Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

I started reading MacDonald's Culture of Critique which looks at Jewish involvement in destroying the West as a European Civilization, and I think it has some bearing on understanding Peterson.

So this altruistic punishment can be interpreted as a purge, right? By provoking the right into reaction mode, as you and the text point out, then it is clear what will come out of this reaction: Nazism 2.0. It is more than clear when you comment that there are people who in the networks write poems about killing the woke.

Do you remember what they (C´s) said? The second world war, Nazism was a trial run. Now we are seeing the trap. People fed up, tired of all this are going to ask for a final solution. Enter the new world order.

Does this count as an explosive revelation?

A: Not now! You have enough for now. Explosive revelations and events coming! Goodbye.
 
I don't think that's what the C's were referring to, on account of the fact that the mainstream right wing more or less lost the plot following the mainstream news after Oct 7th, almost a year ago at the time of this writing. It's not really a recent revelation IMO.

I understand, but I was not thinking of the most current events, but of all the manipulation that the Zionist entity has woven since the end of World War II, to arrive at today's events.

If you review what the Weimar Republic was like, in its social aspect, marked by moral decadence, economic with the problem of inflation and other ideological/cultural conflicts you can see the parallel with today's society:


In the end, people like JP, in their eagerness to put an end to all this madness, will only succeed in manifesting the other side of the totalitarianism that they denounce so much. That is the trap.

For us, this group may not be an explosive revelation, but for the rest of the world it might be.
 
Another and maybe more uplifting thought I had when thinking about all this is how important it is to avoid the temptation of looking at the woke poisoning of the West and assuming that it's the entirety of Western civilization that is corrupted. I've done this, and it's so damn demoralizing. But that's exactly what they want. It's also incorrect, and for me at least I think it's important to strike the balance and remember that there's still plenty of good, common-sense people of character out there, doing their best, and that maybe a civilization isn't so easily destroyed.
Yep. One thing we should also keep in mind is Lobaczewski's description of how the inner landscape of psychopaths includes an impoverished view of human nature. To them, humans are weak, fragile, stupid, easily manipulated and little more. They don't appreciate the strength, resilience, intelligence and will demonstrated by a significant number of human beings. Thus, psychopathic plans are always amenable to failure because human beings don't react in the expected way in some circumstances.

Of course, in a large percentage of circumstances they do react that way, which is one of the main reasons the planet and human civilisation is in the shape it's in, but the more ambitious and intricate the plans, the more points of failure and weaknesses present due to assumptions made under the influence of a defective instinctive substratum.

The other relevant point is that the elites wish to preserve enough infrastructure for their 'technocratic utopia', thus the focus on viruses, vaccinations, starvation and other 'non-destructive' methods of depopulation. They want enough people gone not to threaten them, but also to use the spoils of what's left behind for their own purposes. So they're caught in a 'bind' - they need to destroy civilisation, but in a 'careful' way so as not to destroy themselves and ruin their plans at the same time.

And we know what score the C's have given them!

C's Session 26th February 2022 said:
Q: (Aragorn) On a scale from 1–10, how well are the plans of TPTB succeeding right now?
A: 4
 
Being on the wrong side of history (supporting genocide) is perhaps not such a big 'sin' as we might imagine when you do it for what you think are good reasons.

Getting 'in' with them is one way of shielding yourself from constant attacks and harrasment but staying 'in' with them perhaps comes with a price that is too high. I think that is where he is right now.
I think this is a possibility. That it might not necessarily be a clear soul smashing event, but that the rationalizations behind his unconditional support towards Israel despite the genocide of the Palestinians may have more to do to protect his loved ones from danger more than anything. It's not easy to be a human being in that position.
 
the rationalizations behind his unconditional support towards Israel despite the genocide of the Palestinians may have more to do to protect his loved ones from danger more than anything.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines; like in case of i.e. RFK - a man who on one side fights for children and children´s rights, and then gives his support for Israel.
I thought that I´m romanticising things, but then again, I also do think that those Zionists in power mean real business and issue real threats.
It's not easy to be a human being in that position.
Indeed.
 
I think this is a possibility. That it might not necessarily be a clear soul smashing event, but that the rationalizations behind his unconditional support towards Israel despite the genocide of the Palestinians may have more to do to protect his loved ones from danger more than anything. It's not easy to be a human being in that position.

