WTW43: Jordan Peterson, Christine Brophy, and a Master’s Thesis All Walk Into a Lauren Southern...
Part 2 of our JBP odyssey Having gotten all of 2 minutes into the JBP Rap Analysis video, we were stopped in our tracks by an absolutely insane set of claims based on some mystery "research" Peterson did in 2016. He claims that Left-Wing Authoritarianism is most highly predicted by 1. being dumb 2. being female 3. having a female disposition?!?! and 4. having taken a single woke course or seminar. That is, prima facie, absolutely not correct. But where on Earth did he get that? We tracked it down. And discovered so much along the way... Feel free to email us at lydia@seriouspod.com or thomas@seriouspod.com! Please pretty please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/wherethereswoke!
Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism and you see woke principles being pushed.
Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down.
The woke monster is here and it's coming for everything.
Instead of go-go boots, the seductress Green Eminem will now wear sneakers.
Hello and welcome to Where There's Woke.
This is episode 43.
I'm Thomas Smith and Jesus fucking Christ.
Jesus Christ.
Okay.
Hi.
Hi, hon.
Yeah, I'm here.
Thank you very much.
Lydia Smith in the closet, as usual.
Yeah.
I can't even, I can't.
I love doing the show so much.
There's, there's so much to talk about.
Oh, I know.
I know.
And I thought I had it handled.
I was like, all right, this expanded.
It expanded a little, you know, a couple parts.
From one to two.
Yeah, one to two, maybe with a bonus.
Yeah.
And then I was polishing up some final research.
I was like, oh, I need to make sure I tie this loose end kind of thing.
And I stumbled across an entire thing that was like, oh, I needed to go down this route.
I do that and I discover so much, including it's possible Jordan Peterson Committed some light fraud a little bit.
I don't like, yeah, I don't, I haven't seen anyone talking about this.
I, it strikes me as the kind of thing that someone must've covered.
Someone, somewhere must've covered it.
But again, this is the kind of thing where I'm on a deadline trying to get the part two and I stumbled on a whole new thing.
I've searched, I've Googled for anyone else covering it.
I don't know that I've used the right terms or had enough time.
Sure.
But I haven't really seen it.
And I think it's the kind of thing that maybe because he lost his mind and disappeared for a couple years, people just kind of like, oh, okay, never mind.
But anyway, there's so much.
All of this because we started watching one minute of a rap video or whatever, you know?
Because we were laughing at Ben Shapiro.
All I wanted to do is come here and laugh at Jordan Peterson saying a bunch of dumb shit about a rap video.
That's all I wanted to do.
All I wanted.
And we get two minutes in and he makes a claim that really sent me down a rabbit hole.
Launched a thousand ships.
Yeah, it's just, this is, okay, let's review just real quickly where we were in this video.
The fundamental problem with the, there's a variety of fundamental problems with the woke algorithm, reductive algorithm or ideology that Ben and Tom are criticizing.
We did research back in 2016 looking at politically correct authoritarianism, and that was back when psychologists were just starting to analyze left-wing authoritarianism.
And we found that the best predictors of being a left-wing authoritarian were being not verbally intelligent.
That was a walloping predictor.
It was the Variable most closely associated with intelligence that I had ever seen, including grades.
And so, if you're not very bright, the woke ideology is very attractive to you.
The second best predictor was being female.
The third best predictor was having a female temperament.
The fourth best predictor was ever having taken a course that had the woke ideology as a portion of it.
Okay, I think I have to stop there.
God, even just now, I've watched that 47 times.
There's newly discovered ways that he's lying or maybe misremembering.
I'll probably have to go back to that after I talk at you for five hours.
Okay.
What's the information we have?
Well, 2016, we did some research.
Well, okay, easy enough.
So we Google, you know, kind of what could that possibly be?
And the only thing that is even close that could be is a master's thesis by one of his students, Christine Brophy.
That's the only thing that we could find.
And there's only one.
There's nothing else from that time period that fits the facts at all.
And this master's thesis, I have read the crap out of these things, but I'm not a scientist.
I actually do want to do a follow-up maybe.
It could be on SIO too.
If you are someone with a, I don't know, PhD in psychology, experimental psych or something, or I guess it could be clinical psych, whatever, and you would like to go through any of these studies, possibly on SIO, let me know.
Because they're really interesting.
It's this and there's going to be some others I'll reference on left-wing authoritarianism.
So much to cover.
And so this master's thesis seems pretty legit in some ways.
I have my criticisms and I'm sure if I were an expert and when I get to talk to an expert, I'm sure they'll have many more.
But like, it mostly seems kind of normal.
So I'm like, all right, they've found some things about political correctness and that's interesting.
It is called Political Correctness, Social Fiscal Liberalism, Now, did you want to tell us anything about her right now before we get going?
As usual, when there's a, you know, a person to research, that's Lydia's specialty.
committed in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master's of Arts, Graduate Department of Psychology, University of Toronto.
So this is her master's thesis.
Now, did you want to tell us anything about her right now before we get going?
As usual, when there's a person to research, that's Lydia's specialty.
So I offloaded a little bit of this.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Christine Brophy attended the University of Toronto in their psychology program.
So Christine Brophy attended the University of Toronto in their psychology program.
And from what I can tell, she applied to the master's program, which is only one year.
And from what I can tell, she applied to the master's program, which is only one year.
But University of Toronto admits to the Ph.D. program upon successful completion in their master's program.
So much so that on the website itself, it says it is expected that following the M.A. year, students will proceed to the Ph.D. program.
And you have, you know, a grade requirement and everything.
And your research performance must be adequate in order to be accepted to continue on in your studies.
They have since suspended that master's entry into the Ph.D.
I don't know if it's a for now thing or what, but they're not doing that and you have to apply to be a PhD candidate instead.
So based off of what I see here that she prepared a master's thesis.
means that she went to UT via the master's application program with the intent to continue her studies under the Ph.D.
And that's cited in articles that, you know, they did interviews and stuff for this saying that she was a Ph.D.
candidate.
There was an NPR article in July of 2015 called The Writing Assignment That Changes Lives.
And this was following Jordan Peterson's self-authoring practice.
Yeah, I'll be talking about that later, but go on.
Sure.
So in this article, they actually interviewed Christine Brophy and she spoke about what the practice meant to her.
And she said, it completely turned my life around and that she was an undergraduate several years ago battling drug abuse and health problems and was on the verge of dropping out.
Then she took Jordan Peterson's course.
At University of Toronto and changed her major so she could study under him.
Okay.
And then she became a doctoral student and one of his main research assistants.
From another article, Toronto Life, January 2017.
This article is titled, The Pronoun Warrior.
So it was during the C-16 stuff.
And she is quoted as saying, there are perhaps one or two professors you'll run into during your career who completely capture and captivate you.
And he was one of them.
And she got involved with his self-authoring company and the selling of the curriculum online.
She was testing versions of the curriculum at two high schools overseas and monitoring some of the outcomes that they were expecting to test.
She says that the early results were promising.
It helps students understand what they really want to do.
But her name's not associated on any of the research articles that are published related to self-authoring.
Yeah, so I came across this same thing and because I came across this research from like the other end, we like waved at each other, you know, we were over on the Christine Brophy side.
I only saw this self-authoring.com and I saw those studies and yeah, it looks like it's three studies possibly by this website is Jordan Peterson and two other dudes.
