/lit/ are Jordan Petersons views on what?

[Anonymous No.11674066]

[Anonymous No.11674072]

Possibly.

[Anonymous No.11674078]

>>11674066
While we shitposting, can someone explain to me, how this quasi-scientific Jungian (and Freudian) crap is considered relevant in modern academia? I mean, this is just bullshit , on par with astrology.

[Anonymous No.11674092]

>>11674078
Isn't most psychology on par with astrology? I don't trust academia anyway, or scientists for that matter, because even those studying legitimate sciences are bought.

[Anonymous No.11674109]

>>11674066
7

[Anonymous No.11674111]

>>11674078
For the same reason that economics and philosophy is still taught.

[Anonymous No.11674127]

>>11674111
>Philosophy
Not a science. Freud, Jung and their ilk were pulling scientific claims out their asses.

[Anonymous No.11674291]

>>11674127
Which seem to work better than "scientifically proven" methods like CBT, the latter being equal to psychoanalysis when it comes to success rates.

[Anonymous No.11674298]

>>11674092

I mean, they do a lot of statistic tests for a lot of hypothesis, but none of it is grounded in biology or neuroscience.

It's like trying to do physics but just guessing random theories without having any actual physical understanding.

[Anonymous No.11674307]

>>11674092
>because even those studying legitimate sciences are bought
I wish.

[Anonymous No.11674416]

>>11674291
CBT is a set of medical practices, not an all-encompassing theory of the mind.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674434]

Questions for Never-Petersons.

1. Define postmodernism in your own words.

2. Explain why Cultural Marxism isn't real.

3. Quote a single instance of Peterson saying something you personally disagree with, and why you disagree with it.

I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.11674536]

>>11674434
DADDY

[Anonymous No.11674605]

>>11674434
>2. Explain why Cultural Marxism isn't real.

are you dumb or do you not understand where the burden of evidence lies here

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674608]

>>11674605
That sounds like something someone who read the communist manifesto and then replaced the word class with culture, thereby becoming a cultural Marxist, would say.

[Anonymous No.11674621]

>>11674434
Cultural Marxism is a meaningless buzzword to denote "thoughts that I don't like".

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674630]

>>11674621
As to your picture.

Peterson suffers from a severe immune system deficiency, meaning that things he, specifically him, will affect him, specifically him, in a specific way. Which is specific to him.

I'm glad you understand.

Now, as to your post; it is retarded and you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11674631]

>>11674608
here's a question for you, seeing you're just as inept as the frantic anti-petersons

1. explain why cultural marxism is real

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674634]

>>11674631
I've been to university and have first hand experience with faculty explaining their adherence to the doctrine to me.

They replace class with culture in the communist manifesto.

[Anonymous No.11674635]

>>11674630
not as retarded as Peterson, lol

[Anonymous No.11674636]

what happened to that based anti-peterson mod who deletes garbage threads like these?

[Anonymous No.11674642]

>>11674634
anecdotes are not evidence.

Sounds like, again, you're just butthurt because people have differing views from you.

also:
>I've been to university
doubt.

[Anonymous No.11674646]

>>11674635
Wait is this an actual post? Has this guy zero knowledge of epistemology?

[Anonymous No.11674648]

>>11674646
I think he might have deleted it, but, yes, it's real

[Anonymous No.11674652]

>>11674434
>1. Define postmodernism in your own words.

>durp durp im goin to problematize your metanarratives

>2. Explain why Cultural Marxism isn't real.

Culture is superstructural (even if that's an oversimplification nonetheless), you gotta look at the economic base (neoliberalism) to really understand anything.

>3. Quote a single instance of Peterson saying something you personally disagree with, and why you disagree with it.

His entire interpretation of Nietzsche as some sort of classical liberal emotionally invested in Christendom afraid of the loss of said values instead of just an edgelord interested exactly in transvaluating those exact values. Also his entire neurotic personality and mannerism is off-putting and seems overly feminine to me.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674653]

>>11674635
Faith in something more complete than you can be is required for axioms to exist; God is traditionally used as a moniker for that which is incomprehensible to humans.

If you knew anything about philosophy you'd read his post as a rather obvious statement.

[Anonymous No.11674666]

>>11674608
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11674671]

>>11674634

I've been to almost every university in the west, and have spoken to some 10.000 academics, they all say they're not cultural marxists.