Frankly, I hope that's not the case, because it would imply awareness on his part that the Israeli lobby types in the USA are fundamentally evil.
 
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines; like in case of i.e. RFK - a man who on one side fights for children and children´s rights, and then gives his support for Israel.
I thought that I´m romanticising things, but then again, I also do think that those Zionists in power mean real business and issue real threats.

I'd say it's likely that RFK Jr. is aware of the power and influence of 'the lobby' and what they are prepared to do. But he's equally (if not more) aware of the nefarious nature of domestic intel agencies like the CIA. I'm not sure that his tacit support of Israel is due to being blackmailed or threatened, but that, as he said himself, Israel is existentially necessary for the USA.


So he's just being pragmatic about it. And his love for the OT notwithstanding, I think Peterson is to a large extent in the same camp - he has made reference to Israel being a little bit of Western civilization in the ME. That said, his ideological alignment with Israel and "Judeo-Christianity" adds some emotional energy to his perspective compared to RFK Jr.

Basically, despite both of them being ostensibly caring and empathetic people, if they believe that THEIR "children" are threatened (i.e. the children of the West) by the parents of ME children, then they're able to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of those children. The "lessor of two evils", they'd probably call it.
 
Last edited:
A question for you, but for everyone else also. Although, maybe it's an unfair one given everyone's time here in the group.

Do you think that you could ever be influenced in such a way that you would support a regime who was committing genocide?

Peterson spent most of his adult life teaching courses on ideological possession in order to try to inoculate his students against it, and yet, here he is. C's said he's a 'great soul' which I'm going to assume means that he actually has a soul, or is not an OP.

What does that mean for the rest of us? If one of us inadvertently became famous because we stood for something and went viral, and we were just going around talking sense to people, and 4D STS decided we were causing to many ripples and they needed to co-opt us (me, you, anyone here), could they do it?

Troubling thought. Is it hubris to say, "That wouldn't happen to me", or is it not at all, and simply being a normal, decent person?

If they hadn't been able to program him by nearly killing him to get him into a coma for an extended period, then I guess they would have just killed him. In other words, they knew they could do it and that it would be successful?

They've killed countless others. Was he too good of a tool to just do away with? Can they just program anyone at all?
People who can handle real power, wealth and influence without losing their integrity are vanishingly rare, in my opinion. Its hard to say with any certainty that I would be capable of maintaining my integrity in the bright lights of fame, power and wealth. I like to think I would, but who knows?
 
JP is ideologically possesed. He's also a condescending prick with a massive ego. I think he's always been this way. Our mistake was holding him in high regard merely because he was on our side of the argument for a good deal of time and he was very effective at countering the woke mind virus in the oubloc arena. It was sort of like cheering for your team and one of its greatest players, but now get to meet our hero, so to speak.

It's not really a stretch for someone who's so obsessed with the old testament and is very creative about interpreting the stories in a positive light to become a great defender of the people who gave birth to these ideas.

If he is able to cast the supremely psychopathic Yahweh character in a positive light, it's no problem for him to weave interpretations of the current genocide that cast Jews as the good guys.

He's really all about the materialistic, Darwinist interpretation of history and life and only uses religion and spiritual notions to bolster his arguments. I mean, look at how he talks about children and what his child rearing advice consists of. It's utterly devoid of compassion and flies in the face of everything we know to be true about trauma and all of that mess.

I don't think any sort of programming needed to happen during his hospitalisation. He's just lost all patience and self control after and has become a grumpy old man. And grumpy old men are basically the same as what they were earlier in life, they're just not hiding it anymore.

Plus, this grumpy old fart also has a bad case of Dunning-Kruger effect. One of the worst I've seen.

I can't listen to him, or read him anymore, even when I'm in agreement with the point he's trying to make, because he just comes across as angry, bitter and jaded. I don't want him as champion of any cause that I might stand with.

Piss off, JP!

Although I could say I share some of your observations, I don't think that it has to be so black&white. I personally never admired his tone from the very beginning, or his psychological advice much. It sounded like a grumpy old man who enjoyed a bit too much scolding others, and campaigning for "normal life". Now, that worked very well in counteracting the lefties, and there he was spot on. It was also probably coming from a good place, caring. And he did help some people who were lost! That's more than many other people have achieved in life.

