Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
PJW could be spilling the truth of the universe and I wouldn't believe a word the cnut was saying because:
(1) this is his public avatar
...I remember when I was 14
and (2) he's from Sheffield, so when he opens his mouth he sounds like a boring, uninteresting twat. Tough luck buddy.
As an aside, Best teeth in the Game Melon Head Fantano did a good rip on him as well for his culture nonsense (if you haven't seen it):
Last edited:
PJW could be spilling the truth of the universe and I wouldn't believe a word the cnut was saying because:
(1) this is his public avatar
...I remember when I was 14
and (2) he's from Sheffield, so when he opens his mouth he sounds like a boring, uninteresting twat. Tough luck buddy.
As an aside, Best teeth in the Game Melon Head Fantano did a good rip on him as well for his culture nonsense (if you haven't seen it):
The best description I’ve heard about him is a teenage Ian Duncan Smith.
Doctor Peterson makes a claim based on new research:
In a shocking turn of events, it turns out his take is totally useless.
So, he is using an example of optimised digging by ants to talk about economic inequality.
Ignore that the reason for fewer ants doing work is because the tunnels are *physically crowded*, that the ants seem to be equally qualified to do this work, and are probably genetically very similar if they are from the same colony. Apparently this ant behaviour is a biological truth that underpins capitalism...
(Also a 30-70 distribution of wealth would be much more equitable than anything in the world currently: the bottom 70% actually owns 3% of global wealth.)
More detailed takedown here:
and a one-liner
Evolpsych, at least the pop version he does, is a dark hole of #shareable junk.
Edit - quoting directly from the paper summary:
In a shocking turn of events, it turns out his take is totally useless.
So, he is using an example of optimised digging by ants to talk about economic inequality.
Ignore that the reason for fewer ants doing work is because the tunnels are *physically crowded*, that the ants seem to be equally qualified to do this work, and are probably genetically very similar if they are from the same colony. Apparently this ant behaviour is a biological truth that underpins capitalism...
(Also a 30-70 distribution of wealth would be much more equitable than anything in the world currently: the bottom 70% actually owns 3% of global wealth.)
More detailed takedown here:
and a one-liner
Evolpsych, at least the pop version he does, is a dark hole of #shareable junk.
Edit - quoting directly from the paper summary:
it's literally all about how to dig quickly in a narrow space
You need to look at what he said in context!
Nah, but it's good to see that Jordan continues to be eminently qualified to completely misrepresent studies.
Reminds me of Simon Amstell mocking Donny Tourette on Buzzcocks:
"Hang on a minute...Donny is smoking now!?!?! What is he going to do next!?!?! A cigarette! That you can legally buy in shops! I'll try to carry on but I am shocked and appalled!!"
How much is there to its non-pop versions in your eyes? Is there perhaps a comprehensive introduction for non-scientists beyond wikipedia that you find acceptable?
I find it especially hard to imagine how the variety and quite rapid changes in human behaviour, ideas & social structure over history can be aligned with the basic premises of e.p. I know of. But I probably have come across more popularized versions mostly.
The whole premise of applying evolutionary psychology to push back against progressive paradigms is so fecking silly. I mean, I’m sure it’s not particularly ‘natural’ for us to be monogamous or to not constantly shit on the little guy, just because we can. Likewise making laws against rape and murder.
There’s loads of dark shit humans do that fits with theories of evolutionary psychology. So what? The fact we’re evolved enough to think about and discuss these things confirms that we’re also evolved enough to develop an ethical framework to try and do the right thing. So even if monkeys, ants and lobsters are proven to be power hungry, misogynist assholes this has diddly squat to do with any discussion about contemporary human morality.
There’s loads of dark shit humans do that fits with theories of evolutionary psychology. So what? The fact we’re evolved enough to think about and discuss these things confirms that we’re also evolved enough to develop an ethical framework to try and do the right thing. So even if monkeys, ants and lobsters are proven to be power hungry, misogynist assholes this has diddly squat to do with any discussion about contemporary human morality.
Rubin moaning because YouTube demonitized his Deborah Soh interview
Bet he's secretly over the moon that it was 'demonitized' so he can be seen to be a part of the club again.
Honestly don’t know why advertisers would get anything from the typical Rubin viewer. Gets pathetic views in contrast to how important he thinks he is and it’s the same boring, pointless shite he always puts out.
Ballbag.
Ballbag.
Advertisers don't necessarily know which channels and videos their ads are running on. They'll pay Google (YouTube) and Google will serve adverts on categories of content, under which Rubin and co would fall. The channels get a small percentage of advertising dollars. But that's why YouTube "stars" with lots of subscribers and views do well financially.
