Wuzzums

Let me put a series of events in chronological order: - Jordan Peterson (JP) worked on UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development circa 2013 (source) - JP wrote the underlying narrative - The document JP worked on states: "The universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected. These migrants make a positive economic contribution to their host countries, by building up their labour force." (source see page 18 under International Migration) - In 2015 the migrant crisis begins - Circa 2016 huge right-wing backlash in most European countries, most prominently the steady rise of the Alt-Right, which culminates in the election of Donald Trump who ran on an overt anti-migration agenda - Around the same time JP gets into his whole gender pronouns issue which due to the MSM's attention has gotten him world-wide fame - JP is seen as a hero of the right though he never explicitly called himself right-wing nor left-wing - The tension between the Left and Right grow ever more strongly - Attacks by the Left on Peterson include his association with right-wing movements which, again, he never explicitly renounced - In several talks and Patreon Q&A vids he's asked the JQ and his relationship to the Alt-Right and avoids answering both questions by just laughing them off as silly; This has 2 effects (or maybe 2 purposes): (a) avoiding the JQ si a dog whistle for the Alt-Right types who think Peterson is not answering because he doesn't want to indite himself (in their words "he's not showing his true power level"), and (b) avoiding associating himself with right-wing movements is the same dog whistle, but in reverse, for the leftist audience. The result is an exponential growth of his audience while towing a very fine line. - In 2017 JP DEPLATFORMS Faith Goldy, a notable right-wing Christian journalist, because she was interviewed on a right-wing podcast. The notable aspect of this event is that the speech she was invited to talk at was called "Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses", JP was the one that requested she was thrown out, JP was the one that spun this hypocrisy as "irony", JP was the one that later on spun on Joe Rogan (and several other talks) Faith Goldy's interview as she being the one which was doing the interviewing. - In 2018: JP became a mainstream media figurehead with his appearance on Bill Maher, JP allied himself with Ben Shapiro the notorious neocon and Never-Trumper, and JP started attacking the Alt-Right directly at most of his events Now let's talk about Elizabeth Holmes, the woman nicknamed the "female Steve Jobs". She looked the part (turtleneck included), she talked like an entrepreneur, she spoke at all the right events and to all the right people, she said all the right things, and she has all the right opinions. She was just the perfect woman for the perfect "current year". Her company was evaluated at 9 BILLION $. Everybody wanted to believe in her. And overnight she was ousted as a fraud and all her cards came crumbling down. So finally my question is: Is Jordan Peterson the hero we want? Is he saying things we want to hear or need to hear? Are his rugs really worth 2000$ or are they overpriced pieces of new-age crap? Did we play ourselves, yay or nay?

Scott Adams recently made some insanely idiotic claims which not only directly contradict core edicts for FDR but also promote a demonstrably damaging way of thinking. I'm not exaggerating. If you don't care to bother yourself with the video he makes the following fallacies: - assumes kids raised in the same family are raised identically - states that because the outcome of bad parenting is not always bad people then bad parenting has no effect on the outcome of kids - implies that laws that protect kids are detrimental to kids - says he has a scientific basis for it without quoting a single study - implies he knows more about raising kids that most people, him being a literal cuck who didn't even bother to properly raise his adopted children - says abusive alcoholic parents love their kids - blames unruly kid behavior on the kids themselves - direct quote:: "THE ABSOLUTE WORST WAY TO RAISE A CHILD IS WITH BOTH PARENTS AT HOME" - implies good parenting and having money are the same thing - families (homes) are destroyed b bad teenagers and not bad parents - laughs at how fathers used to "beat the shit out of" their sons and had no repercussions - implies the laws against "getting physical" with children are detrimental; says spanking is "little stuff" - says bullying has more of a detrimental effects on kids than bad parenting - says we should make a registrar for underage kids So when is the debate happening? Surely his perspective is far more damaging that Kokesh's intransigent libertarian/ancap ideals. "The Truth About ..." series has always taken shots (valid critiques imo) on sacred cows some of which were regarding their abysmal parenting practices. What we have here in Scott Adams is a right-wing/alt-media sacred cow that fits the series AND is also alive. Milo was pilloried by both sides, both friends and enemies, and he almost faded into obscurity but ultimately realized the errors of his ways, apologized, and got his career on track again. Will Scott Adams do the same? Or a better question still: Will Scott Adams be pushed into the same corner by us who are oh so virtuous with our principles?

