WTW47: Jordan Peterson's Research Lives In Canada, You Wouldn't Know It

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:03 Clip: What's so scary about the woke mob, how often you just don't see them coming.

0:00:11 Clip: Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism, and you see woke principles being pushed.

0:00:19 Clip: Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down. The woke monster is here, and it's coming for everything, everything, everything, and everything. Instead of go-go boots, the seductress green M&M will now wear sneakers.

0:00:42 Thomas: And welcome to Where There's Woke. This is episode 47. I'm Thomas Smith. That is Lydia Smith. How are you doing?

0:00:49 Lydia: I am here. I am doing pretty well. I'm very excited to hear. Finally. I don't really know about this either. I've been waiting like the rest of the audience, wanting to know about this mystery study.

0:01:01 Thomas: That's true. It's been a month, more than a month.

0:01:04 Lydia: Such like an anti -spoiler alert too, so I, you know, haven't poked around trying to find things myself or anything like that. I m waiting for you to give me the 411 a

0:01:15 Thomas: We're We're going to track down what happened, and it leads us down a path to some interesting, weird shit that Peterson did that can't wait to tell you about. We're going get on over to that after this break, for nonpatrons, if you want to skip the ads, go to patreon.com/wherethereswoke. Plus, you can get, you know, a shitload of master's thesis stuff, you now. Just like a ton. If you haven't had enough and it's good, I'm telling you, it's good. It's all good. Yeah, there you go. So much available there. Plus skip the ads. So, um, .com slash where there's woke. And after this break, we'll get into it. First I did want to make a that I've been meaning to make this whole time because based on some comments and I've said that both that peterson is a true believer and that he's lying and I I see some people being like well which is it is he a true believer in his lying and like I uh I don't see any incompatibility with those things I thought like the comparison that I think of is like how cops plant evidence to convict people they believe are guilty you

0:02:12 Lydia: Yeah

0:02:12 Thomas: Their minds the guy did it so I need to plant evidence to help get a conviction, you would never say like, oh, that cop doesn't believe the guy's guilty. It's like, no, I mean, maybe, maybe sometimes they're trying to just frame an innocent person. Sure. But like for the most part, they're usually planting evidence to try to make sure they get a confession for someone who's guilty. I think that's absolutely analogous to Peterson strongly believes in his overall bullshit. I Think, I think he believes in his like, you know, basically women hating, um, woke hating, left hating, you you know, and linking all those things together and all the traits that he thinks go along with it. I think he strongly believes that bigotry and that horse shit. And then he starts somewhere in the justifications of science somewhere, like in studies, because you can find studies that say a lot of stuff. And I don't if he knows he's doing it or not, but either way, I don t doubt without the sincerity of his shitty beliefs. Like, I think he, I believes in his overall project, even even like, if look, a Democrat is like, Hey, Biden's created the best economy in 50 years. And then it's like, well, it's actually in 20 years. I don't know. Something like that. You wouldn't be like, Well, then they don't even support Biden. See, they're lying. It's like now they're there. Yeah. They might know they're dying or exaggerating, but it's in furtherance of their overall goals kind of thing. That's how I see it.

0:03:31 Lydia: I also saw a great note um reddit from somebody kind of opining on Jordan Peterson and the kind of person that he is and they said I'm always reminded of this description of Phineas Gage after he had an iron rod blown through his brain And it says he is impatient of restraint of advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. And that, I get it. Like, that's how I feel all this stuff is happening here.

0:04:08 Lydia: And it's, okay, well, I'm without sin regarding this. So, Rod's thrown.

0:04:08 Thomas: But let he who is without sin throw the first rod. I Sure. You've never had a dream. You didn't complete. No, so in trying to track down what the fuck's happening, I've gone through a number of things and I've I've gone through the history. I've tried to find, you Jordan Peterson has said over time about this. And we've already, at the end, I gave you that comparison of where we started to where we got. And it's obviously completely different in terms of that research. Again, like, it's such a confusing thing because I'm not going to go through it all again, but so much of what Christine is saying must from this master's thesis. Like, for example, when she said, hey, these PC authoritarians, they have a correlation with, you know, low cognitive ability of 0 .4. That is 100% from her paper. That's like the same number. It's the same terms. It's the same thing. Like it's from her thesis. When she talks about the, the you mental illness portion and the attended a course or a seminar, that's nowhere. I can't find anywhere Where that is, I so first thing I did you googling around I'm trying to find it and then I was like well maybe I'll go through Peterson's Twitter feed and see like if there's any other times he's mentioned his research you know and I I did some searches and I found some times I don't know there not sure if I thought of every term

0:05:25 Thomas: He could have used you know because he's got a long ass fucking Twitter thing I haven't gone through it all but I did som search terms to see like okay when is he mentioned this and I got a few hits and they're mostly recently um is weird it's like it there was a rebirth of this thing in his mind it's almost like he forgot about it then came back and remembered or something it's kind of weird because there was all this stuff in 2016 that we've been talking about you know like that from the the video the lauren southern video then kind of nothing and then all of a sudden starting last year he's referencing it again so that brings us to two crucial recent tweets. First, 22nd, 2024. So that's like fucking yesterday because

0:05:25 Lydia: It might not be exhaustive. Yeah. Yeah.

0:06:06 Thomas: This one, he's retweeting, guess who? Pick an evil person out of the, yep.

0:06:10 Lydia: Elon. Elon.

0:06:13 Thomas: Wow, he nailed it. Elon says, most people don't realize how much the woke virus is poisoning the minds of their their kids. Better to take them out of school than allow Soviet level, such fucking moron, allow Soviet -level indoctrination to take place. Smartest guy in the world, everybody. And Jordan Peterson retweets it and says, our research in 2016 indicated that one woke course was sufficient to tilt people toward politically correct authoritarianism, which if you remember, Remember, the one -word course was the one. So the one word course was PC egalitarianism, right? The video and they say the PC autoritarians are the low verbal cognitive ability and the people who've, you know, they've got a mood or anxiety disorder and you know that bullshit. The PC egalitarians were the ones who she said it was high verbal cognitive cognitive ability, because openness. And then the thing again, that came from nowhere, still came from nowhere and Predicted first and foremost by whether you had attended a seminar or had experience communicated to you from someone else that highlighted individual differences or

0:06:23 Lydia: My God. All right. Right?

0:07:17 Thomas: Have been told to attend. I mean, it's just, that's fucking nonsense. That's absolute nonsense. Now in 2024, he's claiming one woke course was sufficient to tilt people toward politically correct authoritarianism. Now, maybe that's a typo. Maybe that's him not remembering the specific term, but I think it's also pretty telling like how sloppy this has gotten over the eight years or whatever it is because PC authoritarian, again, that not even according to their bullshit about their bullshit was that what what it was, but he says one course, but here's the thing. He links a Scientific American article. And I was like, oh, okay. Am I going to find, here we go. I'm going to finally, I'm going to track down what the fuck this is talking about.

