April 10, 2024 - Where There's Woke - Thomas Smith
01:02:06
WTW47: Jordan Peterson's Research Lives In Canada, You Wouldn't Know It
Part 6 of Junk Science and So Much Grift: The Jordan Peterson Story It's finally here!!! Our coverage of the long-awaited missing study and fraud-adjacent activity committed by Jordan Peterson. Were Brophy and Peterson just making shit up? Or was there a top secret study no one published? Also where did Peterson's research money go? This all sure seems sketchy AF. 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 M&M will now wear sneakers.
Hello and welcome to Where There's Woke.
This is episode 47.
I'm Thomas Smith.
That is Lydia Smith.
How are you doing?
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.
God, that's true.
It's been a month, more than a month.
We're such like an anti-spoiler house 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.
We're going to track down what happened and it leads us down a path to some interesting, weird shit that Peterson did that I can't wait to tell you about.
So we're going to get on over to that after this break for non patrons.
If you want to skip the ads, go to patreon.com slash where there's woke.
Plus you can get, you know, a shitload of master's thesis stuff, you know, 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.
But yeah, there you go.
So much available there.
Plus skip the ads.
So patreon.com slash where there's woke.
And after this break, we'll get into it.
At first, I did want to make a point that I've been meaning to make this whole time, based on some comments.
Because I've said both that Peterson is a true believer and that he's lying.
And I see some people being like, well, which is it?
Is he a true believer and he's lying?
I don't see any incompatibility with those things.
I thought the comparison that I think of is like, How cops plant evidence to convict people they believe are guilty?
Yeah.
In 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 conviction for someone Who's guilty.
I think that's absolutely analogous.
Peterson strongly believes in his overall bullshit, I think.
I think he believes in his like, you know, basically women hating, woke hating, left hating, 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 then he just kind of bends it to what he wants over time.
Yeah.
And I don't know if he knows he's doing it or not, but either way, I don't doubt the sincerity of his shitty beliefs.
Like, I think he believes in his overall project.
It's like if 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, no, they're there.
Yeah.
They might know they're lying or exaggerating, but it's in furtherance of their overall goals kind of thing.
That's how I see it.
Yeah, I also saw a great note on 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.
Okay, but let he who is without sin throw the first rod.
Okay, well, I'm without sin regarding this.
So, rods thrown.
You've never had a dream you didn't complete?
So in trying to track down what the fuck's happening, I've gone through a number of things and I've gone through the history.
I've tried to find what 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.
Yeah.
And 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 be from this master's thesis.
Like, for example, when she said, 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.
But when she talks about the mental illness portion and the attended a course or a seminar, that's nowhere.
I can't find anywhere where that is.
And so, first thing I did, I'm 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 did some searches and I found some times.
I don't know.
I'm not sure if I've thought of every term he could have used.
Yeah, might not be exhaustive.
You know, because he's got a long-ass fucking Twitter thing.
I haven't gone through it all.
But I did some search terms to see, like, okay, when has he mentioned this?
And I got a few hits.
And they're mostly recently, which is weird.
It's like 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 from the video, the Lauren Southern video, and then kind of nothing.
And then all of a sudden, starting last year, he's referencing it again.
And so that brings us to two crucial recent tweets.
First, February 22nd, 2024.
So that's like fucking yesterday.
Yeah.
On this one, he's retweeting, guess who?
Just pick an evil personality.
Elon.
Yep.
Wow, you nailed it.
Elon says, most people don't realize how much the woke virus is poisoning the minds of their kids.
Better to take them out of school than allow Soviet level...
Oh my god.
All right.
Such a 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, the one woke course was the other one.
So the one woke course was the PC egalitarianism.
In the video, they say the PC authoritarians are the low verbal cognitive ability and the people who've, they've got a mood or anxiety disorder and that bullshit.
The PC egalitarians were the ones who she said it was high verbal cognitive ability and openness and...
And then the thing again that came from nowhere, still came from nowhere, predicted first and foremost by whether you had attended a seminar or had experience communicated to you from someone else that highlighted individual differences.
Right.
Or have been told to attend a seminar.
I mean, It's just, that's fucking nonsense.
That's absolute nonsense.
But 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, not even according to their bullshit about their bullshit was that what it was.
But he says one course.
But here's the thing, he links a Scientific American article.
I was like, Oh, okay.
Am I going to fight?
Here we go.
I'm going to find, finally, I'm going to track down what the fuck this is talking about.
Yeah.
And I got to tell you this article.
So this is from November 20th, 2016.
Okay.
And if you remember that video was from October 27th, 2016.
So around the same time, maybe that three weeks.
Yeah, like maybe that gave this guy the tip off to write this article or something.
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, Jordan 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's linking someone's write-up of his research.
The title of the article is The Personality of Political Correctness.
Subheading, The Idea of Political Correctness is Central to the Culture Wars of American Politics by Scott Barry Kaufman.
So 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, they have to be looking at source material.
You know, like I'm going to be able to track this down.
It's informed by something.
Yeah.
You would think an article about this research, the link to the research has got to be 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.
It's the fucking worst.
Why do I have the worst luck?
He has like five hyperlinks per paragraph, and 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.
They'll be linked for reasons that are wrong.
Some of it does make sense, but some of it is just misreading of studies.
Right.
Nowhere in these links, and there are in the double digits of them in this article, nowhere is the study.
Wow.
So the study is not fucking linked.
Unbelievable.
So that's the first thing to say.
But okay, now I'm reading through this article, and it's written from a particularly annoying perspective of like, I'm not here to give my opinion, but here's what the landscape of the blabbity blah is.
Okay.
Quote, the point of this post is not to attempt to settle this debate or present my own viewpoint.
Then why are you writing about it?
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.
It's 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?
Now, here's 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.
In this article, hun, are some of the claims we're trying to track down repeated.
Okay.
So for example, it splits the PC egalitarians, PC authoritarians, sure.
It repeats greater exposure to seminar or experience that altered their sensitivity to individual differences and inequality claim for egalitarians, right?
Okay.
And then for authoritarians, it has the, and have the presence of an anxiety or mood disorder in the individual or immediate family.
So it has those two things.
Okay.
Those 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?
However, here's where things get even more fucking annoying.
Let me read you this paragraph.
In a recent study, Christine Brophy and Jordan Pearson conducted a very illuminating analysis of the personality of political correctness.
They created a very comprehensive 192 item PC scale, measuring PC related language beliefs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Their PC battery employed a variety of question types, et cetera, et cetera.
The list was reviewed and added to by faculty and graduate students, and 332 participants completed the new PC scale, along with questionnaires on personality, IQ, and disgust sensitivity.
332 happens to also be the exact sample size that Christine Brophy had in her master's thesis.
Yeah.
And 192 is not quite right.
There's some discrepancy here, but she, in the study, she references like 203 questions and then says she got rid of 11.
And 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 that, the odds of those being the same seem crazy to me.
And so that leads me to believe he's talking about that fucking thing.
So he doesn't link anything.
He doesn't link the study.
The whole thing is about, he links 400 other things, including like the third link in this article that is by the way, like four sentences in, 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.
Done.
Life's not that easy.
And so the third link is like, quote, often PC opponents who tend to be conservative, and that's highlighted in that link.
It's just fucking unnecessary, but whatever.
Use the phrase political correctness as a way of describing the, quote, paradox of tolerance.
And that's hyperlinked.
So I was like, okay, what's that?
And that just links you to like the Google Books entry for Karl Popper's book.
What?
Yeah, it gives you an idea how annoying this fucking article is.
Yeah.
OK, 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 need to link.
I'm not going to go buy the book.
Yeah, it's just.
Yeah.
There's so many of those in this thing.
I don't know.
It just, it reads as like he's overcompensating.
Yeah.
It reads like he's trying to overcompensate for the fact that he doesn't, I mean, maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but the fact that he's not linking the one thing he's talking about and he's linking 400 other things and then it gets even worse.
You ready for this?
It's 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 be the thing at the end at 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.
I'm like, oh, 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 you grab some of the questions.
But then when 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.
They're like there's like there's a few that kind of are.
But there's some that are just not even in there.
And he has it listed as PC egalitarian, right?
And those kind of make sense.
So he says the top one he has listed as anti-establishment diversity, he lists that it's a 0.89 correlation, which is ridiculously high.
And there's nothing in the paper that was that high.
He doesn't 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.
And 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, right?
Left-wing, right-wing.
Yeah, exactly.
Like, what's your ideology with regard to this specific topic?
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, 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 based on how you're answering questions.
You can kind of assume where people are, but she never just went ahead and tested that.
Like, why wouldn't you?
Yeah.
Wouldn't you want to know?
It's crazy.
It 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.
It says, PC egalitarians rank these differences as having to do with culture rather than biology kind of thing.
These questions we're seeing, there's some similarities, but they're not in the master's thesis.
And keep in mind, the master's 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?
Yeah, the exact same sample size.
It just feels weird.
It feels weird.
I agree.
This is weird.
And it kind of gets weirder because if you look back in this article, he includes this quick paragraph.
PC 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 greater identification with historically disadvantaged Groups.
There it is.
That's the made up stuff.
He 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.
Yeah.
Just like, OK, so that's those lies.
Those are in this.
He hasn't linked the study.
I've covered that a thousand times in this.
He hasn't linked the study.
He's definitely talked to them.
Yeah.
Another thing I realized is he talks about the PC battery, the subscale kind of thing or whatever.
And obvious point, that doesn't have the courses or the mental illness thing.
Like it's not in there.
Maybe 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 think that would be in the PC scale, wouldn't you?
Yeah, but I mean, like, we have exhaustively gone through her thesis and the mental illness piece is not in there at all.
The seminar is not in there at all.
No, no.
Okay.
Let me clarify what I'm saying.
We know it's not in the master's thesis.
Yeah.
It's not in there.
That's a thousand percent.
Yeah.
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 are important differences.
And this article also includes the lies, I think lies, made up shit, but OK, possibly made up shit about the mental health thing and the courses.
What I'm saying is now I'm between two possibilities because 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.
And he also got the idea of the mental health 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 eight of the other.
So that's 15.
But 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 attended a seminar would be in this part?
Yeah, 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 there would be a component that they would want to incorporate into that standard battery so that it is able to be replicated in the future.
Otherwise, you know, it's a standalone.
It's like age.
Right.
Who cares?
You wouldn't guarantee that other people using the scale are going to ask in their demographics section.
Yeah, that's a great point.
Yeah.
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 scale that like some of them correspond to what I've seen in the masters and some of them don't, you know, so like they're coming from something.
I think the mental health thing and the PC course thing, I think that's fucking made up.
I just think it is.
It doesn't make any sense.
There's no way that you would score on those.
The way they're saying, there's no way they would be the number one factor.
It doesn't make any sense.
Having attended a course is not going to be the number one factor of these things.
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, their 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.
But the fact that there's no numbers behind it, in either case, no numbers.
She mentions, she goes out of her way to mention correlations of other stuff.
She never mentions the correlations of those things.
Weird.
Yeah, I think that's made up.
That's honestly my best guess is those two bullshit things are made up 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.
But if I look at, for example, 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 scale.
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.
That's still from the thesis.
That's like the same values from the master's thesis.
Huh.
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's study.
Nope.
Students should be allowed to request a safe space.
Literally, I did control F for safe, safe space.
Yeah.
Not in there, like literally not ever.
Quick discussion with Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Hayton.
They're like, hey, we should make sure we include this stuff in this fake study now.
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?
So that could mean this is the entire thing.
Interesting.
And then we have patriarchy censorship.
Rate 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.
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 thesis, but has the same results, like the same numbers?
Yeah.
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 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 also once you looked him up, we thought, oh, maybe he would be willing to talk to us.
So tell us about that.
Yeah.
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, especially if I was going to be reaching out to him.
I was like, am I going into the lion's den?
You know, is this a friendly person I can kind of chat with that might be open to talking with us more?
I 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.
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 lot.
Creativity matters a lot.
Find whatever is best within you and nurture that.
Calm down.
Breathe.
Then he says, read my book, Ungifted.
Can't hate him for that.
Sure.
And then, I believe in you, but more importantly, start believing in yourself.
And 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 capable of.
Are you fucking kidding?
Yeah.
Armed with the same noisy and merely probabilistic data as JP, I have a very different conclusion.
That was really interesting to me.
Just sad and shocking.
And again, it was someone that has a relatively close, had a relatively close relationship with him.
But it sounds like something shifted in Jordan Peterson, where even people who collaborated with him and wrote a glowing piece in Scientific American for Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't think he actually changed.
I don't think he actually changed.
You don't think Jordan Peterson changed?
No.
He's been, this has been very consistent.
He's been very consistent with this.
I think that, I don't know Scott Barry Kaufman's motivations.
It strikes me that a lot of people, and I get this, as a podcaster, I get it.
A lot of people, if Jordan Peterson emailed me tomorrow and was like, come on my YouTube channel, I'd be like, yes, I will.
I mean, I will, 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 that is unfortunately the business 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 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 I'm being 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 like this, but I like, I would be, it would bother me too much to at all play into his image.
For example, I've watched the Destiny debate with Jordan Peterson.
Yeah.
And I think Destiny legitimizes him too much.
I don't know much about that guy.
I hear he's pretty liberal and he expressed some left-wing views, but there's a certain game people are playing to be rubbing shoulders with these, whatever, like be in this circuit, you know?
And like you have 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 realized something was in Peterson that wasn't, because the IQ stuff is not new, Peterson.
That's the only reason I say he didn't change.
Like that IQ thing.
I'm really glad that this Kauffman 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 Kauffman in a way.
And especially if it went against his book or whatever in a way that he just couldn't ignore anymore.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I think.
It's probably complex and nuanced, right?
It's probably all of the things combined.
I'm not sure it necessarily is.
I don't know.
There's another tweet of his from July 2022 where someone wrote about Jordan Peterson's, I don't 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 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.
Yeah, it is.
Because again, he's trying to maintain this relationship because it's beneficial.
But he reached a point, that's my interpretation.
I think he reached a 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 think it's just a case of trying really hard to not burn the bridge there, but having to stick.
I give him credit for like, he's at least sticking to his guns on these issues.
But really, 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 you said about population level statistics, that's like a massive insult, I think, that's sort of, in my opinion, disguised a little bit by the fact that it's sciencey language. - Yeah. - Yeah.
Somebody is telling you that these population level fucking effects are gonna determine your life.
Yeah.
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 insane.
Did I play the business one?
I actually don't even remember if I played that.
The one where he's like, all liberals start businesses and then conservatives run them.
Did I deploy that thing?
No, I don't think so.
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, et cetera, 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.
He 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, blah.
Trumpism has changed a lot of things.
Like there's been a major 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 going to, 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 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 are 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 they're not like gigantic correlations.
And so to take all of that, which is just like, oh yeah, maybe it's a weak correlation.
Maybe it's a moderate correlation.
And then to use that to say liberals start businesses and conservatives run them, which is literally what he said.
That's an actual quote.
Like, that's fucking ridiculous.
You cannot make broad statements like that based on these little tiny correlations.
There's 7,000 ways, as always, with everything Jordan Peterson says, there's so many ways that doesn't make sense.
First off, You'd have to look at the correlation of orderliness to running a business.
Is there?
I don't know.
You might find some effect that people run businesses rather than start them.
Maybe you could measure some difference in orderliness, but you really think that's going to hold up?
Run businesses for lots of different reasons.
What kind of business?
What level of business?
What industry?
There's a billion variables in there.
And he just makes this blanket statement.
It's 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 he had a personal relationship, I don't know, or if it was just taking advantage of the massive fucking audience that Peterson has, but that's my thoughts on it.
Yeah, and you know, like I tend to, I guess, assume the best in people or whatever, you know, benefit the doubt.
And as I saw those tweets and stuff, I was like, OK, it's like this could be, you know, an opportunity.
Yeah, I was hoping you would dish on it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Do you want to come on?
Do you want to talk shit?
Yeah.
But he responded very matter of factly.
I emailed and said, hey, 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.
That's all we got.
And that was it.
That's all I got.
I think I had you send a follow up, but I don't think he responded right.
No, 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.
Yeah.
Again, 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 his questions.
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.
No, it feels very, very odd.
Yeah, 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 taking you through all that.
And so we'll go to the next one.
So in August of 2023, again, going a little backwards, he 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, etc.
Allow me to clarify.
I'm not implying these things.
I'm stating them unequivocally.
Oh, my God.
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.
God.
And having ever taken a politically correct course in that order.
So now again, we've changed the ordering.
I already said that last time.
Yeah.
But like the ordering kind of gets changed subtly each time.
And like the language choice too, right?
Yeah.
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 was the liberal, the PC liberals.
So he got that wrong.
In this one, he's saying lower intelligence, lower verbal intelligence, which I 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 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 predictor was those fucking stupid questions on would you screen television and stuff?
But he did remember now that we're talking about Politically correct 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.
Nowhere, yeah.
Having ever taken a politically correct course.
Nope, that was the other one.
Again, that was PC liberals.
And 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.
Yeah.
The one that made you pause.
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.
When he 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?
That can't be right.
Like really being female, the feminine temperament.
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 the only time I found.
And this is key evidence.
You ready?
Yeah.
Someone asked him like, hey, OK, where's this study?
Because he says our research indicated, you know, it's like, oh, let me see.
Like there also there are people who are just like into it.
They all show me the link.
I want to read this research.
Yeah.
And he says we didn't 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.
Yeah.
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've read my research.
It went to University of Toronto, but then it ground to a halt after, like, Okay, man.
Yeah, this mystery research.
So, combining everything we know, though, like, maybe there is a grain of truth in that there was something more to Brophy's study she was trying to do.
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, that's the first I've seen this claim.
So, okay, I'm working backwards again.
This is just me searching keywords for research in his Twitter thing.
Here's 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 because 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.
And steak.
Yeah, and steak.
And so this first was a tweet from Jordan Peterson that was 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 R equals 0.6.
And then he replies to that, you're going to love this.
This correlation is so high that the constructs are arguably indistinguishable.
Oh my God.
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 not gonna do a whole breakdown.
The study doesn't say that.
Yeah.
Like it literally doesn't.
And then somebody, I think somebody who agrees with him replied, but was kind of trying to point out like, hey, that's not exactly right.
Really?
It's somebody who says, pretty high, also 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.
Oh my God.
A correlation coefficient magnitude basically unseen in social science slash medical research.
Okay.
What?
0.6, never seen before.
Oh my God.
It's fucking Trumpian.
No one's ever seen a 0.6, because they don'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 whoever 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, all the leftists are psychopaths, which is what Jordan Peterson 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.
It doesn't matter.
There's no correlation either way between commitment to actual values or whatever.
And they will just be assholes because- They're chameleons.
Yeah, they can use these movements to be assholes.
And I have long seen that.
And it actually talked about how if people were more into, on the left, if they were more into revolution, it's more likely they're these fucking psychopaths.
Interesting.
Yeah, I don't want to do a Jordan Peterson and go too far with that correlation, but I was like, okay, I've definitely observed some of that correlation a little bit.
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.
But 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, okay, sure.
And if you want to measure that as left-wing authoritarianism, okay, 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, he's an idiot.
He's absolutely lost.
Yeah.
Trumpian, I think is a really good way of putting it.
Yeah.
And then there's, again, if I had time, there's a series of tweets about, like, trolls, and he's 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 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.
Cause it's again, in some of his crowd are the same people who 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.
Oh my God.
So yeah, some of the delightful stuff.
Says the guy who trolls Elmo, okay?
Jeez.
Oh, man.
Oh, I had to stop by this tweet because it was talking about authoritarian belief.
And he was at this point, this is 2021 now.
At this point, he's like, yeah, there's 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-conservative bias.
Oh, my God.
It's like, no, dude, we 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.
So you're mad.
Anti-conservative bias.
Yeah, but he, it's funny because he included 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, uh, heard the famous quote.
It's where he said like, uh, yeah, for some reason all my viewers are men.
I don't get it.
Like, okay.
Then I get all the way back to 2017 and I see this.
For the first time in my career, my research grant funding was denied.
I was near the top of every other application cycle.
So here we go, we've found where his research grant was denied.
So back when I read you that tweet about they didn't finish the research, she lives in Canada, you wouldn't know the research.
Yeah.
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 coma since then.
So, like, I'll give him a break.
Yeah.
Then 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.
Because 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?
However, I followed this thread and he started crowdfunding.
He started saying, hey, you know what?
We can make this research happen.
We can stick it to the fucking left who, you know, is denying my research out of political motivations, blah, blah, blah.
And in a video that is now private, but which I found through the archive, the web archive, probably the best tool in our entire fucking research arsenal.
Like, I don't know where we would be without the internet archive.
It's a video of, it's not Jordan Peterson, but it's Ezra Levant of Rebel Media.
So he like owned Rebel Media, which I think is who was the Nazi channel, the Nazi girl channel.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So he's like a owner of Nazi media.
He organizes this crowdfunding to support the research.
Like I said, video is now private, but I watched it.
It's not much interesting, so I won't play it.
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.
And it's obviously 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.
Oh my god.
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.
I found his funding proposal.
That was kind of interesting.
I, 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 read through it trying to see if like, could I find where he was?
Cause you have to lay out all the studies you're going to do.
Right.
So I was like, is it going to be in there?
Hey, we want to study.
Did we finally find it?
Yeah.
We want 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.
Yeah.
He doesn't reference that specifically.
It just, but he does include like continued 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 you do have to lay out detail and it's not at all the detail that it would have to be to be the missing research.
But it might be like maybe he just put generalities and wasn't going to go into it, but he's asking for funding and he asked for $500,000, you know, tons of money.
So I tried to track down why he got denied.
And I couldn't find it.
I actually found, like, because people, of course, wrote a bunch of articles, like, it's almost like the Killborn effect where clearly somebody has connections and this fucking website is like, look, they denied his thing, blah, blah, blah.
And they made enough of a stink To where they contacted people in charge of that, and 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, yeah, I'm not sure what happened.
I don't know.
There could be any number of explanations.
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, well, 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 want to, who knows?
So 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 true.
This is something he claimed the last one he had gotten in 2010, I think it was, or 2012, one of the other, was the biggest they had granted to a psychologist in Canada, like ever.
And so, like, he is right that he had gotten funding.
However, I can imagine a number of explanations.
First off, when you go make a giant fuss about fucking transphobic shit.
Yeah.
And you're complaining.
By the way, this is like a government agency that's granting this stuff.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Yeah.
And you're complaining about, oh, the government's being too kind to trans people by, you know, having us use their pronouns sometimes or whatever.
And I can imagine if you attract a certain amount of scorn, a certain amount of extra scrutiny to your research grant that maybe would have been not scrutinized so hard before.
I don't know.
This is 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?
I don't know.
If his research included her fucking master's thesis that we've covered was terrible.
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 tell him to go fuck himself.
So let's tell him to go fuck himself.
It may entirely be that.
You know what?
Great.
Awesome.
I have no problem with that.
Because when you're an asshole, there's going to be consequences.
Like, I don't know.
Not everyone can get these grants.
That grant money went to somebody else.
And I'm sure they did cool science stuff, you know?
Totally.
So he, of course, is just incensed.
I just wanted to note this Indiegogo account that did this one.
I checked like what other campaigns they've had.
Yeah.
Save the Christians of Iraq.
Feed our troops.
And by the way, it's Canadian troops.
Yeah.
Help raise $10,000 for the Christmas hamper.
I don't know what that is.
Oh, yeah.
Hampers.
I mean, that's a British thing.
Oh, OK.
For soldiers that Trudeau has abandoned.
Save the Christians of Iraq from genocide.
There's another one.
Help raise a million dollars for Sergeant Chris Spears' kids.
Just a bunch of stuff like that.
You know, it's just like a lot of troops.
Yeah.
Troops and bullshit.
Troops and religion.
So he wanted, you know, 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?
His disciples.
Yeah, it seems like it.
Maybe not.
Maybe it's just the couple 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 campaign is closed obviously, and it raised $143,000.
Yeah, 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 for a way bigger amount than was the previous biggest.
So like, you know, you'd think $143,000 is going to be enough to hire some grad students for stuff.
And 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 is it just writing the paper?
If that's the barrier to that particular thing where people are like, okay, like show me, show me the study.
That's true.
There's no excuse.
Well, not only that, 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, okay for another year or two or whatever, based on the previous grant from what I can tell.
Okay.
And 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 Janessa.
Everyone I've talked to is like, what the fuck?
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 are fucked.
Like there must be other ways.
Especially if you're affiliated with a big institution like university of Toronto, like there's going to be a stop gap there.
Yeah.
There's going to be something.
They're not going to just be like, sorry, you don't get your PhD now.
Like there's no way.
Yeah.
But 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?
Yeah, where did that money go?
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.
OK, that's kind of that one.
Two, examining the relationship between personality and political belief.
That's the main thing I saw in there.
Yeah.
Liberal, conservative, and for the first time, politically correct.
So that's, you know, that's probably Brophy's stuff.
Three, assessing the impact on productivity and quality of life of self-directed writing exercises.
Okay.
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.
Okay.
But it is like, all right, that's a little weird because he goes, creating and evaluating the utility of high school student versions of the programs at self-authoring.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?
That you are solely profiting off of?
That's what it looks like to me, doesn't it?
Wow.
Yeah.
So that's another reason that it could have been the client.
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.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
That's, you know, they've got a lot of money.
The perks are kind of important.
The 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.
Okay.
We'll be invited to a special thank you reception with Professor Peterson and his research students.
You will also be emailed a link to the thank you video.
And then the other ones are not.
They're just like that plus like signed copies of bullshit.
So whatever.
But I look on the comments from 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.
And then the last one, five years ago.
So this is, you know, a year and a half, two years later.
When is the reception?
Not hearing anything or having any communication is a poor showing for 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.
But 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 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.
I 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 fucking research.
Yeah.
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, if you were a donor, if you're listening and you were affected by this, and maybe you can inquire with Indiegogo, but I didn't donate 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 you covered way back when, Christine Brophy did work on this.
She worked on that.
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 doing any of the research that was promised that I can find.
I don't know.
Again, maybe he did gave him a year of money.
I don't know.
Yeah.
There's nothing.
Like, there's no follow-up.
There's nothing we can tell that he did this research.
All we have is, hey, my research is now at the future authoring thingy.
And I'm afraid that's where the road ends.
I cannot find anymore.
I think that's a black box in terms of what we've done.
My best guess 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.
Her research never, her PhD wasn't finished.
Her research doesn't seem to have been finished if it was, again, going to be this further research that he's talking about.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Maybe maybe his other grad students got some of that money.
Can't say.
There's 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 through his timeline.
I haven't seen anything about it.
It kind of seems like it was just like, yeah, everyone forget about it.
And again, the YouTube video switched to private.
Yeah, that's so interesting.
Yeah, I think that this was borderline fraudulent, in my opinion.
But I don't know if the little boys who love him so much want to be fraudulated.
If they don't care, then I don't know how much it matters.
They would have to make a fuss about it.
But this is, at the very least, pretty fucked up to be like, Hey, my money was denied.
Raise money for me.
And then it all goes to your stupid fucking self-authoring website.
Yeah.
Which is something that you benefit from.
And that led us to me asking you to do research on his business interests.
Yeah.
And try to track down Qui Bono from that website.
So that'll be next time on Where There's Woke.
Some business weirdness.
But let it just suffice to say that I don't 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 made up.
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.
Isn't that like academic fucking fraud?
Yeah, I find this very concerning.
I don't know what to do about it though.
Yeah, nothing.
Scream from the mountaintops.
Share the show, I guess.
Yeah.
So that's the curious case of Jordan Pearson's disappearing research.
We gotta convert some lobsters.
Yeah.
Well, I'm excited to hear the next episode, which will be the final for now on this Jordan Pearson series, Business Weirdness.