@barn Well that was the thing. I don't know what the conversation was about. Stefan had his usual arguments but I can't say I understood the caller's perspective. I rewinded several times but his arguments still seemed disjointed because he would change his train of thought after each interruption. Nonetheless I suspect his determinist stance was the same as Sam Harris' which is iron clad. There are no counterarguments to this brand of determinism because it redefines free-will as essentially being omnipotence. Basically because we have limits on the choices we can make, like the laws of physics, we are limited therefore we can predict with 100% accuracy what we can't do. This is why Stefan was so confused when the caller said determinism includes choice. We can't choose the thoughts we don't have because being able to choose them implies having them... therefore determinism.

On the second call, how come Stefan takes offense when the caller implies "magical thinking" on Stefan's part but then later on proceeds to dismiss the caller mid-argument calling it a "word-salad"? Furthermore, what's the point in interrupting the caller, going on a diatribe about bears, then asking the caller to rephrase his argument because he didn't understand it even though the caller didn't have a chance to finish it on his first try? I got really annoyed during this call as you can see. Each time I was trying to listen to what the guy had to say he was interrupted and mocked. Are the "funny voices" meant to be entertaining or annoying because if it's the latter good work. Then the caller also got called out for not being able to talk to the public Socrates style, which is very informative because I had no idea Socrates was never able to go through a line of reasoning without being cut off right before he was about to clarify his point. But no, I'm sure the caller's real problem was him using the word "orthogonal". I have read Art of The Argument and I don't remember there being a chapter called "So what you're saying is...". Maybe it will be available in future editions?

The movie was very confusing for me because it had a lot of foreshadowing that didn't really play out at the end. Like the casino planet. Hackerman explains to Finn that the world is not the good guys (Rebels) vs. the bad guys (First Order). It's shade of gray and not picking a side and not killing your fellow sentient being leads to prosperity and peace as evidenced by all the wealth and peace on that planet. They basically got thrown out not because they weren't upper class or whatever, they were thrown out for breaking some parking violations. So this little plot element was playing through my mind when Rey and Kylo Ren were having an "out with the old, in with the new" type of chat. I literally thought they were gonna join forces in secret because game theory. It established that it was the nature of the Force to always be a conflict between the two sides so the only way to win is by joining forces. Meaning Rey is going to lead the rebellion, Kylo Ren the First Order, both these sides will duke it out as they always did with Rey and Kylo being secret allies and keeping the collateral damage to a minimum. This was the only way the rest of the galaxy could live in peace, you control the warring factions on both sides. This makes sense on both a phylosophical level, and on a SJW trying to dismantle everything about Star Wars level. It plays on both sides. Normal people get a lesson in game theory, SJW's get to get rid of the whole Jedi/Sith dichotomy. The 3rd movie could've been also really interesting if this were the path they had taken. For instance Rey and Kylo achieve relative balance, the 2 factions are still at war but neither side gains one inch on the other the result being peace for those not taking part in the conflict. But the force is the force and it's going to give birth to new Jedi and new Sith that would put Rey and Kylo's delicate balance in danger. So the 3rd movie could be Rey hunting down new Sith and Kylo hunting down new Jedi. Or maybe the other way around, the new guys find out about the pact and Rey is hunted by Jedi and Kylo by Sith. Imagine all the lightsaber duel possibilities. The possibilities are endless but I guess we're going to see the same old child story redone over and over again in perpetuity.

Yes, her being family makes your situation complicated but I was trying to say that she won't be the last person with HPD that will latch on to you (if my assumptions are correct). When that will happen just ignore the person. In your sister's case just don't do anything because if she's not getting what she wants from you she'll find someone else. I don't believe the sexual behavior is related to a sex drive. Like I've said, HPD's are attention seeking, that's their end goal. Sex is another way to get that. Imagine being in a competition with a bunch of males and you turn overnight into a very attractive woman. How will you act? Will you try to hide your cleavage and dress modestly? Or will you amp-up your sensuality to 11 just to get that competitive edge over the men? It's an impersonal type of sexuality. The 2nd person in my previous post for example said she had lost her virginity to a random taxi driver because "it was time" or something like that. Later however in her story she casually mentions she gets free cab rides now. So you see, it wasn't about sex it was about the free cab rides. It wasn't a random guy, it was someone she chose because she knew she could manipulate him. This particular person had an uncanny ability of zero-ing on a person's type/insecurities. She had me figured out in half a second and I'm not exaggerating. In less than 10 minutes she had a room of 20 people eating from the palm of her hand. This is why I have my doubts that your sister (again, if she has HPD, which is not exactly rare) is subservient to her sex drive. She's cognizant of what she's doing.

