Приятного просмотра

Jordan Peterson Vs Social Constructionism: UFV Spain (Full Interview) Clean Audio

Опубликовано: 18 дней назад
41 834 просмотров
👎 25
Скопируйте и вставте на Ваш сайт

Описание

Don’t be a Cypher. Be a Neo.
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #IDW
Dr. Jordan B Peterson was raised as a Christian conservative, and began questioning religion in his early teens. He criticizes the New Atheists (specifically Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) for oversimplifying the philosophy of Christianity when making their critiques. Peterson often points to the symbolic underlying meaning of the archetypal ideas in religious mythology when explaining his understanding of religion.
He grew up in Fairview, Alberta, Canada, a small town of 3,000 people 580 km (360 mi) northwest of Edmonton, Alberta. He resided in Montreal from 1985 to 1993, where he studied under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl and Maurice Dongier. From 1993 to 1998 he lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard. He has resided in Toronto since 1998.
At the age of 13, Peterson had joined the New Democratic Party (NDP). He remained continually active with party until the age of 18. He has two bachelor degrees from the University of Alberta. His first was in political science. After visiting Europe, Peterson became extremely interested in the psychological unpinning that created the circumstances of the Cold War and its origins within the Second World War. After this experience, he returned to the university to complete another bachelor in psychology.
He received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University. He taught at Harvard University as an assistant and an associate professor. There he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse. During his time at Harvard, the university psychology department would frequently send any student with a strange or unusual thesis to him, as he would be willing to entertain and supervise uncommon thesis proposals. After Harvard, he returned to Canada and took a position at the University of Toronto.
In March of 2017, Peterson was nominated for the position of Rector of the University of Glasgow. Peterson who received 442 votes came fifth in the election, losing to the Scottish lawyer Aamer Anwar who received just under 4500 votes.
Video Notes
UFVedu
Streamed live Nov 13, 2018
Presentación del libro "12 reglas para vivir" de Jordan B. Peterson en la UFV
https://youtu.be/Y8f4tMWt4Nc
UFVedu
Published on Nov 14, 2018
Presentación del libro "12 reglas para vivir. Un antídoto al caos" (Inglés)
https://youtu.be/0CGpaMCL7S4
JORDAN PETERSON
Website ► https://jordanbpeterson.com/
Support Our Mission
► Monthly Support ► Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/ThinkClub
► One-time Support ► PayPal ► https://www.paypal.me/friended
► Awesome T-Shirts ► https://adamfriended.threadless.com/
Find Adam Friended
Website ► https://AdamFriended.com/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/friended4ever
Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/adamfriended/
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/adamfriended/
Minds ► https://www.minds.com/friended
Personal Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/c/friended
Backup Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/styrofoamheart
PATRONS
Special thanks to my Think Club patrons John Le Scone, Josh Henderson, Luis Perez, Kalaanidhi Ananda, Bob Balabuch, Josh Cornelius, Paul Guthrie, Rosey, R, John Buck, Erin Collins, Mac Kennon, Mark Bennett, Phalanx, Jesse Regnart and Duane Bentzen. Thank you so much for your continued support.
Rebel Waste, Zannyzander, Sally Ferguson, Julien Denis, Autocosm, Isaac Smith, David Bishop, Mike Yunik, Ausyarr, Angru Pengy, Halifax Shadow, Bearingcab, deefsound, Reid Nicewonder, eric smith, Zombrero, Lyndon Vinsky-McEwen, MFW, lr, Donoterase, Ashley Glenday, Shuttlecock, Medivak, Sage Thurmond, Medivak, Vince H., Newsish, Kit Sandlebar
FAIR USE NOTICE
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.