The problem is probably (like with many therapists!) things that he himself never dealt with. And THAT became his weakness. Take for example his quite obvious good opinion of his own intellect, and how he admires that very same trait in the Jewish population (High IQ and all that). There may even be some past life thing going on there. Yes, you can put that down to ego, but to me it doesn't paint a full picture.

Until his lack of networking (and of awareness/knowledge?) led to his suffering in ways that led to the benzos in way that lent themselves to some possible serious programming, I think he had a chance of not falling for the zionist agenda so much. So, I think it's more complicated than just saying "piss off JP", without considering the whole situation.

I see Chomsky in a bit of a similar way: he did VERY good things (as a political activist), but in some other domains (as a linguist and more recently in buying into the Covid BS), he is actually a bully, the opposite of caring, and not very smart. Does the latter cancel everything he did to help and bring awareness? I don't think that's for us to judge at this level. Only his higher self (or his designers) can make that calculation at the end of each life, OSIT.
 
Last edited:
Although I could say I share some of your observations, I don't think that it has to be so black&white. I personally never admired his tone from the very beginning, or his psychological advice much. It sounded like a grumpy old man who enjoyed a bit too much scolding others, and campaigning for "normal life". Now, that worked very well in counteracting the lefties, and there he was spot on. It was also probably coming from a good place, caring. And he did help some people who were lost! That's more than many other people have achieved in life.

The problem is probably (like with many therapists!) things that he himself never dealt with. And THAT became his weakness. Take for example his quite obvious good opinion of his own intellect, and how he admires that very same trait in the Jewish population (High IQ and all that). There may even be some past life thing going on there. Yes, you can put that down to ego, but to me it doesn't paint a full picture.

Your share reminds me of a few passages in Political Ponerology and ISOTM that always stuck with me. I think it matches JBP to a T, both in the good and the bad shades.

Ponerology:
(Pg 127) An experienced politician can rarely assume that difficulties in the areas of economics, defense, or international policy will be fully understood by his constituency. However, he can and should assume that his own comprehension of human matters, and anything having to do with interpersonal relations within said structure, will find an echo in this same majority of his society’s members. These facts partially justify the idea of democracy, especially if a particular country has historically had such a tradition, the social structure is well developed, and the level of education is adequate. Nevertheless, they do not represent psychological data sufficient to raise democracy to the level of a moral criterion in politics.

(Pg 100) [W]e often meet with sensible people endowed with a well-developed natural worldview as regards psychological, societal, and moral aspects, frequently refined via literary influences, religious deliberations, and philosophical reflections. Such persons have a pronounced tendency to overrate the value of their worldview, behaving as though it were an objective basis for judging other people. They do not take into account the fact that such a system of apprehending human matters can also be erroneous, since it is insufficiently objective. Let us call such an attitude the “egotism of the natural worldview.” To date, it has been the least pernicious type of egotism, being merely an overestimation of that method of comprehension containing the eternal values of human experience.

Today, however, the world is being jeopardized by a phenomenon which cannot be understood nor described by means of such a natural conceptual language; this kind of egotism thus becomes a dangerous factor stifling the possibility of effective counteractive measures. Developing and popularizing the objective psychological worldview could thus significantly expand the scope of dealing with evil, via sensible action and pinpointed countermeasures.

ISOTM, on the Obyvatel:
"People of the objective way simply live in life. They are those whom we call good people. Particular systems and methods are not necessary for them; making use of ordinary religious or intellectual teachings and ordinary morality, they live at the same time according to conscience. They do not of necessity do much good, but they do no evil. Sometimes they happen to be quite uneducated, simple people but they understand life very well, they have a right valuation of things and a right outlook (I think this is why JBP is very good at connecting with Ordinary People, because of the encouragement he provides on this path to being an Obyvatel using culturally familiar tropes).... "Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision 'obyvatel' as though there could be nothing worse. But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp....' This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and their inadaptability. A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel. I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia' artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him. (This latter portion IMO really adds a dimension to the beef SJWs have JBP and the blue collar ethos he brings to discussions.)

He's always seemed like an Obyvatel to me, but his more recent bouts of ideological possession I think are pulling him more towards "lunatic." As Gurdjieff has said, there is no possibility of remaining at our station very long in life; we are either moving upwards or downwards in the ray of creation. It may take a really strong shock (as G uses the specific Work term) to get him to change his course. The C's said he will come to himself, so there's reason for hope on some level I think. More for his own sake though, not for any projections I or others may have had about him in his earlier fights with mandatory pronoun use in Canada back in 2016.
 
he admires that very same trait in the Jewish population (High IQ and all that).