Only the ugly ones. Feminists do love them some sharia law.

I have known women that exhibit that same physical closeness. I have had a friend that I accidentally elbowed several times. I would just do my usual movements and gesticulation but she would be standing so close to me (and out of my sight) it would've been impossible not to touch her. This same friend also had this odd fantasy-like attraction to her father. I don't know how to put it, she didn't like the real man but she liked her imaginary version of him. The closest analogy I can think of is having a crush on Hermione but hating Emma Watson's guts. Something like that. She also fantasized about a cousin of hers (the implication being that if he wasn't her cousin then you know what) but I brushed that off as something typical of single children. They cannot possibly comprehend the bond between brother and sister and that bond is psychological more than biological. Study shows it is formed in early childhood, the promoter being seeing your mother caring for the other person (which applies whether it's a sibling, cousin, or unrelated individual). Another person of this type I have met also had daddy-like issues, her words. She was cognizant of the problem but she saw it as something interesting rather than a problem to be fixed. In both of these cases the father was a peripheral figure, not having much to do with the raising of the child. Attention starved I'm guessing they begin this cavalcade of strategies to get their primary male figure to notice them. And another woman (older than me this time) that also exhibited these traits (closeness, tension in the air, etc) never once mentioned her father but constantly talked about her son which was a teenager. It wasn't about specific things, it was about her mentioning she has a responsibility towards him, that she was bound by him. Very impersonal type of statements. This is not out of the ordinary of course BUT she said those things in every single conversation she ever had with anyone. The diagnosis is Histrionic Personality Disorder though Cluster B personality disorders might be a more appropriate because people usually shift from all 3 disorders. Here's what I find fascinating and I want to run by you so I know I'm not making up theories. For starters all 3 of the women I have mentioned said they liked me. The first two that I can attest have had (or have) boyfriends that resemble me in temperament/personality... and you. I too have a low tolerance for drama in that I don't care about it nor does it affect me in any way emotionally. I also have a penchant for solitary endeavors like you do with chess. Another funny coincidence is the dream you mentioned. After cutting ties with my friend with HPD (because like you I had no idea what was going on exactly) I have had a very similar dream. In my case it was her grandfather that warned me and said the more I ignored her or not pay attention the more her seductive behavior will be accentuated. Speaking from personal experience, if attention IS given it is either (a) ignored or (b) seen as intrusive. It's literally a 3 ways to lose, no way to win scenario. So if I am correct then it means her currency is not desire but attention. Overtly sexualizing herself is just one of many attention-seeking strategies available for her, and probably the most effective one. My advice which is also the advice I have received from a psychiatrist, is to avoid these types of people entirely. If I am correct in assessing that you have something about you that people with HPD (cluster B) are drawn to, the winning strategy is not to give in because almost invariably HPD's always find another target. Here are some famous case studies: - youtuber Laci Green. After years of spewing feminist bs in an sexualized manner she switched sides not because of arguments but because (a) feminism is not trendy anymore, and (b) she's banging some dude that can easily be classified as >ourguy - actress Angelina Jolie. She has been formerly diagnosed with HPD (or one of the cluster B's, doesn't really matter). Just to a google image search of "angelina jolie brother" and you'll see why I brought her up. - actor Will Smith. I'm just theorizng here because I don't have much experience with males but he exhibits all the traits. My guess as to why he dropped out of the lime-light is that he's getting his attention-fix from somewhere else, mainly his son Jaden, which might be gay seeing how he likes dressing up in skirts.

Yes. Or at the very least it's the only third option I can think of.

I take it you two are not related by blood, correct?. What's the age difference?

There are more options available than those you listed. For instance it's no that they believe in doing the right thing, it's that they do what feels "right" to them. It's a vice. People give foreign aid because they want the comfort of not having to thing about people dying of starvation. People who are for foreign aid get peace of mind with close to zero losses. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say your mother is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Let's say she was a good parent. Leaving her on her own will rack your mind with guilt. Sending her off to a nursing home and getting constant reassurance by the caregivers she's doing splendidly will give you no guilt. So which of these 2 versions is "the right thing" to do? Shouldn't there be a 3rd option there too? Also if they think foreign aid is the right thing they will donate to a charity. They will take time from their day, do copious amounts of research, open their wallets and donate. Or they will personally get involved with a charity. That's how people act when they believe they're doing the right thing. They don't just talk the talk. I'm curious if there's a study on the correlation between support for foreign and how much people pay in taxes. Something tells be the relation is inversely proportional. It's infinitely easier to decide what other people should do than what you should do. I think you'll be surprised how hard people double down even when you explain how much harm an action of their does even if it's with "good intentions". Grill someone on foreign aid, if they still support it then they're saying doing harm to others is worth it in order to being able to virtue signaling on twitter.

