The art of argument | Jordan Peterson

The art of argument | Jordan Peterson

So how do you deal with situations where your
words are likely to be used out of context, let’s say. And that’s a situation I’ve encountered. Well, you see, you encounter a situation like
that very frequently. Everyone does in their life. If you’re having a discussion with someone
you live with, for example, so someone you have to be with for a long time – a lover,
boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband—sibling for that matter. You’re going to have contentious discussions
about how to move forward and it’s very frequently the case that your words will be
– that you’ll be straw-manned. Your words will be taken out of context. The other person (and you too!) will try to
win instead of trying to solve the problem. What you have to kind of decide is – well
two things. The first thing is: you’re probably wrong
in some important way. And you might think “Well, so what?” But no, it’s not so simple. Being wrong in some important way is like
having a map that doesn’t correspond to the streets. If you’re wrong in some important way, when
you go to where you’re going you will get lost and you might end up in a neighborhood
that you don’t want to visit! So it actually matters if you’re wrong. And so now if you’re talking to someone
who is acting in opposition to you, it’s possible that during your contentious discussion
they will tell you something—about how you’re wrong—that’s accurate. Now you’re not going to be very happy about
that, because like who wants to discover that they’re wrong? But it’s better to figure out that your
map is inaccurate than it is to get lost. And so one of the things you have to remember
when you’re discussing things with people, even if they’re out to defeat you, let’s
say, is that there is some glimmering of the possibility that you could walk away with
more knowledge than you walked in with. And that’s worth – that can be worth paying
quite a price for. And so I’ve had the opportunity to engage
in public debate of an exceptionally contentious nature for let’s say 18 months nonstop,
fundamentally. And it’s been very stressful. But the upshot of that is that my arguments
are in much better shape than they were, and—I shouldn’t say that. My THOUGHTS are much more refined than they
were at the beginning of this process. It’s not my arguments are in better shape. That’s not the right way to think about
it. It’s that I’m clearer about what I know. I can articulate it better. And that’s all forged in the heat of conflict. If you’re discussing a contentious issue
with someone you love and that you have to live with and put up with, you want to listen
to them. Because what you really want to do is establish
a lasting peace, and you might even have to make their arguments for them. Maybe you’re more verbally fluent than your
partner (which doesn’t mean, by the way, that you’re more right, it just means you
can construct better arguments on the fly. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re
more accurate). You might have to help your partner formulate
their arguments so that you can really get to grips with what it is that they’re trying
to say. So that you can alter the way that you’re
constructing your own narrative and your joint narrative, so that you’re not butting heads
unnecessarily as you move forward through life. It’s not a very good idea to win an argument
with your wife. That isn’t what you want, because then you
have a defeated partner. And a defeated partner is not happy. And a defeated partner is often out to reclaim
the defeat. And so as a strategy for moving forward with
someone who you’re going to wake up beside 5,000 times it’s not a very advisable strategy. It’s better to listen, to flesh out the
argument on both sides, and to see if you can come to a mutually acceptable negotiated
settlement. And that’s the case in most encounters in
life if you can manage that. But it’s easy to want to win. One of the things I do in my psychology seminar
is I assign papers to students and then I extract out propositions from the papers. And they’re propositions that are debatable. And so then I outline the Pro side and I outline
the Con side. Like “if you agreed with this, this is what
you’d think”. If you disagreed with this, this is what you’d
think. Then I divide the students into groups, like
