any Peterson wins?

@Whitney Sanders Did you find any Peterson wins?

Veritable evidence that he used logic to dismantle her. Vast majority of people who watch this see a feminist fail to berate Jordan Peterson just because they feel hard done by 😂 he might not be in favour of a lot of what they stand for but he’s objective on the whole and she’s subjective.

@Shaun Chamberlainmaybe, but she’s well-studied, and very calm. Unlike most people on either side of the political aisle, she didn’t get upset with anything he said, and this was more of an actual debate as opposed to an emotional shouting match. It’s how discourse should be done, and I think it’s silly that people look at this as “OHHHHHH JORDAN OWNED THIS FEMINIST” when this was an interesting conversation between two people with different beliefs. I mean just look at the disastrous BBC interview with Elon Musk.

@SS no no I think she’s great not knocking her but don’t think anyone’s managed to quite beat him in a interview yet, and despite him seeming negative in some ways, like refusing to use others pronouns if asked, but barring that he’s quite spot on, and she was right aswell barring the patriarchy and that old equality of outcome debate.

I think she was a stellar representation of the feminist narrative and also quite quick thinking and confident. I don't think her worldview represents reality though, but it was interesting to see her try and make the case.

@Zachary Sandberg Her narrative is shallow and hollow. Every time JP forces her deeper into the argument she changes subject or circles back to the superficial slogan She cant go deeper. I dont know why people think she is smarter than the average feminist, she is just better spoken and calm.