There's an audiobook version on YouTube but it's read with a computer voice. Difficult to listen to, made it halfway through, didn't see a reason to continue. Well a huge warning sign for me is that he hasn't defined rationality. That statement of his is just "word thinking". What I learned from FDR is how to think like an economist: always look at the hidden costs and benefits. I hold the polar opposite world view, all humans are highly rational. Why do single moms vote for bigger government? To get access to resources. Why does Cenk of TYT, an atheist, advocate for islam? Because his relatives are all muslims. Why do communists want to kill millions of people? Because they hate humanity. Why do fat chics say beauty is a social construct? Because they're hoping it will raise their sexual market value. Why do post-modernists say logic is a social construct? Because they have no arguments. And so on and so forth. The whole adage of "never attribute malice to what you can attribute stupidity to" is incorrect. If you assume malice from the start you'd be correct in most cases. What Scott Adams refers to I think is that most people are wrong. Wrong and irrational aren't interchangeable. My favorite character from Dune is the villain himself, the Baron Harkonnen. In the Dune universe intelligent technology was forbidden so as a stand-in people use Mentats, super-genius warrior monks. The mentat is the inspiration for the Jedi. They had perfect reasoning, perfect memory, intimate knowledge of all sciences and philosophies, perfect discipline, IQ 200+, etc. The Baron Harkonnen had a mentat himself but there was something wrong with his mentat. He laughed a lot, he was a sadist, had vices, said crazy things; this was the inspiration of the Sith. The Baron's nephew asked him why he kept the broken mentat still, it wasn't as if he provided any sort of service, he was just a broken piece of equipment. The Baron responded that he kept him around as a warning, if he is able to turn a mentat into such a sad creature just image what he could do to a lesser being. The nephew said he was crazy because nobody can outsmart a mentat and that he knew the Baron and that his intelligence didn't even come close to that of a mentat. The Baron laughed and said that outsmarting a mentat is easy, you just give them wrong information. So it doesn't matter how smart you are, with wrong data you will come to wrong conclusions. Corrupt data in, corrupt data out. Information is key to controlling anyone. With selective information you can even turn Milton Friedman himself into a staunch communist, or Ben Shapiro into a nazi. This is what I think Scott Adams is referring to.

He says free will is a necessary and pleasant illusion and people run on algorithms just like computers. Once you know these patterns it's easy for you to exploit them and manipulate people to your will, or how he puts it "persuade people". Though persuasion, manipulation, etc are not apt terms to describe the phenomenon of changing the will of the masses. The correct term is "propaganda" in its original definition as described by Edward Bernays (which is a wide net encompassing both negative and positive aspects). If you don't know who he is all you need to know is that he was Freud's nephew and in his youth at some point he learned his uncle was having money-problems so he decided to make Freud world-famous to fix his finances. He's also the reason why women smoke even till this day, and he did that just as a test. Stefan has a similar view in that free will is on a spectrum. The least self knowledge you have the more you are controlled by instinct and outside forces. The more self-knowledge you have the less you are controlled by instinct and outside forces. This also falls in line with my "3 types of humans" worldview. Scott Adams has training in hypnosis, and hypnosis is just applied psychology, and psychology is the methodology behind self-knowledge. I don't know but it certainly seems so. Stefan seems successful using that approach and he does lead a kind of life I find appealing (which is what attracted me to the show in the first place). My personal failures in achieving a deep connection weren't because of a flaw in the RTR method per se but the unwillingness of the other person to take the leap. I read a lot and am curious about most things so in my case it basically just happened.