I looked for Christine Brophy or indeed anyone else and didn't see anyone.
Now, just to confirm, because we haven't gotten to collaborate on this, have you found that anyone else was involved in the self-authoring thing, or is it just those three men?
Because this is actually kind of important for later.
When I go to the team, I just see three white dudes, Jordan Peterson, Daniel Higgins, Robert O. Peel, possibly.
Not like in the Irish sense, like Robert O. Peel.
Essentially, who else is a part of this company?
Who else is benefiting possibly from sales on this website?
This is going to maybe matter later.
Yeah, I don't see anything else from my research on other folks who might be benefiting from this.
And we're only from the outside.
Who knows?
But it's only listed on their website.
It's only people who very much were just Peterson and two other established older white dudes.
They're not his students or anything.
And then in an article in February 2019 from Financial Post, this is an article talking about how an MBA program in Texas created a fellowship under his name.
I don't know if you've ever heard about that.
It's called the Peterson Fellowship at Acton, and it was advertised as an MBA program with a philosophy that is aligned with Dr. Peterson.
And you have to apply for that.
But within the article itself, kind of talking about this new fellowship everyone's really excited about, Christine Brophy was quoted in this too.
And it says that she started working with him almost a decade ago, initially as an undergraduate student and lately as a contract worker on hiatus from her psychology PhD.
Peterson is her supervisor and she's working on his online educational platform.
Okay, so she's working on that.
That's got to be good stuff.
As of 2019.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And then she says that her mentor nurtures talent, trusting the people he surrounds himself with to take a good idea and run with it.
And in quotes, Jordan has an endless supply of ideas.
He's been that way since I've known him.
And because he's constantly moving on to the next thing, he needs to have very productive people around him who don't need a lot of direction from him to do things, but are also people he trusts to do a good job.
That's for sure.
Yeah.
I love that.
So this is an MBA program.
This is an MBA program.
Yeah.
So MBA programs, folks should know they can be very expensive.
They make a lot of money because it's often like a company might be like, Hey, uh, we're going to pay for you to go get your MBA as part of your whatever.
And they're kind of bullshitty.
Like they're, so this strikes me as a perfect fit.
And also what's the demographics of people who get MBAs?
It's going to be mainly the exact same demographics of people who might like Jordan.
Peterson, yeah, so it's like, here we go.
This is like putting, you know, it's like how all our kids' crap has Disney stuff slapped on it.
This is like, hey, hey, incels slash just kind of shitty dudes.
Here's a Jordan Peterson branded lunchbox you can go get for, you know, $30,000.
You can get a year's education in this MBA or whatever it is.
It's really interesting.
So I do have some questions for you on this just from like your experience with it.
So there's an FAQ document.
So essentially how it works is like you apply and from the application like you might be invited to go to the second round of consideration for this program.
And essentially it would be like a year long program and it comes to $65,000.
Wow.
But they say that the way they're setting it up is in a pay-it-forward approach, and so I thought that meant that, like, you were sponsored by, you know, someone who previously went before you.
You thought it was, like, in Starbucks when everyone, like, pays their way?
Yeah, exactly.
I'll pay for the MBA, the Master's in Business Administration of the guy behind me.
Yeah, but what it really is is that you defer portions of your tuition payment.
So to start in stage one or whatever, like, you commit to You send a check for $1,000 if you're accepted to the program to secure your place, and then you sign a commitment for $4,000 of the portion.
In stage two, so a couple months later, you pay $5,000 in cash, plus you sign a pay-it-forward commitment of $15,000.
Wow.
And then stage three, a couple months later after that, you pay another $10,000 in cash.
What?
What are these stages?
And then you sign $30,000.
Are you even in the program yet?
Sorry, the virtual semester has begun, so you are taking your classes and doing all of that stuff.
So you've essentially paid $1,000 plus $5,000 plus $10,000.
So you've paid $16,000 of your $65,000 amount.
And then you've committed to pay the balance, the $40,000, whatever, $1,000 after you have completed the program and you get a job.
Okay.
And they say that, you know, then it's basically 10% of your future income for a maximum of 10 years.
They don't charge interest, but I thought this was like so weird and I've never seen this before, but then it...
Seems like it does.
Honestly, it strikes me as a pretty good deal for an MBA.
So MBAs are usually not that generous.
They just, like I said, I almost got an MBA or looked into it at least.
And it is the kind of thing where it's like there's usually no assistance for it because it's a business school.
You're training to be like a fucking annoying younger executive, probably getting too high up too early at a company, you know?
And it's just, they make a lot of money.
Interesting.
Boy, back when I was looking into them, it was more like $15,000.
Because keep in mind, it's like one year of education.
One year, yeah.
And it doesn't cover housing?
No, nothing.
Covers none of that stuff.
Yeah, it's very business-y.
And for this to be $60,000, honestly, that doesn't seem that Bad to me.
Because I think what they've done is they've found a way to make it seem like, oh, you're only going to have to pay if you get a job.
But they're also guaranteeing something like, what, $15,000, $16,000, no matter what.
Incoming from a student.
Yeah.
So worst case for them, they're getting $16,000 for an MBA.
Guaranteed.
And then if the person gets a job, which I'm sure they'll get a job, like they'll get more later.
So I don't know.
Honestly, my impression, I'm not an expert in this, but from when I looked into this, like that doesn't seem like that crazy to me.
It might, it might even be like maybe a little easier to do that than to get another one that would demand more money right away.
I don't know.
Then the money thing seems reasonable, but someone on Reddit years ago, I guess, applied for this and got like almost an immediate email back saying, you know, we're really impressed with your application.
You're moving on to the second round.
And then he said, or they said, I guess, I don't know who it is.
They said that their friend had completely different answers than they did and got like literally the exact same email.
And so then they tested it out and like their username that they created for the online application was like weed smoker and like filled out nonsense and got the exact same email again going on to the second round.
And this is a program that is, according to the website, not currently accepting applications.
Really?
So do we know if anyone got this MBA?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It seems like there was at least one successful cohort.
And then when they were doing a second cohort, I think it ended up kind of falling apart a little bit because that happened to coincide with, I think, with Jordan Peterson was going through, you know, personal stuff.
Was this a school that already had some sort of MBA program?
What is this?
He developed it with another guy.
He was actively involved in developing the program, and I think the initial intent was that he would be semi-involved.
Not there all the time.
He was doing all of his tours and speaking engagements and everything.
God, this is so Trump University-esque.
It is.
It is.
But then again, you know, he had personal stuff that happened and then was no longer affiliated and they stopped doing this.
So yeah.
And the picture that they used for the website, it's like characterized as, you know, Johnny Cash, because it's like in black and white, there's a road ahead of him.
He's like looking over the side of his shoulder and it says, Are you everything you could be?
Choose your future.
So yeah, so it's kind of incredible.
So he was involved in that and Christine Brophy was involved too and gave like some sort of endorsement blurb thing?
An endorsement of him.
Yeah.
And the kind of, you know, like what it's like to work for him and the big ideas that he has, et cetera.
But as you know, I stated as part of that quote, though, is that she went on hiatus from her psychology PhD.
I don't see any indication that she ever finished it.
I haven't seen anything else published by her.
There are no other published works that I saw either.
Yeah.