It's a popular sentiment thrown around that Jews have a high IQ and that's why they're socially dominant. I have come across some critiques which challenge both of those notions. The problems with the sentiment is that it's based on citations of few studies over fifty years old with small sample sizes involving populations and study designs not meant to discover group-wide IQ performance.

Before all other things, I study power and politics. Keen awareness of elite theory keeps one alert of Schmittian exceptions, which is to say when special allowances are made in one case but not in others. The vexed area of IQ research is one such case. For example, notorious race-denier Jordan Peterson, who believes that white collectivism is an unspeakable evil, in the next breath will happily repeat the claim that Jews have a mean IQ of 115. This same sleight of hand is played by Steven Pinker who dismisses The Bell Curve as it pertains to race, but in another context pulls out the same stat: ‘Their average IQ has been measured at 108 to 115, one-half to one standard deviation above the mean.’ In elite theory, we call a story that justifies the dominance of one group over others a political formula. The de facto hypothesis, as per Vilfredo Pareto, is that no political formulas are true and none can stand up to real scrutiny because they seldom if ever have any basis in fact; in effect, they are simply legitimacy myths used to post-hoc rationalise why this group is in power as opposed to any other group. Thus, before looking at any other information whatsoever, elite theory would look at 1. the over-indexing of Jewish people in positions of power in America, and 2. the reasons given for this by their apologists such as Peterson and Pinker, and conclude 3. the myth of Jewish high IQ is not a fact, but a political formula devised to legitimate power. Ah, but surely IQ statistics should be relatively easy to find and this claim – unlike other political formulas such as ‘I have been sent by God’ or ‘I speak for the will of the people’ – can be proven using hard data, no? Well, let’s have a look.

First, before I start, I will accept no proxies for actual IQ scores which are typically offered. By far the two most common examples are World Chess Champions and Nobel Prize Winners. The first can be dealt with very simply. It is pointed out that 44% of World Chess Champions are Jewish, it is less common to point out that 100% of chess champions come from just nine nations, and, until very recently when the Chinese have started to dominate, just six. Before 1948, it seems that London acted as the centre of chess and entrants had to raise a £10,000 wager just to take part. Unsurprisingly, in that earlier period a lot of the champions were British. After 1948, FIDE was established but from almost the moment of its inception, it was dominated by the Soviet Union and specifically the Russians. After this point, almost all the champions are Russian except for, notably, one American – Bobby Fischer, who you can read about in your own time – and more recently Indian and Chinese champions who have started to break through precisely at the moment China is emerging as a new superpower. Strange how that works. On the Nobel Prize all I will say is that elite theory can serve us well once more: Nobel Prizes are not a neutral institution; they are not selected in an open manner, but tightly controlled through a committee. They demonstrate nothing beyond what power selects. The claim that prizes from this body are an objective measure of anything, therefore, must be discarded. Nothing else needs to be said. I will now look for the objective standard most commonly cited: the measure of the IQ Test!


Let us turn to Charles Murray, who, in an astonishing passage in an article called ‘Jewish Genius’ in 2007, had this to say:

Insofar as I am suggesting that the Jews may have had some degree of unusual verbal skills going back to the time of Moses, I am naked before the evolutionary psychologists’ ultimate challenge. Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not?
At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.
In other words, he rearticulates an older political formula to justify the supposed superiority of these people. In fact, the historical record shows that Jews did not historically have this reputation for cleverness and it is a relatively recent claim which is easily dismantled as R. Brian Ferguson has done.

If we work backwards from the Ferguson paper, we find another article from 2005 called ‘The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence’ by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending. What is their evidence for the claim that Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is higher than everyone else’s? Let me quote them:

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).
Okay, so these researchers haven’t conducted any IQ tests on anyone but rather cite other papers that have supposedly done this work already; so intrepid researchers we can work backwards again to find the evidence. Being your dedicated scholar, I did that. The only one that is inaccessible is the study by J.S. Romanoff which was an unpublished dissertation only available on a microfilm reel at the National Library of Israel – friends I am your dedicated scholar, but I’m not that dedicated!

