Social Jordan Peterson thread, V.4 - "Darwinian truth" and misreading Nietzsche

Judging by his daughter's appearance(!?) on Rogan's podcast, mental illness is running in the family considering she claimed she saw her brother "literally" turn into a demon after she ate some soy.
 
In line with the OP, I'd like to put forth some other criticisms of Peterson. I think starting with the post from another user in the last thread is a good place.

"Like what? I have never heard him misspeak on evolutionary biology or neuroscience. My wife a Psychiatrist, has never heard him misspeak on either. This is where the left piles on because for them truth is social orthodoxy. Maintaining the collective lie is the most important thing because all they care about is the status gained by remaining within that collective, so when it collapses they are left looking the fool." -
@Kindacrazy

Peterson wavers from one point to another, cherrypicking facts and using semantics, wordplay and pseudoscientific claims. As an example in regards to evolutionary biology, let's examine his reiteration of the literature on primates and social dominance hierarchy. Notice his appeal to science here btw (hypocritical considering his metaphorical truth spill).

He often choses the aggressive and linear dominance part of chimp social relations, which in reality varies from different groups which he fails to mention (1), instead of chosing examples like the Bonobos who have an entirely different social structure. They are much less aggressive, do not readily fight over territory and use sex as a primary conflict resolution (2). They are equally related to humans as chimps on the genetic level. Moving further, there are other primate species like woolly spider monkeys that are entirely egalitarian with no hierarchiel structures (3), and the vast majority of the research shows that more tolerant and socially inclusive primate species do better AND are more intelligent (4).

Anthropologists suggest that the first tribes of humans lived in egalitarian socieites. This is hypothesized to be part of our evolution and what seperates us from most other primates, and many evolutionary scientist further hypothesize that altruism is a necessary evolved trait of humans (5, 6, 7). Looking further towards human societies today, rank fluctuates between groups and cultural norms dictates vastly different social structures. We funtion as a species and a society within rank, but that's not the entire picture given to us by the scientific literature. It's NOT as black and white as he makes it out to be and either he is unaware of this fact, or he is deliberately misleading his audience.

In regards to neuroscience and biology lets talk about the famous lobster analogy, which no neuroscentist would make. A lobster doesn't even have a centralised nervous system (8). Lobster live at the bottom of the sea, they don't walk upright (in regards to lobster posture), they can regrow limbs, they don't grow old and they eat each other. So what they have serotonin? So does almost every other living thing, including plants. Serotonin in ants also modify their behavior (9), they are also social creatures, is that therefor evidence of the inherent collectivism, as another poster mentioned, and does that show us our natural state is the matriachy? Afterall, they are both anthropods and ants evolved from crustaceans (10). There's so many things wrong with this "analogy", and the fact that Peterson tries to source it as scientifically valid link to human neurophysiology and behavior is disingenuous.

Serotonin in crustacians and other invertebrates does not represent human social interactions, and in humans the role of serotonin is obviously much more complex (11). In fact, even in the research linked on Petersons own site, the study on lobsters claim that while there was a behavorial change in willingness to fight when crustacians were injected with serotonin, this change did not occur if they were placed in close proximity for prolonged periods (12). So EVEN THE REDUCTIONISTIC MISLEADING ARGUMENT is being presented factually incorrect and misleading.

He claims to be an individualist and liberal capitalist, and that government imposing their will on the people is totalitarianism, yet in the case with Alex Jones recently he opted for goverment intervention making these business public utility (I strongly disagree with Jones being banned btw, as much as I think he's a dangerous POS):


He champions as an absolute free speech and rights advocate, yet he supports and participates in propaganda pieces for Prager University (which do not offer a degree btw). Prager U, created by Jewish fundamentalist and neo-conservative Dennis Prager, vehemently censor evolution theory and LGBT rights. Blasphemy is a deadly sin in the bible, hardly the text you'd want to rely on for free speech. Peterson even wanted to create his own university, and was talking about it last year (13). He is seeming more and more delusional.

