Tag: mailvox

Try telling this unemployed military veteran that immigration and work visas are “good for the economy”:

Here’s a quick rundown of what happened to me. I can’t qualify for a job requiring zero years experience.  We’re being replaced.

• 6-year USAF veteran. Honorably discharged in 2011.
• Start new career in energy in 2011. Shit hits the fan with oil prices and get laid off in 2016.
• No problem, chin up, go back to school and finish economics degree. Graduate early 2018.
• Apply to job at Hewlett Packard. Wait patiently for response and vigorously apply elsewhere.
• Get rejected for a job requiring ZERO years experience. WTF-F-F-F?
• Check out H1B search position and company. HP has hired 4 people on H1B for the same job.
• I was replaced in my own country. The country that I served.

The war is coming home. If America’s soldiers can’t find work, then no one should be surprised if they begin to utilize the skills they learned in the military against their real enemy, the one that is actually attacking them, their families, and their way of life.

Jerry Pournelle was right. There will be war.

I was sent this by a Canadian gentleman this morning. A selection from his email:

After graduating from Fairview High (1979) Jordan studied Poli-Sci at Grande Prairie Regional College for two years before transferring to the University of Alberta (Edmonton) where he earned a BA (1982). Low grades and a poor LSAT score torpedoed foundational dreams of a legal career; leaving Jordan despondent.

Jordan stayed at U of A; defaulting his major to what was then Canada’s academic catch-basin, Psychology. Transferring credits and completing requisite courses fetched a second BA (Psych) in 1984.

From 1985 to 1991 Jordan studied at Montreal’s McGill University. After getting his Ph.D. he haunted McGill’s halls for three additional years as a Post-Doc before being rescued by a professors’ assistant posting at Harvard. Four years later he landed a teaching professorship at U of Toronto. Despite fictionalised autobiographical accounts of a varied, storied career; Jordy’s a schoolie.

Even his masthead boast about being a Clinical Psychologist is largely bogus. His clinical (private practice) work was a minor sideline. In Map of Meaning (1999) he bemoans his lack of clinical experience. Since then teaching paid the bills. Sorties into the media, writing, and a self-help publishing venture left little room for private practice. When his celebrity career took off he abandoned his few clients.

Peterson’s grooming by state broadcasters began in 2004 when TV Ontario produced a 13-part series based on Map of Meaning. Viewers tuned-out in droves. Following his UN gig in 2012-13, Peterson began uploading his lectures onto YouTube; attracting scant attention. Then a miracle…

On September 27, 2016 Jordan posted the video: “Professor against political correctness.” Within 24 hours, Canada’s main newspaper chain’s flagship, National Post, ran an article plugging the video. Two days later “As it Happens” – Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekday evening radio show (1.6 million weekly listeners) – interviewed Peterson, again plugging the video. CBC re-ran this show online titled “I’m not a bigot” accompanied by a flattering photo of Peterson. 

While billed as a populist Internet sensation, Peterson is, in fact, a mainstream media balloon. Even his Internet success was amped.  In December 2016 Peterson began podcasting. Weeks later he hired a team to record his class-room lectures. These were edited and disbursed across the web. Then YouTube’s gnomes went to work. Peterson’s mug-shot became ubiquitous in YouTube’s spontaneous suggestion columns. Persons not remotely interested in Peterson were persistently shunted to an array of cookie-cutter YouTube sites that exist solely to publicise chosen e-celebs. Comments sections of Peterson’s scatterbrained lecture videos contain numerous complaints of “click-bait.”

It would be interesting to know if the Canadian LSAT was also an IQ proxy, as this would prove that Peterson has been exaggerating his IQ. There are already some anomalies in his self-description of it; the fact that such an ambitious individual first attended a regional college also tends to suggest that his test scores were less than superlative.

You can see exactly how trivial a figure Jordan Peterson was prior to October 2016 from this Google Trends comparison from 2011 through the end of September 2016. Keep in mind that this chart begins more than 7 years after a 13-part televised series dedicated to Peterson’s first book.

