Joe Rogan Experience #1208 – Jordan Peterson



Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL_f53ZEJxp8TtlOkHwMV9Q

All Dr. Peterson’s self-improvement writing programs at https://www.understandmyself.com/ 20% off for Rogan listeners. Code: ROGAN

source

One thought on “Joe Rogan Experience #1208 – Jordan Peterson

  1. Girl 21 from Norway here.
    Just got the book "12 rules for life".
    I have read 130 pages in 5 hours (I have never read a whole book in my life, cause I haven't found the interest to do so).
    My jaw has dropped to far down I didn't even know I had that ability. It feels like you are talking to my soul, and my fathers at the same time. He is in a stuck place, and I am gonna hand this book to him when I am done reading, cause I want to help, and he want's my help, but I don't know how (it doesn't help talking without context).
    This is a really useful tool to make us see again. Thank for the bottom of my (our) heart(s).

    Just gotta say, after reading 130 pages, and a quick look at Facebook, i noticed ALL the negative comments are not very long or articulated and get liked, and the long logical comments get's a negative reaction. The difference is just, i don't know how to describe it. I just wanna stay away from everything that has to do with internet, expect the interviews with Jordan.

  2. Omg. Never heard of this guy but this guy is wonderful. POWER to the people. I love ❤ this. This needs to happen. He sounds Canadian. I have always loved Canadians. This is how human evolution works.

  3. Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo.
    250 sentadillas son unos HOTCAM.Uno muchas y un buen ejercicio.
    5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍

    Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖
    los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.

  4. 1:11:29 I want to see Brock Lesnar fight to the death against the best women from the UFC. Line them up and let Brock smash! LMAO! Im totally kidding but thats what would really happen. Just look at the NCAA swimming line up!

  5. Is like why HIDE? TO ALL WHO HIDE. INDEED SHORTCOMINGS, MISTAKES, SHAME GOING AFTER FEELING LIKE "LUST" DOESN'T BRING TRUE REST BUT STRIFE AND SEPARATION and ABORTING.Because going after feeling that brings strife end up hiring assassins to kill an innocents precious my babies to …what do you want me to do like many always been HEIRS. Beloved remember all of you once a babies at 1 time. Now beloved recognize! Remember utterance is utterance for a reason beloved upon all. Bring LAUGHTERS of my HEIRS and their innocents youngs sons and daughters upon all 1 family MEMBERS upon all dry GROUNDS nor the WORLD. LANGUAGE IS GIVEN AND LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD UPON ALL. REMEMBER SINCERE CONVERSATIONS AS A CHILDS IN FRONT OF GOD AND TO ONE ANOTHER BELOVED AVAILETH MUCH INDEED. NOW WHAT WILL OTHER SAME MINDS WILL SAY ABLE TO ABORT THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF MY EYES AND MANY SAME EYES NOR FEETS LIKE YESHUA JESUS CHRIST FEETS INDEED TRULY RESTING UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD. MANY WILL SAY I CAN BE AHEAD? BELOVED COME ON………

  6. "And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my firstborn in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren. Nevertheless, Jacob, my firstborn in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain…

    For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." 2 Nephi 2, Book of Mormon

  7. 1+(-1+-1(+-1))= -2

    This equation shows that there could only be two results for the cat to be alive or dead. The math follows the thought and since we know that The cat and humans cannot be alive and dead at the same time so shall this theory fail about the cat being dead simply because we open the door. Also there’s two results that could come from this based on the thought of this. We are not designed to kill by assessing -1 to death by door open (1) death by not opening door (2), means we are neither alive nor dead all the time. Simply waiting on someone to simply open the door if that is the case, just as the cat supposedly will be in a state of nothing/ however that further proves that since there is something in the “nothing of a glass let’s say” then found to be complexly busy and full of things in a empty space of an empty cup.

    Then this only proves that the door is the catalyst in death for cats if you believe Schrodinger. He never proves we had anything to do with the cat, by isolation theory the door is the thing tied to the cat dying whether seeing the cat or leaving door shut. If we do nothing and the cat still could’ve died with the door having nothing done to it that proves and the inverse theory of this that the door is the binding factor to whether the cat will be perceived as dead or alive.
    Now don’t open the door or you’re killing cats I say and don’t get them spayed or neutered because they may die when a door is opened or if someone does not open a door for your “Garfield”. So remember as well if you leave the door shut you will kill them as well; or it makes no sense at all and the singularity of objects with mass is the key to unlocking further information.

    So back to the darn cat 🐈‍⬛ story, somewhere between dead pointand behind him A(birth—>D) his life somewhere in between he died he left no note so we don’t have evidence at all that we killed him, and when math is applie that is a very correct Schrodinger said that you could kill it simply by opening the door that as long as we don’t know the cat is dead for sure by not opening the door then it was neither a state if neither dead or alive however I say; his state is known as being here when he goes in the box his state is known as here and dad if we open the door that is a possibility you may be alive so when you add these up what you have is very simple math problem so here’s how it looks:

    A in box close door (+1)

    D open door(-1)
    Or don’t open (both could result in death true)(-1)

    A(-1) is simply that he is still in there and Alive what are you open the door not and that nothing you do or don’t do has any effect on the cat because you are not in and of the cat nor will you ever be an entity that will have any natural or constitute any change just by being simply in a similar location to the cat once in the box.