I have the very same worldview. I was fed from an early age the idea that everybody is unique but are they really? I see the same people over and over again. They say the same things, use the same words, like the same movie, enjoy the same hobbies, etc. You (and I) call them zombies, 4chan calls them normies, Scott Adams calls them moist robots. Ever since my awakening so to speak I have concluded that the world is made out of 3 types of people: children (the protected class), people, and persons. Culture is a bowl and people are the water poured into it. People conform to societal norms much like the shape of a bowl dictates the form of water. Kids are like ice, they need to be thawed in order for them to be able to take on the shape of the bowl. Persons are like the debris that accumulates at the bottom of the bowl. Time is like a hand that empties the bowl though there's a very good chance the debris will stay in place. The stronger a person is the stickier the debris is and sometimes it can be so sticky it becomes part of the bowl itself thus changing its shape ever so slightly. I believe it's a linear process: kids become people and people become persons. However not every kid becomes peoples (adults) and not every people becomes a person. Most kids become people, but very few people become persons. Each transition requires free will and, speaking from personal experience, most people actively choose not to become persons/individuals. I myself don't want to go back because I have never seen some zombie/normie/moist robot lead the kind of life that I would like to have. I don't hate that type of living, I don't think it's a bad way of living, I just know where that type of living leads to. It's already been tried by countless people before and it will be tried by countless people after. I want to take another path because I'm curious where it would lead, and I know that straying from the common path is also the only way of becoming unwashable debris. In other words I'm taking a chance over certainty. You also talk about being isolated for taking the red pill. Compared to what? Have you seen blue pillers be connected to each other more than on a superficial level?

Yes, because taking time out of my day to try to help a stranger is being condescending... You get a downvote for your lack of logic and another downvote for making me waste my words. That's a false dichotomy especially since poor people in the US are fat. Furthermore if the thread isn't about him how come he instantly became hostile when I brought it to a personal level?

I quoted him directly and the topic is him not being able to get a job. I pointed out why that may be, gave evidence, and offered a solution. Then he proved he's not here to fix his problem but to engage in a circle jerk about how helpless he is because he started insulting me when I pushed back against his narrative: Any other obvious thing you want explained before I ignore this pointless thread completely?

My reasoning for that assumption was right there in my first post as clear as day or did you avoid reading it like he did?

SJW always double down. I rest my case.

Did I just trigger you because I dared to suggest taking responsibility for your own actions? My, my, my... you are indeed a snowflake.

You have the wrong mindset for getting a job. Case and point: you live in the US and don't have a job when unemployment is at its lowest in 17 years. All these phrases show is a lack of taking responsibility and ownership for your own actions. Nobody will ever hire you with that attitude. The moment you start blaming yourself is the moment you'll notice new opportunities popping up. No matter how struck down by faith or helpless you are, once you assume it's your fault your mind will start figuring out choices you could have made but didn't. Choices that at the time, because you assumed it's someone else's fault, were invisible to you. If that's the most evil disgusting thing you can think of then you are a snowflake.

I wasn't taking any offense, I was just trying to clarify the matter too.

Gypsies aren't romanians, at least not ethnically. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the kids in the romanian orphanages are/were gypsy kids. A gypsy woman holding a baby and begging is as common as sand on a beach. Why? Because people are primed to throw resources at a baby. Furthermore these babies/toddlers you see with beggar gypsies are ridiculously cute and lovable. Why? Because people are more partial to the cute ones and from a lot of 7-8 babies chances are the beggar gypsy will get an above average cute baby. It's a hustle, a despicable one. I didn't know about the poppy seeds tea thing but it makes sense because people shy away from a crying baby. For further reference here's a quick guide to gypsies: the young ones beg with their mother, the teenagers beg on their own, the adult men steal, the adult women beg and make babies, the old men beg, and the old women beg and read tarot cards.

Faith has a clear definition and it does not apply whenever any sort of evidence is present. A probability of something being either/or is evidence therefore faith does not apply. Choosing one possibility over another is not called having faith, it's called taking a gamble.

Read on the experiment itself. The "observer" in the text refers to the photon detecting device and not the scientist performing the experiment (i.e. the person observing the results). Light behaves like a wave 99.(9)% of the time with THE EXCEPTION of when a photon detecting device interferes with the light wave. Waves produce interference, that is why light produces interference. The question is not why particles behave like waves. the question is how does the photon detecting device change the properties of light so it behaves like a particle. Saying light behaves like both a particle and wave at the same time is factually innaccurate. In one situation you have light traveling through two slits producing an interference pattern (as expected). In another situation you have light interacting with a device and producing a different result (as expected because if you add an extra variable or tamper with the experiment in any way you will get a different result). These two scenarios are not equivalent.