UPDATE: If it is true that Peterson applied to law school but did not get in, then he is lying about his supposedly high level of intelligence. From the Canadian Mensa site concerning prior evidence it accepts of a 98th percentile IQ.

LSAT Prior to 1982: 662. Effective 1982 (total percentile rank): 95. The average LSAT accepted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law is the 90th percentile. In current terms, the 90th percentile is a score of 164, which equates to an estimated IQ of 124. That is the ceiling on Jordan Peterson’s IQ.

UPDATE: Jordan Peterson’s IQ claim:

I don’t know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point. It’s in excess of a hundred and fifty but I don’t know exactly where it lands now…. I’m not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective, you know. I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70-75th percentile which isn’t too bad given that you know you’re competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there’s a big
difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that’s where
it was verbally, something like that.

Now remember, Jordan Peterson is a habitual liar. Also note that if we put together the 75th percentile and 99th percentile on the GRE that he claims would indicate that he is at the 87th percentile combined. We can see that Mensa equates the 95th percentile on the GRE with the 98th IQ percentile, so adjusting for the difference in populations would move him up to the 90th percentile, or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.

UPDATE: Boom. Got him. I cannot believe I missed this! From Maps of Meaning.

I wanted to become a corporate lawyer—had written the Law School Admissions Test, had taken two years of appropriate preliminary courses. I wanted to learn the ways of my enemies, and embark on a political career. This plan disintegrated. The world obviously did not need another lawyer, and I no longer believed that I knew enough to masquerade as a leader.

So, he did take the LSAT, he does know his IQ, and now, so do we. Looks like we’ll be adding Appendix D to JORDANETICS next week. Needless to say, I’ll be doing a Darkstream on the subject tonight.

JC has a Christmas request:

You mentioned Taleb is one of the few people that would make you question things you previously held. Taleb’s math is out of my league but it’s the same way I feel about your blog posts, i.e. they make me really think about my previously held beliefs. Could you maybe address his IQ thread in your blog or on the Darkstream one of these days?

Knowing my respect for the acumen of NN Taleb, a number of people have emailed me concerning his recent thread criticizing the idea of IQ and its utility in providing a reasonable proxy for comparing intelligence between individuals. I love Taleb’s books, I admire his pugnacious spirit, and I do not dismiss anything he says out of hand. However, no matter how much I respect anyone, I do not accept anyone as an authority who cannot be questioned. I have questioned and critiqued most of my intellectual heroes, from Umberto Eco to Thomas Aquinas and Marcus Aurelius, so I won’t hesitate to point out the various errors in fact and logic that Taleb makes in his “IQ” Thread.

“IQ” THREAD

“IQ” measures an inferior form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects, meant to select paper shufflers, obedient IYIs.

1- When someone asks you a question in REAL LIFE, you focus first on “WHY is he asking me that?”, which slows down. (Fat Tony vs Dr John)

2- It takes a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems. These are lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation.

Some people can only focus on problems that are REAL, not fictional textbook ones.

3- Look at the hordes with “high IQ” (from measurement) who are failures in real world rather than the ~50{d8b4b03f7cd10021bc48a627e8e1f7f3430c71153efff7ea4a5b1b0e3fb64988} correlation between IQ and success in 1) salaried employment, 2) jobs that select for edjukashion.

Yuuge survivorship bias.

37 out of 38 PhDs in finance blew up in 1998!

4- If many millionaires have IQs around100, & 58 y.o. back office clercs at Goldman Sachs or elsewhere an IQ of 155 (true example), clearly the measurement is less informative than claimed.

5- If you renamed IQ , from “Intelligent Quotient” to FQ “Functionary Quotient” or SQ “Salaryperson Quotient”, then some of the stuff will be true.

It measures best the ability to be a good slave.

IYIs want to build a top-down world where IYIs have the edge.

6- If you take a Popperian-Hayekian view on intelligence, then you would realize that to measure it you would need to know the SKILLS needed in the ecology, which is again a fallacy of intellectual hubris.