four people per group. “You four are pro. You four are con. You’ve got 20 minutes to make a pro argument. You’ve got 20 minutes to make a con argument. We’ll go around the table and we’ll see
how, you know, we’ll have each group rate the other and we’ll see who comes out on
top.” Well, what you want to do as an educator is
you don’t want to put forward a specific point of view. Not when what you’re trying to do is to
discuss a contentious issue! What you want to do is teach people how to
take an argument apart and formulate a response. And to do that it’s actually extraordinarily
useful to arbitrarily assign positions to people. It’s like, I don’t care what you think,
you’re “pro” on this topic, generate an argument.” And what that does is it vastly widens people’s
conceptualizations of the argumentative space. Because most really contentious issues – gun
control, abortion, those sorts of things—there is a lot to be said on both sides. They wouldn’t be contentious issues otherwise.They’re
issues that don’t go away. Well why? Well because they’re so complex. They don’t lend themselves to easy unitary
solutions. One of the things you want to learn if you’re
educated is that on any complex subject there’s a lot to be said. And that you’re going to come at that with
your particular ideological bias, let’s say, your temperamental bias. Maybe even you might even come at it with
things you’ve actually thought about, although that’s pretty damn rare. But you need to learn just exactly how localized
your viewpoint is. There’s psychology experiments that demonstrate
this quite clearly. So imagine that you come into my lab and I
ask you whether you’re “pro abortion” or “pro life”. And I get you to rate that on a scale. Maybe you say, “Well, on a scale of one
to ten, I’m eight prolife.” And I say “Okay, now you have to write a
500 word essay that’s opposed to your position.” Okay? That’s the experiment. And then I bring you back two weeks later
and I ask you to rate your position on the same scale. It will have shifted substantially to the
position that you delineated in your written report. And the reason for that is that most people’s
arguments are unbelievably shallow. They’re not arguments, they’re just perceptual
biases. That’s one way of thinking about them. And if you get people to delineate out the
space in any rigorous manner then their attitudes shift. What you really want and if you’re going
to engage in a discussion about say something like gun control is you want to be familiar
with the entire range of arguments—deeply familiar. And have some respect for them. I mean it’s pretty clear that guns kill
people. They’re dangerous. But then it’s also not self-evident that
the only entities that should be allowed to be dangerous are the state entities. So there’s things that can be said that
are intelligent across that entire distribution of opinion. And if you’re educated then you should be
conversant with the entire range of opinions. So that’s one approach as an educator, is
to teach people how to analyze an argument and to formulate their opinions. You do people a great service by – that’s
teaching them how to think. Not what to think, but how to think. Now when I lecture my psychology courses which
is a different approach let’s say, I take a position on the literature because I have
to. There’s no being neutral about the literature. What am I going to do, pick random studies? It’s like that isn’t how people work. I have a body of knowledge and it stems partly
from my biases and from my temperaments. But it’s an informed body of opinion. But what I presented to the students as is,
like look, this is my take on the literature. That doesn’t mean I’m right! It means that I’m an informed observer. I’m an informed, singular observer. And what I’m doing then is modeling how
an informed, singular observer would deal with a complex body of literature. So it’s partly, in that role I’m not exactly
providing facts and I’m not exactly teaching people how to think. I’m saying, “If you’re a psychologist,
a research psychologist, and you want to engage with the literature, here is one way that
you would do it.” And so then I’m a model and I’m a model
of a way to be in a particular domain. Now that doesn’t mean that you have to emulate
me from top to bottom, but at least you have a sense of what it’s like to be a person
doing that. And that’s a different form of pedagogy.