Субтитры

Нет субтитров

Комментарии

ADAM FRIENDED • 18 дней назад
There is a very short audio issue in the beginning but they fix it very quickly. I married the best audio with the 1080p picture. Enjoy.
👍 100
Jide1000 • 13 дней назад
ADAM FRIENDED 👍🏽
👍 0
Tristen Arnold • 13 дней назад
Thanks for the upload!!
👍 0
Kurt Jensen • 15 дней назад
Thank you so much Adam for posting all these JBP vids. Even though he repeats himself alot, I found it soothing to listen to. I use it as background while working :)
👍 0
zack fritz • 17 дней назад
Hey man, thanks for the great content as always. I went through a deep Jordan Peterson dive because of you bringing together clips and other interviews like this. I greatly appreciate it.
👍 1
Craig Stewart • 18 дней назад
ADAM FRIENDED Thanks. I’ve often enjoyed JP’s analysis of hierarchies and his contempt for Marxism.
👍 2
JTNugget • 16 часов назад
What happened to think club?
👍 0
Ano Nym • 1 день назад
I also looked into the "criticisms" of Peterson and found them rather not helpful. It also struck me often that, besides a condescending tone of speaking, various presumptions were made, one of them being: "You are a fanboy, stop being a fanboy."
For me, Rudolf Steiner is much more inspiring and a "beacon", but Peterson is a very important individual who clearly has done a significant amount of work on himself to control his language, behaviour and emotions, and he takes people and phenomena seriously. As mundane as it might sound to some: This is very rare! We live in the age of the Consciousness Soul, as Steiner calls it, and the reappearance of Christ (not "Jesus") in the Ethereal, and people have to learn to become masters of themselves. Individual spiritual activity through the act of Thinking is primary. I think Peterson is one of those rare persons who is preparing the soil for humans to find themselves as powerful spiritual beings.
👍 0
Ken Reyes • 2 дня назад
Wolff can win a debate with Peterson. Reality is a hard pill but we need to swallow it so we can get Earth together for the 99.99% . TOM PIKETTY proves that wealth concentrates in the .001% . That wealth = political power. That power changes laws to legalize organized crimes against the people. This is all proven in Piketty's history book " Capital in the 21st century ". Economic data going back 250 years over every country on Earth (except north Korea). We need to face this fact or we cannot fix it .
👍 1
RageQuit Gaming • 3 дня назад
Why can't I get a God damn job as a sound engineer when everyone is so bad at it 😂
👍 0
Malcolm Perez • 3 дня назад
Buddy got on the 3pc. pinstripe. He serious.
👍 0
Rafeek Gafoor • 4 дня назад
Success defined: 42:15
👍 0
phillip laird • 5 дней назад
No mam, men are terrified of Dr. Peterson but we a drawn to truth even when it hurts. Ergo, we are drawn to his message.
👍 0
mattronimus • 5 дней назад
why am I wearing red lipstick?
cause you watched vices hit piece.
👍 0
Schleicherfreund • 5 дней назад
1:10:35
They are NOT the same. They are both collectivist, what determines if they are on the left, or on the right is whether or not they want to control hierarchies. If they say "The Hierarchies are natural and just", they are right wind, if they believe "The Hierarchies are immutable and socially constructed and unjust (need flattening)", then they are on the left.
This is THE distinction between them, and I believe how people have to oriient the political compass after, because it solves the problem, whether or not the Nazis were socialist, since socialism is usually associated with the left, and the Nazis called right-wingers. And this aligns the conservatives, the liberals, the commies and the nazis perfectly, if you view both sides as Hierarchie justifying/critiquing.
👍 0
Martin Metz • 5 дней назад
Peterson creates order in the confused mind of our western society so that we can better recognize how liberal society manipulators take influence into our life.. Because he exposes them indirectly he is much hated. We should recognize our true identity as sons and daughters of the same parent of humankind, namely Heavenly Parent God.
👍 0
Schleicherfreund • 5 дней назад
1:10:00
Trump? A COLLECTIVIST?
You mean the guy who is pro LEGAL immigration. The guy who's knee jerk reaction to anti-semites, and male rapists is "death-sentence". That guy is a collectivist? A collectivist for what? For American culture? That makes him a died-in-the-wool nationalist. Not a fucking collectivist! If the collective is an entire fucking country, without discrimination between them, as long as they are legal citizens, then your definition of collective is so watered down, it might as well not exist. Which is what happens when you try and collectivize the individual, btw, you'll eventually realize that the individual is the the most diverse character there is, so you'll have to dispense with collectivization, because otherwise your worldview becomes pathological.
So maybe he's a collectivist for "law-abiding americans"... odd description, if you want my opinion. Kind of misleading...
👍 0
Miki Miyazaki • 5 дней назад