Looks like you lose again tripfag. Do you ever not lose? Don't even reply, it will only make me laugh even harder.

[Anonymous No.11674673]

>>11674653

>Faith in something more complete than you can be is required for axioms to exist;

No.

[Anonymous No.11674674]

>>11674671
>I've been to almost every university in the west, and have spoken to some 10.000 academics
This is extremely cringeworthy

[Anonymous No.11674680]

>>11674634
Hah, it just took answering one question to show how profoundly stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.11674685]

>>11674674
and as meritable as the guy he's answering

[Anonymous No.11674689]

>>11674635

But it's true. Ignore the "as Godel proved".

[Anonymous No.11674691]

bump

[Anonymous No.11674695]

>>11674066

On.

[Anonymous No.11674704]

hey mods, can we get a sticky on this?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674722]

>>11674673
So you believe you alone hold the objective model of reality in your head?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674725]

>>11674680
https://youtu.be/wLoG9zBvvLQ

Maybe Peterson can explain it in a less succinct manner.

[Anonymous No.11674726]

>>11674689
What are you on about?

>Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof

The "as Godel proved" bit hardly matters

[Anonymous No.11674730]

>>11674298
Well... You are wrong. Great chunks of psychology are grounded in biology and neurophysiology. Peterson's Maps of Meaning is a great example of that.
He lays out the whole motivational(and thus emotional) and perceptual structure of humans based on the neurophysiology even on the base of the whole human physiology and too add to it he also nests this in a reasonable darwinistic account if how this physioligy came ti be through evolution.

Stop the shitposting and confront your ignorance. There are things that you can criticise peterson for but they are mostly semantics.

[Anonymous No.11674735]

>>11674725
all he really says is that Cultural Marxism is a corruption of post modernism

But there's no real proof that what he's talking about actually is some sort of widespread threat to academia.

[Anonymous No.11674737]

>>11674725
You evidently can't, because you think that one anecdote is enough for there to be some hidden Marxist conspiracy.
Now, explain why cultural Marxism is real in your own words, dum dum.

[Anonymous No.11674740]

>>11674726
well, see, but that depends on what you mean by "God" y'know...

[Anonymous No.11674743]

>>11674737
Watch The Courier's Tragedy and get back to me ;)

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674747]

>>11674735
I guess you'll just have to take the words of it from people who have first hand experience and are educated on the matter.

Or gather the evidence and education yourself.

Or, better yet, claim everyone except you is stupid and masturbate to your dialectic victory.

[Anonymous No.11674748]

Cats are pure Being, bucko. Wash your penis.

[Anonymous No.11674753]

>>11674747
I wen't to university too, bucko.

[Anonymous No.11674756]

>>11674747
sure thing, miss Maas

[Anonymous No.11674758]

>>11674748
Is this an accepted definition of Being? I don't really agree with it, the part defining what "totality" means

[Anonymous No.11674759]

>>11674753
What did you study, bucko.

[Anonymous No.11674762]

>>11674758
accepted by Peterson, sure

>>11674759
The classics

[Anonymous No.11674763]

>>11674740
Yes, and it is his fault (and wish) to keep things ambiguous, so he can deny and take on any guise he likes. Peterson calls himself a Christian, then follows that up by saying he's not a believer, etc etc.

If he meant the God of Spinoza in that tweet, he would have said so and wouldn't have bothered to delete it.

>>11674743
Is this what all Petersonians do? They cannot explain the thing they fear so much, but yet they keep pointing their fingers at people (or things) which explain it better than they can. No surprise there.

[Anonymous No.11674764]

>>11674434
>3. Quote a single instance of Peterson saying something you personally disagree with, and why you disagree with it.
He said ancient depictions of coils are pictures of DNA. I disagree because that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.11674767]

>>11674762
Accepted by others than Peterson is what I ask

[Anonymous No.11674768]

>>11674767
i know.

[Anonymous No.11674769]

>>11674758
No, and you could ask any Heideggerian scholar about it. But I suppose they are all corrupted neomarxists anyway.

[Anonymous No.11674773]

>>11674747
>from people who have first hand experience and are educated on the matter

but you aren't educated on the matter, you can't even explain what cultural marxism means lmao, you just send yt links

[Anonymous No.11674787]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_-tlZY9NEMk

>STRICTLY SPEEKING GENERALLY OF COURSE, GWWAAAUD IS REALY YOU FAGGOTS!