Dereck Turner

100 thoughts on “The art of argument | Jordan Peterson

  1. Martin Johnson says:

    Nassim Taleb's fictional character Fat Tony says, "Suckers want to win the argument, non-suckers want to win." Putting that in the context of arguing with someone you have a long-term relationship with, "Win" means exactly what JBP describes about an argument with your spouse. What does it mean to "win?" Not to crush the other person, but to find a mutually acceptable position.

  2. joyela aeuvunya says:

    He is crazy

  3. SinnerSavedByGraceThruFaith InJesus says:


  4. Just Whatever says:

    As a pro lifer, I would never be able to write a pro-abortion essay, cause I'd feel every argument I wrote would be too weak

  5. Freedom Works says:

    Watch him debate Micheal Eric Dyson … one was very bright with great arguments , the other a melting down social justice warrior.

  6. Jonah Miller says:

    So enlightening it literally brings tears to my eyes

  7. monstersince says:

    opposing opinions are best expressed when you are not angry. especially if they are not the persons you are angry at

  8. monstersince says:

    i want everyone to do and think my way.

  9. anthony dow says:

    Professor Petersen, is amazing in his analysis. He has earned the right to speak so eloquently and with such awesone knowledge and such dedicated research.. Professor Peterson you are so blessed for helping us to try to understand our world, God bless you.

  10. anthony dow says:

    God bless you professor peterson

  11. Shane Stephen says:

    Argument? No…..commin sense in a sick twisted and perverted reality? Yes

  12. DiSTRACTiON channel says:

    …the art of CRiTiCAL thinking 🤔 🙏

  13. TheReactor8 says:

    The problem I have is that I cannot value the argument of another person that has no knowledge and therefore no consideration, not even had a thought about certain revelant aspects of the subject.
    No the relevant aspect was not set aside as irrelevant, the person did not do the analysis or is incapable or plain lazy.
    Though many people think their opinion is worth as much as mine.
    And yes I am humble in the presence of a superior mind.

  14. truth seeker says:

    You, Mr.Peterson, will never have the authority to tell me how much time I have to come to a conclusion about anything.  That's the law of the West.

  15. truth seeker says:

    Peterson, in a world run by criminals why should I bother to "generate an argument?"  It doesn't make sense.  All the arguments have already been "generated."  It won't work.  It means puke.  The evidence is not admissible.  Ever heard of that idea?  I'd like to think you have heard of that idea and if you have you must know that your argument goes into the garbage can unless the rules have been changed.  The simplest and greatest of arguments are not admissible in the world that I have seen.

  16. truth seeker says:

    Mr. Peterson, I'm not altogether sure that I want you to teach me how to think.  I've had at least a handful of spiritual teachers that I have learned many things from and I consider them my teachers.  Most if not all of these teachers have died.  But their teachings have not died.  I'll leave it at that.

  17. truth seeker says:

    Damn you straight into the pit of Hell, Peterson!!  Why do you insist on proving yourself a numbskull when I'm trying to raise you to a higher level?  Guns don't kill people, numbskull.  You haven't figured that out yet?  People kill people.  Simple.  Get it?  Not complex.  Simple.  You're working too hard, Peterson.  Unscrew your head and empty all the dung that is inside it and screw it back on correctly minus the dung.  Why do you say dumb things like "guns kill people."  Shame on you.

  18. Douglas Page says:

    DR. Peterson. I really love your lectures. However I have one question. How does a gun kill someone? I mean in a willful act. A gun is a tool, just like a sword, a hammer, a screwdriver, a car, or any other tool. I think we can both agree that a tool can be used to kill, but that in every case, it takes a decision by a person to make that happen, even if that decision is one of negligence, a decision, made by a person is an inescapable factor in the equation. Decisions and actions are what is dangerous, even sex, as you have asserted yourself.

  19. Veronica Christopher says:

    This was highly beneficial to me; thank you 😊

  20. OddTJ says:

    This is the guy the progressive movement and sheeply left in Canada decided to make their straw-man for bigotry?!? Bad call, better to have had this kind of thinking on your side… oh wait, he was.

  21. Besome Pevan says:

    Map = your reference point

  22. Henrik Bøgelund Lavstsen says:

    2:50 hits hard, my girlfriend is from Laos, so when talking in english i have a clear advantage. But at least she is a strong girl and just punch me when i go out of hand, so that is how we balance things 🙂

  23. Topper Rune says:

    One of my school teachers would get us to debate topics from the opposite position than the one we held – playing 'Devil's Advocate'. It is a very helpful technique.

  24. Tim Sparks says:

    Guns don't do anything without the right or wrong person in charge of them. Kives kill people , cats kill people.bowling balls kill people….etc.