In a follow up, he also posted a blatantly incorrect, and easily debunked, climate change denying video from Prager U on his twitter:


Peterson rose to fame by fighting the "Social Justice Warriors" which he claims are destroying the very fabric of society, yet he, like many of the anti-SJWs, completely overestimate the impact and prevelance of gender pronouns, safe spaces and anti-free speech sentiments on the left. The entire LGBT is about 3,8% of the population, which is far below what most think (14), and trans people are only 0,6% of the population (15). Have you ever met a single person in real life that wanted you to call them another gender? Homosexuals and trans people have always existed, why is it so important? In regards to the "totalitarian neo-marxist postmodernists" college campuses, while it is true that the left generally are more inclined to want restrictions on hateful speech, a survey from the Knightfoundation and Gallup shows that the clear majority of college students, including democrats, prefers an open environment with offensive speech to a prohibted one with with positive speech (16, 17):
vg3alz.jpg


This is not to say that there are not real problems with a minority of college students shutting down speech and being idiots and insufferable, but nothing supports it being the world ending apocalypse that the "anti SJWs" propose and propagandize.

What else... He misrepresented bill C-16 which was already in effect for 5 years in the state the was living in before they started talking about it, he says the bible is archetypes and stories, yet he wont say whether or not he believes jesus rose from the dead, he believes there are no atheist because they would be murderers, he makes presuppositional arguments and claims we cant have morality without the bible, he claims people can only quit smoking because of supernatural experiences, he believes in the supernatural, he claims to hate postmodernism while being the biggest postmodernist around. He waffles and shifts on the topic of religion completely and mixes half truths with pseudoscientific sophistry and lazy philosophy. He's constantly inconsistent in his claims. He calls on science when he needs to, but he cherry picks and misinterpret research, then when he science gets in the way of his argument it means nothing and it's all "metaphorical truths" and "darwinian truths" which he also misinteprets.

Want me to go on? This is just what I can remember without thinking about more of his claims. Dare to say I am taking him out of context.



Good solid post coming from a more educated perspective than I have on many of these subjects. I think you are dead on from my own observation but from a more limited knowledge base.

Peterson clearly has a bias that he cherry picks facts from many different arenas to support and he is adept as switching from areas he knows a lot about to areas that he is speculating about. He cleverly does not inform the listener when he is doing this.

He uses the bible to defend socially conservative positions but when he wants to justify being mean to people and the good of "toughness" he quickly switches to chimps or lobsters.......

He also in single sentences speaks of democratic socialism and the mass genocide of some communist regimes, giving the strong impression that fucking Sweden will eventually kill all of its own citizens!!!

He didn't mention Sweden I just inserted that bit of humor.

Still though I do like some of his ideas and perspectives on many things including biblical narratives and some social issues and possible solutions. He is not all bad but he is driven primarily by an ideology and not primarily by cold facts of science.

I suspect he also thinks himself to be on a mission from God which I got primarily from and letter written by one of his colleagues who's opinion and take on Peterson seemed to me to fit. In either case based on some of his videos on YouTube he is informed by and takes seriously the mystical experiences and insights that he and his wife and possibly others get as being messages from God.

This I find more disturbing than anything, and I believe in God and that sometimes messages can come from God. The problem is that mystical types of people are more often dead wrong about what they think comes from God and it is incredibly dangerous and wrong to ever assume a certain mystical experience came from God pure and true right into the mind.
 
Good solid post coming from a more educated perspective than I have on many of these subjects. I think you are dead on from my own observation but from a more limited knowledge base.

Peterson clearly has a bias that he cherry picks facts from many different arenas to support and he is adept as switching from areas he knows a lot about to areas that he is speculating about. He cleverly does not inform the listener when he is doing this.

He uses the bible to defend socially conservative positions but when he wants to justify being mean to people and the good of "toughness" he quickly switches to chimps or lobsters.......

He also in single sentences speaks of democratic socialism and the mass genocide of some communist regimes, giving the strong impression that fucking Sweden will eventually kill all of its own citizens!!!

He didn't mention Sweden I just inserted that bit of humor.

Still though I do like some of his ideas and perspectives on many things including biblical narratives and some social issues and possible solutions. He is not all bad but he is driven primarily by an ideology and not primarily by cold facts of science.

I suspect he also thinks himself to be on a mission from God which I got primarily from and letter written by one of his colleagues who's opinion and take on Peterson seemed to me to fit. In either case based on some of his videos on YouTube he is informed by and takes seriously the mystical experiences and insights that he and his wife and possibly others get as being messages from God.

This I find more disturbing than anything, and I believe in God and that sometimes messages can come from God. The problem is that mystical types of people are more often dead wrong about what they think comes from God and it is incredibly dangerous and wrong to ever assume a certain mystical experience came from God pure and true right into the mind.