[Anonymous No.11674795]

>>11674764
It's possible, actually. The double helix structure of DNA was only discovered, as credited by its discoverer, through the intonations gleaned from the LSD molecule interacting with his brain.

The brain, obviously, is structured to interact and manipulate and move through the universe. And the universe is structured in specific way, with specific laws. Discrete laws.

Why wouldn't the brain act as a lightning rod for these mathematical universal constants? Or the consciousness? Most animal and plant bodies use these mathematical constants and ratio's to grow and proportion themselves properly.

[Anonymous No.11674798]

Okay, here's something I don't understand. This nigga at least namedrops Nietzsche quite a few times as influence and yet shills a book in which we can find the hot take in pic related. How.

[HEELP No.11674804]

Hey guys I really need some help. I love peterson because Im really depressed and he helps me with that im depressed so his grown to be a really big part of my life. I do have parents but their really bussy so it really helps to have peterson help. But the thing is I used dads creditcard to this thing that peterson has called patron. I donated the $100 teir because I really wanted to support peterson because his like a dad to me that i didint really have IRL and I thought that dad (my actual dad) would understand this but when I explained it to him he just got really mad. And he says "we really need the money. I sent peterson an email on his twitter but he isint replying and its been like 4 hours now and my dads really mad

If any of you now peterson please get in contact with him about this AASP!!! and hep me out. Please guys I need this to be fixed really bad.

[Anonymous No.11674813]

>>11674798
Who wrote that? Did this guy even read Nietzsche?

Cant believe people fall for the is ought meme

[Anonymous No.11674820]

>>11674795
it is not possible, and the pictures he used were of snakes and the like, which have anthropological explanations that make far more sense than "they discovered dna maaan!!"
fuck you peterson fans are insanely rabid

[Anonymous No.11674822]

>>11674813
Steven "ass" Pinker

[Anonymous No.11674825]

>>11674434
Hahahaha you want to look smart but fail to recognize you disabillity to put your words in a way that has any semantic value.

1) Postmodernism is not a coherent philosophical school of thought. There is no way to define it as such to encompass the whole of the thinkers that are considers postmodern. But to try and answer your question anyway. I think central to postmodern thought is the deconstruction of any hierarchy of values. Doing that you come to the conclusion that there is potentially an infinite amount of narratives that are in a constat battle against one another. Now another central tought of one postmodern thinker would be that these seemingly arbitrary narratives are only at the top of the value hierarchy because of their opressive nature thus their unjust primacy should be diminished. This is very strongly influenced by the marxian notion that society is a struggle between opressed and opressor.
Now the problem with postmodernism, as peterson would put it, is that (((they))) don't recognize that stable hierarchies are not produced by any arbitrary grand narrative but only by a small margin of narratives which could be considerd pragmatic truths.
To come to your third question now. I disagree with him here. The essence of postmodernism as I would define it is questioning the narratives that exist. But in contrast to thinkers like deleuze or derrida I have a positive vision of the future i.e. of the grand narratives that could be articulated to climb the hierarchy because of their pragmatic value to stabalise society.
2) this is a buzzword but I'll give my two cents anyway.
Axioms of marxist thought have been engrained in our societies institutions since the end of ww2. This is well docummented and incredibly evident if you inspect the state of state education in the western world or of governments. Collectivistic ideologies (like marxism) are tainted by malevolence i.e. they serve the function of taking revenge at those things one doesnt like and in the extremes those things turn out to be fundamental truths about reality.

I could go on and on and also link the societal problems we face since the beginning of written history to the theories of Willhelm Reich but I have better things to do.
One day I'll write books that will change the world like Peterson. And whatever criticism I myself have of him or whatever anyone else dislikes about him can not take from me the ideal that he embodies for me.

[Anonymous No.11674829]

>>11674795
>It's possible, actually. The double helix structure of DNA was only discovered, as credited by its discoverer, through the intonations gleaned from the LSD molecule interacting with his brain
That's an urban myth though

[Anonymous No.11674845]

>>11674652
Peterson is one of the last persons I would call 'neurotic'. Allthough the definition is not clear at all, being a feminine man is not being neurotic.
Sounds to me like you are scared of your own emotionality and feminine spirit and thus project the negative views you hold about this part of you onto the world outside of you.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674847]

>>11674820
No one is saying they discovered DNA, you retard. It's that the mathematical ratio's, intrinsic to the fabric of the universe, manifesting themselves as the biological level, are inducted into the human psyche and express themselves as artistic depictions of specific aspects of that cognitive ecology.

It's actually extremely simple, but I guess you simpletons really are lesser than us educated patricians.

[Anonymous No.11674856]

>>11674737
its not a conspiracy you faggot, its a tendency.

[Anonymous No.11674860]

>>11674847
What are you talking about

[Anonymous No.11674865]

>>11674856
A tendency to express views you don't like

[Anonymous No.11674867]

>>11674856
Is that another imp of Peterson who regurgitates everything that comes out of the Frog's mouth?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674868]

>>11674860
Read Jung, retard. Then come back and you can discuss concepts which entertain the big girls.

[Anonymous No.11674870]

>>11674847
>>11674795
>thinking there is anything special about these mathematical constants
You have it the opposite way, the constants arent sacred and the flowers and other biological creatures following them, its just patterns we notice because things are efficient, there is nothing "universal" about them

[Anonymous No.11674877]

>>11674868
No, you need to have a better understanding of what you're trying to say

>mathematical ratios intrinsic to the fabric of the universe
Is meaningless hogwash.

[Anonymous No.11674887]

>>11674870

[Anonymous No.11674888]

>>11674868
Also, didn't Jung believe that the collective psyche was constantly evolving? Contrary to Peterson's stance on rigid reactionism to objective hierarchies?

[Anonymous No.11674907]

Juden "You're just resentful towards (((them)))" Peterstein

[Anonymous No.11674914]

>>11674845
>Sounds to me like you are scared of your own emotionality and feminine spirit and thus project the negative views you hold about this part of you onto the world outside of you.

>Poopersontards actually believe this

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11674915]

>>11674888
Oh wow, a real question.

Jungs collective psyche is essentially the earliest deduction of the properties of the memetic transference of viral information. Peterson is describing what are called competence hierarchies in the psychometric community. The reason this is so important to humans is because we have a particularly unique and complex form of sexual selection revolving around the observation and tracking of individuals within and across it. However, they are not the same thing.

A competence/dominance hierarchy is a mathematical axiom of competition across many individuals working in any capacity with a singular goal in mind. The human collective social psyche is an evolved memetic ecology in RESPONSE to that.

[Anonymous No.11674917]

guys can someone please explain why there really isn't any satisfying explanation for why god is said to exist when there's not an actual evidence for the fact that we all just came from the big bang but somehow it is god that made us? are you really just suggesting that all of the science professionals (who have great, truly impressive IQs) are wrong about the big bang? even Stephen King? I kind of find this ridiculous and difficult to believe.

[Anonymous No.11674920]

>>11674758
Your question is stupid. Why would it matter if the definition is 'accepted'? And by whom?
The only thing that matters about the concepts that peterson uses to describe his hierarchy of values is if it produces measurable results in reality. Judging by the deviation from what you wanted to achieve the pragmatic value of your concepts is validated.

Basing the worth or value of a thought, concept or definition for that matter on the agreeing of others that claim to have knowledge of the topic at hand is naiv at best but collectivistic at it's worst. You see... For society to grow it has always needed people that did not depend on the acceptance of others.
Gallileos concepts about the cosmos were not accepted by then scholars. Einstein was also rejected at first by others that claimed to know better. Eddinson and his concepts about electricity were also under severe fire at first.
The thing is that all these concepts that were first depreciated by the unaccepting environment proved their pragmatic worth in the end.
This is why 4chan is mad at peterson and I'll say this over and over again until you nihilistic hedonists finally get it.... Petersons books are being translated into languages of pretty much every country that is relevant. They sell at the millions without almost no warm up time. He is successfull and the things he publishes are evidently helping alot of people. Peterson's concepts contain pragmatic truth. He is successfull. The ideas he brings into the conversation shine a light on the degeneracy and delusions of 4chan and other cultural phenomenon like it and thus these places react like ant nests that are stepped into. Or like a den of babys crying about the guy that made them aware of their inadequacies.
Cheers

[Anonymous No.11674930]

>>11674735
It is a mental health crisis. You are a very shallow thinker if this is your main criticism of peterson

[Anonymous No.11674932]

>>11674920
>use someone elses connotation and terminology
>change the meaning of it
>"why do you complain it means something else bro"
Fuck off nobody says the value of an opinion is based on how many agree with it you're just trying to grab cheap points because the post was slightly obscure

[Anonymous No.11674933]

>>11674291
Cock and ball torture does have benefits

[Anonymous No.11674940]

>>11674915
>A competence/dominance hierarchy is a mathematical axiom

You don't know what an axiom is

[Anonymous No.11674949]

>>11674930
>if this is your main criticism of peterson
When did I even say that?