  25. John Hanks says:

    Conversations not debates between egotists who think they are special.

  26. Atreus21 says:

    "They're not arguments, they're perceptual biases." Quite so. Men's minds are more often then not governed by impressions.

  27. Rok Podlogar says:

    what a great analogy. being wrong in some important way is like having a map that doesn't correspond to the streets and you might get lost and visit some streets you don't want to visit.





  30. Brian Williams says:

    7:15 Well no when you get them to delineate out the space especially in realtime you normally get met with the most hostile reaction because there is a point at which they realise how shallow their opinions are and they are prone to buckling down instead of admitting them and becoming receptive.

    It's very curious to me and whilst it may seem incredibly irresponsible I am still using it as a metric for emotional intelligence.

  31. Asso280 says:

    This would be a class every high schooler should take before they take social science courses in College.

  32. The Pict says:

    Everyone wants to argue. Everyone does. Everyone needs to.

    While birds can fly, only humans can argue. Argument is the affirmation of our being. It is the principal instrument of human intercourse. Without argument the species would perish. As a subtle suggestion, it is the means by which we aid another. As a warning, it steers us from danger. As exposition, it teaches. As an expression of creativity, it is the gift of ourselves. As a protest, it struggles for justice. As a reasoned dialogue, it resolves disputes. As an assertion of self, it engenders respect. As an entreaty of love, it expresses our devotion. As a plea, it generates mercy. As charismatic oration it moves multitudes and changes history. We must argue — to help, to warn, to lead, to love, to create, to learn, to enjoy justice — to be.

    Gerry Spence !

  33. The Pict says:

    That's the problem I have regularly, articulating my arguments in a better way .

  34. truth seeker says:

    Glad you mentioned it, Jordan.  There's a guy I know that everytime I quote a Scripture from the Holy Bible he claims I've taken the Scripture out of context.  Everytime.  Everytime.  He's a con artist.  I'm supposed to be a guy that doesn't know what it means to take something out of context.  This is an attempt to cause me to disbelieve what it is that I quoted from the Bible.  Too bad.  He loses.  I know what I'm talking about.

  35. truth seeker says:

    Rather arrogant of you, Jordan, to think you can construct my arguments for me.  I never tried that with my wife of many long years.  I had the humility to believe that she would be able to present her own case.  She did quite well, thank you, with her 8th grade education.

  36. truth seeker says:

    As usual his arguments are "complex."  Or the "problem" is "complex."  What if the whole thing is anything but complex?  What makes it complex.  What if the whole thing turns out to be anything but complex?  What if the whole thing is altogether simple?  I think it's simple.  I think it's not complex at all.  I think your words can make it seem as if it's complex when in reality it's altogether simple.

  37. truth seeker says:

    7:02…..No, the reason for that is that you brainwashed me into believing that my position was one not worth considering.  My position had no real value.  You conned me into writing a position that is against my real position.  Nothing new here.  Happens every day in the country where I live.

  38. truth seeker says:

    Guns kill people?  Are you serious?  Have you ever heard of the assertion that people kill people?  Well, that's the way it works, honcho, whether you believe it or not.  It's simple.  People kill people whether with guns or knives or baseball bats or bare fists or any number of means and if you don't understand that you don't know a hell of a lot.  Don't care how many fans you have.  A trillion or more won't change reality.

  39. truth seeker says:

    One doesn't, Sir, have to be "educated" to know that it is people who kill people not guns.  One can have an eighth grade education and know that.  It's statements like the one you just made that make you look stupid and it's a damned shame because people like to think that you are nowhere near stupid.  Stop making stupid statements.

  40. truth seeker says:

    Jordan, more.  I don't care whether you come from Canada or Mars please be kind enough to not tell me what happened three and one-half million years ago.  You don't know what happened so many years ago.  Please have some humility.  Seriously.  I don't enjoy having to say this to you.

