Hi there friends, familes, and foes of Dad Saves America! If you like this clip and haven't already found my full conversation with Peter, be sure to check it out here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pp-PrbSGu8jbnmQ.html

I refuse to believe this was a prank! This was a experiment to expose how BROKEN academic peer review process is. This was the biggest story of century and never got the exposure it was deserved.

The grievance studies papers was one of the greatest accomplishments at exposing the ideological rot in academia.

The "Prank" was like when investigative reporters showed how inept TSA was at the airport. Were they thanked for exposing the flaws/shortcomings? Hell no. They were villified.

The problem in psychology is beyond 50%. It’s more like 90%.

The most depressing part of this was the end where Peter points out that these papers had no effect on the new established norm, it's simply too deeply entrenched.

The essence of what he's getting at midway through is this. The point of peer review in science *should be* to check the methodology and reasoning of submitted research. Instead, these journals are "peer reviewing" whether the results are acceptable to their established dogma. They have completely abdicated any responsibility to actual science.

All mainstream media is a close cousin to this.

I was a philosophy student of Peter. Loved his classes. That was in 2006'ish... before this nonsense surfaced so mainstream. Proud of his work on this stuff.

2 + 2 = 5 !!! Approved. Men have babies........... approved !!!!!!!!!

I wish every college student in America could have at least one class taught by a professor like Peter.

Been following Peter since this whole thing started. Those papers legitimately shocked me. I cannot believe I live in a world where a "field of study" fell for something as insane as what they got published

*_Albert Einstein REFUSED to participate_* with the notion of "Peer Review." His take, in the 1930s was that peers have *_always_* been able to review an article *_AFTER_* publication. Why give power to a few, *_Hidden_* people who are NOT experts in the narrow topic they are reviewing? This is why *_power_* is such a dangerous thing. A benign ruler can have all the power in the world and everything works well, but they don't live forever. The next guy won't necessarily be as benign. This is why America is *_not_* a democracy; "power TO the people" is only as good as the people are moral and educated. As we saw with the *_Climate-Gate_* fiasco, cliques of "experts" can create a hidden barrier so that certain ideas NEVER make it to publication. Thus, the Logical Fallacy that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can NEVER be met for ideas the Gatekeepers deem unworthy. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

The Money has to drain out for any of this to change

Every time I hear on the news that "New research shows that [everybody was wrong all along] ..." I become very critical.

Wow...truth really is stranger than fiction. Major kudos to Peter Boghossian and his colleagues for roasting these "journals" in such epic fashion; unfortunately, it's disgusting (but not surprising) that nothing has changed despite the exposure.

I can't take my jaw off the floor ... what in the world?! I am struggling to comprehend what my ears just heard. The world has gone mad!!

The Grievance Studies Affair is a beautiful collection of work. Thank you Peter, James and Helen 🫖

There really should be no peer review journals outside of the hard sciences. Even in the hard sciences, "experts" should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

reality is unfair, we'll just change it!

See most "COVID" "studies" and you will understand there is little science left in our days.

Very nicely done interview of a truly unbelievable “debunking” of modern academia.

“If there was no racism, there’d be no climate crisis.” Jane Fonda

Must have been a great laugh down the pub dreaming up those papers!

This guy is an academic hero.

Anytime I can see Peter speak (besides his own show) I’m always all in. Especially on this topic. It’s so funny how they did this and just so brilliant! It shows that our system doesn’t care about the people they are supposedly representing. Let’s look at NIH. And hmmmm. There’s a doctor we have been talking about for years…… 🤷🏼‍♀️

I never heard about this before today but it does not surprise me one little bit.

I've been concerned with the notion of *_"Toxic Inertia"_* for several decades. Self-reinforcing systems are held in place by *_self-interest_* which perpetuates those systems to avoid the "pain" of conflict and change. But things like bathing, brushing your teeth, etc., are vital to keep disease at bay. If we don't debate ideas (a form of "mental cleansing"), then a different kind of disease is given a chance to build in *_Darkness._* In the 1930s, Leftists praised fellow Leftists in Germany and Italy -- both governments a form of Socialism. After WWII, Leftists told us that Nazis and Fascists were on the Right. But we can tell Left and Right by their *_behavior._* Left loves BIG government (collectivism), while the Right loves TINY government (individualism). Leftist Capitalism also loves BIG government and tries to use regulations to quash Free Market Capitalism. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

I’ve heard Peter tell the hoax story many times and never get tired of it. Love when he cracks up

Thank you for the great questions you asked him. They sure helped me!

Get rid of tenure! No longer means much when many are living by lies

Every time I hear this story I laugh my ass off. It never gets old.

The fruits of the Long March.

Falsifiable hypothesis, with a strong devil's advocate, gets you the best ampliative truth.

These trollings are a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Well done!

The "Borg" of the intellectual universe.

So let me get this straight: If someone wrote these papers and actually believed/wanted to sell these ideas, there wouldn’t have been an issue? Seems to me the only reason these papers were considered “bad” was because the authors intent was to mock the system and its ideology.

This is amazing and so needed. Social science it’s pretty guilty of this across the board. Even in economics, which always prides itself of its mathematical rigor. Try getting a paper into a journal like Ecological Economics fex, which has a decided political agenda, when going against this agenda and you will experience the most outrageous reactions. The worst are multi disciplinary journals. They are unable to check the academic quality of the work, as they embrace so many fields. The stuff that people get away with in these journals is mind boggling. 😂

The Devil is Having a Field Day in the West !

Every system man can create, can be manipulated.

Much like with "A Modest Proposal", the critics are angry that they've been had! 😁 The tenure set-up is like a protection racket brought about by writing papers. The pen IS mightier than the sword!!

The “genuine” critical theory articles are asinine conjecture that’s published in a mercenary motivation. The journal publishers accepting these absurdities are mercenary, The peers whe engage in “I’ll scratch your back and you scratch mine” approval of these idiotic thesis are mercenary as they share the same prestige, tenure, salary hike that the writers are driven by. And the gouging universities that employ these “scholars” that intend to indent their students for life are utterly mercenary, with the boards of trustees are littered with representatives of banks setting exorbitant tuition for worthless “education.” Some of the “sociologists” submitting these stupid papers hire ghost writes, yet another mercenary and perpetrator of fraud in the chain of fraud.

Their papers were sheer genius! Onion-esque one might say.

This kind of crap is why people shouldn't be allowed to be professors until after they have at least five years of non academic full time employment.

Have any of these crazy journal articles been cited by other articles? That would be truly hilarious.

"Untethered to reality... the musings of ideologues...." Such an important perspective.

Remember reading about this, but didn't know the back story or who Peter was. He's obviously a brilliant man!

He did not prank anyone; he exposed the prank.

I caught onto this after watching the Movie, No Intelligence Allowed. Then later I read Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society..

I've been trying to get this idea over to my bosses at work. The world is built around people who think something is true which isn't. And for the most part, people only think it's true because they are told it's true, or that's the way it's always been. But it hasn't always been, people just think it has. Point out a fact, and people's brains short circuit. So they go into attack mode. YOU must be wrong, because I'm right.

I never tire of hearing these stories.

"John Papola is the co-founder, CEO, and creative director of Emergent Order, a creative studio based in the Austin, Texas, area. He is an American video producer and director who has worked for Spike TV, Nickelodeon, and MTV as well as for creative ad agencies such as Crispin Porter, Razorfish and JWT."

There should never be a “Studies” category on any post secondary education facility. Nor should there be any public funding for such nonsense.

Getting published can be as simple as.....reciprocal knob shining.

True courage on display, and epic comedy.

Who funds these journals and if it’s government grants, state universities or private entities, then they need to be exposed and the money source ended. Of course this boils down to money and these people sucking off the taxpayer/ government tete, it imperative they keep the gravy train going.

Tell the same lie long enough and people will accept it as truth 😂

My wife is twice published on nursing burnout and career development. The work she and her team went through makes it seem shocking when i hear this. This pranking was prescient of the recent retraction of papers in noted journals

I guess we all suspected such we're happening 😳 , but have no idea how it works 🤔. Thank you for the education.

I'm working on a PhD in Org Dev and Leadership. This is EXACTLY the problem in this field too. The terms are so diluted in order to make everyone a leader that absurdity reigns. Power is leadership. Authority is leadership. Everyone is a leader and so no one is. The sterile petri dish of academia and the insular clique of the "peer" group means no actual thought or analysis need go into any of it. The circle-jerk of citation elevates papers without merit and all "science" is lost to opinion. The sun is flat and heliocentric.

ha ha ha!!! I can't stop laughing at the title This guy is a genius, he deserves a PhD for comedy!!

Classic Love these guys Keep up the good work Nice to have sanity somewhere out there

I found this completely hilarious!!

I had a lot of councilling when I was young +50 years ago. My Mother was certain that something was wrong with me. If it hadn't been for her many types of abuse and her lies, perhaps there would not have been an issue. Anyhow, we moved a lot so I went through 10 - 12 Councillors, Psychiatrists or Psychologists. I found even as a child that the majority of them were worthless and in some cases did more harm than good. The best thing for me to help myself was the 27 hours of psychology I took in college. But in modern times I cannot imagine how much damage these "professional experts" are doing.

Film three seconds, cut. Film three seconds, cut. Film two seconds, cut. I’m doing the blink technique right now!😂

Peter is absolutely awesome!

Seems to me that the problem we have is twofold. 1. Actual sciences exist ("hard" sciences such as chemistry and physics), which can state propositions that can be formed as hypotheses and tested by experiment. And there are disciplines such as mathematics and computation that admit of actual proofs. Somewhat more tenuous are sciences that rest upon forensics, in that, unlike experiments which can be replicated many times, forensics can operate on but the evidence already provided, repetition and controls are infrequent at best. But then we have "sciences" that rest primarily upon "studies", or even mere conjecture. While I agree that it's possible in some cases to construct studies with some rigor and disciple so that other researchers can attempt to prove or falsify the results, there are MANY variables that are hard, or impossible, to control. In mathematics and the hard sciences, competent peers can indeed detect errors and the occasional dishonesty. But in these "soft" "sciences", falsehood doesn't even require dishonesty (although we may be sure it has a comfortable home there). The basics of the scientific method require an hypothesis (which is by design a sort of predjudice) to be proved or disproved, and the adequate and sufficiently rigorous experiment(s) to prove or disprove it. The soft sciences lack not for hypoetheses. They tremendously lack for the corresponding correct experimentation, or even the will to find and use it. 2. Publication is a necessity in all academic disciplines, and not just for tenure. If you want that PhD to begin with, you must publish . . . something, whether good or ill. In my field of computer science, I have seen MANY published articles in "good" journals such as IEEE Computer and the ACM's CACM which list as authors a professor and a string of that prof's advisees, each of whom can count that paper as part of the PhD preparation, and each of whom can use it to build on, or cite, in creating further papers, and the dissertation. In hope, others will cite the article also along the way. I generally believe these articles to support their respective theses with sufficient academic rigor and honesty. However, by reading the titles alone, one often responds, "So what? You may arguably have added to the general body of knowledge, but with what real significance or utility?" Such articles often are written well enough for a reviewer to read, but still are tedious and lack the lucidity a diligent edit might provide. Then, from time to time, the reader (blessedly!) encounters an article of significance, lucidity, and brevity, most typically written by someone who is already established as an expert and who actually has something to say. That articles of this sort do not dominate the volume of pages in the journal bespeaks the difference between "This is something people need to know," and "I have to find something to publish." And, again, this is in the sphere of computation, where results generally are eminently verifiable.

It is crazy. Smh

He's describing Lysenkoism. The real problem is politicians.

Great interview

Peter Boghossian for President. The man is brilliant. He's one of the few that really gets how insane this has gotten.

“If you liked this video . . .” Sadly, there was no “it gave me cold sweats” button, so I hit “like.” Great job, gentlemen-carry on!!👏👏❤️

This is amazing. Where can we get a non family friendly interview on this?

Amazing clip. Peter's great!

Not all heroes wear capes. I, as a humble psych student 10years ago, just dropped out of the madness.

Common sense is the lost discipline of psychology. We seem to be living in a industrial complex corporate template, we get plugged in n currency flows through the asset.

I was never a matriculated student so my involvement with academia was minimal. However, there were publications I read and could reasonably trust to keep abreast of the latest in technology, history, science and economics. Up until my mid teens my go to was Natl. Geographic. Then later Scientific American, Smithsonian, Aviation Week & Space Technology were the resources I used. They might not be peer reviewed journals but were good.

Both Shocking and amazing

Also credit to Helen Pluckeose. James Lindsay's channel, New Discourses, is heavy but fascinating.

OMG! hahahaha! this is the funniest interview I have ever watched.

Peter is the best product Portland State has ever produced.

Ok you all know what I’m talking about when I’ve heard the words Ideological capture. Maybe the USSR or maybe an episode of Donahue from the mid 80’s

As I've always said, we live in a complete and total lie

This shows how easy it is for foreign actors to subvert the narrative .

The turn of the tide

This is great...

Seems like Doctor Jill's Phd might be as bad as I thought? I could only read 12 pages or so

humanities departments were already becoming awful 15-20 years ago.

Peter to his colleagues: Where do you get your ideas from?

Never send you kids to school in the US or Europe. What do we do today, our kids need education to compete - yes?

I can't see how we fight this. It seems the ideologues are to entrenched in our institutions.

Thank you KZfaq for protecting me from the word "rape".

At least Duchamp knew he created a pivotal prank when he upended a urinal and called it, “fountain.” Every philosophical stance of the last several decades is akin to a urinal - and they’re not even trying to pass it off as a fountain anymore.

"It's not total crap! I spent 14 days straight on each those pieces of crap."

Now many of you know what an uphill battle that remains.

Where can I get all the manuscripts?

The zombies have won.

The core of the problem is TENURE. A job for life is quite an incentive to do intellectual malpractice. Do away with it at all levels and watch educational outcomes improve.

i loved all my PSU professors of philosphy. the smartest guys & gals on the campus.

I took long enough to do my BA that I was able to figure out the game. Figure out what your professor’s pet ideas are and write to that while having your own ideas.