0:07:57 Thomas: And I got to tell you this article. So this is from November 20th, 2016. And And So, around the same time, maybe that, yeah, like maybe that gave this guy the tip off to write this article or something.

0:08:07 Lydia: About three weeks. Mm-hmm. Yeah,

0:08:13 Thomas: But I'm thinking, okay, I'm going to look at the Scientific American article and it's got to have a link or a source or something. I'm Thinking, okay. I'm Going to find something else, you know, because again, he's, Peterson in that tweet is saying one woke course and he's linking this. So I'm like, all right, weird that he wouldn't just link whatever his research was that led us to that. Rather, he is linking someone's write -up of his research. So title of the article is The Personality of Political Correctness, subheading The Idea of Political Directness is Central to the Culture Wars of American Politics by Scott Barry Kaufman. I'm thinking this article ought to give me the answers I need. Like I ought to know if someone wrote an article on something, have they to be looking at source material. Know, like I'm going to be able to track this down.

0:08:56 Lydia: Informed by something.

0:08:58 Thomas: You would think, especially an article about this research, the link to the research has got to there. There it's got to be prominent it's got to you know it'll be like the first what would you expect you expect like and this is according to new research by Jordan Peterson and Christine Brophy and you would think that would be linked there's 10 ,000 links in this article there's a billion is the fucking worst why do I have the worst luck if has like five hyperlinks per paragraph. I am looking for a particular thing to be linked. So I go through every single one of his links and most of them make no sense whatsoever. They'll be linked for, for reasons that are wrong. You some of it does make sense, but some of them is just misreading of studies. Nowhere in these links, and there are in the double digits of them, in this article. Nowhere is the study. So the study is not fucking linked. So that's the first thing to say, but okay. Now I'm reading through this, article and it's written from a really annoying perspective of like, I'm not here to give my opinion, but, uh, here's what what the the, landscape of the blah, bitty blah is. The point of this post is not to attempt to settle this debate or present my own viewpoint. Yeah,

0:10:05 Lydia: Okay, then why are you writing about it?

0:10:06 Thomas: That would take a much larger post, and at any rate, it's most likely that neither perspective is purely correct, with the truth existing as a blend of perspectives. Instead, the point of this post is to address a topic that has remarkably received very little attention in the psychological literature. Who asked Asking who are the politically correct. And that says, in a recent study, Christine Brophy and Jordan Peterson conducted a very illuminating analysis of the personality of political correctness. Okay, that sounds like what we're dealing with, right?

0:10:34 Lydia: Okay.

0:10:34 Thomas: Here's Now, where things just get insane. I'm sorry. This is just, it is, someone created this as a purgatory for me to live in forever. Because this is fucking Schrodinger's research. Research because this article, hun, are some of the claims we're trying to track down repeated. So for example, it the PC egalitarians, PC authoritarians. Sure. It it repeats, Where exposure to seminar or experience that altered their sensitivity to and inequality claim for egalitarians.

0:11:05 Thomas: Right. And then for authoritarians, it has the and the presence of an anxiety or mood disorder in the individual or immediate family. So it has those two things. Things being present would lead you to believe that this person, this author has access to the thing that we're trying to find that we don't have access to, right?

0:11:13 Lydia: I

0:11:23 Thomas: Here's where things get even more fucking annoying. Let me read you this paragraph. In a recent study, Christine Brophy and Jordan Peterson conducted a very illuminating analysis of the personality of political correctness. They created a very comprehensive 192 item measuring PC -related language beliefs, blah, blah. PC battery employed a variety of question types, et cetera, et cetera. The list was reviewed and added to by faculty faculty, and graduate students, and 332 participants completed the new PC scale, along with questionnaires on personality, IQ, and 332 happens to also be the exact sample size that

0:11:22 Lydia: Yeah yeah

0:12:03 Thomas: Christine Brophy had in her master's thesis. 192 is not quite right, but some here, but she, in the study, she references like like 203 questions and then says she got rid of 11. then elsewhere, I think you were saying that doesn't quite make sense. But at the very least, that's too coincidental combined with the exact participant number. He has to be talking about that. Like the odds of those being the same seem crazy to me, but so that leads me to believe he's talking about vat fucking thing. And he doesn't link anything. He doesn't like the study. The whole thing is about he links 400 other things, including like he'll third link in this article, is, by the way, like four sentences in, just to give you an idea of the, like, what are the odds? What are the fucking odds? It couldn't have just been a blog post with one link that was to the research we're talking about and then a bunch of analysis that I could have read. Oh done. I'm so the third link is like, quote, often PC proponents, who tend to be conservative and that's highlighted and that link, it's just fucking but whatever. Use the phrase political correctness as a way of describing the quote, paradox the paradox of tolerance. That's hyperlinked. So I was like, okay, what's that? That just links you to like the Google books entry for Karl Popper's book. Yeah, it's give you an idea how annoying this fucking article is. Like, okay. Cool. The book that originally has the paradox of tolerance, like just link to the link to the nothing or the Wikipedia. Like you don't

0:12:51 Lydia: Life's not that easy yeah yeah

0:13:30 Thomas: Need to link to, I'm not going to, oh, I am going to click.

0:13:32 Lydia: I'm not gonna go buy the book

0:13:33 Thomas: Yeah. It's just, there's so many of those in this thing. No know it just it reads as like he yeah it reads like he is trying to overcompensate for the fact that he doesn't I mean maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial but the fact he's not linking the one thing he's talking about and is linking 400 other things and then it gets even worse you ready for this gets even worse because as much as the sample size again is exactly 332 exactly what the master's thesis was. And the question battery seems to be, although with a little bit of discrepancy, seems to

0:13:34 Lydia: Like like overcompensating yeah yeah misdirection yeah right pretty close yeah

0:14:05 Thomas: Me the thing. The end, it the very end of the article with a star, with an asterisk, if you want some finer details of the PC battery, here are some examples of the subscales that were associated with each dimension in order of factor loading. Like, oh, okay. OK, when I first saw that, I just my brain just assumed because they looked sort of similar. I didn't even check. I was like, OK, so grab some of the questions. But then when, you I was doing a closer look to try to figure out what the fuck is happening here, I realized these questions aren't in the study. Like there's like there'S a few that kind of are, but there'S some that are just not even in there. And has it listed as PC egalitarian, right? Right. Those kind of make sense. So he says the top one he has listed as anti -establishment diversity, he lists that it's a 0 0 .79 correlation, which is ridiculously high and there's nothing in the paper that was that high but link to the study but he's happy to share some of the questions somehow rate your level of agreement with the following statements the quality of social services available to this country's citizens has remained the same despite refugees immigrants entering refugees slash immigrants are as entitled to subsidize housing or subsidize utilities as this country's quote unquote, poor citizens are. The third one, I guess, in this is the values and beliefs of refugees slash immigrants regarding family issues and socializing children are basically quite similar to that of citizens of this country. That strikes me as having nothing to do with political correctness whatsoever. That just seems like left -wing beliefs,

0:15:34 Thomas: Right?