Let us start with Richard Lynn’s ‘The Intelligence of American Jews’ from 2004. Here we find two astonishing facts. First is that Lynn seems to estimate Jewish verbal IQ, not from actual test results, but from ‘American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990–1996’ because ‘Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence.’ In other words, he is guessing the verbal IQ from the total number of different words the respondents of this survey knew. It is hardly the smoking gun one expects. Perhaps more astonishingly, Lynn’s paper reveals that the claim for Jewish high verbal IQ comes from a study conducted in 1970 with a sample size of only 65 boys from a single school:

Another problem with a number of the studies that have found that Jews have higher verbal IQs than gentiles is that several of them are based on very small sample sizes. For instance, Seligman (1992, p. 130) writes that ‘Jewish verbal superiority appears unmatched in any other ethnic group. An often-quoted 1970 study performed by the Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research shows Jewish tenth-grade boys with an average verbal IQ equivalent of 112.8 (on the Stanford-Binet metric) about three quarters of a standard deviation above the average for non-Jewish white boys’. This is the Bachman (1970) study in which the number of Jewish boys was 65.
Turning to this obscure study we find that it did not use the standard IQ test, but the Ammons Quick Test devised in 1962. The widely cited data – repeated by such luminaries as Peterson and Pinker – can be found on page 55.



The problems with this data should be obvious: it is too small, only 15-year-old boys are tested, and all of them are from the same background. Why did Bachman produce this basically unusable table? Because, in fairness to him, his study was never about race differences in IQ; a clue can be found in the title of that study: The Impact of Family Background and Intelligence on Tenth-Grade Boys: Youth in Transition.

Let us move onto the next study: Backman 1972. Once again, the data does not contain IQ scores, but rather later researchers have estimated IQ Scores by extrapolating it from Project TALENT data. It is revealed on page 3 that Project TALENT measures subjects like so:

The six mental ability factors examined were: Verbal Knowledges (VKN) –.a general factor, but primarily a measure of general information; English Language (ENG) – a measure of grammar and language useage; Mathematics (MAT) – a measure of high school mathematics with a minimum of computation; Visual Reasoning (VIS) – a measure of reasoning with spatial forms; Perceptual Speed and Accuracy (PSA) – a measure of visual-motor coordination under speeded conditions; and Memory (MEM) – a measure of short-term recall of verbal symbols.
Thus, we can see that the mathematics component is not exactly an IQ test but ‘a measure of high school mathematics with a minimum of computation’. Again we are in the realm of proxies using 12th-graders rather than actual IQ data, but nonetheless what does the data tell us? Let’s take a look:



While some people like to look at this and pull out higher male Jewish scores in mathematics, the thing that jumped out to me was the fact that it claims poor black boys are better at mathematics than rich Jewish girls. I’m surprised our friends on the left have not latched onto that one. Is this data replicated anywhere? Do we see black boys outperforming Jewish girls in mathematics today? Can these scores from 1972 be held to be representative of these racial groups? Since when do ‘Orientals’ have superior English grammar skills to whites? Are we just going to ignore the fact that, according to this, poor Black male ‘verbal IQ’ is slightly above poor Jewish male ‘verbal IQ’? You can do what you wish; erring on the side of caution, I would be more prone to say that this is junk science akin to looking at the GCSE scores of Hindu girls in Britain today and using them to suggest that they are intellectually much superior to white boys.

Because it seems no one actually does IQ research by, y’know, giving lots of people IQ tests, for our next port of call we need to go right back to 1959 to a study by B.M. Levinson. Now we’re relying on data from more than 64-years ago to make generalisations about Amy Schumer, Anthony Blinken and Ben Shapiro! Let’s ignore for a moment the point made by Sander L. Gillman that intelligence can decay; his example is that Olivia Newton-John was the granddaughter of ‘the 1954 Nobel prize winner Max Born’ – to me this seems to assume much about both Born’s and Newton-John’s respective IQs. But what does Levinson say? This paper was trying to measure the difference between the verbal IQs of monolingual and bilingual Jews. These are the findings:




At least here we have actual IQ test scores, but alas look at the tiny sample sizes. We are now expecting the test results from these 57 children from 1959 to tell us about Jewish people as a whole or even just Ashkenazi Jews? Would you feel confident in citing this as evidence for, well, anything? You might, but I would not.

Israel, which should be a good test case of Jewish intelligence, is not much help in this regard. The Times of Israel has lamented its low achievement in mathematics in the surprisingly titled ‘Why Yoni and Yael Can’t Do Math’. The reason, we are told, is because Israel possesses ‘a society-wide lack of discipline and disdain for rules’.