7- Perhaps the worst problem with IQ is that it seem to selects for people who don’t like to say “there is no answer, don’t waste time, find something else”.

Remember the 1998 blowups.

8- IQ is an academic-contrived notion.

And the problem is that in academia there is no difference between academia and the real world; in the real world there is.

Which explains why @primalpoly (while an honest resesrcher) can’t see where we are coming from.

9- It is PRECISELY as a quant that I doubt “IQ”.
I’ve spent 34 years working w/”High IQ” quants. I’ve rarely seen them survive, not blow up on tail events.

Those high IQ who have survived like @financequant /Renaissance happen to be yuuugely street smart

10- #SkininTheGame shows that the only robust measure of “rationality” & “intelligence” is survival, avoidance of ruin/left tail/absorbing barrier, (ergodicity). Nothing that does not account for ability to survive counts as a measure of “intelligence”– just philosophaster BS.

11- A robust use of “IQ” is for low scores for special needs pple. But then practically ANY measure would work to detect problem & improvement.

Or no measure: just a conversation #Lindy. But then psycholophasters are using it like cholesterol, transferring from tails to body.

12- If someone came up w/a NUMERICAL “Well Being Quotient” WBQ or “Sleep Quotient”, SQ, trying to mimic temperature or oth physical qty,  you ‘d find it absurd.
But put enough academics w/physics envy on it & it will become an official measure.

That’s what happened to “IQ”.

13- For a measure to be a measure it needs to be:

+ UNIQUE
+ MONOTONIC
or, at least
+ TRANSITIVE

Hence IQ is not a measure, but something for psycholophasters to BS about.

14- Any measure of “intelligence” w/o convexity is sterile.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/nassim_nicholas_taleb-understanding-is-a-poor-substitute-for-convexity-antifragility …

15-” IQ” is most predictive of performance in military training, w/correlation~.5, (which is circular since hiring isn’t random).

QUIZ: translate the correlation into percentage of the time IQ provides a correct answer there.

16- So Far: “IQ” isn’t a measure of “intelligence” but “unintelligence”; it loses its precision as you move away from 70 (left tail).

Where it’s most hyped (*some* jobs) it predicts ~15- 63{d8b4b03f7cd10021bc48a627e8e1f7f3430c71153efff7ea4a5b1b0e3fb64988} of the time, ~10{d8b4b03f7cd10021bc48a627e8e1f7f3430c71153efff7ea4a5b1b0e3fb64988} if you demassage data.

It it were a physical test, wd be rejected.

17- A graph that shows the synthesis of my opinion on IQ and the “reseasrch” results about it.

18- (continuing graph). So far none of the IQ-psycholophasters seem to grasp that local correlation is never correlation is the commonly understood sense. So when they say  “IQ works well between 70 and 130” it means: “IQ works well between 0 and ~85, maybe”.

19- A general problem w/social “scientists” & IQ idiots: they can intuit the very terms they are using.
Verbalism; they have a skin-deep statistical education & can’t translate something as trivial as “correlation” or “explained variance” into meaning, esp. under nonlinearities.

20- This Tweet storm has NO psychological references: simply, the field is bust. So far ~ 50{d8b4b03f7cd10021bc48a627e8e1f7f3430c71153efff7ea4a5b1b0e3fb64988} of the research DOES NOT replicate, & papers that do have weaker effect. Not counting poor transfer to reality.

How P values often fraudulent:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.07532.pdf …
Same for g factor

21-If you look at my p-haking above all the numbers by the fellow are upper bound -add category selection & the story is grim. Discount the story by >½.

“If IQ isn’t a valid concept, no concept in psychology is valid.” Sorry but psychology is largely bust.

22- This tweet storm irritated many:

1) Charlatans with something to sell: without IQ & other *testing* psychologists have little to sell society; there is a vested interest in hacking/massaging the stats & defending the products.

2) Pple who want some races to be inferior.