0:15:33 Lydia: Wing right wing yeah exactly like what's your ideology with regard to this specific topic

0:15:38 Thomas: Yeah. And here's another thing I know I've said, but I'm going to say again, Christine Brophy in her paper about this, like never did a political views thing. Like she never broke it. She never just assessed, hey, what are your political views on this stuff directly? Like there's some stuff that on how you're answering questions, you Can kind of assume where people are. But And she never just went ahead and tested that. Like, why wouldn't you? Wouldn't you want to know? Crazy. Also says that PC egalitarians and this, back to the Scientific American article, the alleged, you know, the mystery questions that we don't know where they come from. Says PC egalitarian rank these differences as having to do with culture rather than biology kind of thing. Questions we're seeing, I there's some similarities, but they're not in the master's thesis. And keep in mind, the master thesis gives us the full battery of questions even before she took any out, So, I mean, maybe she made a new one based on that study, maybe, and did another study with it, but then it has the same sample size.

0:16:38 Lydia: The exact same sample size it just feels weird it feels weird right

0:16:43 Thomas: Agree. This is weird. Um it it kind of gets weirder because if look back in this article, he includes this quick paragraph. God, egalitarians tended to have greater exposure to a seminar or experience that altered their sensitivity to individual differences and equality, had a greater vocabulary, were open to new experiences, and had a a greater identification with historically disadvantaged groups. It is. That's up stuff. Also says, in contrast, PC authoritarians tended to be more religious, have higher sensitivity to disgust and contamination, score higher in the need for order, have lower vocabulary, and have the presence of an anxiety or mood disorder in the individual or the immediate family. Is like, okay, so that's those lies. Are in this. Hasn't linked the study. I've covered that a thousand times in this. He hasn't leaked the study he's definitely talked to them. Another thing I realized is he talks about the PC battery, subscale the kind of thing or whatever. And I obvious point that have the courses or the mental illness thing. Like it's not in there, you you could say the mental illness would be in a different part of the question, like the personality or background, something. Right. But you would Think having attended a seminar would be, you would That would be In the PC scale. Wouldn't you?

0:17:58 Lydia: But I mean like we have exhaustively gone through her thesis and the mental illness piece is not in there at all all the seminar is not in there at all it

0:18:02 Thomas: I no. Okay. Let me clarify what I'm saying. We know it's not in the master's thesis. It's not in there. That's a thousand percent. We already know that. But at the end of this Scientific American article is questions from the alleged PC battery that are different. They're similar. There are similarities, but they are not the ones in the Master's thesis there. There are important differences. And this article also includes the lies. I think lies made made up shit, but okay, possibly made up shit about the mental health thing and the courses. I'm saying is now I'm between two possibilities. There's a revised PC battery here, I know that Scott Barry Kaufman didn't make that up. That wouldn't make any sense. So he got it from them somehow. He also got the idea of the mental healthy thing and the course, but it's not in the PC battery that he references at the end, you know? So, like, it could be that it is in a different part of that. Like, he doesn't give us all of them. He gives us seven of the one and then seven eight of the other. So, that's 15. you would think that having attended a seminar would, I don't know, you think that would be in the PC questionnaire part. I guess it could, hypothetically, if there is a missing study, and this isn't just made up, those two components I keep mentioning, then wouldn't you think that the, the a seminar would be in this part?

0:19:32 Lydia: I mean or it could be in sort of like a standard demographic you know sort of thing but if they're finding it to be such a driver with political correctness then I would imagine imagine there would be a component that they they would want to incorporate into that standard battery so then it is able to be replicated in the future um otherwise you know it's a standalone it's like age who cares

0:19:38 Thomas: Could be. Oh yeah. Good point. Write, you wouldn'T guarantee that other people using the scale are going to ask in the, their demographics section. Yeah, that, that's a great point. Yes. So you would want it in here and you would want to say what the loading, the factor loading is. We have all these factor loadings for this revised skill that like some of them correspond to what I've seen in the masters and some of em don't you know so like they're coming from something think the mental health thing and the PC course thing I think that's fucking made up I just think it is like it doesn't it doesn's make any sense there's no way that you would score on those like the way they're saying there's no way they would be the number one factor like it doesnt make any any sense. Like having attended a course is not going to be the number one factor of these things. Like there's just no fucking way. And we don't have any values for them. And the only things we have are sort of the, again, they're on that video with a Nazi lady. They say it. And in this article, he appears to have gotten that information. Either maybe he also watched that Nazi video, or if they spoke because they clearly did, or at least emailed, maybe he got it from that. The fact that there's no numbers behind it in either case,

0:21:09 Thomas: No numbers. She mentions, she goes out of her way to mention scores, correlations of other stuff. Never mentions the correlationsof those things.

0:21:09 Lydia: Correlation Weird.

0:21:17 Thomas: Yeah, I think that's made up. That's honestly my best guess is those two bullshit things are made And this revised scale, though, does suggest that maybe she started another study. So I still pin in that for a little a few minutes from now. If I look at, for the PC authoritarianism part of again, this is the Scientific American article where he has his like extra questions that he apparently got from this revised skill. Yale. The top one for PC authoritarianism is censorship area. Do you believe the works in these categories should be screened? We talked about that. Books, movies, art, and it's a 0 .7. So like that's still from the thesis. That's like the same values from the master's thesis. But then here's a weird thing. Number two is coddling, 0 .65. Rate your level of agreement with the following statements. Universities should be required to provide safe spaces. That's not in the master study.

0:22:11 Thomas: Students should be allowed to request a safe space. Literally, I did control F for safe, safe space, not in there, like literally not ever mentioned.

0:22:19 Lydia: They like had a quick, quick discussion with Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Hayton. Like, hey, we should make sure we include this stuff in this fake study now.

0:22:29 Thomas: And this one says businesses should be required to provide safe spaces. So like, oh, and actually now that I think about it, that's a number of different things. So that means that we have more than just seven and eight questions. We have several questions in each of those, right? Right. So that could mean this is the entire thing. Interesting. Then we have patriarchy censorship. Your level of agreement. Feathered headdresses should be banned from music festivals. White people should not wear their hair in cornrows or afros. So, that's way not from the study.

0:22:57 Thomas: So this is what's so fucking maddening. How could you have stuff that's just not even close to from the master's thesis and then other stuff that's not only from the master's theses but has the same results like the same numbers how could how could that be possible also in the article the same sample size as I already mentioned roughly the same starting questions 200 and whatever it was like what the fuck is happening and so that at this point we realized why don't we just email this guy I think I told you like hey do you want to just email this guy and see even though this article is from what eight years ago so it's been a minute but he once you looked him up we thought oh maybe he would be willing to talk to us so tell us about that yeah

0:23:41 Lydia: So when I was looking him up I was like I need to understand you know who this guy is. That's my thing right? I want to know the people.