  41. John Noonan says:

    One of the most misunderstood people out there.

  42. Stephen Aaron Shepard says:

    Two problems should be separated: How well the argument is presented and the actual content of the argument.

  43. Jack Tribble says:

    So. Liberals are parrots who know that they are wrong. They are looking for some way to look right, just long enough to get out and declare victory.

  44. Jack Tribble says:

    "Gun control" is not a complex issue. The Right to Bear Arms is well defined. There is no opinion.

  45. The Molecule FX boulder says:

    Hey Big Think and JP fans. I am perplexed at the 'art of argument' in the following. As a rule, JP fans describe his brilliance with awe.  I do not get the hype, but I invite any JP fans to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science…?

    1.  JP on Trump:  "Trump is a strange person.  He is impulsive, he is disagreeable.  What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians.  Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years.  I am not too worried about the situation in the US."
    2.  "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."
    3.   "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".
    4.  ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."
    5.  "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."
    6.  "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism…that is unbelievably wrong."
    7.   "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second….this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."
    8.  "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."
    9.  "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."
    Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'.  Seems more rambling and chaotic than the art of argument.

  46. apollos78tube says:

    If only I could do a Vulcan mind meld with Jordan Peterson & absorb some of this immense power…⚡

  47. Lil Soul says:

    Shouldn't be named "the art of argument", it's the art of thinking clearly and talking precisely about complex ideas.

  48. fallenSlave says:

    God Jesus bless you. Greetings from a hungarian.

    You helped me so much! Hope that I will have a chance to meet with you in real life. Sadly, when you was in Budapest I did not know…

  49. Octane Art Canada says:

    Im a model!

    Cant turn left… blue steel on point…

  50. The Molecule FX boulder says:

    Listening to a JP interview right now:  'Men and Women differ in two ways, biological and cultural.  Some consider this shocking, but science has known this for a long time.'  Help me Jesus.

  51. AvatarEnd777 says:

    There is no one on the morally and intellectual bankrupt Left like this.

  52. Vance Biondo says:

    Pinyahta petersons propaganda

  53. Stuart Keith Guitars says:

    As an engineer…the best approach to problem solving is to break things down, as much as possible, into basic assumptions…and thoroughly TEST every assumption. I didn't start off that way, let me tell you, but making aviation parts sort of forced that discipline. Soon I realized that often, I'M the problem.

    A true educator, engineer, doctor….is humble enough to acknowledge when they are wrong.

    Now compare THAT to the basic liberal mentality today.

  54. Vance Biondo says:

    I like an agree with ( WHST YOU SAY) and think your right .. and appreciate this view. No one can always be right and the reason for the argument or debate should be THE REASON FOR THE ARGUMENT OR DEBATE and to know when your wrong I'ds educational and . Benefiting to . The other person. And some times to agree to dis agree. Is healthy . When u get 2 people dead set and aggressive on their stance and . Belief. Lol it's stupid to argue for hours with 2 people that wont change their minds you waste time AND NITHER ONE IS LISTENING TO THE OTHER their to busy trying to prove their point moot conversation at best if not NON PRODUCTIVE AND. Destructive .

  55. AlexReynard says:

    I had a thought while watching this:When we persistently fear something that is not real, we will make it become real. That is how much we need to feel validated. We would rather face our worst nightmare, just to be comforted by the fact that we were right all along to be afraid of it.

  56. Freddy Franco says:

    Great lesson.

  57. Vincent Law says:

    Is it just me or is this a very unusual format and camera angel for JBP

  58. Suzy Siviter says:

    1st rule, never get angry, once you lose your temper, you can be manipulated in argument. Look up the 'duck season, rabbit season' bugs bunny sketch, its is a wonderful demonstration of this.

  59. Suzy Siviter says:

    2nd rule, always try and find something they said you can agree on and quote that back in your response, this makes them more likely to take on board your point of view.