[Anonymous No.11674952]

>>11674920
>The only thing that matters about the concepts that peterson uses to describe his hierarchy of values is if it produces measurable results in reality
Uh no, you place too much faith in the secular

[Anonymous No.11675038]

>>11674915
dominance hierarchy is a mathematical axiom ?
?!?!/
>AXIOM
GOOGLE
THE
WORD

[Anonymous No.11675061]

(you)(you)(you)(you)

[Anonymous No.11675070]

>>11675061
(you) get a (you)

[Anonymous No.11675193]

marxists seething

[Anonymous No.11675203]

>>11674722

>this is the reading comprehension of Petersonfags

Just read some Kant.

[Anonymous No.11675225]

>>11674920

>Your question is stupid. Why would it matter if the definition is 'accepted'?

Because when you appropriate the terminology of other thinkers explicitly, you have to use it the way they do. Sort of like I'd be just as dumb as Peterson if I said that this:

>The only thing that matters about the concepts that peterson uses to describe his hierarchy of values is if it produces measurable results in reality.

Is what Peterson means by cultural marxism.

Do you see it now? It's not really hard to understand, but I am aware that Petersonfags consider +30 minute youtube videos intellectually taxing. We can't really go around appropriating each other's technical terminology and then misunderstanding it or reinventing it without being called out.

[Anonymous No.11675231]

>>11674915

>A competence/dominance hierarchy is a mathematical axiom

pfffffff HAHAHAHA

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11675232]

>>11675203
I'll take that as a yes.

[Anonymous No.11675570]

>>11674631
Our economic system is clearly still capitalism but the cultural values have shifted from a meristocratic view (the best/ most able should get the job/ win/ thrive) into a system where everyone is viewed equally not only before the law but everyone is equal and it doesn‘t matter if you‘re a woman or man, black or white, if your group isn‘t doing as good as the other it‘s because the system is rigged not because your group is less able. This is the reason racism has become an inherently bad thing without any science supporting that sentiment, the same goes for sexism and especially the equalization of cultures. „The west is the best“ has become a fringe thing to say and saying islam is an inferior religion to christianity based on what it has created and based on where people immigrate from and to has become a form of disrespect in the mainstream, which is ridiculous to any objective person.

Primitive savages have become unfortunate third worlders, transvestites have come from an illness to being courageous etc. Every individual decision must be respected because no one is inherently better than the other because we‘re all the same, nice unrealistic dream to the losers of the world and deadly poison to anyone with ambition. Cultural marxism is real and we do have to do something about it or we will dissolve into nothingness.

Also peterson doesn‘t talk about race and he‘s also an individualist which i dislike.

[Anonymous No.11675613]

>>11674726
>>11674740
>>11674763

It's true that proof as defined first and foremost by Empiricists requires faith that one's Empirical vista is to be trusted at all, or that it even IS at all. Regardless of the Rational arguments against Empiricism, Empiricism itself reveals that even its smallest claims are tenuous, never mind its principles. To deny this paradox is to deny Empiricism itself.

[Anonymous No.11675671]

>>11674825
>One day I'll write books that will change the world
nice try faggot

[Anonymous No.11675731]

>>11675613
Are you OK? No one disagreed with the first sentence, which is so evident it needn't be said. The second sentence, however, is pure gibberish which he based on his faulty understanding of Godel.

[Anonymous No.11675732]

>>11674847
I think you might actually be fucking insane, or just a huge idiot.

t. biologist

[Anonymous No.11675755]

>>11675731

I wouldn't know, I've never read Godel. Hence me telling you to ignore the reference.

[Anonymous No.11675813]

>>11675755
Well, thanks for spelling it out, but that wasn't why it was posted.

[Anonymous No.11676169]

>>11674621
Not surprising. JBP is a pathological liar and often makes ridiculous claims about himself.