0:23:49 Lydia: Especially I was going to be reaching out to him. I was like, am I going into the lion's den? Am I, you know, is this a person I can kind of chat with that might be open to talking with us more? Had seen that he has been on Jordan Peterson's show multiple times, and it looked like they had a pretty friendly relationship. And I don't know exactly what changed, but something changed. There is a tweet that he put out in October, 2023, that was in response to a video that Jordan Peterson did. And it says, I keep getting heartbreaking emails from men who have listened to Jordan Peterson and are seriously freaking out that their IQ score may be too low to do anything with their lives.

0:24:33 Lydia: I'm not kidding. So many. So let me just respond here to everyone. IQ isn't all of who you are. You can live a fulfilling, happy, productive life regardless of your IQ score. Character matters a lot. Motivation matters a Lot. Effort matters a Lots. Creativity matters a lots. Find whatever is best within you and nurture that. Calm down. Breathe. And then he says, read my book, Ungifted. Hate him for that.

0:24:31 Thomas: Jesus fucking christ

0:25:00 Lydia: And then I believe in you, but more importantly, start believing in yourself. He replied to it with, I hate this crap. If I listened to this as a child, I would never have graduated high school. If you love something, don't let population level statistics limit you from trying, really trying, to see what you are actually of.

0:24:57 Thomas: Sure no

0:25:21 Lydia: Yeah. Armed with the same noisy and merely probabilistic data as JP, I have a very different conclusion. A really interesting to me, just sad and shocking. And again, it was someone that has a relatively close, had a relatively closed relationship with him. It sounds like something shifted in Jordan Peterson where even people who collaborated with him and wrote, you know, piece in Scientific American for data that we can't

0:25:20 Thomas: Fucking kidding yeah I'll be honest I don't think

0:25:51 Lydia: Track down.

0:25:51 Thomas: He actually changed. I don't think he actually changed. Now he's been, he has been very consistent. He's been very persistent with this. I think that I don'T know Scott Berry Kaufman's motivations. It strikes me that like lot of people, and I get this as a podcaster, I get it. A lot of People, if, if Jordan Peterson emailed me tomorrow and was like, come on my YouTube channel, I'd be like, yes, I will. I mean, roast him the whole time but like I would try to if joe rogan was like come on my thing yeah I'm gonna go on the thing like I get people that is unfortunately the business the like it's really hard to get listeners and these giant fucking you have no idea the scale the multiplier of listeners and viewers that these assholes have than we do it's like thousands of of times more. It's not even the same. We're not even doing the same thing. And so I get people like Scott Kaufman here utilizing that. And I think most people probably aren't as willing to try to go on and stick to their guns as I am, if perfectly honest. And maybe I would, I don't know. I haven't been there with Jordan Peterson. I feel like I've been in situations But I like I would be it would bother me too much to at all play into his image. Example, I've watched the Destiny debate with Jordan Peterson, and

0:25:53 Lydia: Don't think Jordan Peterson changed? Yeah. No.

0:27:13 Thomas: I think Destiny legitimizes him too much. Like know much about that guy I he's pretty liberal and he expressed some left -wing views but there's a there's certain like people are playing to be rubbing shoulders with these whatever like be in this circuit you know and like you to kiss ass a little bit and that's what it seems like Scott Kaufman did until he maybe reached a point where he either Either realized something was in Peterson that wasn't IQ because stuff is not new Peterson. That's the only reason I say he didn't change like that IQ thing. Really glad that this Kaufman guy broke from Peterson in this way. I think it's it might be that just Peterson happened to tweet too much or speak too much about something that was like important to Kaufman in a way. And especially if it went against his book or whatever, in a ways that he just couldn't ignore anymore. More you know I'm

0:28:04 Lydia: Yeah. I mean, I think it's probably complex and nuanced, right? It's probably all of the things combined together.

0:28:12 Thomas: Not sure it necessarily is to be honest

0:28:14 Lydia: I don't know. Like, there's another tweet of his from July 2022, where someone wrote about Jordan Peterson's, I know, like what happened to Jordan Peterson is kind of the premise of this Substack article. And he responded to it and said, you know, that Jordan has been supportive of my career. He has invited nuanced discussions. I have nothing personal against him, but we are all complex humans with growth potential, which is is his area of study, right? And he seems to be more concerned these days with fueling divisiveness than seeking truth. And he says later on, if you're a person who is fiercely dedicated to the truth and you constantly encounter people who are aggressively pro -ideology and who have disregard for the truth, that can wear you down and turn you into an angry, resentful person. And I think that's throwing Jordan Peterson too much of a bone there.

0:29:06 Thomas: It is because again he's trying to maintain this relationship because it's beneficial but he reached a point as my interpretation I think he reached the point where like what peterson was saying was too fucking stupid and counter to what he knows to be science because this guy does have credentials and I it's just a of trying really hard to not burn the bridge there but having to stick I I give give him credit for like he's at least sticking to his guns on these issues but really if if he wasn't trying to maintain a relationship for either personal or professional or both reasons the truth would be hey man the stuff he said about population level statistics that's like a massive insult I think that's sort of in my opinion is a little bit by the fact that science -y language.

0:29:52 Thomas: Like, yeah, somebody is telling you that these population level fucking effects are going to determine your life when really they're just these minor, this is the number one thing, my takeaway from all of this bunk science that we're looking at from Peterson and Brophy, the number one stupid fucking thing that Peterson does is take these little correlations and just treat them as though they're 100%. It's, it's insane.

0:30:16 Thomas: Did did I play the the business one I don't even remember if I played that the one where he's like you liberals start businesses and then conservatives run them did I play that thing oh my god yeah he says that in the nazi video he says that because liberals have that openness so they're like more creative with ideas etc etc et cetera, and conservatives, but they're like the harder workers. They're the order, the orderliness. And like, yeah, there are these little correlations. Here's another thing that I have yet to say that people may not realize. Left and right, liberal conservative are not static identities.

0:30:24 Lydia: I don't think so.

0:30:52 Thomas: Was talking in 2016 in that, but here we are in 2024. He still talks about these same correlations all the time orderly and blah blah but like trumpism has changed a lot of things like there's been a major re reordering of political parties and you might say well parties aren't you know that could be different yeah but people usually like change their views to match their party like if they're gonna if someone switches to be a trump voter they basically switch all their fucking shit they just do like in order to relieve their cognitive dissonance they start believing a lot of that stuff so like these aren't static identities so a lot lot of these associations are already weak to begin with, but they may not even still entirely hold up in light of what's changed. I think some of them do. I do genuinely think that there measurable differences and consistent differences between liberals and conservatives, but they're not huge. I tried to look it up and I got mixed results. Again, I'm not the scientist, but there are not like gigantic correlations. And so to take all that, all of of that, which is just like, oh yeah, maybe it's a weak correlation. Maybe it's, maybe it's moderate correlation. And then to use that to say, liberal businesses and conservatives run them, which literally what he said, that's an actual quote. That's fucking ridiculous.