I kind of know of all that but isn’t it up to YouTube to decide what videos are worth running adverts on? Advertiser friendly, is that the term they use? Hence what Rubin is spitting his dummy out over.
I get the likes of Zoella or PewDiePie or whoever having adverts plastered over their videos (not my type of content admittedly). Don’t know why they’d bother monetising videos of some moron interviewing right wingers moaning about the “regressive left”.
He probably does have a case on paper but in common sense terms, he’s just being a moany cnut because he thinks he’s important.
They get millions of views, why wouldn't advertisers want a piece?
I can't speak to Rubin because I don't know much about him and haven't watched any of his videos (unless they were posted on this thread and I watched awhile ago, but I can't even picture what he looks like...) but I will speak to the bolded: why wouldn't advertisers advertise to that group of people, especially if they are an impressionable group? Is there any indication that such a group is less profitable to advertise to? Perhaps you might not advertise Bernie t-shirts but I imagine Smith and Wesson (as an example) could have a reasonable return from advertising on those channels.
Came here looking for a thread on South African spinners....
[Not a reply to you Raoul, but the video]
This new trend of intellectual debate repackaged as entertainment is so weird.
There's a whole bunch of people that now watch this kind of crap and regurgitate sound bites from them, that will never pick up a book and read any of the subject matter.
The verbal jousting and applause and wait for the 'Gotcha' moment is all well and good when the audience is an educated one that's pretty well versed on the topic.
But the last 2-3 years have given rise to a really daft section of society that are rapidly holding 2 hour debates as some kind of gold standard for truth and sensibility. They're a tool to test the robustness of ideas. Some of the most intelligent people on the planet flail when pressed. That doesn't make them wrong.
Peterson seems to be dissappearing up his own bum hole of late. Since a level of fame arrived, the grandstanding and posturing seems to have increased tenfold.
That's a fairly normal thing these days - write a book and do a speaking tour of some sort to gin up an interest in your work to support book sales. Previously it was done on TV and these days its being done on social media as well. Similar things are also happening in science where popularizers are doing 2 hour lectures and debates that reach vast audiences online instead of people actually buying the books.
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/
A little surprised how central Molyneux is - from excerpts I've heard he is quite extremist and his voice, especially when talking about women (23:30-24:52) makes my skin crawl. Other like Black Pigeon and Kraut and Tea are horrifying too.
A little surprised how central Molyneux is - from excerpts I've heard he is quite extremist and his voice, especially when talking about women (23:30-24:52) makes my skin crawl. Other like Black Pigeon and Kraut and Tea are horrifying too.
Sargon of Akkad is an absolute douche
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/
A little surprised how central Molyneux is - from excerpts I've heard he is quite extremist and his voice, especially when talking about women (23:30-24:52) makes my skin crawl. Other like Black Pigeon and Kraut and Tea are horrifying too.
Definitely surprising to see Molyneux where he is but I'm guessing its because he gets into a hell of a lot of debates. Also surprising to see Peterson on the periphery as he seems to be one of the most active debaters/commentators on youtube.
I recognized that Molyneux name. He would comment on just about any online forum/news post and always anti-Dem/anti-left/etc. Came off as a right cnut, massive asshole, and sadist. Almost like he enjoyed commenting, debating, ridiculing, etc.
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/
A little surprised how central Molyneux is - from excerpts I've heard he is quite extremist and his voice, especially when talking about women (23:30-24:52) makes my skin crawl. Other like Black Pigeon and Kraut and Tea are horrifying too.
He’s a horrible prick. I find him way more sinister than blow hards like Shapiro.
Peterson has a real temper dosn't he? He's always like that. Perhaps it's his "carnivore diet", perhaps the single stupidest thing to come from a self proclaimed "intellectual" (vomit.gif) you will ever see.
That’s typical of this social media fuelled nonsense where anyone who takes a particular political stance on any issue must have that same stance on every issue. Or get ragged on by thousands of righteous dullards on twitter/FB. Just as big a problem for the left as it is on the right.
That's very true. Network homophily has created groupthink factions in online (and now non-online) debates where people are incentivized to be recognized by the pack and are disincentivized from thinking independently. You see it both on the left and the right and its generally unhelpful for having sensible debates.
Ive gone down a deep Harris shaped rabbit hole in the last few weeks, read one of his books (the one about free choice), listened to a dozen of his podcasts and watched all four of those debates with Peterson in full.
He makes that point repeatedly, about how these days if you know one opinion about a person you can more often than not predict their opinion about many other completely unrelated topics.
He makes that point repeatedly, about how these days if you know one opinion about a person you can more often than not predict their opinion about many other completely unrelated topics.
I thought Free Will was a pretty good read.
Yeah I agree. Short too, read it in one evening.