23- Note 1: Why is Intelligence = (long term) survival? Because convexity, missed by IQ tests. You want to make those mistakes with small consequences  NOT those with large ones. Academics ~ always focus on frequency of error not magnitude. Too Gaussianized. See #antifragile

First, while IQ may measure an inferior form of intelligence, Taleb’s apparent unfamiliarity with the statistically observed exclusion of the high-IQ cognitive elite means that he finds himself in error from the very start. Whether it was designed to do so or not, IQ observably does not select for “paper shufflers, obedient IYIs” as those who can best be described in that manner tend to be in 1SD to 2SD range. In fact, those in the 150+ range are 97 percent EXCLUDED from the elite professions, including academia, often due to their inveterate intellectual disobedience.

One study even found that the highest IQ among the academics measured at an elite English university was only 139! The fact that IQ proxy tests have not been utilized in the US college admissions process for nearly 30 years now only further obscures the severing of the link between academia and high intelligence.

Second, while it does take “a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems” those don’t tend to be the 3SD+ set. They tend to focus on ABSTRACT problems, because they are the only people capable of, and interested in, doing so. It is the midwits from the 105 to 115 level who prefer spitting out correct answers to questions already answered.

Third, Taleb fails to understand the reason for the correlation between high IQ and failure in the real world, which stems from the communications gap. The correlation between IQ and academic success is only 50 percent for IQs below 140; the rate of real world success for 150+ IQs is higher in the real world than in the academic world. Taleb is looking at too broad a range of “high IQ” rather than at a reasonable gradient of high IQ ranges.

Fourth, Taleb conflates intelligence with survival. But this is just flat-out wrong. Intelligence is simply a measure of intellectual ability, just as size, strength, and speed are measures of physical ability. And while intellectual ability is not necessarily as easily quantified, and while IQ is assuredly not a perfect measure, it is no more correct to redefine it simply because some people with lower IQs have higher incomes than other people with higher IQs than it would be correct to redefine size because some short people have higher incomes than taller people.

The fact that a track sprinter’s speed does not always translate to success on the football field, where speed is at a premium, does not mean that the sprinter is not fast. It merely means that there are other, more important factors involved that are less immediately apparent to the casual observer. And given the way in which the most intelligent women are disinclined to reproduce, it should be obvious that intelligence is no more intrinsically advantageous to survival than size.

In this failed critique of IQ, Taleb demonstrates the limitations of the technical mind, which I suspect in this case stems from Taleb’s understandable irritation with the shortcomings of the quantifiers used to determine IQ. A better measure would take into account more objectively quantifiable measures such the as speed of accurate reading, and place more importance on the ability to correctly perform logical and mathematical tasks quickly. But Taleb’s critique primarily fails due to his false assumptions concerning the correlation of academic success with IQ, which is surprising considering that Taleb probably knows more 1SD to 3SD academics than anyone reading this.

AP wonders if transtemporal quantum editing could be considered one of the great wonders anticipated by the Bible:

Just came home from work to catch the Darkstream and your references to possible trans-temporal manipulation. Never thought about it before, but it’s a hella scary idea. Puts me in mind of an incredibly powerful lie scripture predicts:

“For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

The real elect know our stuff, historically and currently. Not bragging, but just recognizing the Spirit was given to guide us into all truth. And he does his job. But with all the time I’ve spent reading the word of God, if something could make me question almost anything, it would be a completely unexpected, entirely unprecedented new level of manipulation; the sort of magic trick that makes the serious, committed believer in Jesus Christ actually wonder if he is losing his own mind. His memories are suspect. His intellect is breached. His spirit is … well, who knows?

When you find yourself questioning not just the validity of the input but the very operation of the machine God himself built, you’re really in trouble.

Which makes me think what you’re suggesting is not out of the question. The really bad stuff the apostle John predicted is absolutely coming, and maybe some of it’s already here. I appreciate being pushed to consider such things, because we need to guard against attacks from every conceivable—and inconceivable—direction.

I don’t find the idea to be scary, but rather, yet another reassuring confirmation that the divine victory has already been won, the very victory whose initial offensive we celebrate tomorrow. Christians have been prepared for over a century for a battle between what our eyes see and what our hearts know. That is why the Christian must be dedicated to the truth, seek knowledge, and pray for discernment.

I always found it intriguing that one of the strongest scriptural condemnations was targeted for those who modify the words of the Bible. Perhaps that was a warning for the very modifications that are being observed and reported now.

I don’t pretend to be a theologian or to have memorized verses from the King James Version. But do you really believe my knowledge of the latter is so poor that I would score a pathetic 1 out of 20 on a fill-in-the-blank Bible quiz?

PC has read Jordanetics and he is concerned about recent developments in cultsville:

I have just read your paragraph in Jordanetics:

“There are a number of signs that will alert us if Jordanetics begins to transform into a full-blown religious cult. For example, if Peterson’s followers … start founding institutions for the study and propagation of the 12-Rule Path” 

I found this quite chilling, as a mere week ago, and very shortly after the book was released, such an institution appears to have been founded. There is also the typical (and creepy) All-Seeing-Eye symbolism on their website, and a very messianic image of Peterson.

Yeah, that’s really not a good sign.

Now Mike Cernovich has seen through the evil, cowardly charlatan. It’s only a matter of time before everyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid does. Read Jordanetics if you want to get up to speed fast. I sent Mike a copy, so he’ll be well-equipped to deal with the attack of the Low-Status Lobster Cult.

Mike Cernovich
Jordan Peterson is a coward. That’s not a beef. It’s my assessment of his behavior. Remember when he said Kavanaugh should resign. And now he won’t stand with Carl / Sargon in any firm way.

Mike Cernovich
Jordan Peterson won’t debate adults (only college kids), said Kavanaugh should resign, and won’t stand firm with Sargon / Carl. He’s a coward.  And none of his followers can defend his cowardice, so they lash out.

Mike Cernovich
He has shown himself to be a coward, first by suggesting that Kavanaugh resign, and now by refusing to stand with his friend Carl / Sargon. So yes he’s a liar. He preaches courage while failing to live it – the tale of all religious hucksters.

Mike Cernovich
One area of study @jordanbpeterson might be interested in – What happens when people in your position refuse to take a firm stand? I would encourage you to read some essays by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

KE can’t understand why I despise Jordan Peterson and is upset that I was so indelicate as to observe that Jordan Peterson’s wife is attractionally challenged:

I don’t understand why you see fit to judge Jordan, when he is causing a large number of individuals to enter the realm of religious thinking. Do you think none of Jordan’s following will end up growing past him? He isn’t a cult leader. The mirroring and unwillingness to put forward concrete facts is due to his humility and goal of teaching people to think through concepts themselves, with the freely given admission that he doesn’t know everything. He always gives disclaimers when he’s not an expert. You don’t know the future, and you cannot make final judgement on what Jordan is doing, and whether his sins are wholly outweighed by his virtues. You are neither God nor Jesus Vox, you have fallen so low as to attack a man’s wife because of your own insecurity and resentment. It makes me so sad because I genuinely love you. Please reconcile. Outlove Jordan instead of this hateful sneering or you will live to regret it.

I responded to KE with all the restraint and gentle humility for which I am so rightly known:

Satan worship is in the realm of religious thinking, you moron. Do you think it would be desirable for him to convince young atheists to start cutting out hearts and offering them to Huitzilopochtli? Jordan Peterson is one part Tony Robbins, one part L. Ron Hubbard, and one part Aleister Crowley. He’s a exceptionally dishonest, very evil man. He even admits as much!

It’s hardly my fault that Jordan Peterson’s wife is unattractive. I’m not her plastic surgeon. I didn’t make him marry her. And my pointing out a readily observable fact is an absolutely relevant response to the ridiculous accusations that I am even remotely “jealous” or “envious” of the man. No wonder he’s always out on tour. And on anti-depressants.

Now, if you would simply read Jordanetics, you would understand why I am so openly contemptuous of the wicked charlatan.

Of course, being a gamma, KE couldn’t just leave it at that.

I’m sorry that you feel unappreciated Vox, you should know that what you do, despite your comparative lack of recognition is just as meaningful and worthwhile as what Jordan does. Maybe one day you’ll be as well known as he is today, but reacting so angrily will only serve to diminish that possibility.

I’m not angry. Nor do I feel unappreciated. Why don’t you stop trying to hurt people’s feelings like a woman and try dealing with reality instead? Jordan Peterson is an evil fraud. You’re going to feel very, very stupid when you finally figure it out.

Now try to stop being such an annoying little gamma male. This sort of nonsense is precisely why people don’t like you.

Readers are using the bestselling Jordanetics to deprogram the lobster cultists:

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Jordanetics. I loved the book and hope to convince my lobster cultist [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] to read it before the end of the year. I think they are a bit afraid to. My [REDACTED] is pretty ashamed that he was a big Sam Harris fan before I pushed him to reconsider.

I spoke to [REDACTED] and was surprised to hear her reaction to Milo’s forward. Like so many others, she claimed it came off as envious and unpersuasive. She said it sounded like the bitter response of someone who didn’t know how to walk the line of acceptable discourse attacking someone who does. Myself and another friend (who likes Peterson) asked her how that explains Peterson objective, documented betrayal of Milo. If Peterson is merely trying to walk that fine line, does that justify lying to his audience and his “friends”?

Ha, well, as I was writing this [REDACTED] texted me saying she was wrong about Peterson. She just read your bit about his involvement with UN and said “fuck that guy.” You made a very strong case, and it’s clearly getting through.

The reader is, of course, very welcome. I’m pleased to see how effective the one-two combination of Milo’s very personal Foreword followed by my dispassionate approach has succeeded in penetrating the meandering fog of meaning with which Jordan Peterson hides his true objectives and philosophy. I’m even more encouraged to hear that Peterson fans are nervous about reading the book, as that indicates they are already beginning to have their doubts about him.

An erstwhile gung-ho Peterson fan posts an important review:

As a former Jordan Peterson fan myself, I initially dismissed many people’s criticisms of the man, Vox Day included. I didn’t think JBP was the savior of mankind or even remotely Christian…just a man who stood up to SJWs and the thought police and wanted to help young wayward millennials.

However after really listening to VD’s arguments and looking into JBP’s content in his books, I cannot in good conscience, especially as a Christian, support Peterson anymore. This book is extremely thorough and meticulous in going through each and every rule in his 12-rule set and shows the bait-and-switch for each one—with each rule building up JBP’s philosophy that can be correctly identified as anti-Christian along the lines of Aleister Crowley and WB Yeats.

This isn’t about jealousy, envy, unfounded hatred, etc. about the man. There is a lot about Peterson himself that is more to be pitied than yearned for.

I urge everyone, especially those who were gung-ho about the Lobster Man like I was, to put aside the strong proclivity to protect him for just a second and read this book. It makes a very strong case that JBP isn’t just a charlatan talking about the psychological landscape, but rather a a sort of gnostic spiritualist talking about creating a religion as the successor to Christianity with him as the self-appointed prophet.

You simply cannot rely upon a deceiver to tell you the truth. And Jordan Peterson, first and foremost, is a shameless deceiver. The great thing about the publication of Jordanetics is that the genie is now out of the bottle and on the hunt. The Lobster Pope may have his tour, his ecstatic fan base, the media, CAA, the United Nations, and the Trilateral Commission all supporting him, but he is now in a race with the inexorable truth. It will run him down, sooner or later, and he knows it.

UPDATE: Soon….

This email exchange with a former academic fan of Jordan Peterson may prove illuminating:

Academic: About [REDACTED]. He is a good guy.  He got sucked into Jordan Peterson the same way I did—he thinks in symbolism and heard Jordan apparently talking about the kind of symbolism I study. I am worried for him and for some of my other academic colleagues who are friends with Jordan. His fall is not going to be pretty and many innocent people are going to get hurt.

VD: Yes, I rather imagine a lot of people who drank the Kool-Aid are going to be extremely disappointed. But if they were less narcissistic, they wouldn’t have fallen for Peterson in the first place. I can’t tell you how many of his fans and followers have told me “he sounds like me”. Yeah, well, that’s his game. That’s the con.

Academic: Exactly. And guilty as charged. I was originally sucked in by his Logos-Christ speak—until I realized that it was all my projection onto his smoke screen. I am so thankful that you and Milo did the book—Peterson is a real danger, much more so than those who are more clearly our enemies.

False prophets are usually worse than open and avowed enemies of the faith. And you should always be very careful to read what is actually there, rather than what you imagine might possibly be. This is a fundamental error that I see people making every single day, on this blog, in the YouTube comments, and in real life.

In my experience, if something sounds agreeable to you, then you should be MORE skeptical of it, not less so.

This dialogue rather nicely addresses the two most recent Darkstream topics, Jordanetics and learning how to think effectively at the same time. It is perhaps most useful to contemplate this in juxtaposition of how I have gone about criticizing Peterson and his work.

MC: You are confusing the dialectic process which dates back to Socrates himself with dialectical materialism. “Political philosopher…” yeah, right. I challenge you to a livestreamed debate about your essential premise that Jordan is utilizing Marxism to formulate his philosophy.

VD: No, I’m not confusing that. No, that’s not my essential premise. Yes, I am one of the bestselling political philosophers alive, with three #1 bestsellers in that category. And no, I’m not going to debate someone who has never read my work and misrepresents my statements. Peterson is not utilizing Marxism to formulate his philosophy, but he is utilizing the same structural approach that Marx did. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is structurally identical to Chaos-Order-More Perfect Order aka 12-Rule Path to Balance.

MC: You said verbatim that “his intellectual approach is fundamentally Marxist.”  This requires a gross misunderstanding of what the dialectic process— I.e., thesis-antithesis-synthesis— actually involves, and its rich history. It was developed in its earliest stages by Socrates through the Socratic method, and it was adopted by the scholastic Christians as the premise for their dialectic. Far from being philosophically Marxist and anti-Christian, Peterson’s adoption of the dialectic method is both a rejection of Marxism, and an acceptance of a method that has been used by Christians for hundreds of years. As for your credentials, I’m not arguing about how many best sellers you have. Any professional, career political philosopher would laugh at your claim that Dr. Peterson’s intellectual method is Marxist. And I’ve read more of your work than you think. The challenge to debate is still open.

VD: Yes, and obviously I misspoke as I intended to say that his structural approach to his philosophy is fundamentally similar to the Marxist approach. You are trying to build an entire narrative on a false foundation. And you are completely wrong about that being my “essential premise” even given that misstatement. I will never debate you, because you are not honest, you are primarily interested in demonstrating that you are a Smart Boy. You’re not a mind reader, you are wrong, and you haven’t bothered to even do your homework on this subject. So, drop it before I remove you from the channel.

MC: Now you’re making a different claim— and I appreciate that you’re no longer saying that Peterson’s intellectual approach is fundamentally Marxist. That may not have been considered an essential part of your argument to you, but as someone who watches your videos fairly regularly (and hasn’t criticized your work once until today), it matters to me how you paint the people you criticize. If you had claimed Jordan was fundamentally Marxist and stuck to it, that would have been an extraordinary claim. And in my defense, I am not at all concerned about being viewed as a “Smart Boy.” I am concerned about discovering the truth, wherever it comes from. And by the way, I’m still buying the book because I think there may be worthwhile criticisms in it. But I could not in good conscience let such a drastic accusation slide so easily. Kick me from your channel, if you will, but I think banning and refusal to debate are beneath you. Isn’t that what we criticize the Left about?

VD: Yes, it would have been an extraordinary claim, moreover, it would have been completely in contradiction to every single reference to Peterson and Marxism in the book I just wrote. Not that there are many, since Peterson is not only not a Marxist, he doesn’t even know very much about it despite his constant blathering about it.  The point is that your criticism was almost completely off-base. At no point did you ever stop to confirm that the meaning you quite reasonably assigned to it was intended, nor did you possess enough information to know that it was obviously an unintentional statement. Why would I ever debate anyone who suggests a totally irrelevant debate topic? There is literally nothing to debate.

So, what is the problem with this critical approach? Some of you will already have a pretty good idea of not only the problem, but the underlying reason for the problem, but we will ignore the latter as being obvious to those familiar with the topic.

First, never begin with a superior posture. Second, never make a definitive value statement at the start. Third, be very cautious about building a mountain out of a molehill, especially from a single piece of evidence. Fourth, always place more confidence in the written word than the spoken one. Fifth, refrain making any personal judgments in the early stages. And that’s just in the first paragraph.

Sixth, accept the responsible party’s expression of his intentions unless there is reason to believe he is lying or being evasive. Seventh, do your homework. Eighth, always be slow to leap to judgment. Express your suspicions, do not make concrete assertions.

A German reader describes why men cannot stand fake and hyperfeminized churchianity in lieu of genuine Christianity:

In one of your recent videos – I think it was one of the videos on Jordan Peterson – you mentioned that men really trying to improve on their lives tend to go the the gym and to read the new testament. This statement I can fully confirm from my personal experience. Being a gamma most of my life I slowly but steadily work myself out of the gamma’s self-absorption in recent years and going to the gym and practicing my refound Christian faith are two important pillars in that respect.

The motivation to go the gym I got already years ago and independently of your blog and videos. It’s another story with my refound Christian  faith. I was raised and educated in a Christian family and – as you also write in a blog post from May 2nd, 2018 – I think it was that very Christian education that contributed to me developing gamma habits in the first place. For example I remember my mother stressing that Jesus was a superior man for not defending himself and being a victim. Combine that with a weak father with strong gamma traits and you won’t be surprised that I developed the typical passive-aggressiveness of a gamma. Just to name another example: I remember attending a bible lecture as a child where the (male) member of the church community who served there as a teacher told us that women were somehow stronger than men. I don’t remember the context, I only remember my astonishment (“don’t have men naturally more strength than women?”) but somehow accepting his statement in the end.

When I discovered men’s movements and the manosphere some years ago I tended to regain an interest in God as the strong father I would have wished for my childhood days. At the same time I rejected the Christian faith and even resented it because I blamed it for turning me into a full-blown gamma. Especially verses like “turning the other cheek” brought about my general rejection. My relationship with God remainded being more of a superficial interest than a deep-rooted faith at this time.

The beginning of the breakthrough back to my Christian faith came roughly half a year ago with watching your video “Hate is a Christian Virtue”. This was the starting point for my growing understanding that Christianity isn’t about cowardly backing down and being submissive to evil and harmful people. I began to understand the Christian faith from a new and masculine point of view. I began to understand that it’s also about being strong and clear in one’s stand against attackers. Now I’m reading bible verses daily again and listen to sermons regularly (if you don’t now it already I highly recommend John MacArthur’s series on Social Justice and the Gospel). I even found a group of Christian men practicing the Christian faith and supporting each other in their manhood.

So first and foremost I want to thank you for your helpful work on the socio-sexual hierarchy and Christianity. Moreover I’d really appreciate it – if your time and interests allow it at this point – if you would further elaborate on the topic of Christianity and why it involves masculine strength rather than being opposed to it. In particular I’d really like to know your interpretation of verses like “turning the other cheek”.

The key to understanding the concept of turning the other cheek is to grasp that motivations matter. God knows your thoughts! You are not going to fool Him. If you are refraining from striking down the man who violently humiliates you out of cowardice, then you are not turning the other cheek. You are not seeking to be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. You’re just being a coward and there is less than zero spiritual benefit to you from your failure to respond. Better that you hit your attacker back, and do so harder than he hit you.

Turning the other cheek is only for the man who is strong enough to demonstrate his forbearance as an example of God’s mercy and impregnability, just as carrying the legionary’s equipment for an extra mile can only apply to the individual who is able to carry it for the first mile. One cannot strive to be a perfect man when one is not even truly a man.

That’s merely my opinion, of course. I am a political philosopher, not a theologian.