0:30:51 Lydia: Hmm? Yeah yeah what

0:32:04 Thomas: You cannot make broad statements like that based on these little tiny correlations. There are so, there's 7 ,000 ways as always with everything Jordan Peterson says, there are so many ways that doesn't make sense. First off, you'd have have to look at the correlation of orderliness to running a business. Like, is there? I don't know. You might find some effect that people like run businesses rather than start them. Maybe you could measure some difference in orderliness, but do really think that's going to hold up? Like people run business, for lots of different reasons. There, you know, there's a, there're, there, yeah.

0:32:38 Thomas: What kind of of business what industry what yeah it's just there's a billion variables in there and he just makes this blanket blatant statement and fucking stupid it's bad science he doesn't understand anything and I think if this kaufman guy were actually objective about it I I believe that's what he would say and you know whatever you can have your feelings about how much you blame someone if you had a personal relationship I don't know or if it was just taking advantage of the massive fucking audience that Peterson has. But, my you thoughts on it.

0:32:36 Lydia: Kind of business what level of business yeah yeah yeah you know like I I to like know I guess assume that best in people or whatever because know, benefit of the doubt. And as I saw those tweets and stuff, I was like, okay, it's like, this could be, you know, an opportunity for me to email him.

0:33:17 Thomas: Yeah, I was hoping it would dish on him.

0:33:19 Lydia: Yeah. Do you want to come on? Do you want to talk shit?

0:33:23 Thomas: Yeah.

0:33:23 Lydia: He, responded very, you matter of factly. He Scott, I've been researching early left -wing authoritarianism and political correctness literature and stumbled on your older piece with Scientific American. I can't track down the material you cover in the article from Christine Brophy and Dr. Peterson in her master's thesis. And I was curious if you had a source you could point me to. Happy to chat if that'd be easier too. And then I gave him my email and he said, hi, I don't believe they ever published the data. I recommend reaching out to Christine Brophy for more info, exclamation point.

0:33:58 Lydia: And that was it. That's all I got.

0:33:58 Thomas: That's all we got. I had, I think I had you send a follow-up, don't But think he responded, right?

0:34:04 Lydia: There was nothing there. I feel like I left the door open and that's all he was kind of willing to point me to so I

0:34:11 Thomas: Again, And in fairness, it's been eight years. Maybe he doesn't remember. But I really wish we had like an email of where he got this info and these questions. Did now following kind of the evidence, maybe there was a different questionnaire used for different data, but it wasn't done. I don'T know, man. It's really weird because I still can't get past the part where some of the correlations are the same exact numbers from the master's thesis. Like if you're introducing a whole different scale, that's not going to happen. Like, I'm sorry, there's just no way, right? I mean, the odds of getting the exact same correlations when you've changed, yeah, yeah.

0:34:17 Lydia: Know nope no it's it it feels very very odd oh

0:34:47 Thomas: So this feels fucking weird. All right, so it gets weirder. That was all, by the way, that Scientific American, everything we've talked about was just because of the first tweet I found. And this is going backwards in time. So this was the most recent one where he was quoting Elon Musk and he linked that Scientific American article. And I've taken you through all that. And so we'll go to the next one. In August of 2023, again, going a little backwards, quote tweets somebody called Reality Enthusiast, which I'm sure just is code for I'm a fucking asshole, which says, I've been accused of implying that people who believe in gender ideology are of lower intelligence, lack critical thinking skills, et cetera. Allow me to clarify. I'm not implying these things. I'm stating them unequivocally and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson quote tweets it and says, our research has indicated that the strongest predictor of politically correct authoritarianism was in fact lower verbal intelligence, then being female, then having a feminine temperament and having ever taken a politically correct course in that order. Order so now again we've changed the ordering I already said that last time but

0:35:29 Lydia: My god god

0:35:58 Thomas: Like the ordering kind of gets changed subtly each time now

0:36:01 Lydia: Well and like the language choice too right like

0:36:03 Thomas: Remember the last tweet he said the woke course tilted people toward politically correct authoritarianism when what he said in 2016 was no that was actually the other people that was the that wasthe liberal the pc liberals so he got that wrong in this one he's saying he's lower intelligence lower verbal intelligence which which, well, mean, it's actually doesn't even have to be verbal. He, that was, the verbal was just one part of the intelligence measure. So he, He almost like hedged that slightly by saying lower verbal intelligence. I don't know why. But he said that was the strongest predictor, which that wasn't true. Like the strongest protector was those fucking stupid questions on would you screen television and stuff. But he did remember now that we're talking about politically correct authoritarian pc authoritarians and that was the low verbal intelligence so he got that part right then being female that's nowhere having a feminine temperament having ever taken a politically correct course nope that was the other one again that was pc liberals so the intelligence effect was extremely strong so that's him starting that thing he said in the video which was it was the strongest one I've ever seen you

0:36:54 Lydia: Nowhere. Yeah.

0:37:07 Thomas: Know and And even, yeah, and even in these three things, so we had the video, we had these two tweets, which are all within some months of each other, you know, five months. It changes every time. Like it's completely different. There's similarities, but he's changing the ordering. He's doing all that. He So, was replying to reality enthusiasts and quote tweeting and saying feminine temperament intelligent effect or whatever he did get some replies that were like hey what you know because can't be right like really being

0:37:06 Lydia: Yeah, the one that made you pause. Yeah and -hmm. Yeah, yeah,

0:37:37 Thomas: Female the feminine temperment and so someone asked him like hey what and so he replied and this is the only time I've seen him reference this I don't know if it's elsewhere but this is is the only time I found, and this is key evidence. You ready?

0:37:50 Lydia: Yeah.

0:37:50 Thomas: Someone asked him like, Hey, okay, where's this study? Cause he says our research indicated, you know? So he's like, Oh, let me see it. Like there also, there are people who are just like into it. They all show me the link. I want to read this research. And he says, we did not proceed to publication. Unfortunately, as my research program at U of T ground to a halt soon afterward because of political duress so then a bunch of people are obviously like oh that's convenient yeah and and so this is him essentially saying you wouldn't know my research it lives in canada you know there's no reason you ever would my research went to university of toronto but then it ground to the hold after like okay man yeah this mystery research so you combining everything we know though like maybe Maybe there is a grain of truth in that there was something more to Brophy's study she was trying to do,

0:38:00 Lydia: . Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:38:40 Thomas: Maybe, but he's clearly just fucking making up what it was. There's no way it was those results. So now I'm going back through trying to track down more about this research being ground to a halt because like I've not, that's the first I've seen this claim. Okay, I'm working backwards again. This is just me searching keywords for research in his Twitter thing. Where he tweeted about a left -wing authoritarianism study that again was part of why I got into that. It's really fascinating. I'll go over it sometime but I just wanted to stop on this one it's another example of his scientific illiteracy. He's just so blind. I know that this data is in his head. This ability is somewhere in his mind. I know he learned science at some point but I think it's been, his brain is just his ideology now to where I don't think he even fucking reads because and steak uh this first was a tweet from Jordan Peterson that sharing a study that I found interesting, which was about left wing authoritarianism. And Jordan Peterson just tweeted correlation between left wing authoritarianism and malignant narcissism are equals point six. And then he replies to that. You're going to love this. This correlation is so high that the constructs are arguably indistinguishable.

0:39:25 Lydia: Steak.

0:39:54 Thomas: That would explain a lot. If he thinks like the maximum is 0.6, that would explain some of what he's dealing with there. Here's the only problem. And I'm, I'm not going to do a whole breakdown. The study doesn't say that. Like it literally doesn't. And then somebody, I somebody who agrees with him replied, but was kind of trying to point out like, Hey, that's not exactly right. It's somebody who says pretty high. Interesting in The Excerpt, they didn't find a relationship between a commitment to social justice and left -wing activism. Activism is used as a screen for narcissistic aggression, basically. And so I think this person, I don't know who this is, some random tweeter, but it seems like somebody who maybe knows what they're talking about, but is also kind of kissing ass, like trying to be like, hey, yeah, that is pretty high. But also, did you notice that the whole fucking thing you're saying is wrong? And then Peterson retweeted that and that's where he said staggeringly high a correlation coefficient magnitude basically unseen in social science slash medical research 0 0.6 never seen before it's fucking Trumpian no one's ever seen a 0

0:40:59 Lydia: What? Oh, my God? Yeah.

0:41:05 Thomas: 0.5 because they didn't even know that such correlations existed and he completely ignores the fact that again I'm not going to do a breakdown there's so much to talk about But that study is one that turned me a little bit. It finally turned my opinion that like, oh, maybe there's something to the left wing authoritarianism research in a certain way, because we've already gone through a little bit of related material. A lot of these papers are just people who are mad that there's no left wing authoritarianism and they try to prove it in ways that are stupid. They'll be like, Oh yeah, if you measure it this way. And then it's like, no, that's a terrible way to measure. It doesn't make sense. But this study I'll go through it someday but it did make the point that they could measure it but when they did they found that there were these awful people it was basically you know dark triad type stuff that matched but it matched with both left -wing and right-wing authoritarians in a certain way and it really looked like it's just where they're around they adopt those views and then become fucking assholes because they're just bad people So like, it's not like, oh, the, all the leftists are psychopaths, which is what Jordan Peterson

0:42:13 Thomas: Is trying to say. It's actually that like, no, there's a select number of people who are fucking assholes and they will go into leftism or go into the hard right stuff there. It doesn't matter. There's no correlation either way between like commitment to actual values or whatever. Forever and they will just be assholes because yeah, they can use these movements to be assholes. And I have long seen that like there's, and it actually talked about how, like, if people were more into on the left, if they were more into revolution, it's more likely that these fucking psychopaths and yeah, I don't want to do a Jordan Peterson and go too far with that correlation, but I was like, ah, okay. I've definitely observed some of that correlation a little bit. Um, Yeah, it's people using far left views or far right views to like get that superiority, to hurt people's feelings, to do, you know, to like fulfill those bad personality traits. It's not an indictment of the left. It's both left and right. And it seemed to not really correlate with like actual views. It was just there are assholes in the world and some of them do this. Like, yeah, OK, sure. And if you want to measure that as left wing authoritarianism, OK. I could see that. Just to give the quote, from these results, the authors concluded that the individuals with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may be ruthlessly motivated to endorse either right or left -wing ideological attitudes, depending on which of these attitudes seem to be more advantageous to them in specific situations. So that's the study he's quoting. And he's just totally, and even quote tweeting people trying to correct him. And he's like yeah so it's been nobody's ever seen a correlation so fucking this guy

0:42:30 Lydia: They're are chameleons yeah yeah interesting yeah yeah yeah nuts

0:43:47 Thomas: He's an idiot he's absolutely lost yeah

0:43:50 Lydia: Trumpian I think is a really good way of putting it yeah

0:43:52 Thomas: And then there's... there's again if I had time there's a series of tweets about like trolls and he is talking about like and this he might have this research right on like anonymous trolls being dark tetrad or dark triad you know but he just like keeps going on it's funny like on a particular day he just was getting really mad at anonymous trolls and And he kept like talking about how they're psychos. And then someone was like, hey, hey man, like I actually, someone said, this is getting old and tedious. I'm sorry, you're a boomer, but these takes against anonymity are completely off the mark because it's again, it's some of his crowd are the same people probably go anon or they're making the argument that like, you know, people in certain countries need to be anon, et cetera, et cetera. And Jordan Peterson is like, says the anonymous coward, ignoring the research. So yeah, some of the delightful stuff.

0:44:38 Lydia: My god says the guy who trolls Elmo okay geez oh

0:44:46 Thomas: Oh, man. I had to stop by this tweet because was talking about authoritarian belief. And he was at this point, this is 2021 now. At this point he's like, yeah, there is. He says this research line is interesting, but it's not obvious that psychology can yet objectively characterize authoritarian belief there's too much anti anti -conservative bias. It's like, no dude, we, we have, there's, there is objectively authoritarian belief on the right. We, we know that we just, you can't find one for the left.

0:45:05 Lydia: My my God. Okay.

0:45:14 Thomas: So you're mad.

0:45:14 Lydia: Anti -conservative bias.

0:45:16 Thomas: Yeah. But he, it's funny. Cause he, included he a video in one of his tweets around that time. And I clicked on it and it looked like totally unassuming. I was like, that's what is this? Cause like it, it had 11 million views, but it looked like a really boring seminar. And I was like, why would this have 11 million views? And then I heard the famous quote. Where he said like, yeah, for some reason, my viewers are men. I don't get it.

0:45:43 Thomas: Like, okay. I get all the way back to 2017 17. And I see this for first time in my career, my research grant funding was denied. Was near the top of every other application cycle. Here we go. We've found where his research grant was denied. So he when I read you that tweet about, you they didn't finish the research, she lives in Canada, you wouldn't know the research.

0:46:07 Thomas: He didn't really say this. He did say like research ground to a halt because of political duress. But that's fair enough. Like, I think that reasonably is describing this. You know, he's gone through Russian chemo since then. So like, I'll give him a break. And, I kind of remembered, I don't know if I made up the memory, but I kind of remembered like, oh, this seems familiar because it did happen right around the time, like a few months after he was getting famous as a transphobe. And so he announces my research funding grant was denied. So then this is where things get pretty interesting with this missing fucking study. Cause you might think, oh. So that's why we don't have his mystery study, Canadian girlfriend that says everything he wants it to say, right?

0:46:48 Thomas: However, I followed this thread and he started crowdfunding. Started saying, hey, you know what? We can make this research happen. We can it to the fucking left who is denying my research out of political motivations, blah, blah. And in a video that is now private, but which I found through the the archive, the web archive, probably the best tool in our entire fucking research arsenal.

0:46:48 Lydia: Oh my god. Oh, my gosh, yeah. I

0:47:13 Thomas: Like, I don't know where we would be without the internet archive. A video of not Ezra, Jordan Peterson, but it's Ezra of Rebel Media. So he like owned Rebel Media, which I think is who was the Nazi channel, the Nazi girl channel. Yeah. So, he's like a, you owner of Nazi media. He does, organizes this crowdfunding to support the research. Like I said, video is now private, but I watched it. There's not much interesting, so I won't play it, but But it's basically like, yeah, this political hit job, we got to raise money to, you know, make this happen. And so he started crowdfunding and I got the Indiegogo link.

0:47:47 Thomas: And it's it's it's not running anymore, but you can still see everything there. And the overview was Professor Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto, the professor who's been fighting so valiantly for free speech and academic freedom and against political correctness, has had his scholarly funding cut off. His grant application to continue his academic research was rejected for the first time in his career. So, we're going to raise his research funding for him. 100% of net proceeds will go to this research project.

0:48:20 Thomas: Update, year one funding achieved. Let's try to raise the $82,000 in funding for year two. So it looks like he, you know, he went through enough for that. He I found his funding proposal. That was kind of interesting. Only problem is I don't really know like what's a good funding proposal or not, but I was trying, I did read through it. I did a lot of fucking research on this. I did reach through it trying to see if like, could I find where he was? Cause you have to lay out all the you're studies going to do. I was like, is it going to be in there? Hey, we want to study how, yeah, we wants to study. How like you know if you're female or have a feminine temperament you're fucking Nazi or whatever the hell he's saying and doesn't reference that specifically it just but he does include like oh research on like political it's basically political views and big five stuff like personality stuff so it's like a little bit more of Brophy's research possibly so it could be that but it doesn't it's not at all and at you do have to lay out detail you it's not at all the detail that it would have to be to be the the missing research but it

0:48:51 Lydia: Did we finally find it? Yeah mhm mhm yeah

0:49:24 Thomas: Might be like maybe he just put generalities and wasn't going to go into it but he's asking for uh funding and he asked for you hundred thousand dollars you know tons of money um I tried to track down why he got denied and I couldn't find it. Um. Actually found like there, cause people of course wrote a bunch of articles. Like it's, it's almost like the the Killborn effect where clearly somebody has connections and this fucking website is like, look, they denied his thing, blah, blah. And they made enough of a stink to where, you they contacted, you people in charge of that. All I could find, and again, maybe there are limits to my research. I looked and I looked, I couldn't find anything. The Toronto Sun is this article. They said Julia Gualtieri, a spokesman for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, said grants are awarded through a merit review process, quote, and on relative merit in relation to the current cohort, past funding is not a guarantee of future funding. The names of the peer review committee will be released at a later date. However, I couldn't find that. So,

0:50:32 Thomas: Yeah, I'm not sure what happened. I don't know. There could be any number of explanations. That that article could be wrong. Like that could have just been not correct. Or maybe in order to relieve pressure, maybe they're like, yeah, we'll, you know, eventually we'll release it. And then maybe when, when pressure died down, they didn't want to, or maybe for safety concerns, they didn't.

0:50:31 Lydia: Shoot yeah

0:50:48 Thomas: Want to, who knows? Um, I never was able to get, like, I was hoping to find someone who would break down like, Hey, this is why he got denied and whatever. But honestly, it may entirely be political because it's, it's true. This is something he claimed that last one he had gotten in 2010, I think it was, or 2012, one or the other, was the biggest they had granted to a psychologist in Canada, like, ever. And so, like he is right that he had got funding. However, I can imagine a number of explanations. First off, when you go make a giant fuss about fucking transphobic shit and

0:50:48 Lydia: Yeah yeah

0:51:22 Thomas: You're, by the way, this is like government, a agency you that's granting this stuff, you Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. And you're complaining about government, oh, the government's being too kind to trans people by, you know. Having us use their pronouns sometimes or whatever. I can imagine if you attract a certain amount of scorn, a certain number of extra scrutiny to your research grant that maybe would have been not, you scrutinized so hard before. I don't know. It's just me guessing. I don't know. Like I can Imagine looking at it in a different light and seeing, oh this research actually kind of sucks and it's not really doing anything like I I don't know if his research included her fucking master's thesis that we've covered was terrible ah you know maybe they're like hey fuck this guy or maybe it was entirely they were like this guy hates trans people we this panel of peer reviewers are in a position to you tell him to go fuck himself so let's tell him go fuck him it may entirely be that you know what great awesome I have no problem with that because when you're an asshole there's gonna be consequences like I don't know that not everyone can get these grants

0:52:24 Thomas: That grant money went to somebody else and I'm sure they did cool science stuff you know so he of course is just incensed I just wanted to note um indiegogo account that did this one I checked like what other campaigns they've had you the christians of iraq feed our troops and by the it was Canadian troops. Help raise 10,000 for the Christmas hamper. I don't know what that is.

0:52:49 Lydia: Yeah Yeah. Hampers. I mean, that's a British thing, but yeah.

0:52:51 Thomas: Okay. For soldiers, uh, the Trudeau has abandoned. Save the Christians of Iraq from genocide. There's another one. Uh, help raise a million dollars for Sergeant Chris Spears kids. Just a bunch of stuff like that. You know, it's just like kind of, yeah. Troops and bullshit.

0:53:02 Lydia: A lot of troops. Troops and religion.

0:53:06 Thomas: So he wanted, you now, half a million fucking dollars for this nonsense research. And some of it, I'm sure are good people. Like maybe, I don't know, some amount of it was going to go to grad students that maybe I would have not had a problem with, but I don't know. Based on the track record, like I think his grad students were just fucking assholes. Like, honestly, it seems like they seem to be in on his shit, you know?

0:53:28 Lydia: His disciples.

0:53:30 Thomas: It seems like it. I, maybe not, know, you maybe it's just the, the that I've looked at, but yeah, it was going to be a lot of money and he got declined. And so they start to crowdfund and the is closed obviously. And it raised $143,000. Know, that's not like a ton. It's not as much as he wanted. But you would think that would be enough to, I don't know, fund a couple years of the research. Like he was asking for a lot. He was asking für a way bigger amount than was the previous biggest. So, like, you now, you think 143,000 is going to be enough to hire some grad students for stuff.

0:54:03 Lydia: I'm sorry, like the way that he has gone about speaking about the results, the research is done. It's just not published. So what it just writing the paper? If that's the barrier to that particular thing where people are like, OK, like, show me, show me the study. Like, there's no excuse.

0:54:22 Thomas: Not only that, it's it's a little bit more painstaking detail, but I don't think this money changed Christine Brophy's master's research. So, like, she was, I think, OK for another year or two or whatever, based on the previous grant, from what I can tell. This was, you know, it was for future stuff, but like people get research grants declined all the time. I don't know how this works, but everyone I've, I've mentioned this to Jenessa, everyone I've talked to is like, what the fuck you, that happens all the Time. You don't cry about it. Like maybe you find some other grant. I actually don't Know what you do. I don't think it means all your students just like, you fucked. Like there must be other ways you can.

0:55:00 Lydia: Especially if you're affiliated with a big institution like University of Toronto, like there's going to be a stopgap there.

0:55:06 Thomas: Yeah. There's going to be something. They're not going to just be like, sorry, you don't get your Ph .D. now. Like, there's no way. So, also there was this crowdfunding. And so I'm thinking like, all right, what's your excuse for not producing this research if you've crowdfunded?

0:55:19 Lydia: Where did that money go?

0:55:20 Thomas: Exactly, Exactly, where did the money go? And in that update I noticed a bit of a change of tone because it says also Dr. Peterson wanted to continue his work one analyzing and measuring personality scientifically okay that's kind of that one two examining the relationship between personality and political belief that's the main thing I saw on there liberal conservative and for the first time politically correct so that's you you know, that's probably Brophy's stuff. Three, assessing the impact and productivity and quality of life of self -directed writing exercises. Okay.

0:55:52 Thomas: I mean, this is all from his grant proposal. So I'm reading the Indiegogo, but he, this so far is like, it is describing his grant proposal, so okay.

0:56:00 Lydia: It is aligned with that. Okay,

0:56:01 Thomas: But it is like alright, that is a little weird because he goes creating and evaluating the utility of high school student versions of the programs at at selfauthoring .com, which has helped thousands of university students get better grades and stay in school, as outlined in this NPR article. And so now I'm thinking like, well, that could have been another reason it got declined if they were like, hey, aren't you just trying to fund research that you're going to use to sell your fucking website?

0:56:25 Thomas: Because that's what it looks like to me, doesn't it?

0:56:20 Lydia: That you are solely profiting off of. Yeah.

0:56:28 Thomas: So that's another reason that it could have been declined. Again, I could not find anything about that. So I don't know, but these are just guesses. And then it gives some links about his past research or whatever. And it says, Dr. Peterson obtains no direct financial benefit from the research grant. It is used to pay the salaries, tuition fees, and travel costs of his four graduate students and to compensate research subjects. Here's a copy of the full funding application. That's what I've already read to you. And by the way, they crowdfunded one year of the research in 24 hours. Course.

0:56:58 Thomas: Yeah, that's, you know, they've got a lot of money. Perks are kind of important. First one is special thanks, an exclusive thank you video. All right, we'll assume he did that. I don't know. But the second one is access to a special reception. $250 donors, and there are 112 of these, will be invited to a thank you. A special thank you reception with Professor Peterson and his research search students. You will also be emailed a link to the thank you video. The other ones are not, they're just like that plus like signed copies of bullshits or whatever. But I look on the comments and, almost seven years ago, which was, you know, when this was, hey, when is the reception supposed to be? Is the reception invitation supposed to be sent in June or is it happening in June? I could use some clarification. Then the last one, five years ago. So this is, you know, a year and a half, two years later. When is the reception?

0:57:46 Thomas: Not hearing anything or having any communication is a poor showing for an an important topic. We back this in good faith and have not had any indication that there will even be a reception. Please provide an update, that's all. So I only saw those two complaints and that kind of makes sense because these people are such devotees that I just feel like they don't care. You know, like honestly, they just want to stick it to the PC police. So they donate, but like, I don't know, there were a few comments and those comments seem to be from people who, there are from people who supported it

0:57:46 Lydia: Oh, Oh my god. Wow. Yeah. Yeah

0:58:17 Thomas: And like are like hey what happened here so I think we can be reasonably certain he didn't do that he didn't do the reception and tried to figure out where this money went and why it wouldn't have resulted in him doing this fucking research or her doing this freaking research and from what I can tell, and it's hard to piece together because this is kind of a black box. Like we don't really know what, you you were a donor, if your listening and you were affected by this, and maybe you can inquire with Indiegogo, but I didn't donate eight, obviously. So I don't think I can, what I can tell, it seems to all have gone to his self -authoring bullshit, which technically was in the proposal. And as we, you covered way back when Christine Brophy did work on this.

0:59:00 Lydia: She worked on that. Mm

0:59:02 Thomas: And so like part of me wonders if that's kind of how he justified it. It's like, well, he didn't end up, you any of the research that was was promised. Like I can find. I don't know. Again, maybe he did, gave him a year of money. I, I don't know, but there's nothing like there's no follow up. There's, nothing we can tell, um, he did this research. All we have is, hey, um, research is, uh, now at the future authoring thingy. And, uh, I'm afraid that's where the road ends. I can't, I cannot find anymore.

0:59:37 Thomas: I is that he used that money, diverted it to the self -authoring thing, which was technically a part of that, and then, you know, maybe justified it by paying Christine Brophy to be involved in that. Research never, her PhD wasn't finished. Her search doesn't seem to have been finished if it was, again, going to be this further research that he's talking about. Don't know. Maybe his other grad students got some of that money. Can't say. Just no proof. We can be pretty sure there was never that ceremony unless two of his supporters who donated just like, didn't get the memo, but like that, I don't think so. Like, it doesn't seem like it. He didn't publicize it. I've looked as through his, um, I haven't seen anything about it. It kind of seems like it was just like everyone forget about it and again, the YouTube video switched to private, it, you know? So like, yeah, I, that I this was borderline fraudulent in my opinion, but I don't know, like, again, the, the little boys who love him so much want to be fraudulated, if they don't care, then I don't, I don't know how much it matters. Like, you know, they, they would have to make a fuss about it. Know, but You'd this is at the very least pretty fucked up to be like, hey, my was denied. Raise money for me. And then it all goes to your stupid fucking self -authoring website, which is something that you benefit from. That led us to me asking you to do research on his business interests and

1:00:23 Lydia: Yeah, that's so interesting. Yeah. Yeah,

1:00:59 Thomas: Try to track down who we bono from that website. So, that'll be next time on Where There's Woke, some business weirdness. But let it justifies to say that I think that research fucking exists, Jordan. Or if it maybe does, it's not at all how you represent it. I think the mental health bullshit is made up. I think The One Woke Course thing is madeup. I think that they may have done some other version of the questionnaire, but there's no evidence of it ever being anything. So he can just claim whatever the fuck he wants now. And he has no qualms about it.

1:01:33 Lydia: Yep. Crazy.

1:01:34 Thomas: That like academic fucking fraud?

1:01:37 Lydia: I find this very concerning. Um, don't know what to do about it, though. Like, I scream from the mountaintops.

1:01:41 Thomas: Nothing. Yeah.

1:01:43 Lydia: Um. The show, I guess. Help get the word out there.

1:01:45 Thomas: So that's the curious case

1:01:47 Lydia: Yeah let's convert some we gotta convert some lobsters and

1:01:47 Thomas: Of Jordan Peterson's disappearing research. Yeah. Well, I'm excited to hear the next episode, which will be the final for now on this Jordan Peterson series, Business Weirdness. Yes thanks so much for listening we'll see you then