Jordan Peterson himself has taught about the psychology of people, and specifically about when you challenge someone's core beliefs, their worldview, they lash out at the challenger as if they'd been physically attacked. He calls it the lizard brain.

I've seen this myself, repeatedly, because I insist on challenging people and their ideas, and my own, through rigorous debate. I'm sure most here have seen it too. Through challenge, truth emerges. When someone's worldview becomes tarnished by that challenge, when cracks begin to show, that they're wrong in part or total, the immediate response is denial, doubling down, and logically fallacious attacks (most commonly in ad hominem form) against the challenger. It's a denial of their own humanity, that we're mortal, finite, imperfect, and have free will. We can't know everything, and we must each acknowledge that we could be and probably are wrong about some things, in nuance or total, and what what we don't know can drastically reshape what we think we already know, giving it new context. People must be strong in convictions, so they can accomplish, but open to the possibility of being wrong, and be able to change if so.

Denial of truth means such people place themselves above truth, which must be our highest priority, or we will surely fail and die. Denial of this means such people proclaim themselves to be God, that they can't be wrong. Again, it's a denial of their own humanity.

What happens after can vary. People can, and often do, remain in denial, and would rather die than change their minds, even though they're free to do so. They treat their lies and falsehoods like an anchor, letting it drown them. This is common in nature, and humanity, however. In the 3 ways of conflict resolution, this is called isolation (the other two being good debate and violence), where the disagreeing parties isolate themselves and succeed or fail based on their own merit.

Still, I cling to the hope that some people, many I hope, if they're truly good, can eventually change their minds. I hope they can self reflect, self doubt, question, even of themselves, and be curious, think, and learn. Surely there must be people like this, yet appear silent from the outside, perhaps in contemplation, because public discourse changes as new information comes to light. I'm one of them. My views and ideas have changed over the decades, some radically, and even recently foundational views have been slightly altered to reflect nuanced new trains of thought.

If these people don't exist, that no one, or very few, are capable of changing their minds, then the only solution left is terrible. Good debate, to search for truth, is made impossible. That only leaves violence. It's either carried out by tribal warfare, or by nature itself, killing off the stupid.

As censorship and globalist curation of information dwindles, as true free speech sites increase, and the propaganda made more apparent, we're going to see how a great many people really are. Are they capable of free will and understand their humanity, and prioritize truth, or do they deny all of it.

Jordan Peterson himself has taught about the psychology of people, and specifically about when you challenge someone's core beliefs, their worldview, they lash out at the challenger as if they'd been physically attacked. He calls it the lizard brain.

I've seen this myself, repeatedly, because I insist on challenging people and their ideas, and my own, through rigorous debate. I'm sure most here have seen it too. Through challenge, truth emerges. When someone's worldview becomes tarnished by that challenge, when cracks begin to show, that they're wrong in part or total, the immediate response is denial, doubling down, and logically fallacious attacks (most commonly in ad hominem form) against the challenger. It's a denial of their own humanity, that we're mortal, finite, imperfect, and have free will. We can't know everything, and we must each acknowledge that we could be and probably are wrong about some things, in nuance or total, and what what we don't know can drastically reshape what we think we already know, giving it new context. People must be strong in convictions, so they can accomplish, but open to the possibility of being wrong, and be able to change if so.

Denial of truth means such people place themselves above truth, which must be our highest priority, or we will surely fail and die. Denial of this means such people proclaim themselves to be God, that they can't be wrong. Again, it's a denial of their own humanity.

What happens after can vary. People can, and often do, remain in denial, and would rather die than change their minds, even though they're free to do so. They treat their lies and falsehoods like an anchor, letting it drown them. This is common in nature, and humanity, however. In the 3 ways of conflict resolution, this is called isolation (the other two being good debate and violence), where the disagreeing parties isolate themselves and succeed or fail based on their own merit.

Still, I cling to the hope that some people, many I hope, if they're truly good, can eventually change their minds. I hope they can self reflect, self doubt, question, even of themselves, and be curious, think, and learn. Surely there must be people like this, yet appear silent from the outside, perhaps in contemplation, because public discourse changes as new information comes to light. Im one of them. My views and ideas have changed over the decades, some radically, and even recently foundational views have been slightly altered to reflect nuanced new trains of thought.

If these people don't exist, that no one, or very few, are capable of changing their minds, then the only solution left is terrible. Good debate, to search for truth, is made impossible. That only leaves violence. It's either carried out by tribal warfare, or by nature itself, killing off the stupid.

As censorship and globalist curation of information dwindles, as truly free speech sites increase, and the propaganda made more apparent, we're going to see how a great many people really are. Are they capable of free will and understand their humanity, and priororitze truth, or do they deny all of it.