And as a matter of fact, I found her Instagram.
Eventually.
And she posted with hashtag, didn't finish my PhD life.
No, but she, she is an assistant women's basketball coach at George Brown for the Huskies.
As of 2022, they list her as the assistant basketball coach for the women's team, as well as the culture development.
And they title her as, you know, she is a personality psychologist.
Personality psychologist?
I don't know.
So she completed her master's from what I can tell, but no PhD, and now she coaches basketball.
So she's billed as having a master's.
They don't cite that.
They just say she's a personality psychologist.
That's a little interesting.
So do we know that she finished her master's?
I don't know for sure.
I mean, she had her master's thesis prepared, but I don't know.
And published.
But then I imagine they offered her a terminal degree, but maybe not because they said the expectation is that you continue on to your PhD program.
Do you have her LinkedIn?
Does she say she's an MA?
It's not updated.
I look through her LinkedIn and it is bare bones.
But she would have had an MA in psychology in like 2015.
Yeah.
It doesn't have anything since it was like research coordinator while she was at school.
This is interesting.
Okay.
This is a, this is an ongoing story.
Like for real, this is like a, this is kind of an important part of it.
So I'm very curious.
So her master's thesis was published.
November 2015.
I would have just assumed that means she has a master's, but it'd be surprising if that school she's working at would not bill her as Christine Brophy, MA.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's interestingly vague, right?
Personality psychologist.
And again, from when I was reading you the expectations from the University of Toronto, if you're admitted into the master's program, you are expected to continue on to the PhD program.
But if you do that, but you should get your master's along the way, right?
Look, it's not, look, okay.
As everyone listening, we have so many academics who listen.
People don't finish their PhD a lot.
You know, like there's a lot of times people don't.
So that's what I thought.
I thought it was like, oh, she finished her master's and then we'll talk about it.
But for different reasons, didn't complete her PhD.
That much seems certain.
But now I'm wondering if she even completed her master's.
Yeah, I don't know.
I do know that she is galt at Pebble Beach for fun with her husband.
Yeah.
And her husband is a lawyer in Canada, is actually a partner with a firm.
So I know a lot about them and their job.
So she got her MRS degree.
I mean, that's totally like a Jordan Peterson thing to do though.
That's like, anyway, this may seem random folks right now, but I actually, the reason I continued to grill our witness on this is because this is actually important for my thing later.
This is all going to come around.
I promise.
And I was missing that information.
So this is, this is good.
The last thing I want to say just to close out the Christine Brophy stalking that I did, but she popped up in a tweet from Michael Schellenberger, who is the San Francisco guy that, you know, seemed to be reasonable, but he is not.
And he she got a shout out from him basically in October 2023 when he announced a project he was doing with Peter Boghossian titled Woke Psychopathology, A Taxonomy.
Yeah.
And they prepared, you know, basically a chart to help identify.
And so looking at cluster B personality disorders and why everybody on the left has it.
Is there an academic paper associated with this or what is this?
What level of thing is this?
Could you send it to me?
So it's a chart.
And actually here, let me send you this picture because it's a little bit easier.
Why this one simple chart will end wokeism.
Yeah, and it's, yeah, Woke Religion, A Taxonomy.
October 2023, okay.
The Y-axis has racism, climate change, trans, crime, mental illness, drugs, homelessness, and across the top on the X-axis says original sin, guilty devils, myths, sacred, I don't know.
They said this is gonna end wokeness and I can't even understand it.
Shit, did it?
Let me look outside.
I don't know.
It still looks pretty woke out there.
I don't know.
Geez.
So it's essentially like categorizing things within these various category combinations.
I don't know.
I think this will be an entire episode on its own.
We need to roast this chart.
Okay.
So how was she involved in this?
He thanked her.
So he listed a bunch of people because of that political correctness research back then.
He thanked her.
It says, Finally, we are grateful to a number of people who inspired, advised, and contributed to our thinking about cluster B personality disorders on the left.
Christine Brophy, Ginger Coy, Jordan Peterson, Josh Slocum, and Sam Vaknin.
Okay.
This is very interesting.
I can't wait to go over that more because these people are fucking clowns.
Yeah.
High level, just as we depart this little piece of the puzzle.
She went to University of Toronto for her master's, expected to move on to PhD.
No evidence that she ever finished her PhD.
And don't forget, she was apparently drug addicted and inspired.
Yes.
Changed her major to Jordan Peterson.
Pin in that.
I'm getting a lot of, like, Keith Raniere vibes.
Yeah.
Right now.
And that, according to her, he changed her life.
And she followed him along through a variety of projects.
Yeah.
And has sung his praises at least through 2019.
And now she and him are coaching women's basketball.
It'd be funny if he was also involved in that.
It's like the Jordan Peterson women's team for the whatever, Grizzlies, whatever you say.
Yeah, and I haven't seen her pop up in anything else related to Jordan Peterson since that 2019.
Actually, important question for The Witness.
Timeline here.
Do you think, from your knowledge, has she done any work with him after his drug thing that he went on?
We're not going to cover that too much because He basically got addicted to benzos and apparently went to Russia to get into a medically induced coma in 2019 or 20, I can't remember which.
And that was, again, he disappeared for a while.
People were like, what's going on?
Do you think that that could have been a break in their working relationship?
Is there any evidence that they've done anything, like collaborated after that time?
I have not seen anything since that February 2019 article.
Okay.
That she has been involved in anything he's been doing.
She got married in 2020 and that's all I see is her golfing and coaching basketball and they have a dog.
That's interesting.
I totally want to very irresponsibly speculate on things, but I'm not going to.
Honestly, his drug thingy, the timeline lines up like his disappearance could account for that MBA program.
Yeah.
And that's what I think happened.
Right.
And I kind of alluded to that.
The first year went well and then the second it was like, oh, he's not going to be able to be there.
Very interesting.
Because of his familial responsibilities, I think is the way they phrase it.
Well, I do want to be fair.
His story for why he got addicted to benzos was his wife was diagnosed with cancer.
So, you know, I don't want to take that away from anybody, obviously.
Yeah.
That's a very sad thing.
Honestly, that's why I wasn't even really going to talk about that.
I think the whole Russia thing and there's a lot about it that's very odd and I think is fair comment, but I'm not going to criticize anyone for being heartbroken by their wife's cancer at all and turning to drugs if that's what happened.
No harsh judgment there, but it's the everything else that's a little weird.
Like, why did he go to Russia?
Okay.
And the fact that, you know, for being someone who's preached about personal responsibility, it's like when Rush Limbaugh was found to be abusing pills, you know, it's like, OK, I have all the empathy in the world for human beings in that condition.
Like, absolutely.
Yeah.
I know we have a lot of listeners who'll write in.
I think it can be easy to accidentally say things that might be offensive to people who had addictions.
And I don't mean to do that at all.
But it's when it's somebody who has been preaching this conservative and not just preaching, lecturing everyone else about how to live their lives.
You know, and how personal responsibility, personal responsibility.
And coming back and doing the exact same thing.
Yeah, and learning nothing.
Learning absolutely nothing.
Literally going to a coma over it, apparently.
Maybe fighting back.
I don't know.
Zero humility.
Zero, less humility, actually.
And we're going to find less humility.
So that part is a little frustrating.
That's the part that's annoying.
So that was Christine Brophy.