Jordans brilliant and I absolutely love the guy, but he's still doing what he acknowledged was a fault. He Interrupts quite a bit, and it bugs the hell out of me cause he comes across as rude as hell lol even though that's not his intent.
👍 0
Valjean Lafitte • 5 дней назад
Life goal: To meet a woman who looks at me the way this interview looks at Jordan Peterson.
👍 0
sen • 5 дней назад
35:00. I'm on Peterson's side, but he's a complete shill for declining to have this discussion. Open encounters with the ideas unlike your own are what make you grow, are what provide the foundation for truth to take root and flourish--right, right. Cowardice. Even though I agree with Peterson and don't find Woolf's ideas attractive in the least, it's nothing but virtue signaling to suggest that he can't have a civil discussion with someone who holds the ideas he would like to see resigned, AND who works in university, all because he wouldn't deign to speak to someone whom he essentially compares to a Nazi sympathizer. People should be calling him out on this, and I should imagine all but those who make an idol out of Peterson would.
EDIT: He literally goes on in this discussion to expound upon all of the ideas that run contrary to his weaselly perspective on debating Woolf. Nice doublethink, Peterson.
👍 0
Accelerationist • 6 дней назад
VOX party FTW!!!
👍 0
William D • 6 дней назад
She wears lipstick 💄 because she’s a dirty whore.
👍 0
Jeffrey O'Neill • 6 дней назад
Finally a real feminist.
👍 0
Savvy Volley • 6 дней назад
Am I the only one that notices how bad Dr. JBP's audio is quite frequently? Like they deliberately give him the shit mic and/or turn him down during editing.
👍 0
alastermyst • 6 дней назад
5:57 ish basically says "The fact that you question it doesn't prove I'm ignorant". That is of course true, but trivially so. The fact of not having an answer to the question does prove ignorance though. But, most importantly here, ignorance in an unavoidable fact of life. Everyone is ignorant about all sorts of topics. You can even be ignorant about a subset in a particular topic such that you can basically do something but not explain it to someone else.
"Ignorance" isn't inherently a bad thing.
👍 0
Big Ern • 4 дня назад
+alastermyst It is a complete rhetorical question. The "question" is in reference to a book he wrote. Not happenstance of a random conversation or interview question. It's a direct challenge to a POINT BROUGHT UP IN THE BOOK! You do know that right? You don't know that do you? Did you read it?...you didn't... Anyway whatever, in the book he explains at length exactly what the influence and benefit of the institution of marriage is on society. His thinking on the subject known... A request to "Defend marriage" in and of itself is a confrontational stance from someone WHO ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. If they didn't know what was in the book... they wouldn't have asked that question. Has nothing to do with finding out anything new which is why it's not a question. It's entirely and purely an in to make an ideological jump-off point to have an argument about something that isn't a math problem... There is no absolute correct answer, and he doesn't claim there is. Have you watched any of the interviews he's done by left-wing media "journalist" (if you can call them that) talk show host, etc.? Not answering a call like that does not make a person ignorant, or even that he's nothing to say. Pedantry... dishonest? WTF? You aren't paying attention, and maybe it's you that isn't worth time. Calling something you don't know of or don't understand as wrong, or dishonest is what makes you... well... ignorant.
👍 0
Miki Miyazaki • 5 дней назад
+alastermyst 😨
👍 0
alastermyst • 5 дней назад
+Big Ern "Not being able to answer a rhetorical question does not require the questioned person to be ignorant." It isn't rhetorical, it is a valid question.
""Defend marriage"... isn't a question... " So instead of addressing the actual, reasonable question like "why do you defend/support marriage" taken from the context of the conversation you are going to go into unproductive, childish, and/or dishonest levels of pedantry? Then you are a troll and not worth spending anymore time on.
👍 0
Big Ern • 5 дней назад
No it doesn't... at all. Not being able to answer a rhetorical question does not require the questioned person to be ignorant. "Defend marriage"... isn't a question... it's statement requesting someone battle opinion with anecdote. It's like asking someone if they're going to stop beating their wife. If a person who doesn't beat their wife doesn't answer that question it doesn't make them ignorant... it makes them aware that answering the question at all acknowledges the presupposition that you do no matter what you say. That straw-man tactic has been 100% of the premise of every interview (challenge) to Jordan regarding his book I seen so far... I've watched probably most of his interviews. Not answering sometimes is the exact correct response only recognized by someone who isn't ignorant.
👍 1