Some interresting points made in this video about Peterson...do you agree with them?

 
Yeah I thought your OP was very fair.

He isn't perfect but he also isn't a guy who should be being demonitized on YT or met at college campuses by armies of rioters in masks.
LOL says the guy whose avatar is an asshole in a mask.
 
Some interresting points made in this video about Peterson...do you agree with them?



I think generally speaking this video is accurate. I would have to look into each claim made though on its own merits. Jordan Peterson can make any arguments he wants IMO it just needs to be clear when he is just giving his opinion and when he is speaking cold fact.
 
Judging by his daughter's appearance(!?) on Rogan's podcast, mental illness is running in the family considering she claimed she saw her brother "literally" turn into a demon after she ate some soy.
No see bro that was literally true...
Darwinianly
 
I don't recall saying they had strictly or completely egalitarian structures, obviously especially intra-family rank seemed to have played a role, but all the evidence I've read suggests that they were largely egalitarian and practiced coorperation and collectivism. We evolved to be hyper-cooperative (1). There might be a few issues with looking at current hunter gatherer tribes, as some of them may have formed after living in an agricultural society which could have changed their societal structures (2). With that said, that's a small caveat and I wont obfuscate your point. I'd like to see the evidence that every modern day stone age tribe has strong hierarchies and don't in large practice egalitarianism. ESPECIALLY strong and liniear dominance hierarchies which is what Peterson promotes. At the same time, feel free to address the problems you have with the sources I cited.

Even the whole "men rank higher than women cause evolutionary biology" schtick does not seem to hold either, as this recent article from Science magazine showed based on CURRENT hunter gatherer tribes that women and men are equal and largely egalitarian in sexual relations (3). Doesn't bode well for the whole Adam and Eve story, nor that the bible is biology manifest.

Yes, the social structures are very complex. I agree. I'm sure that the social and hierarchical structures changes within groups, with some even practicing anti-dominance, but that goes AGAINST Petersons point. His claim that we as humans are biologically wired to only exist in a linear dominance hierarchy, and should therefor forgo or devalue collectivism, is not represented in the literature.


I never said Bonobos didn't have some sort of hierarchy or social formation, nor that we don't. I'm not discounting inherent human violence either (but yes sex has deterred more than a few catastrophic things I'm sure, just think about incells getting laid). I distinctly said that's it's not as black and white as Peterson claims. My argument was not that we are EXACTLY like Bonobos, it was that we are neither exactly like either Chimps nor Bonobos, and that Peterson cherry picks traits within certain primates to support his evolutionary biology claims unfoundedly.

Ah yes, my long winded post could be refuted by an anthropology class 101. Nevermind the fact that I cited articles from Trends in Ecology and Evolution, one of the most respected and cited journals in the field with an impact factor of 16 and the Annals of the New York Academic of Sciences, another well respected journal.

Here's another one from PNAS:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435232/

Please do enlighten us on what anthropologists say...

>using the incel meme

It's not as black or white but chimpanzees are more less in line with human behavior than bonobos. You interjecting bonobos doesn't discredit his analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution may be respected and sited that doesn't mean it's appropriate to use them in your argument.
 
Yeah that's a real frickin skill. I was in a 3 Minute Thesis competition last year and it was rough as fuck. Hell, just writing shorter papers can be misleadingly difficult; i'd much, much rather have 30 pages than 20 to write at a professional level.
Always been having these issues, granted it depends on the subject.

If it's something that I know about, then I'll gladly go into a lot of detail to ensure that others grasp the idea that I'm trying to put forth to the best of their ability, but if it's something I only know about on a surface level, I'll just go in a circle if I'm to try and elaborate further than I can. It depends on the audience though, some might get bored if you drag on, regardless of whether you're actually giving out correct information, while others might just be enamoured by the lenght of your speech, even if you said nothing of value at all. Oratory skills can be powerful.

Granted I haven't started Uni yet, so I'm sure things will only get rougher now. I do maintain that, if you're actually trying to teach something to people that have next to no knowledge of the topic at hand, you should find a way to make it concise and without too much intricacies. An easy understanding might lead into actual interest that might lead to them delving further into said subject. What I guess I'm saying is: you should prepare accordingly for each situation.