Now I'm going to talk about Ben Shapiro's violin playing.
No, I'm just kidding.
That's for later.
So this is her master's thesis.
That's how we got here.
That's the only thing that's published at all.
And I'm 99.5% certain that this is the only published work that he could be referring to when he says in 2016, we studied this and we found blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I'll go back over that in a second.
So before taking you through this paper, which I'm going to do somewhat, it's actually quite long.
It's 171 pages, but a lot of that is questions and exhibits and all that crap.
I say it's coming from the law background.
It's whatever.
Because it's a master's, I think they have to attach, like, here's all the questions I used.
Here's what we did with them.
So there's a lot of stuff that wouldn't be in, like, usually you don't attach that much, I think.
But here's what's maybe easier than trying to take you through an academic paper.
We found an interview With Rebel News, which is fucking Lauren Southern, with Jordan Peterson and PhD student Christine Brophy.
And the description is they have been researching political affiliation, personality, and political correctness.
Interesting.
This is on Rebel News' channel.
It has half a million plus views.
It's from 20, so this is October 27th, 2016.
The dates are kind of important.
And I just want to say that Lauren Southern does not have a fucking microphone.
I'm so sorry.
Like this is, she's conducting an interview.
They are sat across from each other.
It's Jordan Peterson and Christine Brophy on a couch and Lauren Southern across.
And they have one mic and Lauren Southern handed it to Jordan Peterson and just forgot that You know, like you need mics to be able to be heard.
Oh my gosh.
It's incredible.
The audio.
So you're going to, you're all going to kill me, but it's not my fault.
Quick note on the timeline before we jump into this, because as part of this, I've gone and done a rough, like a very rough look back at his kind of Twitter timeline for reasons I'll get into.
I just want to note, like it was so depressing to look at because I go back in his Twitter timeline and All up until Bill C-16, it's nothing.
Nobody cares about him.
It's not a single retweet, not a single reply.
Wow.
It's absolutely nothing.
Yeah, nobody knew who he was.
Now, I did want to say this.
Jordan Peterson was a legitimate academic.
There's no taking that away from him.
I disagree with a lot of how he looks at stuff, but he is published.
He is a legit professor.
I think that's important to state as much as like, you know, we all want to hate him and pretend he was never anything.
He was a well-respected academic and he had research grants.
He had papers published.
He was cited a lot.
That doesn't mean what he's saying is right, but it does mean that he was within that system and he was respected within that system all the way from what I can tell until Bill C-16.
And you can see it, like I'm just on his Twitter timeline because I was doing a certain search query and it's just like nothing, nothing, nothing, like literally no hearts, no retweets, no replies for most of his tweets.
In 2015, 2013, he was tweeting to somebody, I don't know who.
And then all of a sudden, all of a sudden, late 2016, some tweets about Bill C-16.
And then things get more and more like, oh, PC authoritarian, blah, blah, blah, all that.
Bill C-16, I found a timeline.
I wasn't planning on talking about this, but it's actually interesting for what we're talking about.
The whole Bill C-16 controversy, which was Jordan Peterson deliberately misunderstanding what it did and representing it as some totalitarian thing that was going to force him to use pronouns in a way that, whatever, it's just stupid.
And that was when he gained attention.
His first thing, he did a YouTube lecture series against political correctness and about Bill C-16 in September 2016.
And so you can see his Twitter go from literally nothing to, oh, November, December, all of a sudden people are following him.
And similarly, you can look at his graph tree on And he apparently started it in March 2016, because I think he started his YouTube channel.
He had some members, so he did garner some attention.
You know, he had a hundred something patrons up until C-16, and then within mere months, you know, it exploded.
In November, he was making 3,000 a month.
In December, he's making 7,600 a month.
In January, he's making 12,000 a month.
Wow.
So just in the short time after Bill C-16, in February it's up to 15, March it's up to 17, and then by the time we get into 2017, he turned off the earnings and he just has the members, but he was making something like $70,000 a month, and God knows what it got up to, but it was millions.
And then, what is amazing, I forgot he killed his Patreon, and that is fascinating.
Yeah, he got rid of it because of Sargon.
Oh, no way.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
January, 2019.
This man is so wealthy that he was able to take something that made him a million dollars a year for nothing, basically.
And he just turned it off.
He just, he killed it.
And I don't know that he really replaced it.
That's so crazy.
I think he already had so much fucking money because these people are willing to pay him so much.
He's a god to these boys, these little boys.
That's just incredible to me.
I vaguely knew some of this, but I didn't realize like how staggering the numbers are.
I mean, imagine just deleting a million dollar Patreon just because Sargon of fucking Akkad was banned.
You can't say that Jordan Peterson is not a true believer.
He is a true believer.
Yeah.
And he's racking up the dough.
Wow.
Okay.
So anyway, I wanted to set that within the timeline of this video because I think it's interesting.
So this is October 27th, 2016.
So he's still on the up and up.
He isn't like huge, huge, but he has made waves.
And that's interesting because I was trying to gauge, before you gave me all that info, I was kind of trying to gauge Christine Brophy's deal because I wanted to know like, well, will this be a legit study?
You know, the master's thesis or how much would she have been like into his stuff?
Because for all I knew before you did that research, she was just a master's student at A university that's a legit university under a guy who was a legitimate professor.
Yep.
And I wasn't sure, was she just doing normal psych stuff or not?
But then I turned on this video again from October 27, 2016 with the worst audio you're ever going to hear in your life.
Let's listen to them talk about it.
And again, it's where do SJWs come from?
And I think what's particularly funny and worth noting is Lauren Southern is having a conversation completely detached, not just audio wise.
But subject matter wise, she's having a conversation that is not at all the conversation that Jordan Peterson and Christine Brophy are having.
Interesting.
And I don't think that they particularly care to correct her.
I'll boost this, everybody.
Now, you and Christine have been studying... She's speaking without a mic while Jordan Peterson is holding the mic.
Fucking genius.
Studying where this came from, trying to find the psychology of these people, the personalities, how the PC police come about.
I'm curious, can you give us any insights on your research, what you discovered about people like Smugly Puff and the others at the rally opposing you?
Well, I'll just give some context and then give it over to Christine, but we've actually been studying the full spectrum of political beliefs, so... Alright, I'm upping the speed on this because I can't...
One of my students, Caitlin Burton, has done a very nice thesis trying to detail out the underlying belief structure of the beliefs that range from conservatism to liberalism.
And then Christine started studying specifically politically correct, political correctness, part to see if it existed, because you can actually find out using statistical techniques whether a concept is real, like it's a real concept, if things actually aggregate together.
And so one of the things that Christine was actually just trying to test was to see if there was such a thing as political correctness, and then also to determine what it was.
How it was related to liberalism and conservatism, and then what the underlying correlates and predictors are, personality traits and that sort of thing.
I want to say this.
I have read ahead.
He is accurately representing things there.
Okay.
So he is actually talking about what she did research, and I believe he speaks pretty much completely accurately about what's going on there.
We're going to hear Lauren Southern's question, and then I want to ask you something.
I'd love to get the details on that because all of us are curious where this social justice phenomenon came from, this radicalism from the left.
So, OK, what do you think this study is about based on what you've heard so far, the information you've been given?
Oh, gosh.
I would say that political correctness is a radicalization of people on the left.
That's what I would say.
I would say that that's what it's about.
It's about identifying, you know, that political correctness is a real thing and social justice warriors engage in it.
So, like, you heard him say, like, oh, is political correctness a real thing?
And I told you that was accurate.
Like, he's accurately, my impression, I'm not a scientist, but my impression is he's pretty accurate in how he's talking about how you would study that.
So, you form a battery of questions, essentially, and If you're trying to figure out, OK, is political correctness a thing?
You're trying to find, can you get people to answer questions?
Like, can you get data that suggests, oh, this is a consistent concept.
We can test for it.
And its questions tell you something.
That's all sciencey science stuff.
But that all seems to be accurate.
And that's what Jordan Peterson said.
And the title of this video is Where Do SJWs Come From?, which that was the pejorative back then, of course.
Yeah.
And so I think you've done a great job of summarizing what it seems like we're talking about here.
I'm going to go a little further now to what she says.
So as Jordan was saying, it is true, like political correctness does exist.
That was one of the main findings that we found.
What does that mean?
So political correctness, what we found that it was, was that it's actually represented by two factors.
We have PC egalitarians and PC authoritarians.
I'm going to detail those out and then kind of explain how it is that this movement has been generated from that.
So the central element to PC egalitarians and PC authoritarians is the trait agreeableness or compassion.
So that's how well you're able to empathize with someone or ability to feel for them.
But something that's important to know about compassion is that it actually evolved from the mother-child pair bond.
Okay.
Sorry.
This is where I was like up to now, I was watching this and I was like, again, trying to gauge like what, you know, I didn't know, is she just a student?
Is she a normie?
And she just happened to be under Jordan Peterson.
But right when she said that was where my suspicions were like, uh, what?
Because now that I know from what you've said, no, she's she's an acolyte, essentially.
And now that I know that a lot comes into focus.
But I was tipped off there because, you know, again, there's a lot of academics, I'm sure, in the audience.
I imagine That is very weird to hear in my opinion.
I'm not the scientist of the two of us.
I don't have any degrees in psychology, but in doing a shitload of reading on this and just from interviewing academic after academic on SIO.
I feel like that was a weird thing to say.
This is a PhD student at this time.
Yeah.
In psychology, talking about a psychology paper that was studying political correctness, personality traits, etc.
And she says, what's important to remember is that compassion evolved from the mother-child pair bond.
Mother-child.
And I was like, what?
And so I just did some light Googling to see like, is that some evolutionary psych finding that's like iron clad?
Or is it an evolutionary finding that's iron clad?
And no, it's not.
There are people who hypothesize that compassion, empathy come from stuff like that, parental relationship.
There's also other things people hypothesize that it might come from any number of things, like just I mean, couldn't it theoretically come from humans as communities and ensuring that societies of humans can continue on successfully?
Yeah, that is a lot of it.
And it's not that what she's saying is for sure wrong, but it's weird in a psych paper for a PhD student.
She's just asserting as fact something that is a not settled science claim of a different discipline.
Like, they're not evolutionary psychologists even.
And I know there might be some overlap there.
Or developmental psychologists in terms of children.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so talking about compassion having evolved from the mother-child pair bond, to me, alarm bells.
Now, academics write in if you think I'm wrong, but that seemed off.
Like, that seemed like, well, that's not something someone who is sticking to their discipline, I think, would assert in that same way.
I'll let it continue a little here.
So a mother's ability to care for their child with altruistic generosity.
So that's where compassion evolved from.
And it's useful to remember that when we're extrapolating onto the effects that we're seeing in society in general with this whole PC movement.
So then the differentiating elements of PC authoritarianism and PC egalitarianism are for PC authoritarians, they have a very low verbal cognitive ability.
And that's a correlation or effect size about a point four, which is quite high.
And then after that, they also have high interpersonal disgust sensitivity.
So how we measure that, that's one of the items on the scale would be if I were to shake your hand, would I feel the need to wash my hands immediately afterwards?
Could we share a drink?
That type of thing.
Often we have in research people, they assume that disgust sensitivity is related to the conservative side of things where Individuals who are white men, for example, are racist towards other minorities.
But discussed, it's actually how culture manages to pass on their norms or the rules that we have in order to have a successful or the rules for the game to play in order to exist in culture or in order for us to play the game in our society.
So we think that, OK, well, so since white men or the patriarchy are the ones in charge, they're the ones who are creating those rules.
Interesting.
But that's not necessarily true.
If you're existing in a family that's a minority's family, for example, your parents are then creating that culture for you.
So for individuals who are PC authoritarians or left wing authoritarians, they're getting the rules passed down from their parents that are perhaps against white men.
So that's how we where we get that claim that white racism exists.
The opposite.
Interesting.
So how much of it is biological and how much of it is kind of based on their parents and their environment?
So personality traits in general, I believe that there's about a point eight or point five to point six correlation with them being biological.
So white.
But for things like disgust sensitivity, that is something that's passed down more so from your environment.
But then there is also still that biological element to it.
So that's PC authoritarians.
There's also, they're also, we also found a correlation with the existence of a mood or anxiety disorder in your, either in the person who was filling out the questionnaire or their direct family member.
If they were a PC authoritarian.
If they were a PC authoritarian, yes.
We used a very high standard for this where they had to have a clinical diagnosis.
So it wasn't just generally more anxious.
They had to have a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety or mood disorder either in themselves or the parent or a direct family member.
So all of that combines to kind of creating this authoritarian type personality where they're very intolerant for nuance or the unknown.
They need all things to be black and white, very clear cut.
And then the anxiety or mood disorder creates this kind of general emotional distress for For interactions that they have in society.
Very interesting.
So do you think you could summarize what you've learned from this video so far a little bit?
Like, what do you think is going on?
It seems like Christine Brophy is saying, let me tell you about some characteristics of these PC authoritarians, which is, I guess, equivalent to the left slash social justice warriors, and that they are characterized by mental illness.
Either directly or with a close family member, and that they learn this stuff from their parents to hate the patriarchy and white men.
And then Lauren Southern is living in her, well, are they born this way?
Or are they learning it from the environment?
Which is, yeah.
An interesting question that doesn't.
Yeah.
And Christine Brophy takes that to me.
She answers that and says personality traits.
Personality.
Yeah.
She says, well, those are pretty correlated with blah, blah.
And then she goes all over the place and then she changes her answer.
And it's like, well, that might be environment as well.
So that, yeah, disregard that part.
Yeah.
So like that's kind of the best that I can get.
Okay.
Let's hear what Lauren Southern asks here.
Interesting.
Because we always thought of the preacher from Footloose as the authoritarian historically who didn't want to see change.
but you're telling me the PC authoritarians are also people who don't want to see change, and they want this black-- Right.
That's correct.
Yeah.
Only, like I said before, with the disgust, we always think about they don't want to see change in terms of men, white cis men staying in power.
But then when you get disgust on the left side of things, you're seeing this protectiveness for groups that are displaying distress.
All right, hun, what if I told you?
Because I think you've done an excellent job of summarizing exactly what a completely reasonable viewer would take from this.
The videos, where do SJWs come from, the discussion, the study.
What if I told you that what actually was being studied was PC authoritarians and PC egalitarians, and that PC authoritarians were entirely right wingers and PC egalitarians were left wingers?
Really?
Yes.
That's what the study is.
And they just did all this stuff.
She's asking- They just switched everything?
Yes.
Well, not just switched.
So they're doing, it is interesting.
I've watched this like four times and it is very interesting to see how calculated they are in how they continue to let Lauren Southern Well, it's not very hard.
They continue to let her be wrong about what's going on in very fascinating ways.
And if it weren't so repetitive and bad pod, I would play it again for you to kind of hear it with that in mind.
But what they do is they do a subtle trick where they're talking, for the most part, when they talk about the study, they are accurately representing what the study shows.
But where the deception is, is that she is asking, oh, so what are these SJWs, blah, blah, blah.
And they are answering Well, PC authoritarians, yeah, they have mental illness.
They have whatever.
That's people on the right!
What the?
Yes!
Oh my God, I almost dropped an F-bomb.
It's unbelievable.
You can.
That's crazy.
No, I know.
It's just, it's me.
It's unbelievable.
And they also, it gets worse because the way that they keep the illusion going is they kind of switch off talking about PC egalitarians and PC authoritarians without telling you in some ways.
I had to check this so many times to make sure because I was like, this is nuts.
You're like, there's no way.
There's no way you would just say like, well, this is where all the leftists come from.
But no, genuinely, they studied.
They first did PC.
She divided it into two types of PC in her study.
Okay.
And then she tried to divide it into three things because my understanding is that's something that it seems to be legitimate science thingies where it's like, let's see how well we can divide people into groups for these different things and see statistically how that holds up.
Like if it's consistent.
Yeah, are these true distinct groups and you do that factor analysis.
Yes, exactly.
That's exactly it.
It's almost like you have a master's degree.
Psychology.
And so the only other thing she did, and again, I checked this a thousand times because I was like, I can't believe I'm seeing this.
Like, there's no way that you could just lie like this.
The other thing she did was a three factor.
And I was like, OK, maybe that's where I'm getting something wrong.
Like, I have to be getting something wrong.
This is crazy.
And that divided people into liberalism, authoritarianism and political correctness.
Interesting.
My understanding is that this is a legitimate enterprise here because you're saying, OK, First, we separate into PC liberalism and PC authoritarianism.
Egalitarianism.
She uses it interchangeably.
Oh, I see.
So PC liberalism is the same as PC egalitarianism.
Gotcha.
She uses both for some reason.
I think she uses PC liberalism more, but she also, if you notice in that Clip, maybe there's a reason she's not saying liberalism.
Yeah.
That's interesting.
I didn't even, that didn't occur to me until just now.
Wow.
Cause yeah, she does use them.
She uses PC liberalism more in the paper, but all of a sudden when you're with Jordan Peterson and keep in mind, this paper came out in 2015 and the data that like this would have been done a while ago, but now You've got a guy who's getting famous and starting to make a bunch of money for appealing to a certain crowd, and you're on a Nazi show, and all of a sudden you're like, well, maybe I'd better use words that are slightly less obviously meaning that liberals are smarter and better in every single fucking way.
So the three-factor solution is dividing out and seeing, okay, can we isolate something that's just political correctness?
And that's interesting.
I don't know how well it works, but they seem to do it where it's like, all right, we separate liberals and we separate authoritarians.
It's funny that that's the dichotomy, but that's because...
Yeah, there's actually a lot of research suggesting that, yes, authoritarianism and conservatism is very similar and there are a lot of overlaps.
So that's why she does that.
And even in her research, and she's an acolyte of fucking George Pierson.
And so separating out political correctness is interesting.
And they talk about like, okay, she talks about what determines that.
And it's interesting.
You can say it's like, well, rigidity of rules and like not wanting to offend people, you know, but then...
Obviously you have two different ways.
So it's like not wanting to offend people by being racist versus not wanting to offend people by saying like Christians are stupid or something.
You know what I mean?
Like it's obviously, okay, well the one I'm totally fine with and the other I'm not.
But if you're trying to isolate like the variable of being politically correct, so like conscientious of your language and all that, like they do isolate that as a variable.
And that's an interesting thing to look at.
But Jesus Christ, is that not how they're representing it here?
Nope.
All!
That's crazy.
Yeah!
So I'm going to skip some of JBP here.
God, this whole video, it's so, it's so interesting from a misinformation perspective.
Like it is so deceptive.
I would love to do all of it, but it's 19 minutes.
I am playing it on 1.25.
Sorry, people who already have us on like 2.0.
That's going to make it fast for you, but I have to, because I'm just trying to get through it.
He talked about how they're finding political correctness.
I've kind of already touched on it.
It's not that important.
And then we hand it back to Christine.
And so you haven't missed much.
Let's see what Christine starts talking about here.
Yeah, so that was the PC authoritarian factor.
So the PC egalitarian factor that we found.
That one was predicted by, first and foremost, whether you had attended a seminar or had an experience communicated to you from someone else that highlighted individual differences or made you more sensitive, that was geared at making you more sensitive towards individual differences.
So for example, seminars on sexual harassment and things like that.
So that was the first predictor of PC egalitarian.
Okay, here's the thing about that.
That's not in her study.
Really?
And so at this point, I can't tell if that's made up.
Yeah.
Or if they're talking about a study that was never published, pin in that.
Okay.
That is not in her study.
If I do a control F for seminar.
Uh-huh.
At first, I was like, oh, okay, I found it.
I found what she's talking about.
Because you get this factor analysis, like you're saying, and PC liberalism.
Okay, I'm not a scientist, but I can pretend I'm one.
And we got some .69, .65.
Those are pretty high, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
And the left, the item is diversity.
And just me doing my ADHD thing of just glancing and not actually reading the thing.
I was like, oh, okay, that's where I see, that's where she's talking about.
And it just says item, and it gives a brief blurb of the item.
And it says sexual harassment awareness training seminars, you know, and so I was like, okay, that must be what she's talking about.
Gotcha.
And then I managed to overcome my ADHD and actually read and I see that it says should dot dot dot.
Oh, I was like, oh, what is, what is that?
Well, conveniently, again, because this is a master's thesis, the full questions are available on page 9,000,000,184.
And so I continue to control F.
And I get to the full question and let's see what it is.
Question 148.
This is in Appendix A. It is question 148 in the political correctness scale.
OK.
The question is diversity and inclusivity training seminars should dot dot dot.
And that's what we already saw.
And A, be mandatory for everyone.
B, be mandatory for members of the majority.
Optional for members of the minority.
C, be optional for everyone.
D, not necessarily be provided the business slash institution should not have to pay for these.
Okay.
And then there's one more, if you remember, that one is same question, except it's sexual harassment awareness training seminars should dot, dot, dot.
And basically the same answers be mandatory, be mandatory for men, not for women, optional for everyone, et cetera, et cetera.
Yeah.
End of results for the word seminar.
Huh.
Except another thing that it has you evaluate speech code, like should someone have to attend a seminar if they say something bad?
There is nothing about attending a seminar.
I've gone through this whole study.
This is not in the study.
The thing she's saying is not, I can conclusively tell you, That whatever she's talking about, maybe they did additional questions that didn't make it into the study.
Maybe they're doing another study.
Whatever she's talking about of the seminar and the blah, blah, blah is not in the study.
I'm looking right now at how they predicted PC liberalism, which is what we're talking about, right?
So, intelligence is one.
Also, personality traits.
It's what you would think.
I mean, there have been studies about where this holds up, where it's like openness to experience.
And actually, I tried to look at the literature for that, and it's interesting because it's not as strong as I thought.
Like, I thought there were these huge findings of You know, big five correlating with politics.
And it's actually a little disputed, but there have been findings both ways.
But that's all that is.
There's nothing about attending a seminar.
There's nothing about anything.
So I don't know where she's getting that.
So let's go back to her explaining.
She's telling us, again, not from this study, from mystery.
We don't know.
There's no other study published.
There's nothing.
We can't find anything.
She's telling us what determines PC egalitarian.
And by the way, Lauren Southern still doesn't know that she's talking about liberals now and was talking about conservatives early when she said they're mentally ill and they, you know, like, she doesn't know.
Listen to this.
That one was predicted by, first and foremost, whether you had attended a seminar or had experience communicated to you from someone else.
She's saying the number one predictor of if you were a PC egalitarian is if you've attended a seminar?
Could that possibly be right?
One seminar?
Ridiculous.
Yeah, that is very suspicious.
It wouldn't be if you're liberal.
Now, I look back at her paper.
And again, at this point, I'm not sure I'm looking at the paper she's fucking talking about.
Now, when it comes to the PC authoritarianism there, she said mental illness and like that was a predictor.
So here's the weird thing.
That's also not in this paper.
What the heck are they talking about?
So this must be a different paper.
Yeah.
And yet it's not published.
It seems highly related.
And furthermore, a point in favor of it not being like a super shady thing would be the fact that she did say those negative things about PC authoritarians.
So if she was just bullshitting, if they were just bullshitting and pandering, they probably now they're pulling the trick that Lauren Southern thinks they're talking about liberals the whole time.
But they don't explicitly say that.
So they're careful enough to be wanting to accurately represent something.
Now, you're the you're the person who has an actual degree.
Could it be there's a bunch of stuff that they just didn't include in this?
No.
No?
I don't think so.
Especially for a master's thesis.
Yeah.
She would be incorporating all that stuff, especially if she's going to talk about it as a finding of her study.
There's no way it wouldn't be in the paper.
Well, not only that, there's also a lot about questions she did and then took out because they didn't work kind of thing.
Yeah.
She steps through the entire process.
It would be included in here if it was part of the study.
It's gotta be an additional study.
And furthermore, as much as I would love to believe that the PC authoritarians are all mentally ill, I don't think that makes sense either.
I don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
It's probably a bad question, honestly.
But we wouldn't know because we don't see it.
They did some additional study that was, we're speculating, I'm speculating, that was maybe bullshitty.
And so they never published or submitted it to peer review because like, oh, whoops, We made a mistake or something.
Cause like the things they're saying are really weird.
The number one predictor of PC egalitarianism being having attended a seminar.
Now that, that is fucking convenient, right?
Because at the same time you're arguing that like, Hey, all this politically correct stuff in schools is so damaging.
You're also saying that you found the number one predictor.
Is that you had had attended one seminar.
There's no fucking way that's true.
There just isn't.
So I am very baffled at this point.
Let's let's listen to him a little more.
That highlighted individual differences or made you more sensitive that was geared at making you more sensitive towards individual differences.
So, for example, seminars on sexual harassment and things like that.
So that was the first predictor of PC egalitarianism.
If they were a person who regularly attends these seminars.
Or who have been told to attend one.
Been told to attend one.
So the more seminars we introduce in universities, the more we increase students that are these PC radicals.
Exactly.
So then the second predictor from that was high verbal cognitive ability.
Which I'm going to kind of link into the PC authoritarians in a moment.
And then finally, there was also higher trait openness.
So, what those kind of combine to create, along with that higher compassion of these individuals, is when you get the PC authoritarians who are quite distressed, that are saying that they're quite distressed, what you see then is that the PC egalitarians, their compassion makes them able to relate to that or to want to protect those who are high in distress, because again, that mother-child type of pair bond.
And then what you see is, yeah, so they want to protect those and then their ability to This is fucking insane.
This is absolutely nuts.
That what she just said there highly suggests that the PC authoritarians are liberals.
Because she's saying the PC egalitarians, they have high verbal competency.
The PC Authoritarians, they're kind of dumb.
And so what happens is the PC egalitarians swoop in and again, linking it to like the mother-child thing.
That's fucking nonsense.
That's not science.
That's not in her thesis either.
Not at all.
Like never mentions bonding, never mentions the word mother.
Well, and not only that, it's like pathologizing or pontificating on the motivations of the subjects of people that you're studying.
This is completely unscientific, in my opinion, for what that's worth.
And now I'm thinking she has to be talking about a different study.
It has to be.
It doesn't make any sense.
What's a real tangible example of a PC egalitarian?
Liberal.
And it's also more along the lines of, yeah, classic liberal.
Yeah.
I find women's studies professors quite radical.
I certainly was, but maybe I've just experienced different ones.
But they're very liberal.
Yeah.
They're very verbal.
Yes.
And very open.
Verbally fluent, yeah.
So not as radical, but they have a higher verbal ability.
Would you say they're better at subverting their ideas into things without being violent, like you see with kind of the PC radicals?
Well, they would definitely perhaps pursue that kind of avenue, first and foremost.
But what happens is that when they see the PC authoritarians wanting to pursue things by censorship, or by punitive justice.
That's their central way of kind of, you know, enacting their goals.
When they see, when PC liberals, or sorry, PC egalitarians see them doing this, because of their high verbal liability and higher openness, they create these post-hoc justifications for it.
And their higher compassion, they feel like, oh, well, this must be right, because this individual is displaying this distress is, you know, they're clearly displaying distress, so I need to help them, and what they're saying must be right.
So one of the things we've discussed, because we've been interested in the compassion element, and Christine already laid out the idea that that was associated with maternal behavior, but it's most specifically maternal behavior towards infants.
What is any of this?
So you can imagine that your infant is never wrong.
Never.
Now this is just nuts.
This is just Jordan Peterson being Jordan Peterson and just talking out of his ass completely.
This has nothing to do with anything.
It's not in the study.
I don't even know, at this point, are they just lying?
Because she slipped and said PC liberal a second ago.
Yeah.
If she said PC liberal, how could she be talking about a dichotomy between... Because the dichotomy that she's trying to talk about, if you didn't know what I know, it would be, okay, we've got the PC authoritarians, those are the idiots.
They're all leftists, by the way.
This entire group is leftists, according to Lauren Southern, and according to what I think they're trying to get me to believe.
Because they even say there's an interplay of PC egalitarians responding in a motherly way to the PC authoritarians and justifying what they do.
But those two groups are politically opposite.
That's not what happens.
Yeah, but did they say something like an example of a PC egalitarian?
It sounded like they said a women's studies professor.
Yeah, they did.
So then how?
What?
Well, that part is fine because that's one thing that there's no argument about is that the PC egalitarians or PC liberals are liberals.
What the misrepresentation is, is they are trying to convince Lauren Southern and us viewers that the PC authoritarians are also liberals.
They're just a different kind of shitty liberal.
But it makes no sense.
None of this makes any fucking sense.
Because here, let me read you from her study.
Here's how I know.
This is the only published study she ever has had, ever.
This is in the discussion for when she talks about how her hypotheses held up.
Evaluation of hypotheses.
What was also unexpected was the inclusion of a factor that seems to be social conservative belief.
It was initially predicted that the relationships between individual differences and PC political belief would demonstrate that PC is purely a construct of liberalism and the left.
Though the first factor was correlated, as expected, with compassion and openness, the correlation of the second factor with orderliness and low intellect was completely unanticipated.
The relationship of PC to both politeness and compassion, as well as to personality traits of social conservatism, suggests that this construct is not completely an ideology of the left.
Wow, that's crazy.
Why aren't they talking about that in the interview?
Yeah, I actually now can't tell if she thinks that she's only dealing with liberal people here.
I actually can't tell.
Huh.
Okay, here's some more.
The third hypothesis that was partly supported was the one predicting a relationship between PC and low verbal intelligence.
So that was her prediction.
Okay.
Low verbal intelligence predicted PC authoritarianism.
It did not, however, predict PC liberalism.
Instead, high verbal intelligence was associated with this factor.
Wow.
Now, look at this sentence.
Again, I'm sorry I'm going a little crazy because I can't even understand what's happening here.
But let me read you this sentence, the last sentence of that paragraph.
Quote, it appears that social liberalism is associated with high verbal intelligence, while social conservatism is associated with low.
So she knows what she's talking about.
Yeah.
She knows that she's not talking about a group of liberals.
She's talking about the PC liberals are one group and PC authoritarians who are conservative are the other group.
Yeah.
But then in this video, she's talking about how they're working together, like they're a team.
All right.
A little peek behind the curtain here.
I suffered a mental breakdown trying to make sense of what the fuck was happening here.
And then we also split off to like, kind of look further into it.
The things I have done for this job, you know, I know you have that too.
Like, it'd be hard to explain.
I've spent more hours than I even want to say.
Like, I'm actually going to barf if I say how many hours I spent reading someone's master's thesis from University of Toronto in 2015.
Yeah, that's pretty bad.
It's so bad.
I've spent hours, but like, this is the power of lying like this is it makes me insane.
Yeah.
So I'm like, where, what are you getting this from?
Cause I, and I said this to you, I was like, I don't want to get this wrong.
Like they're, they're lying so much that or something that I don't want to come on strong and say, they're just making it up because what if there is a study somewhere that actually says the stuff they're saying?
And then you're like, well, why does it matter?
They're not.
They're lying about it and not giving you the study.
It's like, yeah, I know, but still, like, I'm still so worried about it.
Yeah.
I have gone through this so much and this led us to do some more research.
And so I know this has been a kind of a weird series and that's because folks, we started with one idea and then we went to another idea and then we went to another idea of how it would go based on what we were finding.
Yeah.
And we just truly could not have predicted how much there would be here.
We have so much more for you.
We could have gone back and coalesced it all and re-recorded, but I don't like that because I actually think it's fun to kind of go along with us and how we found stuff.
This journey.
Yeah, we had a lot of good interactions in this recording.
Like, I don't want to go redo that with some, like, not going to be as exciting, stale, summing up the facts we found.
So, that's going to mean that this is a little bit helter-skelter, and sorry about that, but I think it's worth it, because you're kind of going on our journey with us.
And so, we're going to leave you with a bit of a teaser for what's to come, because at this point in the research, I've got all these contradictory statements, and I've got a master's thesis that I've practically memorized.
And I cannot figure out- You ready to defend?
Yeah, I should get a master's, right?
Shouldn't that be how it works?
Put together a panel.
Yeah, except I would never fucking defend this one.
God, I would just get up there.
I cannot defend this.
I'm sorry.
It's indefensible.
This is indefensible.
It really is.
But I want to give you guys a bit of a taste of what we're trying to reconcile and kind of sum up what we're reconciling.
We started with, in the rap video, we started with him saying, It's crazy that that's where we started.
But I'm going to quote, the best predictors of being a left-wing authoritarian were being not verbally intelligent.
And then, by the way, he goes, that was a walloping predictor.
It was the variable.
And this is a sign of how Trumpy and his lies get, but he's just a smarter version.
He says, it was the variable most closely associated with intelligence that I had ever seen, including grades.
Nuts.
Yeah.
He's saying that the best predictor of being left-wing authoritarian, pay attention to what those words, because that'll be important, was not being verbally intelligent.
It was more associated with that than grades.
That's so crazy.
Further, if you're not very bright, the woke ideology is very attractive to you.
And this is where it's amazing.
The second best predictor was being female.
The third best predictor was having a female temperament.
What?
What is that?
And the fourth best predictor was ever having taken a course that had the woke ideology as a portion of it.
So dumb.
So that was the rap video, which is basically present day.
And now I want to contrast that with the Lauren Southern video that I've already played you some of, which was from very shortly after this alleged research was published, and point out that what Christine Brophy said was, The PC egalitarian factor was, quote, predicted first and foremost by whether you had attended a seminar or had experience communicated to you from someone else that highlighted individual differences.
Meaning that was the number one predictor in this first telling.
It was whether or not you had attended a course.
But all of a sudden in 2024, that's now been relegated to the fourth best predictor.
And what Christine said in that video, and Jordan Peterson nods along with her and agrees, She then said that the next predictor was high verbal cognitive ability and then higher trait openness.
And by the way, keeping in mind that nothing about the seminars or the mental illness, all that, none of that was in the study.
But back in 2016, Christine Brophy said, and Jordan Peterson agreed, the predictors were Having attended a seminar, then higher verbal cognitive ability, then higher trait openness.
And now that has warped into the predictors being not verbally intelligent.
Best predictor he's ever seen.
Second best was being female.
That's nothing.
That's nowhere, anywhere.
Third best was having a female temperament.
And fourth best predictor was ever having taken a course that had the woke ideology as a part of it.
That evolution of that journey is what has plagued my mind for however long I've been in this purgatory of not releasing this episode.
I'm obsessed with how this got from point A to point B. And by the way, the point A isn't even, it's not even clear what point A is.
So point anything to point B. And I also want to remind you, in the original video with Lauren Southern, they referenced accurately The study found a 0.4 correlation, and that's negative correlation, so a negative 0.4 with their intelligence overall score and PC authoritarianism.
Now, you're more of the scientist who has an actual degree.
How strong is negative 0.4?
So when you're looking at correlation coefficient, generally speaking, if the relationship is statistically significant but the coefficient is between 0 and 0.3, you know, either plus or minus, I'm just going to speak in absolute for, you know, easier conversation, that would be considered weak.
From 0.3 to 0.7 is moderate and 0.7 and up is considered strong.
Right.
So 0.4 is barely into the moderate.
Yeah.
I mean, it's not nothing.
Yeah, it's interesting.
It's moderate, but like it's way closer to the weak side.
And that over the years has now turned into it's the strongest intelligence correlation I've ever seen.
So crazy.
Ever in my entire life.
Including grades.
Including grades.
So next time on Where There's Woke, we're going to track down this top secret, unavailable research that he's apparently quoting.
And that led us to some other things, including some light fraud, in my opinion, a weird business situation.
Very weird.
All kinds of crap.
So there's so much more.
Thanks for coming with us on this journey.
Please support the show, patreon.com slash where there's woke.
I cannot wait to tell you about this.
And Lydia's got some stuff that I cannot wait to hear about because I haven't heard it yet.
