It's been mentioned in this thread a couple of times. Joe Rogan podcasts with Jordan are excellent. There's four long podcasts on JRE with him 
Jordan Peterson thread
- Thread starter DAIR
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
Joe said one of them was his favourite ever. Not sure which that was though but all JP ones are worth a listen.It's been mentioned in this thread a couple of times. Joe Rogan podcasts with Jordan are excellent. There's four long podcasts on JRE with him
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,418
Sorry, thought it was a misspost meant for another thread.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
Not a problem. It did seem a bit off topic looking at it.
Caporegime
It's been mentioned in this thread a couple of times. Joe Rogan podcasts with Jordan are excellent. There's four long podcasts on JRE with him
They are indeed excellent, I seem to prefer the ones with Jocko though, as he has a greater understanding of the suffering and evil in this world, having seen it first hand.
Caporegime
Joe Rogan, conspiracy theorist and general nutcase who endorses pseudoscience and other forms of moonbattery.
Caporegime
Joe Rogan, conspiracy theorist and general nutcase who endorses pseudoscience and other forms of moonbattery.
He does but it's not his beliefs I'm worried about as he questions people very well, there are people who are more grounded with beliefs more in line with your own but their interviewing style can just kill the conversation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
He's pretty open minded to be fair and he's reversed his position when confronted with evidence. He's a little too pro weed and likes to push his supplements (Which is part of his business) but I can forgive that given the wide range of interesting people I've been introduced to as a result.Joe Rogan, conspiracy theorist and general nutcase who endorses pseudoscience and other forms of moonbattery.
I dont soley attribute feminism to the decline of family values.....but I do belive it is a large contributing factor.....doesnt mean that you cant have two, well driven, successful people that can also make and raise a great family (but I would put it to you, that your family is a modern day exception, not the rule)....as you say, the full reasons behind the decline is far more vast and worthy of another thread, but its a jewel in crown of modern day decadence thats erroding our current society IMO.
Joe Rogan, conspiracy theorist and general nutcase who endorses pseudoscience and other forms of moonbattery.
Joe Rogan, open minded, listens to evidence, highly intelligent and successful in multiple very different careers who gets actual Doctors, Professors and Scientists to speak to him about subjects he doesn't understand, very willing to change his position when presented with new viewpoints. Has millions of people watch and listen to his podcasts for this very reason.
Caporegime
He can do all that but he also has people on like Chris Kresser multiple times who speak absolute nonsense and he doesn't challenge it. He also seems very unwilling to change his views on things like dieting and certain foods and has been caught out numerous times spouting stuff that is the complete opposite of what multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown. That being said, nobody is perfect and at a guess, everyone here would make far more mistakes than Joe but he is a little wacky at times.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,418
I quite like Rogan actually. Though I mainly know him from UFC commentary.
Caporegime
I do too, watch the majority of his podcasts but he isn't infallible and that's fine. He definitely isn't someone who is consistently a "conspiracy theorist and general nutcase who endorses pseudoscience and other forms of moonbattery" If you want that then look no further than Eddie Bravo or Alex Jones.
I mean there's obviously an entertainment aspect to his podcasts and he can't just sit there disagreeing with guests for 2 hours otherwise it'd be pretty awkward viewing, you do need to let people have their say and then let viewers make their mind up.
Caporegime
That's not what I'm saying he needs to do, but it seems he'll challenge certain people on nonsense or their opinions, yet others he won't because they align with his views and he likely feels uncomfortable due to what he's said himself previously. He sat there that time and was brutally honest with his friend Brendan Schaub on his MMA career yet when someone who calls himself a doctor who isn't even educated to that level comes on he lets him have free will.
Which guest was the Doctor who isn't actually a Doctor? I tend to listen to about 1/3 of his podcasts these days, mostly the MMA one's, I skip the random netflix comedians, hunting podcasts and Doctor who-is-it talking in depth about diet science that isn't really relevant to the average person.
Caporegime
Chris Kresser, he's now removed any signs of where he referred to himself as one after being called out on it, he studied Acupuncture and Integrative Medicine yet spins the whole paleo diet thing and comes out with wonderful lines to support his views like "We're the only animal in nature that drinks the milk of another animal, and yeah, we're the only animal in nature that uses iPhones too".
Cathy gives a great example of "How not to listen to the person you're debating with" 101.
Her stupidest claim was that someone has a "Right not to be offended".
The more people continue to point out the fallacy in Group Advocacy Ideologies, the better.
Her stupidest claim was that someone has a "Right not to be offended".
The more people continue to point out the fallacy in Group Advocacy Ideologies, the better.
He did the interview quite well, but some of the questions put to him are very much "wtf" type.
The route Cathy goes down regarding only 7 women are running FTSE100 companies, and he replies with something along the lines of there's a requirement of traits in a person for them to be successful in running a FTSE100 company, she then turns around and simply asks why do these companies not adopt more feminist traits which would probably allow more woman into the top job. Frankly what a ridiculous question, firstly he doesn't own/run a FTSE100 company, so he can hardly say sure lets try it out. Secondly a board of directors/investors do not like "trying new things", simply put they're not going to risk investing their own money in a company that might express more feminist traits without knowing full well that it would work.
In a sense it requires a vocal feminist to "put your money where your mouth is", and create a start-up with feminist traits that can be used as an example to see whether it would actually work successfully or not.
The company i work for has been through a troubling 5 or so years, and actually employed a female CEO to drive the business through the troubling times. I'm sure the board of directors didn't care about her gender when choosing to employ her. She's had successful CEO careers at other world leading companies, so it's pretty clear she was offered the job based on her experience and reputation.
The route Cathy goes down regarding only 7 women are running FTSE100 companies, and he replies with something along the lines of there's a requirement of traits in a person for them to be successful in running a FTSE100 company, she then turns around and simply asks why do these companies not adopt more feminist traits which would probably allow more woman into the top job. Frankly what a ridiculous question, firstly he doesn't own/run a FTSE100 company, so he can hardly say sure lets try it out. Secondly a board of directors/investors do not like "trying new things", simply put they're not going to risk investing their own money in a company that might express more feminist traits without knowing full well that it would work.
In a sense it requires a vocal feminist to "put your money where your mouth is", and create a start-up with feminist traits that can be used as an example to see whether it would actually work successfully or not.
The company i work for has been through a troubling 5 or so years, and actually employed a female CEO to drive the business through the troubling times. I'm sure the board of directors didn't care about her gender when choosing to employ her. She's had successful CEO careers at other world leading companies, so it's pretty clear she was offered the job based on her experience and reputation.
A good example of a company running itself with the traits Jordan discussed (that go against the traits evidence shows are successful in business) would be Triodos Bank.
In comparison to it's competition, Triodos doesn't perform very well using the traditional profit/growth/financial metrics. They are looking for success in sustainability however, rather than financial. I feel even if there were more companies with this kind of ethos, it would be like comparing apples with oranges. High street banks are trying to make money, Triodos are trying to make the world better. They are achieving different goals so can't strictly be compared on a like for like basis when determining success.
In comparison to it's competition, Triodos doesn't perform very well using the traditional profit/growth/financial metrics. They are looking for success in sustainability however, rather than financial. I feel even if there were more companies with this kind of ethos, it would be like comparing apples with oranges. High street banks are trying to make money, Triodos are trying to make the world better. They are achieving different goals so can't strictly be compared on a like for like basis when determining success.