  60. jerry greene says:

    Perhaps the clearest glimpse into the question of 'Jordan Peterson, genius or charlatan' can be gathered from his YT channel description. If any JP fans disagree with my analysis in brackets, glad to hear it.

    From JP YT channel: "I have been working on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable… However, now, for the first time in history, lectures can have, or even exceed, the reach and duration of books. Ideas presented in lecture format can be less daunting. They can be offered simultaneously to many people. They can be preserved for long periods of time."

    [JP is a fan of 'I chose my language very carefully, to communicate in a precise manner'. Let's break down this language. Transcendent means extraordinary. So JP is telling us here that extraordinary or important values exist? I doubt any 6th grader doesn't already know that, but thank you JP. Most tangible realities of being? Does that mean they are important in someone's life? Thank you again JP for working on your belief in this phenomenal insight. They have to be discovered? Does this mean during the course of your life in the dance between society and nature you learn what is important to you? OK, but do you have a point here dude? Wait for it… Lectures can be given to many people at once. Wow, this is some serious intellectualism. Either that or a guy whose ideas never move beyond the mundane and obvious, who nonetheless delivers them in over-indulgent vocabulary and grandiose self-importance. Here is my challenge to any JP fan. When you lift his robe a few inches you realize the whole phenomena is the emperor's new clothes. One fan says I criticize JP fans because I would lose in an actual debate with him. I don't think so. Any time, any place, any issue. Just name it JP.]

  61. sarah deason says:

    His teachings are powerful…I would have loved to be in his class…He makes me think like no one else…He is a unique individual and we can trust that he has given much thought to his ideas and teachings…Someone we can trust to deliver the truth and highly valuable information..

  62. Susan Tower says:

    I love it that his talk ended on a word I had to look up. Pedagogy. The act of teaching esp theoretical subjects in an academic setting.

  63. Barack Obama says:

    m havin a big think boys… M HAVIN A BIG THINK!

  64. Anazble says:

    This is a man who came out of his ordeal stronger.

  65. The Molecule FX boulder says:

    Hey JP fans.  JP says "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."  This research paper says JP is 180 degrees wrong.  Who do you think is right?  JP also says that "Violent crime rates have plummeted over the las 60 years.  This data source says JP is 180 degrees wrong also, comments?  JP has also said he wants Trump to be 'normally incompetent.  What about that does not sound completely ridiculous?  I cannot fathom why these kind of statements qualify as 'the art of argument', unless of course you want to lose the argument.  Thoughts?   Anyone care to defend JP on those?

  66. Tom Korte says:

    The Liberals here in Canada are importing foreigners and creating neighborhoods that you don't want to visit at an alarming rate. They believe that as soon as someone is issued a piece of paper that makes them a Canadian and will probably start letting the entire third world download DIY Canadian passports off the internet.

  67. janet fish says:

    Grammy and Grampy used to argue eachothers side, and would Never go to bed til things between them were settled. Raised 5 successful children, stayed married til death.

  68. Project 33 says:

    Be the word made flesh

  69. michael rodrigues says:

    Winning an argument with your wife? When has that ever happened???

  70. mustang607 says:

    No wonder leftists don’t want to debate. They may discover their wrong. They can’t have that happen. Some of them may walkaway.

  71. William Freeman says:

    I'm taking the position that his left ear, sticks out more than his right one. (so there)

  72. Fubar AlAkbar says:

    But the problem is, leftists think their ideology dictates reality, instead of the other way around. "This mountain is not on my map, therefore the mountain is wrong." "Capitalism produced more wealth for you than socialism produced for me, therefore you cheated."

    It's impossible to engage with this kind of person.

  73. Vik De Leon says:

    This guy inspires with his words

  74. akinoreh says:

    I'd like to provide (Turkish) subtitles for this video. I liked the video/topic/Jordan (he should be heard 🙂 ), so I'll do the translation anyway. I'd also like to post/embed it on this video. Would you mind turning on community contributions?