As for Jordan, I guess I don't have a strong opinion about him. I don't idolize him nor do I dislike him, although that may be because I haven't actually bothered to fact check what he's said. I do tend to favor him in regards to LGBT topics, but that may be due to a mix of my bias against the loud people in that group and cherry picked moments in which woefully unprepared people go head to head against him – a loud mob won't dissuade their critics even if they're in the right. While I do find most of the ideas I've seen requested by the LGBT community, and I guess the SJW's for that matter, to be ridiculous, I'm going to look into societies that have regarded those kinds of individuals as equals or something close to it, to see what came of it.

As of now, I think gender dysphoria is a thing, that transexual people should get professional help before making such a drastic, life-altering decision such as a sex change so that they have no regrets after the fact; pronouns should not be forced on someone, genderfluidity and similar identifications are not rational and should not be acknowledged as an actual gender, and lastly, that it's male and female. Like I said, I'm going to look further into these topics with an open mind, but I'm afraid that my views will remain the same, if only due to the bias I already have regarding most of these issues.
 
Granted I haven't started Uni yet, so I'm sure things will only get rougher now.

That it does, bud.
I'm working on my Masters thesis, and explaining it to a mostly lay audience in 3 minutes was not easy. Very useful exercise though.
 
That it does, bud.
I'm working on my Masters thesis, and explaining it to a mostly lay audience in 3 minutes was not easy. Very useful exercise though.
hey hey mang.

I could add so much to this thread as I'm a scholar of Nietzsche's works, but I got more pressing issues to handle.

I'm giving it another try, posting in the WR, just a little bit. As you know a place like this can be treacherous for a mind like me so if any hammer-heads start mashing the report button let me know and I'll go back over the wall to the Temple of the Dog.

I might look into this thread, maybe, and try to provide some clues, but oh my the OP is TL/DR for my weary brain right now. I saw the earlier thread and it was the same deal. I just couldn't play teacher. Maybe I should take a darker approach? Probably not. But for real, I can field just about any question about my mang Nietzsche. My original name in the awesomeness that is teh Sherdog forum was Nietzsche13, and for good reason.

giphy.gif
 
In line with the OP, I'd like to put forth some other criticisms of Peterson. I think starting with the post from another user in the last thread is a good place.

"Like what? I have never heard him misspeak on evolutionary biology or neuroscience. My wife a Psychiatrist, has never heard him misspeak on either. This is where the left piles on because for them truth is social orthodoxy. Maintaining the collective lie is the most important thing because all they care about is the status gained by remaining within that collective, so when it collapses they are left looking the fool." -
@Kindacrazy

Peterson wavers from one point to another, cherrypicking facts and using semantics, wordplay and pseudoscientific claims. As an example in regards to evolutionary biology, let's examine his reiteration of the literature on primates and social dominance hierarchy. Notice his appeal to science here btw (hypocritical considering his metaphorical truth spill).

He often choses the aggressive and linear dominance part of chimp social relations, which in reality varies from different groups which he fails to mention (1), instead of chosing examples like the Bonobos who have an entirely different social structure. They are much less aggressive, do not readily fight over territory and use sex as a primary conflict resolution (2). They are equally related to humans as chimps on the genetic level. Moving further, there are other primate species like woolly spider monkeys that are entirely egalitarian with no hierarchiel structures (3), and the vast majority of the research shows that more tolerant and socially inclusive primate species do better AND are more intelligent (4).

Anthropologists suggest that the first tribes of humans lived in egalitarian socieites. This is hypothesized to be part of our evolution and what seperates us from most other primates, and many evolutionary scientist further hypothesize that altruism is a necessary evolved trait of humans (5, 6, 7). Looking further towards human societies today, rank fluctuates between groups and cultural norms dictates vastly different social structures. We funtion as a species and a society within rank, but that's not the entire picture given to us by the scientific literature. It's NOT as black and white as he makes it out to be and either he is unaware of this fact, or he is deliberately misleading his audience.

In regards to neuroscience and biology lets talk about the famous lobster analogy, which no neuroscentist would make. A lobster doesn't even have a centralised nervous system (8). Lobster live at the bottom of the sea, they don't walk upright (in regards to lobster posture), they can regrow limbs, they don't grow old and they eat each other. So what they have serotonin? So does almost every other living thing, including plants. Serotonin in ants also modify their behavior (9), they are also social creatures, is that therefor evidence of the inherent collectivism, as another poster mentioned, and does that show us our natural state is the matriachy? Afterall, they are both anthropods and ants evolved from crustaceans (10). There's so many things wrong with this "analogy", and the fact that Peterson tries to source it as scientifically valid link to human neurophysiology and behavior is disingenuous.

Serotonin in crustacians and other invertebrates does not represent human social interactions, and in humans the role of serotonin is obviously much more complex (11). In fact, even in the research linked on Petersons own site, the study on lobsters claim that while there was a behavorial change in willingness to fight when crustacians were injected with serotonin, this change did not occur if they were placed in close proximity for prolonged periods (12). So EVEN THE REDUCTIONISTIC MISLEADING ARGUMENT is being presented factually incorrect and misleading.

He claims to be an individualist and liberal capitalist, and that government imposing their will on the people is totalitarianism, yet in the case with Alex Jones recently he opted for goverment intervention making these business public utility (I strongly disagree with Jones being banned btw, as much as I think he's a dangerous POS):


He champions as an absolute free speech and rights advocate, yet he supports and participates in propaganda pieces for Prager University (which do not offer a degree btw). Prager U, created by Jewish fundamentalist and neo-conservative Dennis Prager, vehemently censor evolution theory and LGBT rights. Blasphemy is a deadly sin in the bible, hardly the text you'd want to rely on for free speech. Peterson even wanted to create his own university, and was talking about it last year (13). He is seeming more and more delusional.

In a follow up, he also posted a blatantly incorrect, and easily debunked, climate change denying video from Prager U on his twitter:


Peterson rose to fame by fighting the "Social Justice Warriors" which he claims are destroying the very fabric of society, yet he, like many of the anti-SJWs, completely overestimate the impact and prevelance of gender pronouns, safe spaces and anti-free speech sentiments on the left. The entire LGBT is about 3,8% of the population, which is far below what most think (14), and trans people are only 0,6% of the population (15). Have you ever met a single person in real life that wanted you to call them another gender? Homosexuals and trans people have always existed, why is it so important? In regards to the "totalitarian neo-marxist postmodernists" college campuses, while it is true that the left generally are more inclined to want restrictions on hateful speech, a survey from the Knightfoundation and Gallup shows that the clear majority of college students, including democrats, prefers an open environment with offensive speech to a prohibted one with with positive speech (16, 17):
vg3alz.jpg


This is not to say that there are not real problems with a minority of college students shutting down speech and being idiots and insufferable, but nothing supports it being the world ending apocalypse that the "anti SJWs" propose and propagandize.

What else... He misrepresented bill C-16 which was already in effect for 5 years in the state the was living in before they started talking about it, he says the bible is archetypes and stories, yet he wont say whether or not he believes jesus rose from the dead, he believes there are no atheist because they would be murderers, he makes presuppositional arguments and claims we cant have morality without the bible, he claims people can only quit smoking because of supernatural experiences, he believes in the supernatural, he claims to hate postmodernism while being the biggest postmodernist around. He waffles and shifts on the topic of religion completely and mixes half truths with pseudoscientific sophistry and lazy philosophy. He's constantly inconsistent in his claims. He calls on science when he needs to, but he cherry picks and misinterpret research, then when he science gets in the way of his argument it means nothing and it's all "metaphorical truths" and "darwinian truths" which he also misinteprets.

Want me to go on? This is just what I can remember without thinking about more of his claims. Dare to say I am taking him out of context.

Great post. I'd love to hear @dontsnitch give a response.
On the subject of C-16, can we get that posted as a sticky so people will stop believing all the bullshit about it?

And as a former smoker, I can attest to the complete lack of divine intervention, rather the intervention of a -20C blizzard while trying to smoke outside as my reason for giving up .

That's just the tip of it, I am actually in the process of making a recording on the subject, but each time I go down the rabbit hole and do the research I find new claims that are false. By now I have material for maybe 2-3 videos covering different topics. It's annoying that I have to use hours of reading material and literature to be able to debunk the claims because of the gish gallop, but seeing as I have a physiology background and that I'm allergic to bullshit it's worth it. I wanted to make a seperate thread on it but it seemed like everything is being compiled in these large Peterson threads.

I actually like Peterson to some extent, as weird as it sounds, and I think he's a skilled debater and a somewhat decent psychologist. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent him from spewing a lot of nonsense. I have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I truly fear he knows what he is doing and is being deliberately manipulative.


Can't say I've seen enough of Chomsky to make any definitive statements about the factual nature of his claims. Are you trying to deflect from the Peterson criticism or?
I can't like anyone who is getting rich doing what he is doing. In fact, it's makes him pretty disgusting in my eyes. He's no different than a snake oil salesman. Well, much worse, really.

And thanks so much, never heard the term gish gallop before, but I'll be damned if I haven't seen it employed on here lots of times.
 
Uhm, first of all "stone age tribe modern humans" is not an anthropological classfication. Secondly, hunter gatherers are widely egalitarian and the Bushmen are a great example of this.

Where on earth do you get your information from? Hierarchies as we know today are largely a product of agriculture and began in the Neolithicum.

Bushman? Like in the Kalahari? They have very complex hierarchies. Have you even visited or lived with a “hunter gatherer” tribe? Obviously not.

Come back when you have.
 
Bushman? Like in the Kalahari? They have very complex hierarchies. Have you even visited or lived with a “hunter gatherer” tribe? Obviously not.

Come back when you have.
Because visiting a tribe would override anthropological consensus.
 
Because visiting a tribe would override anthropological consensus.
Have you ever been raised from birth by a jaguar and a bear? And gone on to do a musical number with an orangutan who wanted to harness fire?

Come back when you have.
 
The claim that early societies were strictly egalitarian is not a widely accepted theory and the reason is obvious.

Every Stone Age tribe modern humans have encountered have extremely strong hierarchies. Indigenous Australians, Amazon tribes, etc. all had very complex hierarchies and social structures.

Not to mention the 'egaltarian' aspect of small tribal life typically included ingroup preference as a survival/competition mechanism.
 
I think generally speaking this video is accurate. I would have to look into each claim made though on its own merits. Jordan Peterson can make any arguments he wants IMO it just needs to be clear when he is just giving his opinion and when he is speaking cold fact.

He often does make it clear, but obviously not always as he has a conversational approach to speaking. I don't think it's even possible to make a hundred disclaimers on each point without it becoming extremely tedious and autistic sounding and most of the time it is easy to tell without needing the disclaimers.

But, he does get challenged and is willing to clarify things. That's the thing with listening to someones conversational speaking without being able to interject if you have a question about something. You are left wondering. I think he tries to address that phenomenon by talking about how he arrives at things, but that is also I think why he can come off as a bit of a rambler. For example he'll be asked a question and then setup his answer by talking for 5 minutes about some backstory or something that relates, and then come back to answer the question within the context of the 5 minute pre-amble.
 
He often does make it clear, but obviously not always as he has a conversational approach to speaking. I don't think it's even possible to make a hundred disclaimers on each point without it becoming extremely tedious and autistic sounding and most of the time it is easy to tell without needing the disclaimers.

But, he does get challenged and is willing to clarify things. That's the thing with listening to someones conversational speaking without being able to interject if you have a question about something. You are left wondering. I think he tries to address that phenomenon by talking about how he arrives at things, but that is also I think why he can come off as a bit of a rambler. For example he'll be asked a question and then setup his answer by talking for 5 minutes about some backstory or something that relates, and then come back to answer the question within the context of the 5 minute pre-amble.


I see your point and there is truth to it. People are complex though and everything I have said and much of the intelligent criticism of Peterson stands.
 
He often does make it clear, but obviously not always as he has a conversational approach to speaking. I don't think it's even possible to make a hundred disclaimers on each point without it becoming extremely tedious and autistic sounding and most of the time it is easy to tell without needing the disclaimers.

But, he does get challenged and is willing to clarify things. That's the thing with listening to someones conversational speaking without being able to interject if you have a question about something. You are left wondering. I think he tries to address that phenomenon by talking about how he arrives at things, but that is also I think why he can come off as a bit of a rambler. For example he'll be asked a question and then setup his answer by talking for 5 minutes about some backstory or something that relates, and then come back to answer the question within the context of the 5 minute pre-amble.
He's said as much numerous times. Like how he doesn't really organize his lectures but rather has a solo conversation where he vocalizes his mechanics of figuring things out. People seem to think he's some rigid lecturer who's goal is to push his truths on others. But if you listen to him chat with Weinstein then it quickly becomes apparent that's far from the truth as they work things out in a give and take manner.
 
Back
Top