    1+(-1+-1+-1)=-2
    The problem lies in the math in the theory of thought, it would appear that you could actually cause the death of the cat by opening the box however you would also cause the death of the cat but not opening the box…..

    I believe that to be true and only in instance only, the cat would die if it ran out of air. And a situation of non-animal cruelty there will be air allowed in the box that could essentially live forever not affected by anything outside of its own self, due to the fact of singularity back to that funny little black hole thing. The cat is free of me and all things around it, unless exerted forces by outside forces, entities, light, sound(waves) and obviously other energy.
    So in a passing glance this looks like you could kill the cat by opening it and seeing the cat was dead, but not when you open the door actually traveling if we shall say back in the cats life time line he was dead before the door opened by minimal degree of doubt .0000000001 (takes about 1 second to fully open door and look in) before the door opened or even farther back and now an established timeline. So if the cat is dead, but if I don’t open it, you could never / how did I know it was dead. Thus, well he didn’t know who’s Denteley open the box with that being said you did not know anything you didn’t know that he wasn’t dead so in and of the argument himself that Schrodinger said was the argument he actually has Told us in this manner, you knew nothing if cat was dead alive anyways so how could you have dictated anything when you know nothing of the state of cats life, you just know the cats in the box, you put the cat in the box so two sides to defend mathematically it’s been done and theoretically it’s been done through the understanding that you have no knowledge of what happens to the cat. So who knows when the car died but it is a simple joke (tomfoolery) the cats in the box you are outside, neither is a the same place at the same time, and most importantly we are us,1 object, you’re not of the cat or anything to do with the cat you’re just by the cat in a similar location.

    I didn’t know if it was live or dead bullshit I know how long that cat can live in that box, with how much air, so he’s wrong, wrong in the idea that, while it was cute is delivery, very cute; however the science behind it I don’t believe there is any, just saying you killed the cat because you open the box while, I mean I didn’t literally kill anything or kill him, I’m outside of the cat, outside the box here, so I didn’t kill him and we would know he would be dead if nobody opens the box? Why because he would run out of the so wrong you’re wrong Schrodinger yes you are you are cute and all cuddly like a teddy bear 🧸 but you were wrong.

    This shows singularity of black holes and the relative nature of time and space are even more connected. I cannot open the door and have not already killed the cat I had no access to the cat or the ability to mentally kill this cat. Established is due to time and space cannot kill cat by opening door it would have been already killed before I could even open the door.
    Singularity cannot move backwards as to tear time, however it can move parallel and bend time and move into the future again in spaces of single digits of space to the most minuscule number (think of this as pause or pauses to do repair etc and then back to current & slow motion slow motionless).
    Or as NIGHTWALKER IN THE COMICS…… imagine photons of capabilities, imagine not imaging, imagine anything, imagine anything but anything now do nothing to control any of that and find #limitless

  8. Greetings! The truth! People just want to hear the truth! No bullshit, just the facts!!
    Thanks to both of you!!!
    ❤️ YOU BOTH!!!!

  9. Jordan may is definitely one of my favorite people to listen to! He makes so much common sense…it ain't hard! Just put yourself out there and have a blast doing it! Thanks for all that you do Joe!

  10. On many levels, Peterson makes credible, logical arguments, and if people's lives improve all the better. Peterson does merit distrust and even possible animosity when his arguments become duplicitous. Responding to Rogan's valid question about which are the most significant categories of prejudice for analyzing Peterson's "equality of opportunity” vs "equality of outcome," claims, Peterson simply proposes that "there are no canonical" categories. Supporting the concept that "there is no limit to the number of ways you can categorize people into groups," with "there are innumerable numbers of talents within each domain," Peterson limits each individual's potential, when he also affirms "that within each domain, talent is rare." Peterson’s assertion that there are no practical categories and his "there are innumerable number of talents within each domain" assertion might each be empirically true, individually. However, when examined collectively, along with his subsequent "talent is rare” claim, Peterson becomes duplicitous because those three assertions become mutually exclusive; all three can't be true simultaneously. Thus, an actual societal relevance to Peterson's conclusions is arguably lost.

    Exhibiting their superior argumentative “cognitive ability, much of what they propose on competitive advice, etc. is arguably valid. However, Peterson again limits the hypothetical potential of the ”working class in the USA," when he cavalierly evaluates working class thinking about "intellectual vs economic elites." He apparently convinces Rogan to discount the variety of additional prejudices that are valid factors in influencing that same working-class thinking. Peterson and Rogan then attempt to subtly manipulate viewers toward accepting their personal views about a number of vaguely related subjects. They both go on to use, limited, flawed, and oversimplified logic about “right and left" issues, mainly for advocating their very personal views on subjects like “hypocrisy,” “misandry,” “societal inequality,” “corruption,” “societal control,” “discrimination,” and “prejudice" in general. Their incessant constrained references and predominantly false assertions about the prevalence of "the radical left" are unsupported and simply too numerous to further address in this already lengthy comment. With almost 16 million views to date, a more critical relistening of this meandering 2018 podcast might here be advised.

  11. A lot of our mentors are hand selected by us through various means like YouTube. You don't have to let chance dictate to you who your mentors are going to be and who influence your mind. The more you spend time with your mentors the more you question your own behavior until it just becomes too much, and you pretty much are forced to take action on changing your life.

Comments are closed.