[Anonymous No.11676387]

JP BTFO by a british thot

lmao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX7Vxkev4VA

[Anonymous No.11676769]

>>11676387
>35mins
>it's about the intro and first chapter

jesus christ

[Anonymous No.11676787]

>>11676387
Jesus, does Peterson really start the book going on about his quora upboats? wew

[Anonymous No.11676804]

>>11674652
>his interpretation of Nietzsche
Is nothing like what you said. He's right when he says Nietzsche presicted the death of god would be cataclysmic, and he also says in lectures he disagrees with his solution (the ubermensch)

[Anonymous No.11676815]

>>11674078
embarrassing post

[Anonymous No.11676854]

>>11674798
>n. created the nazis
>source: rabbi Chaim herschowitz goldstein Stewart

[Anonymous No.11677029]

peterson strikes me as the kind of person to convert to islam. he even called himself a traditionalist primarily and most of talks are pretty perennialist (as is harris).

[Anonymous No.11677044]

Jordan "Netflix TV shows are on the same level of complexity as great literature" Peterson

[Anonymous No.11677069]

>>11677044
He didn’t actually say that did he? Why do never-peterson haters always come up with these bs lies putting words in his mouth

[Anonymous No.11677083]

>>11677069
>"But then Netflix came along, and HBO aswell, with bandwiths constrictions gone... and all of a sudden it turned out that no no, we can handle 40 hour complex multilayered narratives where the characters shift, where the complexities start to reach the same complexities as great literature, and there is a massive market for it"
Beyond dumb statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc&t=430s at 7:09

[Anonymous No.11677095]

>>11674078
its not.

jung freud etc etc captures the publics imagination but isn't really that relevant to modern academia apart from the history of thought and subjects like english literature and art.

psychology departments stopped giving a fuck about them decades ago

[Anonymous No.11677097]

>>11676169
this is just ad hominem, hes got a long proven record of work.

can you link any of these false claims?

[Anonymous No.11677116]

>>11677083
I know you want to be elitist and stuff but it's a pretty reasonable claim.

[Anonymous No.11677165]

>>11677116
It's a dumb ridiculous claim on every level, if anything people of today can't handle anything remotely challenging, which is why capeshit/starshit reigns. TV shows are yet another example, repetitive "safe" structure of episodes with no use of the visual medium.
The implication that if the content is longer it is automatically "complex" is most ridiculous, with that logic the thousand hour long mexican soap telenovelas are the most complex narratives human kind has ever seen.

As I've said before, throw a standard Netflix casual infront of an actually complex film and he'll be on his phone in 5 minutes.

[Anonymous No.11677206]

>Ctrl+F: december
>"12 results"
yup, board's still unable to deal with non-reader petersonites

[Anonymous No.11677642]

>>11674127
>Freud, Jung and their ilk were pulling scientific claims out their asses.
nah, its just that people assumed they wanted to lower themselves to the scientific paradigm, they are way above that

[Anonymous No.11677680]

>>11674078
>easy to swallow half truths in times of overflowing information and doubt
>strong daddy figure in times of individualism
It's more surprising that not more people picked this lane. Manchildren are a stable, ever-growing source of income in times of welfare states.

[Anonymous No.11677704]

>>11677165
We're just at the beginning.Things have already and will become more complex. Just compare shows that were produced before this millenium to what is going on now. You can't possibly believe that things have gotten less complex. I know movies are shit but the reason for that is globalization, people who grew up on subsistence farms in China are not going for the high IQ stuff yet.

[Anonymous No.11677706]

>>11674635
the ants thing was worst

[Anonymous No.11677718]

>>11674630
it is imp'osible to stay 25 days without sleep, that is just a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation
but JBP is clearly mentally ill and his face looks like absolute shit, so he probably does not sleep well

[Anonymous No.11677722]

>>11674078
Astrology is just as valid as 'science' - whose 'scientific method' is shrouded in mythology. Pro tip: science doesn't just use induction and empirical experiment, it also use deduction and is really no different from natural philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11677745]

>>11677718
The longest documented/observed instance of going without sleep is 11 days but there are people who claim they haven't slept for years.

[Anonymous No.11677771]

>>11674066
Can you guys FUCKING PLEASE forget about this guy?
Every single day there's a post about him, for the love of God just stop.

[Anonymous No.11678307]

>>11674066
For someone trying to improve my life, he sure makes me sad when I read his books or watch his videos.

[Anonymous No.11678327]

>>11678307
And why do you think that is?

[Anonymous No.11678331]

>>11674066
/lit/ are what and jordan viewson