[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Sociopaths use to have higher IQ, and they are in the entire spectrum of society, all classes, in all colors.
They are crap people, since they are evil. Crap (what I refered about) it's not just about poor ignorant street criminals.

It is estimated 1% of the population are sociopaths. They aren't necessarily "crap people" as you say. Sociopaths have difficulty feeling empathetic or sympathetic towards others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they will act more malevolent than others. There are plenty of other motivations besides sympathy for treating people well.

I'm friends with a sociopath, and he's the last person that would steal, cheat, or otherwise harm you.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Please don't take me wrong or as offensive. But... Why so much people in this forum see Jordan Peterson (The right wing canadian psychologist who wants to socialize pu...y) as a semi God ?

Who is making Peterson out to be a god? Who says he is right-wing? If you think he's right-wing, you're listening to the wrong media sources.

I like to listen to him because he speaks about things in which he's given considerable thought, and is careful to speak truthfully. It's evident when people attack him because he either has the right counter to their attack, or simply says he doesn't know. His credibility is in knowing the limits of his knowledge.

About good X evil... I noticed that media in old days was quite cretins trying to fake, make fool of people, forcing a fake image of thenselves as good guys. Today they don't try it, since it have considerable limits, but try to make people as cretins as them, to the poor cretins with no power see no harm on rich powerfull cretins.

Not sure I follow here. So media used to label people as either good or bad, and now they don't?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I understood his point, immediately.

I will make it plain: the cost of using fossil fuels is incalculable.

Incalculable in that the variables are so many and complicated that a calculation would be impossible; not incalculable as in so enormous as to be near utter ruin.

It would also be correct to argue that fossil fuels has been an incalculable good for humanity. Nearly every measurable way to evaluate the health of humanity, from life expectancy, wealth, rate of poverty, disease, free time, GDP, infant mortality, travel time... is positively correlated with fossil fuel consumption. The great good is incalculable due to the many variables at play, and in the sense of the enormity of the good.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Incredible how all psychologist I saw, in my city, and most on web, look like depressed, and in case of JBP depressed and angry. In one interview he (JBP) demosntrated dispise over a female interviewer, not even looking to her but quite faking notes on a paper most time.

Peterson has admitted to depression himself. It's difficult having a higher order of thinking and having to constantly interact with lower order thinking, or having your higher order thinking subverted to lower order thinking. Very depressing.

As far as responding to interviewers; there is a difference between asking a question to increase your knowledge or with the intention of having a rational debate in the pursuit of knowledge, and simply asking rhetorical questions meant to associate a person as a "type" that is not worth even listening to.

I've seen him respond very positively to interviewers, even ones that don't necessarily agree with him. It just depends on if they are truly trying to have a discussion, or if they just want to appeal to their base of mindless followers.

I'm not left wing, neither right, but I found most of psychology more phylosophy than science. It's a circus with clows, since we found lot's of "trues" out there, very different one from each other, coming from different psychologists. In one side some religious ones (not talking about JBP now) and i n the other some nearly porn ones defending cheat and nearly bestiality.

The health of the mind is related to philosophy. Everyone has philosophical beliefs, even if they haven't given it much thought or can articulate what they are. It's an inescapable reality that philosophy and psychology are related since they both reside in the mind.

The main difference in philosophies come down to whether we are given purpose, or if we must invent our own purpose. In the former, we have a lot to live up to (burden), in the latter, all sorts of evil are permissible.

For me it's a bull...t area.
JBP a hero? Becase he expose the crazy sh...t left craziness? I can expose their sh...t too, and also most people here can do the same.

In the US, the culture has shifted so much that you can't even mention the craziness. That's part of what has propelled his popularity; his aggressive defense of the freedom of speech.

Or because he wrote self help books, to praise men's ego? Many women psychologist do that but praising women's ego. In the end it's self help for who wrote the book and got money ad fame, targeting some public.

Have you read any of these books you are mentioning? Do you think they have benefited nobody but the authors? Are farmers the only winners since they are paid for their crops?

I don't have heros, cause I don't see anyone in our era.

I tend to not view people through the hero lens because we all have our faults. Still, there are some people who are worth listening to more than others, and some ideas are better than others.

Why politics and politic's power should define science, define what is decease ?

Humans are involved in those areas. All of the benefits and drawbacks of human nature will apply here.

I think people should admit, they, politics and even scientists, in terms of human mind, brain, know nearly nothing and should declare incompetent to say what is what.

The problem it's arrogance to say a simple sentence : "I don't f... know".

Agreed. Problem is that sheep (the majority of us) follow people who project power. To project power, you need a certain level of arrogance and non-admission of limitations. Who would vote for a person who honestly says they would probably do very little to solve illegal immigration, for example? Rather than admit it's a tough problem, we get someone who says the solution is easy; just build a great great wall.