1728252002803.png
Arabs are separated out in the data as shown, and inequality between the best and worst Hebrew students is wide, but then the article quickly points out that ‘even Israel’s best students are not that stellar compared to top students in other developed countries’. That’ll be those Ashkenazis I keep being told are the cleverest people in the world. Unlike many of the other measures we’ve looked at, this is a standardised international test that makes for fair country-to-country comparisons.

So now we are at the other end of the rabbit hole, have we come out the other side with the slam-dunk data which Peterson and Pinker present as fact? It’s plain that we have not. Their claim is something like ‘Jews are overrepresented in American positions of power and influence because of their high IQ’ but a more accurate articulation of this argument would be something like ‘Jews are overrepresented in American positions of power and influence because 65 fifteen-year-old boys scored well on a quick test in 1970 and 57 monolingual Jewish children in 1959 scored well on a Stanford Binet Test.’ The argument is never presented that way. Their argument has come out of this process greatly damaged. What of my argument? Let us revisit the de facto hypothesis of elite theory as it pertains to this case: the myth of Jewish high IQ is not a fact, but a political formula devised to legitimate power. You can be the judge of that.

One of the studies is further dissected here:

This article remarks that even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming the 115 IQ is true there's still numerically far too few Ashkenazi Jews compared to Europeans, such that the quantity of High-IQ non-Ashkenazi European is still much higher than the number of High-IQ Ashkenazis, and therefore has no ability to explain their dominance.
 
The problem is probably (like with many therapists!) things that he himself never dealt with. And THAT became his weakness. Take for example his quite obvious good opinion of his own intellect, and how he admires that very same trait in the Jewish population (High IQ and all that). There may even be some past life thing going on there. Yes, you can put that down to ego, but to me it doesn't paint a full picture.
This is a good point, maybe evident in the way sharing stories of young men would move him to tears, so much so that it became a meme on the internet, anyone trained or otherwise would've probably thought "you've got some stuff to work on", but him being a clinical psychologist, most people would also assume, he must have at least considered working through certain issues. But it seems clear that he didn't.

It's probably a bias of some sort, you see a doctor and probably don't assume they make unhealthy choices, or a police officer and would assume he doesn't break the law. But it's also visible with certain actors, where they'd deliver incredible depictions of characters and then... it's as if that information doesn't touch their lives.

I was part of the group that really rally liked his stuff, and the ideas he expressed were very useful. But seeing him fall prey of the same thing he warned people about was disappointing, but not heartbreaking, thanks to this network actually.

And I do think that it was heartbreak, very justifiably so, that lead to some of the reverse that a lot of people made online about him. It was as if people had discovered that their dad had another family, you'd go from loving the man to being heartbroken and rejecting anything that would remind you of him.
 
I seem Chomsky in a bit of a similar way: he did VERY good things (as a political activist), but in some other domains (as a linguist and more recently in buying into the Covid BS), he is actually a bully, the opposite of caring, and not very smart. Does the latter cancel everything he did to help and bring awareness? I don't think that's for us to judge at this level. Only his higher self (or his designers) can make that calculation at the end of each life, OSIT.
A good observation. Despite Chomsky's depth in speaking of foreign affairs et cetera, he became a trusted gatekeeper, able to steer those on the fence into a queue (9/11, covid mattered not); people might say that Noam is smart, he said this so I'm with him.

JP can be like this.

For those not aware, JP's 'academy' is up and running in Beta. Had read enrollment was up to 30,000 people. When it was originally flushed out it had sounded like a good alternative, yet much has happened since then. It still may be a viable option for some as costs are decreased from regular uni, although they may be having problems.
 
It's a popular sentiment thrown around that Jews have a high IQ and that's why they're socially dominant. I have come across some critiques which challenge both of those notions. The problems with the sentiment is that it's based on citations of few studies over fifty years old with small sample sizes involving populations and study designs not meant to discover group-wide IQ performance.

Interesting! But even if it had been confirmed, we know that IQ is only one part of what can be called "intelligence". So, it's kind of a useless measurement of what smart people are. We all know someone in our lives who may not be said to have a super high IQ, but whose emotional and social intelligence help them make much wiser and kinder decisions than the average. Or take Kamala Harris: she probably scores very low on all three! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom