Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

Cobra Kai is back. Season 4 begins Friday and my family will be watching what is perhaps the most surprising hit of the decade and, personally, our favorite.

The Karate Kid spin-off had everything to go wrong. After several sequels and reboots, the franchise felt exhausted. Additionally, it was launched as part of YouTubes ill-fated plan to compete with Amazon and Netflix in producing original content.

However, Cobra Kai turned out to be a success. After being acquired by Netflix in June 2020, the show topped the Nielsen streaming charts. [empresa que faz medio de audincia], quickly racking up over 2 billion streaming minutes. The acquisition, as Forbes said, turned Cobra Kai from an obscure hit to Americas # 1 show.

The program works for a variety of reasons and has reached out to young people (my kids cant get enough), largely because it goes against the sacred cows of postmodernity and embraces radical ideas: self-ownership, personal responsibility, and individualism (in the best thick shell style of the 80s).

Cobra Kai does everything with humor and a different twist. The themes of individualism and self-improvement are channeled not by a wise sensei like Miyagi, but by degenerate Johnny Lawrence, the Karate Kid villain who was kicked in the face in the fifth. act.

Lawrence (William Zabka) is not a likely protagonist. If there had ever been a Mount Rushmore of 80s pop villains, Johnny Lawrence would be in it, stuck somewhere between Ed Rooney (Laughing Life Crazy), Judge Smails (Rubbish Club) and Biff Tannen (Back to the Future).

In the original Karate Kid, Johnny was the seemingly privileged bully who tormented Jerseys new working-class kid, leading Daniel Larussos transformation from punching bag to karate student and All Valley champion. (Larusso takes the title from Johnny, who until then was the champion.)

In Cobra Kai, things have changed.

Johnny is an unlucky handyman and beer drinker who watches American Eagle alone in his dingy apartment. From his red Firebird, he sees billboards popping up everywhere for the car dealerships of his old nemesis, Larusso Motors. He is divorced, separated from his son and arrested from the first episode. However, her life changes when a young man from her apartment building named Miguel asks for help dealing with bullies at school. Seems familiar?

Johnny agrees to train Miguel, but hes not Mr. Miyagi. He is gruff, a walking personification of toxic masculinity and intolerant. He calls Miguel Menudo (a successful Puerto Rican band in the 1980s), mocks immigrants, generalizes and sometimes uses a derogatory word that refers to a female body part. At one point, Miguel asks why he didnt let the women into Cobra Kai.

For the same reason that there are women in the army. It just doesnt make sense, says Johnny. Dont tell me that machismo bullshit. Im just saying that women are not made to fight. They have little hollow bones.

Johnny quickly gives in by letting the girls join Cobra Kai, however, this is only one step on his path to growth. And its this growth that makes the series so interesting. Johnnys weaknesses would be terrifying to modern audiences if they werent weighed against the larger story arc: Johnnys transformation from degenerate to true sensei.

Viewers see that Cobra Kai the dojo that tormented Daniel Larusso in Karate Kid isnt that bad. Under Johnnys tutelage, a host of misfit students learn something important: they dont have to be victims.

I will teach you the style of karate that I was taught. A method of combat that your generation desperately needs, says Johnny. You will gain strength. You will learn the discipline. And when the time is right, you will retaliate.

This post is a bit controversial, but the authors actually show that its not just physical strength that is taught. Johnny teaches his students that they have power and agency. One student, Eli, is mercilessly mocked at school for having a cleft palate. Even Johnny mocks Eli, calling him the lip. He describes the other students as a crater face and a piercing.

If the story ended there, we would see Johnny as a ruthless bully who hasnt changed at all since Daniel Larusso kicked him in the face in the tournament 30 years ago. Instead, however, after briefly leaving Cobra Kai because of Johnnys mean jokes, Eli returns changed (in both good and bad ways).

This is just one of many examples of Johnny showing his students that they have the power to shape their own destiny if they can find their inner strength, courage and identity. Equally important, we see how this philosophy is transformative in Johnnys own growth.

No doubt some will find Johnnys actions appalling; others will find them funny. The important thing is that Cobra Kai basically offers a philosophy of life taught by Jordan Peterson: use your power and influence as an individual to take control of your life.

Johnny does not remain unhappy, a man without a stable job who watches television alone and is mistaken for homelessness. After being fired, he arranges his life. He starts a dojo, takes Miguel as a student, drinks less, learns to give his students valuable lessons and not to belittle them. He cleans his apartment.

This last element may seem unnecessary. Its not. This fits perfectly with the philosophy of self-possession, taught by Peterson as a path to personal growth.

If you cant even clean your own room, who are you to give the world advice? Peterson says, I think if you want to change the world, start with yourself and work outside, because you develop your skills that way.

In essence, Johnny decides its time to take responsibility for his life the most important rule for Peterson and this is just one example of Cobra Kais broader exploration of individualism and of empowerment, themes that are explored in the first three seasons. .

Autonomy was once an American creed. Seen as the key to a fulfilling life the great essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that nothing can bring you peace but yourself philosophy is out of fashion. But its a theme that permeates Cobra Kai.

In the series first three seasons, we see Miguel and his friends overcome lifes challenges not by chatting with teachers or running away from threats, but by learning to cope with their fears and the externalities that they are. faced. They make mistakes along the way. Friendships are broken. People get hurt. But they become stronger in body, soul, and spirit, and they learn that their newfound power must be balanced with other virtues, including mercy.

For the generations who have grown up in what Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff call a culture of safetyism, a type of fetish for safety and victimization, Cobra Kai may be the tonic they need to show that true strength and growth are unattainable. society or appeal to authority to resolve conflicts. It is done by changing yourself.

* Jonathan Miltimore is the editor-in-chief of FEE Foundation for Economic Education (FEE.org)

2021 Foundation for Economic Education. Posted with permission. Original in English.

See original here:

What Cobra Kai can teach a generation marinated in victimization The Oxford Spokesman - The Oxford Spokesman

My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example Ive seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.

First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is offensive, hostile, or absurd.

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer cant help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Petersons claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.

This isnt meant as a global condemnation of this interviewers quality or past work. As with her subject, I havent seen enough of it to render any overall judgmentand it is sometimes useful to respond to an evasive subject with an unusually blunt restatement of their views to draw them out or to force them to clarify their ideas.

Perhaps she has used that tactic to good effect elsewhere. (And the online attacks to which shes been subjected are abhorrent assaults on decency by people who are perpetrating misbehavior orders of magnitude worse than hers.)

But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newmans exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

* * *

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isnt talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.

Whats in it for the women, though? Newman asks.

Well, what sort of partner do you want? Peterson says. Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?

So youre saying, Newman retorts, that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity. But thats not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful, Peterson goes on to assert. And I dont mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. Thats not power. Thats just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you cant dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination

The interviewer interrupts, So youre saying women want to dominate, is that what youre saying?

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: that 9 percent pay gap, thats a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But theres multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but thats not the only reason. If youre a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But youre saying, basically, it doesnt matter if women arent getting to the top, because thats what is skewing that gender pay gap, isnt it? Youre saying thats just a fact of life, women arent necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, Im not saying it doesnt matter, either. Im saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: Im not saying that they should put up with it! Im saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. Theres no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a fact of life that women should just put up with, though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Petersons view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesnt support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.

Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:

Peterson: Theres a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.

Peterson: Thats true. And some women get paid more than men.

Newman: So youre saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.

Peterson: No, Im saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. Theres no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldnt you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.

Peterson: But I didnt deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because Im very, very, very careful with my words.

Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women existsbut youre saying its not because of gender, its because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.

Peterson: Thats one of the reasons.

Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldnt that be fairer?

Peterson: Ive done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might sayoften you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So Ive had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and weve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.

Newman: And you celebrate that?

Peterson: Of course! Of course!

Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:

Newman: Is gender equality a myth?

Peterson: I dont know what you mean by the question. Men and women arent the same. And they wont be the same. That doesnt mean that they cant be treated fairly.

Newman: Is gender equality desirable?

Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. Thats already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women wont sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. Its 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. Thats a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differencesyou can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.

Newman: So youre saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it aint going to happen.

Peterson: Only if theyre aiming at equality of outcome.

Newman: So youre saying give people equality of opportunity, thats fine.

Peterson: Its not only fine, its eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.

Newman: But still women arent going to make it. Thats what youre really saying.

That is not what hes really saying!

In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:

Newman: So you dont believe in equal pay.

Peterson: No, Im not saying that at all.

Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, Are we going back to the dark ages?

Peterson: Thats because youre not listening, youre just projecting.

Newman: Im listening very carefully, and Im hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that theyre never going to make it on equal termsequal outcomes is how you defined it.

Peterson: No, I didnt say that.

Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because Im not going to get the top job I want, because theres someone sitting there saying, its not possible, its going to make you miserable.

Peterson: I said that equal outcomes arent desirable. Thats what I said. Its a bad social goal. I didnt say that women shouldnt be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I dont believe that for a second.

Newman: Striving for the top, but youre going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And thats fine, youre saying. Thats fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.

Peterson: No! I really think thats silly! I do, I think thats silly.

He thinks it is silly because he never said that the patriarchal system is just fine or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldnt strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.

The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.

The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, So youre saying and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Heres the excerpt:

Peterson: Theres this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that its almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And its part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesnt.

Newman: Let me get this straight. Youre saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. Its laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.

Peterson: Im saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. Its absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that Its a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin thats similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your statusand the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

Newman: So youre saying like the lobsters, were hardwired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and theres nothing we can do about it.

Where did she get that extreme and theres nothing we can do about it? Peterson has already said that hes a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they relate to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.

He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that one thing we cant do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.

At this point, were near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newmans response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:

Newman: Arent you just whipping people up into a state of anger?

Peterson: Not at all.

Newman: Divisions between men and women. Youre stirring things up.

Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustratesone reason it is worth noting at lengthis how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is stirring things up and whipping people into a state of anger.

At every turn, she is the one who takes her subjects words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Petersons remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.

There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?

To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Petersons views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

For one, those who credulously accept the interviewers characterizations will emerge with the impression that a prominent academic holds troubling views that, in fact, he does not actually believe or advocate. Some will feel needlessly troubled. And distorted impressions of what figures like Peterson mean by the words that they speak can only exacerbate overall polarization between their followers and others, and sap their critics of credibility to push back where they are wrong.

Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidablethat is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.

But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemicand addressing it for everyones sake is long overdue.

Read more from the original source:

Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Actually ...

Canadian psychology professor and author Jordan Peterson responded to ratings numbers showing that Joe Rogan's podcast has more than triple the number of views of legacy media prime-time shows such as The Rachel Maddow Show and Tucker Carlson Tonight.

In response to Q3 media ratings posted to Twitter, Peterson argued that the reason Rogan's show beats cable talk shows in the ratings is because he "doesn't lie."

FED UP JOE ROGAN JOINS GETTR AFTER TWITTER BANS DR. ROBERT MALONE AND REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE

"That's because he doesn't lie. Or talk down to his audience. Or manipulate for his own narrow advantage," Peterson tweeted. "Go @joerogan. See you in three weeks in Austin."

JORDAN PETERSON SAYS HE WAS LIED TO: 'I'LL GET THE VACCINE IF YOU F***ING LEAVE ME ALONE. AND DID THAT WORK? NO'

The ratings chart, based on data from Nielsen Holdings and Spotify, shows that Rogan's show is ranked No. 1 with an average of 11 million viewers per show, followed by Tucker Carlson Tonight, with 3.24 million per show, and The Five, with 2.98 million viewers per show.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Rogan often has controversial guests on his show. He recently had the embattled Dr. Robert Malone, a contributor to the research that created mRNA vaccine technology, on his show to discuss the potential risk involved with the coronavirus vaccine as well as alleged malpractice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pfizer, and other health authorities in relation to the COVID-19 response.

Malone was banned from Twitter after making posts that could have promoted vaccine hesitancy.

Original post:

Jordan Peterson says Joe Rogan beats ratings of legacy media because 'he doesn't lie' - Washington Examiner

No. 7 USC is the fourth-tallest team in the country and the Trojans used that length to stay undefeated at the expense of Cal on Thursday night.

The Trojans converted eight offensive rebounds into 10 second-chance points in the first half. Then they merely attacked basket, making 11 of their first 16 shots in the second half on the way to a 77-63 victory at Haas Pavilion.

By the time it was over, the Trojans had scored 50 points in the paint.

"We didn't play well enough to beat a Top-10 team tonight," Cal coach Mark Fox says in the video at the top of this story. "We simply didn't rebound the ball in the first half. And in the second half we didn't force enough stops to even have our rebounding exposed."

Cal (9-5, 2-2 Pac-12) had won five straight games and nine in a row at home. And Bears played well during long stretches of the game.

They simply had no answer for the Trojans physical advantage, although Cal guard Jordan Shepherd said the Bears simply didn't measure up defensively.

USC (13-0, 3-0), with seven players standing at least 6-foot-9, overpowered the Bears in the second half. Isaiah Mobley, a 6-foot-10 forward, put up 19 points scoring on dunks, drives while also making both of his 3-point attempts.

The Trojans, who hadn't played in 18 days, used an 8-0 to push their lead to 46-35 on a drive by Ethan Anderson with 14:25 left. But the Bears did not go away.

Back-to-back 3-pointers by Jordan Shepherd and Jalen Celestine and a pair of free throws by Shepherd pulled Cal within 52-48 with just over 10 minutes left.

The Bears got no closer, and when Joshua Morgan scored a layup with 5:18 left the Trojans had their biggest lead of the night at 65-53. That margin reached 15 points before the Bears closed a bit in the final minutes.

Drew Peterson scored 17 points and Boogie Ellis had 14 points for USC, which shot 64 percent in the second half. Peterson and Mobley each had nine rebounds.

Grant Anticevich, who led the Bears with 19 points, says in the video below he feels like the Bears gave the game away. Cal, playing two top-10 teams in the same week for the first time since 1975, takes on No. 5 UCLA on Saturday

Shepherd, limited in the first half by two early fouls, scored 15 for the Bears and Andre Kelly had 13 points and 11 rebounds. Celestine added 10 points. Point guard Joel Brown dished a career-high nine assists and had zero turnovers in 36 minutes on the floor.

The Bears shot 40.7 percent from the field, the highest percentage any opponent has managed this season against a USC team that is second nationally, allowing just 35 percent.

Cal trailed 36-31 at halftime after allowing the Trojans to convert eight offensive rebounds into 10 second-chance points. They used their length to build a 23-14 rebounding advantage in the first 20 minutes.

Cal shot well early in a half that had 10 lead changes but the Bears closed the half by making just one of eight attempts to finish the period at 38 percent.

The Bears last lead the half was 17-16 after Celestine converted a drive to the basket with 11:22 left.

The Trojans built their biggest lead of the half with an 8-0 run that made it 26-20 with 8 minutes left. They scored two of those basket following offensive rebounds and another off a steal that became a breakaway dunk.

Kelly had eight points and six rebounds for the Bears at halftime and Anticevich had eight points and six rebounds. Celestine came off the bench to score seven.

Mobley had 12 points and six rebounds for USC and Peterson posted eight and six.

Cover photo of USC's Drew Peterson passing around Cal's Andre Kelly by D. Ross Cameron, USA Today

Follow Jeff Faraudo of Cal Sports Report on Twitter: @jefffaraudo

Read the original here:

Cal Basketball: Unbeaten USC Pulls Away From Bears in the Second Half - CalBearsMaven

Alexis Rae Baker

By Alexis Rae Baker

Dear Lexis,

Im in my first year of college and I dont know what major I should work toward.

There are a lot of interesting things, but I feel that choosing one innately means Im giving up something else. How am I supposed to pick?

Thanks,

~ Undecided

Dear Undecided,

I understand your conundrum, and youre right: by choosing one path you sacrifice the option of another. Its a kind of inevitability. And while there is potential to choose a different path at some point in the future, the sacrifice of choosing a single path will probably serve you better for now.

Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for Life discusses the concept of Peter Pan when it comes to this topic. He describes how Peter sees Hook, the only adult he knows, and decides not to sacrifice his childhood for fear of becoming Hook. That decision holds ramifications, though. Because hes unwilling to embrace his adulthood, he sacrifices his chance to have a relationship and family and must settle for the fantasy of Tinker Bell instead. After Skools video (shown above) is a good example of Petersons discussion around this topic.

In the end, no matter what you choose, you are sacrificing something. You sacrifice the certainty, status, and stability of a specialized job (or business) by choosing not to choose.

Choosing a path means sacrificing the freedom of following a different path, or multiple paths. Relationships are another example of this; you can choose not to settle down but you sacrifice the potential of having a family, but if you choose to settle down, you give up your right to bounce from partner to partner at your whim.

The particulars of your choice, which path you choose, are largely irrelevant in the end. Choose a path that you believe suits your skills, talents, and interests, and then accept that choice. If you choose freedom, know what youre sacrificing; but if you choose a particular path, knowing the choices youre sacrificing can aid you in choosing the best match for you. Recognize the sacrifice and the benefits that accompany said sacrifice and then make your choice.

As for the specifics, which path you should choose, your family and friends would probably be more helpful. They know who you are, what has interested you through your life, and what activities and subjects have held your attention and inspired you. They know where your talents lay, and they know your personality and whether you need more variety or more structure when it comes to your future career path.

You get to choose how your life plays out. You can change your mind in the future if you feel the need, but the knowledge that you are always sacrificing something, no matter the decision, will aid you in your decision making. This knowledge will help you think through each choice and, by doing so, help you choose which sacrifice you are willing to make and which benefits inspire you the most. Youll also go forward, knowing that you considered all the possibilities, which saves you from a lifetime of second-guessing.

Knowledge is your friend now, self-knowledge in particular. If you put in the work though, you will find your solution and youll feel sure of your course. Through this process, youll find that you never regret the decisions you make because youve made them from a place of understanding and thorough consideration. Its not easy, but its worth the effort. Lean on your friend and family, listen to your heart, and youll get your answer.

I hope this helps you, but if you have a question about this topic, or have different questions that you would like my perspective on, feel free to reach out and email me. I love your feedback too, so if you found this article helpful, Id love to hear from you too.

Best of luck,

~ Lexis

Alexis Rae Baker writes from her home in Olympia. Got a question about life, relationships, spirit? Write to Lexis atLexis@theJOLTnews.com

Editors Note: Yes, the headline borrows from John Sebastians song title and lyrics.

Excerpt from:

Did you ever have to make up your mind?: Pick up on one and leave the other behind - The Jolt News

LAWRENCE The early signing period for Kansas football represents the next step, not the final one, as the Jayhawks coaching staff puts together its 2022 recruiting class.

There are the additions Wednesday of eight prospects, sure. Those eight are Ethan Vasko (quarterback); James Livingston (offensive lineman);Joey Baker (offensive lineman);Kaleb Purdy (safety);Tevita Noa (tight end);Mason Ellis (safety);Kael Farkes (offensive lineman) and Grant Glasgow (placekicker), with Farkes and Glasgow set to join as walk-ons. But its not where head coach Lance Leipold and company will stop, especially considering there are transfers whose commitments are public.

However, it does provide a snapshot of where things stand at Kansas. Leipold is putting together his first full recruiting class with the program, after recently completing his first season in charge in Lawrence. And there are some takeaways that can be gleaned both from whos signed so far and whos expected to in time.

RELATED: Kansas football's off-season rebuild picks up steam ahead of Signing Day

This is an exciting day for young men and a chance for them to fulfill their dream, something theyve worked extremely hard for, said Leipold, who signed all high school prospects outside of one junior college talent in Noa. Its not a large signing class, here, but this class were very confident itll fit well into our program and, as we continue with younger players here that are on this list, to fit into our culture and help us in years to come.

Here are those takeaways:

Leipold said that it became apparent in the latter part of the 2021 season that neither redshirt senior Miles Kendrick nor freshman Conrad Hawley would return to the quarterback room for the 2022 season. Kendrick, who suffered a season-ending injury Nov. 6 against Kansas State, had played at times in a backup role and Hawley did not see the field at all. And with their departures, Leipold felt they needed to sign a quarterback in this class.

So, they went with a 247Sports Composite three-star prospect out of Virginia in Vasko. Vasko, who de-committed from Old Dominion before choosing Kansas, was someone Leipold and company had evaluated during their time at Buffalo. Vasko will add depth for the Jayhawks at a position that, as Leipold pointed to himself, had that depth tested when both Kendrick and redshirt junior Jason Bean suffered injuries in that game against the Wildcats.

RELATED: Kansas football: Live updates as official additions to 2022 recruiting class are announced

(Quarterbacks) Coach (Jim) Zebrowskis always liked (Vasko), stayed in contact with him, Leipold said. Tall, rangy, can run the ball as well but hes got a strong arm. Very mature young man thats a leader, and just the whole package that we thought that was going to fit into our system. And he was one that was going to, if we were going that route, that was … where Jim wanted to go from the start.

Its a move that also shows the confidence Leipold has in what Bean and Jalon Daniels, a sophomore in 2021, brought to the position this past season. They are the two front-runners to start in 2022.

There are more offensive linemen currently signed than any other position among those listed, with Livingston, Baker and Farkes. With someone like Buffalo transfer Nolan Gorczyca committed, not to mention the potential for other prospects to draw Kansas interest, that number only figures to grow. And with Livingston and Baker, are two 247Sports Composite three-star talents that Leipold certainly has reason to feel positively about.

Livingston, listed at 6-7 and 275 pounds, was someone Kansas was impressed with over the summer and grew more impressed with when offensive coordinator Andy Kotelnicki was able to see him play in the fall. Leipold noted how well Livingston moved his feet for someone with his size, and was physical, too. Leipold thinks Livingston, who earned all-state recognition in Michigan, fits in with what the Jayhawks want to do with their inside and outside zone schemes.

Baker, listed at 6-4 and 250 pounds, is someone wholl come in from a Southlake Carroll program in Texas that went 14-1 this past season. Leipold indicated Baker playing through a season of that length will serve him well when it comes to the grind of a college football season. Leipold also highlighted the mentality Baker will have because he comes from a football family, including having a father who coached at both the college and NFL levels.

Ellis, a 247Sports Composite three-star athlete, is going to grayshirt. It meansthat he wont join the program until 2023. It means the 6-2 and 188-pound talent, who Kansas lists as a safety, wont factor into the Jayhawks potential success in 2022 the way others in his class may.

But theres a lot that makes sense for Ellis, with this decision. Leipold, whos excited to bring in a local talent like Ellis, explained that this was the best way to ensure Ellis into the program.

When we look at our holistic numbers, that gave us the best flexibility for (Ellis) and for our future as well, Leipold said. … I really admire his family and Mason, because as they continued to look at the situations we talked about, the good thing is that Mason entered high school … early. Hes 17 years old. He doesnt turn 18 until July. … For his development, it even made more sense.

When Leipold noticed the situation trending toward Emmett Jones leaving Kansas staff as Jones eventually would, for Texas Tech, Leipold thought of Terrence Samuel. Samuel is someone whos worked with Leipold in the past, and someone whose career in coaching overlapped as well with Kansas offensive line coach Scott Fuchs and general manager Rob Ianello. Earlier this month, Leipold officials brought Samuel on as the teams new wide receivers coach.

But while Samuel has a recruiting background thatll help the Jayhawks, especially considering the asset Jones was in the state of Texas, that didnt mean Samuel was able to be that guy when it came to bringing in the talent Kansas announced Wednesday. The timing of Jones departure and Samuels arrival didnt allow that.

Hes a Houston, Texas native, Leipold said of Samuel. Hes recruited the Dallas area as well, very familiar with that area, so hes going to help us in a lot of different ways in recruiting. (Defensive backs coach) Jordan Peterson, also a native of Texas, so … well be covered well down there. But, no, through part of those things (Samuel) was not. In some of those lag times before everything was signed and done, we were able to have Rob Ianello go on the road and recruit some in those areas. So, again, to have Robs experience in so many ways was beneficial to kind of pinch hit here in the month of December.

Leipold was clear that he appreciates the way Jones handled his time on the staff and his eventual exit. Leipold knew that Jones had a desire to potentially return to the state of Texas, and in conversations with the Jayhawks wide receivers talked about how family desires played a role in why Jones left. Leipold praised his athletic director, Travis Goff, and chancellor, Douglas Girod, for their efforts as Kansas attempted to retain Jones.

Leipold said that, where things stand right now with recruiting, the situation is still fluid. This recruiting cycle has been very different than what hes been used to experiencing in a number of ways, Leipold mentioning the coaching changes that have been occurring as well as the transfer portal. So, one could imagine, when it comes to what the size of the class will be he said that will be fluid as well.

There are, though, those five transfers whove recently committed publicly to joining the program and figure to be a part of this class. So, that adds to Kansas total. And as Leipold and his staff continue to look at the transfer portal, he said they could add a few more high school prospects.

Our main focus has to be that we make our football team better, better for the short term, better for the long term," Leipold said."And what do I mean by that? We have to create more situations of internal competition each and every day to get everybody to their highest potential and reach that. So, when we look at that and were looking at where were unbalanced we inherited a situation where were highly imbalanced in offensive, defensive scholarships. We have some positions that are highly over-scholarship-ed based on a breakdown, not peoples abilities. … And that causes depth problems at times. So, we want to get ourselves in the best position moving forward and we believe that we are well on our way to do that.

Leipold thinks the team has a chance to be at 85 scholarships in 2022. That reality depends on how much they want to use scholarships that otherwise would be allotted to the 2023 class, which hes cautious of doing in part because its through that class that the Jayhawks are building relationships locally. Leipold also considers players like Bean, junior linebacker Rich Miller and others who transferred to Kansas late and played in 2021 members of the 2022 class.

Jordan Guskey coversUniversity of Kansas Athletics at The Topeka Capital-Journal. Contact him at jmguskey@gannett.com or on Twitter at @JordanGuskey.

Read this article:

Kansas football Signing Day thoughts, including what we learned about Lance Leipold's new QB recruit - The Topeka Capital-Journal

And so when asked if he is worried about the rise of authoritarian China and Russia, Peterson responds with: Im also worried about the West! If we got our act together, we could be a light to those countries.

China and Russia are capitalising on our corruption at the moment. Its bolstering the Russian regime in particular, and the Chinese regime to some degree.

Western corruption, in this context, is our foolish demolition of our own traditions. There are many people in Russia, Hungary, Poland who are looking at whats happening in the more liberal West and saying no, were not doing that here, and they might be erring too much in the opposite direction. These things are always subject to debate, which is the whole purpose of freedom of speech, by the way. But again, we look to ourselves first.

Looking to oneself, whether as a nation or as individuals, forms a significant part of Petersons philosophy: If we are better at being what we could be, then the alternative would look less attractive. Thats a good doctrine for life, isnt it?

This self-reflection and self-criticism also plays a crucial role towards building bridges and crossing divides. That, and judicious praise of ones opponent where its due, as he likes to make a point of doing, whether lauding US Presidents Joe Bidens Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on Twitter and braving vitriol, or travelling to Washington DC to bring together politicians across the aisle, as he is scheduled to do in January.

The proper idea, he says, drawing again on his background as a psychologist, is to look at the benevolence and the capacity for atrocity that characterises you. Because if you dont see that within you, as the responsibility you have in relation to ethical struggle and in relation to conducting an ethical life, then you will absolutely see it in someone else, because it absolutely exists and has to find its place.

Can this self-awareness, or even guilt which the Left has been extremely good at weaponising be channelled to achieve something positive? It must, says Peterson: Anyone with any sense who has any privilege has guilt about it. We know perfectly well that we are the undeserving beneficiaries in some sense of what our culture and our parents have arbitrarily bestowed upon us, where arbitrary means not through our own efforts.

One must then try to live a life that justifies those advantages. You take the burden of the catastrophe of history on to yourself and you take that seriously. And so then you try to act like a noble and outstanding person, moving forward. If you dont do that youll suffer for it. Because we have a conscience and it will take us to task.

It is Petersons faith in the human conscience which makes him optimistic, though perhaps only marginally so, given that he is only too aware of the capacity of mankind to destroy ourselves as well as the world around us.

There were hundreds of millions of people killed in the 20th century, unnecessarily, for ideological reasons. And we can certainly manage that on a magnificent scale if we so choose. Were in a state now where our technological prowess has hit an inflection point. Its all we can do to keep up with it. We have no idea whats on the horizon.

Not that we ever did in some sense, but the scope of technological transformation has broadened substantially. So we can do terrible things or great things. What are we going to do? Well, Im optimistic because fundamentally I believe that men of good will can prevail.

Optimistic he may well be, but Peterson is also mindful of the dangers of fashionable ideologies which seriously compromise everything that weve accomplished, that is allowing people to lead lives more abundant in a material sense and threaten to bring the house down.

Misplaced guilt and a hatred for human enterprise, and the belief that were a cancer on the face of the planet and that the planet would be better with fewer people on it or perhaps none. Thats not the rock you build your house on.

See more here:

Jordan Peterson: 'If you can't say what you think, soon you won't be able to think' - Telegraph.co.uk

Barron is Fulton Sheen's greatest living heir, and his Word on Fire Bible makes the perfect Christmas gift.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF. -- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015: Robert Barron prostrates before an altar during ordination mass as Auxiliary Bishop at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, Calif., on Sept. 8, 2015. (Photo by Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Every Advent, columnists and periodicals offer their picks for book of the year. My selection this year will be an unusual one: a book that was composed nearly two millennia ago, in an edition that hasnt been fully published. Im speaking of the Word on Fire Bible, the ongoing project by Bishop Robert Barron and his Word on Fire ministry to re-present the Good Book to a nation starved for moral and spiritual truthand for beauty.

Barron, the 62-year-old auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles, is the greatest living heir to Fulton Sheen, the pioneering televangelist who beamed the Christian idea into millions of American living rooms in the last century. Like Sheen, who dominated the chief media forms of his time (radio and television), Barron is a master of todays social platforms. Sheen aimed for maximal lucidity without compromising on intelligence or orthodoxy, and the same is true of Barron.

Like Sheen, Barron is possessed of a seemingly boundless energy. A bishop, even one encouraged by his superiors to carry out a media ministry, has many duties: duties of pastoral care, of administration, and of prayer. I happen to know that Bishop Barron spends a lot of time kneeling on his prie dieu. In between, he somehow finds time to produce an unimaginable volume of books, essays, columns, documentaries, YouTube videos, interviews and so on.

There is one difference. Sheen was eminently a figure of the postwar Protestant-Catholic-Jewish consensus; indeed, he helped build it. Barron, by contrast, finds himself preaching to a sharply polarized age. Some liberal Catholics see their role chiefly as carrying on liberalisms censuring mechanisms within the life of the Church, and they often reproach the bishop for engaging New York Times-certified Bad People like, well, yours truly.

He also gets heat from the other end of the ecclesial spectrum, from crankier traditionalists whose measure of faith is vituperation against the hierarchy and Pope Francis especially. The bishop might be leading many souls to the Church, and speaking especially to the atomized young men and women whose spirits are first kindled by the likes of Jordan Peterson. But because Barron doesnt state everything exactlyas the trads would prefer, they dismiss him.

This dual opposition doesnt make Barron a centrist (whatever that means in a Catholic context). It just means he is prepared to look beyond the cramped horizon of our partisan oppositions to propose a smart, robust, inviting Catholicism. Would that men like Barron benefited from material conditions that made evangelization easierstructures of assent, as my friend the theologian Chad Pecknold calls them.

Creating and maintaining such structures is the task of the Catholic laity, as the Vatican II decreeApostolicam Actuositatemmakes clear. But in the meanwhile,someonehas to evangelize a generation immiserated by neoliberalism, distracted by screens, addicted to porn and painkillers, alienated by divorce and de-natured by gender ideology. Earlier missionaries could take for granted that un-evangelized peoples knew the difference between men and women how much harder and more rewarding the work of a Barron, who must start by teaching American YouTubers about nature as a legible whole (let alone the supernatural).

And yet, Barron does this work, generally with an unflappable smile. A pair of messages unites his massive output. First, he teaches the contemporary gentiles that the legibility of nature points to a divine author. That much, of course, the adherents of various monotheistic faiths can agree on, and Barron the trained Thomist (gently) makes mincemeat of the new atheism.

Second, Barron insists that this author of creation took on human nature so as to elevate the human to the level of the divine. Again and again, Barron rails against attempts to domesticate the God-Man, to reduce him to a mere ethicist or spiritual guru. No, Jesus is too disconcerting for that, as Barron puts it in his acclaimed Catholicismseries: Either Christ really is God made flesh, or he is a mad or evil man, whom we would be right to reject.

But how can an age like ours get to know this Jesus, to test his claims that he is the Son of God?

One way Barron answers this yearning is through the Word on Fire Bible. Its a physically and visually delightful book, packed with commentary from the Church Fathers and more recent sages like Aquinas, Chesterton, Flannery OConnor, and Barron himself. Barrons own commentary on the calling of Saint Matthew reduced me to tears:

Notice how magnetic the converted Matthew has become. To the party flock all of his fellow tax collectors and other sinners. The call of Jesus has summoned Matthew and through him a whole host of others similarly excluded, by their own self-absorption, from the thrill of the divine life. We can only imagine how rowdy, impolite and socially questionable this gang of lowlifes is. But there they are, because of Matthew, around the shepherd of Israel.

Every few pages, readers are treated to a painting from the Churchs great repository of sacred art, so that the likes of Fra Angelico and Caravaggio may do their work of evangelization, too. So far, the four Gospels have been published (in one volume). At the risk of sounding like a door-to-door Bible salesman, I must say: It makes for a perfect Christmas gift. A second, equally glorious volume, which Ive had a chance to preview, includes Acts and the epistles. Thats forthcoming in early 2022.

Meanwhile, take a bow, Your Excellency.

See the article here:

Bishop Barron and His Bible - The American Conservative

Saturday Night Live blasted Dr. Anthony Fauci and Chris and Andrew Cuomo this weekend in a skit showing how the holidays will have to be different this year amid the omicron variant.

Fauci , played by Kate McKinnon, explains to the audience that members of the CDC will act out scenarios to demonstrate how to behave during holiday travel and events. The first scenario is a man who wishes to eat Christmas dinner at a restaurant but has lost his vaccination card.

JORDAN PETERSON SAYS HE WAS LIED TO: 'I'LL GET THE VACCINE IF YOU F***ING LEAVE ME ALONE. AND DID THAT WORK? NO'

"You mean you lost the little 1-inch piece of cardboard they gave you?" a waitress questions the man. "Then you are banished from society. Have fun living in the woods."

Another scenario is of a little girl who wants to sit on Santa's lap and ask him for Christmas presents, but Santa has had some strange side effects from the vaccine.

"Sorry, you can't sit on my lap anymore," Santa says to the girl. "Thanks to the vaccine, my testicles have ballooned in size ... they're as big as grapes now."

Fauci quickly cuts the scene, saying "that's just a conspiracy theory, and I am concerned about that particular man."

The next scenario features the Cuomo brothers, who say they are both unemployed due to COVID-19.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Hello, I am disgraced New York Governor Andrew Cuomo," one of the comedians says.

"And I am disgraced former CNN host Chris Cuomo," the other says. "And we both lost our jobs, because of COVID."

See more here:

WATCH: SNL mocks Fauci, Cuomo brothers, and COVID 'conspiracy theories' - Washington Examiner

Once upon a time three brothers, working together at New Yorks Creedmoor Psychiatric Hospital, discovered that a histamine pill worked better for the mentally ill than electroshock therapy, and so played their part in revolutionising post-war psychiatric medicine. Given his book is called Empire of Pain (Picador, 20), one may rightly guess that Patrick Keefe is setting this family up for a fall. And what a fall: the Sacklers, in learning how to turn drugs into money, seem to have forgotten their humanity. The aggressive over-prescription of oxycontin, made by their company, contributed to an opioid crisis which in total led to the deaths of over half a million Americans. This is a ghastly story, told with rigour and aplomb.

The corruption that attends vast wealth seems to have eluded Bill Gates: he might genuinely want to save the world. How to Avoid a Climate Disaster (Allen Lane, 20) finds him studying hard problems: marginal costs, global equity, steel, cement and (yes) IT. Like any techno-realist, Gates can be twitted over the detail. He underestimates how viral the vegan message has become in the West, and underplays the nuclear waste problem. Still, here is a man worth arguing with.

One things for certain: climate change on its own will not bring down our civilisation. Catastrophes are why we have civilisations in the first place, and when societies collapse, its their own silly fault for having grown sclerotic, knotted and ungovernable. Niall Fergusons Doom (Allen Lane, 25) attempts to relate this epic picture of rise and fall to the responses of governments across the world to the Covid pandemic. Its anecdotal, partisan and oddly touching in its exhortation to keep calm and carry on.

Jordan Peterson is the living exemplar of that advice. A practising Canadian psychologist, rendered dangerously frail by prescription medicine, he has become for some a demagogue, for others the imminent second coming of Christ. The advice in Beyond Order (Allen Lane, 25), a follow-up to his global bestseller 12 Rules for Life, reflects some new and painful awareness of mortality. But it was always Petersons intimate, self-revealing style that made his life advice so powerful, so energising, and so hard to reduce to politics (though God knows people tried).

Petersons war against the fogginess of convenient and avoidant thinking echoes throughout Oliver Burkemans Four Thousand Weeks (Bodley Head, 16.99), a plea to abandon middling priorities and embrace the difficult and the important in life. To do so means resigning oneself to what the Germans, in their genius, dub Eigenzeit that is, the time it takes to do something properly.

Stephen Walkers Beyond (William Collins, 20) celebrates the worlds first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, who had patience and fortitude in spades, not just to weather the Soviets early space programme, but his strange celebrity afterlife, too. In the US, celebrity dogged the Nasa astronauts even before their historic flights. Walker straddles public and private worlds to bring us intimate portraits of the Cold Wars most gentle warriors.

Tristan Gooleys fortitude is nothing to sneeze at, either. Years ago, even as the rest of us were following our new-fangled in-car GPS systems into fields or over the edges of cliffs, the writer was flying and sailing, solo, across the Atlantic, guided by the stars. In The Secret World of Weather (Sceptre, 20) the author of bestsellers The Natural Navigator and How to Read Water entices us to read and even predict the weather, simply by paying attention to the things (trees, buildings, surfaces) all around us.

Read more from the original source:

The best smart thinking and self-improvement books to buy for Christmas 2021 - The Telegraph