  75. ThatDamnedYankee says:

    Oh boy…it would seem that I have long hours of practice ahead of me. 😉

  76. cahenderson0812 says:

    I like the idea of helping a person form their position. There's a lot to glean from that.

  77. BLΛCK SΛMPLE says:

    This is one of the few times where Jordan Peterson is actually completely correct and helpful. Nuanced without the rambling! 🙂

    But if you ask him about his belief about the existence of a god, step back and watch the rambling commence…

  78. joe bryan says:

    a good punch in the nose seems to work well…

  79. lostkiddie says:

    This appears to have been extracted from a larger lecture. Could we have all of it please?
    Can't have enough of Dr.Jordan

  80. Neppo says:

    JP's vocabulary is really really impressive.

  81. Fauzi Saril Harry says:

    This man is too good

  82. kingsix2000 says:

    Doing what JBP says here is what many leftists should do. It is a way to empathize with the opposite argument even if you don't agree with it.

  83. Cindy Mulvey says:

    Guns don't kill, people do.

  84. Jones Affrou says:

    People approaching an argument as a battle that you have to win as opposed to an act of refining and shaping thoughts and beliefs of each other is why half of all marriages fall apart.

  85. mmmmSmegma says:

    Jordan Peterson? This fuckhead? The guy whose fans fight to consume every last drop of his hideous semen? Dude is a fuckin self help writing conman.

  86. jobje Rabbeljee says:

    Jordan doesn't take lightly those that cut him up over brick and then glue him in for fucks' stick.

  87. jobje Rabbeljee says:

    I'm wrong by nature, on purpose, and fulltime.
    Take that for consistent persistent ambition, fucker. Write a JP bible or whatnot…

  88. vhsjpdfg says:

    "It's not a very good idea to win an argument with your wife, because a defeated partner is not happy."
    – JBP

  89. Great Quotes Daily says:

    I do not have perceptual biases! (ha ha)

  90. Inas says:

    If u dont understand why other ppl do what they do or their belief, u can use his method of writing 500words essay opposing ur own position. Than thats it. U got the other person. Try it.
    Perhaps you'll understand them. Great, Jordan👍👏👏👏

    Being smart enough, you don't boxed complex worlds, guys 😉

  91. Vinyl Rebel says:

    But Jordan….I, never wrong…lol

  92. Jiatao Chen says:

    "your defeated partner is not happy!" man sounds like he's speaking out of experience 🙂

  93. beenay18 says:

    He has never changed his opinion in any thing based on the debate or conversation and he does not applies his advises on himself.

  94. Michael Robinson says:

    I dont agree with the happy wife happy life narrative. Well with no husband you cant be a wife. You are a team, you shouldn't act like a toddler the minute you are inconvenienced. I've seen so many men live by that happy wife happy life Motto and they are so miserable its disgusting..and for what? A little bit of sex here and there?

  95. Καρολίνα Carolay Guevara says:

    I believe as humans we are so complex that we want to be understood by anyone however we don't understand humanity for the root additional cultural, backgrounds and parents shape us a reason is
    debate always.

  96. aasou says:

    This guy has shit well and truly figured out, more so than pretty much anyone else Ive ever came across. So glad I have his work as a resource to talk sense into me whenever I feel like I need it. Invaluable.

  97. zaimah Begum-Diamond says:

    Hes a hate filled person who hides behind his intelligence

  98. Anudeep Arakkathara says:

    Clarity of thought and precise articulation of ideas coupled with the ability to summon the apt information for the situation.Jordan Peterson can make poetry out of conversations!

  99. Dorian Philotheates says:

    I have indeed noticed that Professor Peterson has refined his speaking skills over the last couple of years. I’m ideologically contrary to several of his positions, but he does make a lot of sense when it comes to ideas on public debate.

  100. Maximus Gigantos says:

    One thing I learned from him is how to structure my sentences better.
    As he said, it is really a great weapon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *