Twelve Rules for Life | Jordan Peterson | RSA Replay
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has built a following of tens of millions of viewers with his online lectures on topics from ancient mythology to modern relationships. In an era of often disorienting change and divisive politics, his message, emphasising individual responsibility and ancient wisdom, has resonated around the world, especially with young people. Drawing examples from his personal life as well as clinical practice, cutting-edge psychology and philosophy, and lessons from humanity's oldest myths and stories, Peterson offers an antidote to chaos, applying eternal truths to today’s problems.
SUBSCRIBE to our channel!
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / rsaevents
Like RSA Events on Facebook: / rsaeventsoff. .
Listen to RSA podcasts: / the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: / rsa_events
legends say the interviewer is still repeating "right"
LOL
Hahahaha
HEY! He said ok sometimes, right?
KEK
Soooo irritating!!! Like a f***** mosqito! Why did he feel a need to to that ?!.... Good fortune to you all.
He's so right about activists. Most are not trying to solve problems. Most are trying to get credit for being the people who want to solve problems.
Scientists and engineeers are the people who solve problems.
Gordon Freemason Climate change is a bad example re:activists. It’s a highly technical problem. Many people are working on it. There’s a serious limit to what young uneducated people can do. (Of course, they may not be able to solve any other of society’s problems either. When I was that age my studying at university took up most of my time. I wasn’t a rebel at all.)
While I like your shout-out to scientists and engineers, it sounds to me like you've never known any real activists or been a part of a particular action to save something (and it's always about saving something). Sure, there are posers and clicktivists and virtue signallers, but there are also people who just end up having something they care about, usually in their back yard, put under threat for no defensible reason, and who meet that threat and stare it down, even if they are an 85yo woman potentially facing police violence or criminal legal proceedings. It often brings a community together over a shared value and is a fantastic example of people bringing light and good to the world through the maximised potential and acceptance of personal responsibility that JP constantly speaks of. A righteous civil disobedience action is rather inspiring.
You've used the word "most", but I'd say it's a minority few who are only in it for personal back-patting, rather than any actual concern for their issue(s).
Um, anyone can solve a problem. You just need to be an honest actor.
Well tell the scientists and engineers to stop being careerists and start making change instead of being cogs in the wheel of destruction. So many are surely doing that.
" but those weren't REAL activists" lol. But seriously, I think what mostly what Jordan Peterson is talking about are the young - still in school - haven't experienced real life type - living in the first world - type of activists who are screaming the usual "down with the system" rhetoric. It takes competent and capable people to make actual change. There are cases where circumstances can force a person to be more competent/better and act in a way that can influence change, but I see that the vast majority of college activists are not that (but they CAN be if they sort themselves out first).
"try to keep it as succinct as you can please" "because as I've shown I'm completely unable to do that and have used all of your time so I can be heard instead of you."
Great comment, thank you. Laughed out loud.
fatbaldandhappy
This! This exactly!
This guy is the perfect model for the explaination of the modern activist that Peterson provides.
It's actually quite tragic to watch him conform to these behaviours he claims to oppose (or is seemingly just humoring Peterson by claiming to oppose, but would embrace given the opportunity).
Top comment hahahaha!! dix points!
Disagree, I thought the moderator did a great job of drawing out the underlying issues issues, presenting possible objections and getting JBP to clarify his thoughts. I didn't think that he was grandstanding at all.
Kudos to the interviewer for playing an great iterative game with Dr. Peterson, who is a hell of an opponent to play a game with, and going with him toe to toe, and making him rise to an occasion!
I breathed a sigh of relief when it was opened up for Q&A, so I could enjoy the interaction between JP and audience questioners. But no, the interviewer decided that he need to rephrase people's question and keep himself in the focus.
The interviewer is maddening. He asks a question to make a point rather than to listen to the answer from the person he is interviewing.
Did you just wake up from a long sleep? That has been standard practice for ages (perhaps not in the military and similar disciplinarian environments like private-sector for-profit corporations, but certainly in universities and research labs).
fatbaldandhappy
Maddening seems...a touch hyperbolic. I saw a different interview than you, which is okay. I found the interviewer respectfull, intelligent and incisive. He allowed Peterson to answer, but did clarify when necessary. He may have been the best interviewer I’ve seen in a while. I generally found him helpful, witty yet unobtrusive. He added much more to the conversation than one may realize. I’ve never seen him before today, but I enjoyed this interview and thought it could have been a few hours longer.
I thought he was very intelligent and made some legitimately good criticisms, which then Peterson responded to adequately. I’m happy I got to hear both those criticisms and responses. I find it strange that such a burst of ideas would anger you. Do you often get angry when someone disagrees with you? If so, isn’t that a lack of humility?
yes whenever someone flusters peterson its the interviewers fault.
fatbaldandhappy I quite like him, he’s doing his job and is getting the talking points out of Jordan
I think he's saying that you SHOULD engage and try to solve problems, but the best way to do that is by studying, reading, learning, and becoming a better self, so that when you do become an activist on the issue, you have the ability to change it for the positive and not make things worse.
True, but the interviewer doesn’t get it
"Don't patronize me when I have a climate to save" For fucks sake, that's the exact thing Jordan was telling young people not to think. If your house isn't in order how the hell can you reverse global warning and save the planet? Have some bloody humility.
This guy is the embodiment of what Jordan is arguing against with that chapter. No wonder he fights back so hard here, his own ego and self worth is on the line if he loses the argument.
The thing is you won't even know what you are protesting against or for if your house, or more generally your life, isn't in order. Someone who can't hold down a steady job isn't the right person to ask how the economy should be run and someone who can't maintain a steady relationship isn't the right person to ask how to improve your marriage.
He is saying that if your life is in chaos you aren't the right person to ask how society should be structured. And not only are you not the right person to ask, it's bad for you personally to try to answer the question because you getting your own life in order is more important than you trying to fix society.
>Is it when they become pure automatons of reason and have full control over every aspect of their lives?
JBP would say that is too much order and not enough chaos. Listen to his talks, you'd like them.
How about the situations where some very stable long term marriages are terrible relationships?
He may indeed be the embodiment of what Peterson opposes. And that is what makes for a good debate. I repeat, this is not supposed to be a sermon or a motivational talk.
I think you perhaps misunderstand what Peterson means about having your house in order (i.e., the clean your room trope). To my understanding it is not that you have to have control of every aspect of your life, or that your life has to be in perfect order, because such a thing is literally impossible.
Rather I think it's more about what having a clean room is usually (but not always obviously) a signifier of.
Let's say there are two types of people: ones with the competence to effect actual, real-world change without making things worse; and people who lack this level of competence (whether that's know-how or intelligence or what have you) and consequently are likely to make things worse by trying to tackle things (social problems for instance) in a clumsy and poorly thought out way, because it is beyond their limited capacity.
I think most people would agree, we want people who know what they're doing working to solve problems for us rather than people who don't. To use an overly simplified analogy, do you want a surgeon operating on you that knows what they're doing, or a family member or friend who just really really cares about you, but doesn't have a clue how to perform surgery? On the one hand the first group's heart is in the right place, but they're likely to make whatever problem you have worse rather than fix it, because they lack the capacity or aptitude.
This is the takeaway I get from the clean your room metaphor. Cleaning your room is the sign of a very basic level of competence and conscientiousness (two things that are highly predictive of success in many studies, where competence can be further reduced to intelligence). It's not that you have to clean your room before you go try to fix the world, rather it's that many of the people who are likely to be able to help "fix the world" are also likely to be the same people to have clean rooms already, because those types of people tend to be conscientious, efficient, detail and goal-oriented, self-motivated. Having a clean room is an epiphenomenon of this type of individual.
Obviously, there will be exceptions to the rule. There are brilliant and successful people who are slobs. But as rules of thumb go I think there's some substance to it. It would be funny study to compare the cleanliness of the rooms of highly effective or even successful people's rooms to people who are less so. I wouldn't be surprised if a larger percentage of the former had their rooms/worlds in order than the latter (granted you would have to define the variables of competence/success and clean room/messy room in a way that was measurable haha).
Interviewers response to rule 6 can basically be summed up as "but... if I have to be competent before fixing something then how can I virtue signal to my friends now?"
If the interviewer understands the concept of hypocrisy, then he should be able to understand the idea of working on your own problems before you work on the problems of others.
That's not the definition of hypocrisy at all. Sorry, what you've done is exhibited the stupidity that seems very common among Peterson's fanboy's. Peterson, a very bright man, should disown the support of the likes of you. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypocrisy
I see. So someone that liked Peterson but does a mistake is automatically a "fanboy" and of course most of those "fanboys" are stupid. Man, it must suck to be you, Arthur.
I wish I could like this comment twice.
You must be a blast at parties
Man, seeing how far Jordans reach has become and how influential he is being on young people, especially men, it's incredible clear that the post modernists picked the worst possible person to go after in their ideological rage. Wouldn't surprise me if even in 50 years Jordan will still be remembered and maybe even idolized even more so than he already is.
The half baked attacks on his character that happens from time to time just bounce off like a marshmallow being thrown at a window.
Anders Hansen absolutely man, we can only hope that more thinkers like Peterson will emerge and that this will become a movement which will make a discernable historical footprint. We will need more of him and others to fortify our position and uphold western civ...
I enjoyed the imagery of your marshmallow similie
I don't think he's as smart as people suppose. There's some sound stuff in there, but criticism of post-modernism doesn't have to imply conservativism. Chomsky is merciless in his criticism of the postmodernists. And what Peterson puts forward as a "religious" narrative - being able to reconcile contradictions in your understanding of the world - would have come as no surprise to Marx - in fact it's the basis of the dialectic. (Also women's emancipation started well before the pill). Much of what he says is a banal reiteration of reactionary 'common sense' with some pseudoscientific underpinning. Other parts (how much hierarchies are hard wired and how we deal with that) are much more interesting.
Also, he's a bit nutty. What was all that stuff about Jung? He's supposed to be a scientist isn't he? Better to steer clear of dodgy mysticism in that case.....
losttango The classical left is dead. Post modernism is the end result of the leftward March. Much of what conservatives and reactionaries forecast has come to be. Your own people (leftist postmodernists) wish to end you and are winning in that struggle.
People sure have swallowed a lot of malarkey about Peterson. I see comments here about people unsubscribing and calling him alt right, and I really just feel bad for them. Peterson has really really helped me improve my life and there's no way that anyone couldn't benefit from taking some of his advice. It's a serious pity that some people won't listen to the symphonic words in this talk simply because of a perceived disagreement.
Joshualbatross Completely agree mate. Fellow 'life changed by JP in such a short time' member. And it's not because ive heard exactly what i "wanted" to hear....
Joshualbatross after Peterson, I went from homeless to having a good job and on pace to making 1 million this year. Sent him a gift a while back, hopefully he got it
A word of warning, however - Don't rely on Peterson as if he's a guru a la cult leader Stefan Molyneux
Frazzle Face In what way is Stefan Molyneux a cult leader?
As I read Peterson (and I do respect his intelligence), one aspect of his advice is to be more bullying. That will hardly improve the world. Another is to build your "character", which I believe is an illusion. Another is blind acceptance of capitalism and markets. And freeing up markets and ceding social authority to them has created far more homelessness than in the past.
Thus IMO you are very wrong.
34:47 you can see that it's just driving the interviewer nuts that he hans't been able to chip in with his own two cents for 20 or 30 seconds. but the worst of it is EVEN DURING THE QUESTIONS he doesn't let Peterson respond directly, but rather he collected the questions, reinterpreted them, and tried to rebut all three of Peterson's answers before he even finished giving them! he more or less sabotaged the whole event with his own ego.
Ive never seen a Q&A session handled quite like this before, hopefully I never will again.
This man don't want the personal responsibility Mr Petersen is talking about, you can see he is freking out just from the idea
He's trying to reconcile JPs thoughts without throwing out his leftist sensibilities. He probably calls himself a feminist, complete open bordens, unbridled immigration. Votes for Corbyn. He has cognitive dissonance and is trying to reconcile it. Yes and there is definately a problem in that people are asking JBP the question not the interviewer.
Engels reborn.
He didn't misinterpret the questions though. So what's the problem?
My immediate response to the interviewer was the same as most comments here, but I think him taking a more critical position (flawed or not) eventually ended up making it a better conversation. Most people who are not so on board with Peterson's points may have had similar objections and having them voiced and thereby responded by Peterson in the moment may have helped get the message across better to those people.
Rahul Singh agreed
right right right right right yeah right right yeah yeah yeap yup right right right right yup right right right yeah yeah right yeah right yeah yup right ok yup right right right right yup yeah yeap yeah right ok right right right right yeah ok yeah yup yeah right right right yeap right yeap right right right
Rahul Singh, that's a really excellent point.
I look at it like getting punched. Should someone else punch you? No, but it happens so you'd better be prepared to defend yourself at the drop of a hat. The interviewer should have done better, but bad interviewers exist, and you should know how to handle them.
How did he not let JP speak? That's fantasy.
Jordan Peterson has some excellent points, most activists don't really help to solve problems they actually do the opposite. The lack of understanding makes poor decisions the desirable action. Better than activists are volunteers, they get involved in the problems and solve them directly. As a scout boy we took one weekend a month to help people in need around us and after a couple of years, the impact was immense. No need to ask for government funds or political leverage.
Like the Greenpeace activists who made an action on the Nazca lines and broke my heart in the process :(
Every activist (right and left) believes they are the solution, not the problem. The similarities map 1 to 1.
Jews, straight people, gay people, white males, black people, Cops, patriarchy, Christians, athiests, Muslims, Jews again... apply this formula to every group of protesters. You will see the matrix code.
Exactly. Fixing one's room can be literal or a metaphor for demonstrating a basic level of competence and commitment before one attempts to solve large-scale existential problems. It's not about either or, as the moderator tries to frame it, but for people with the competence level and knowledge to actually effect meaningful social change they can usually do both.
The problem with many activists is that they don't even have a handle on their own lives. In fact, many are on social assistance from the very same institutions they're trying to dismantle. For these types of people, their activism is about ego, because they want to feel validated, like they're doing something really important to compensate for their lack of real-world efficacy in their own lives. These are the kind of people who will likely NEVER affect any real change because they lack even the most basic level of competence. Fixing their room is beneath them because they lack the self-awareness of what fixing one's room is a reflection of.
This moderator actually answers his own questions in a way when he brings up four points to critique Dr. Peterson:
1) He says that Jordan should stop focusing on Universities and what goes on on campuses.
2) That Dr. Peterson should focus on more important problems like climate change and wealth inequality, etc.
3) That Peterson lacks expertise in many of the non-psychological subjects he talks about (such as sociological phenomena) and therefore should give way to others who are more knowledgeable.
4) That people shouldn't have to get their own world in order (protestors and activists for example) before trying to set out and try to make social change.
Taken together these statements actually contradict themselves or answer each other.
-If Jordan Peterson should speak only on subjects that he has great expertise on and none other, then how or why would he try to tackle large scale social issues that you claim he has no expertise in which to comment on like climate change and wealth inequality, when as you say these are beyond his level of capability. And why should he stop talking about what happens campuses and universities, which fall into the realm of his expertise as an educator and psychologist. It's the very essence of the lean your room metaphor. The campus is his room. When he cleans it up, then perhaps he can move on to changing the world outside campus.
-The moderator also says that protestors and activists don't have to get their lives in order before trying to create change in society, but the criticism he levied at Jordan about having expertise in subjects one engages with equally applies to them. Cleaning the room a the most basic level is about being able to show competence in a mundane endeavor. If someone can't even show the ability to fix simple problems in their own lives, what level of expertise do they have to try to go out and fix the lives of others and society. They are in essence wandering far outside they field of expertise and competence, which is precisely what you accuse Peterson of doing. If Peterson in your opinion is not qualified to speak on these subjects, what makes an activist or protestor?
Allan Stinson nicely put. Lot of what he said seems to stem from the characteristic leftist "unease" when they are not actively signalling what good they are about to do. Peterson is basically saying its better to focus on the problem rather than spreading the "unease" that may very well lead to people jumping in when it is not their place to. Awareness may be important. But you know you have more than enough of it when the signallers are lambasting the doers for lacking a sense of urgency.
I like the point he made about there not being a mythological construct for modern women. It is an interesting notion.
H.T.S. Tyler.Durden he was talking about modern women who have control of their reproductive function specifically, and he's right about that
thomaschad18
Kinda.
Women have had control of their reproduction inasmuch as the have no overt signs of ovulation and still generally pick the who, what, when, and where of their sexual partners. Technology makes aspects easier, but that's like saying there has never been a mythological construct for a man with a machine gun.
A quick look at the number of abortions makes clear that even with technology, control isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
He said women after the pill. Said it several times. That's been 50 years not 500 or more years. No time for a mythical construct. He was right.
H.T.S. Tyler.Durden the Amazon woman was the woman on the edge of what is known. In the upside down place. It is what happens when everything is the opposite of what civilization is. It isn't a mythology we should be promoting. Masculine women.....
Agree in part: the Amazon is a great archetype, and so is Artemis (and Athena) who, as goddesses, could control their reproductive systems as well as everything else.
But if we are to promote a mythology at all, we should certainly be promoting that, along with making Sappho a hero, as she deserves to be. Patriarchy's been around for far too long, we need to destroy it. Patriarchy is definitely NOT civilization and women need to be equal to men.
Funny how the one archetype explicitly mentioned at the end, the "Kinder, Kueche, Kirche" of the Nazis almost stumped Peterson. Did he only read his beloved Jung and Nietzsche in English translation? LMAO.
It seems the core dissonance between Peterson and the interviewer is that Peterson intuitively feels the motivational corruption of the youth’s passion and their lack of self-awareness about their true motivations, where the interviewer seems to believe that the youth's passions are fundamentally oriented towards the good, whatever their competence. Thus, Peterson sees sorting yourself out as necessary to acting out the good rather than the bad, where the interviewer sees sorting yourself as simply intensifying the force with which you act the good.
DryRaven You have nailed it! “They are 18! What the hell do they know?”
Even academics can royally screw up the world when they base their actions from an unsorted framework.
Good analytical point. Could it be further developed by drawing a distinction between the definitions of good employed? That is, Peterson seems to hold to a Biblical and absolutist understanding (I've heard him use the quote 'by their fruits, ye shall know them' once or twice, I'm sure) whereas the interviewer seems to cleave to a more utilitarian or pragmatic conception of good/bad (climate change bad - conservation. I don't have an answer as to which of these perspectives is closer to the point (almost wrote 'most socially useful').
Elsewhere (in a talk about identity politics) JBP makes the point that even rats have an inkling of 'ethics'. As DR points out though, the salience of ethics in young activists' motivation is certainly up for debate.
Exactly.
Peterson recognizes that the structure of these activists belief is not rooted in an honest intention or a self aware one. This is basically a recipe for dogma and groupthink as well as perfect fuel for violent or destructive outcomes that we have seen in the past.
I think his life long study of belief structures and totalitarianism has given him a unique ability to sense this particular kind of dishonesty.
He's basically telling kids to confront their shadow. Unless they are capable of taking on their own darkness and mess they are not fit to point it out in others, because it will always be projection.
The interviewer seems to think that just because some of the issues these kids point out are in fact real issues, it means they are oriented towards the good when they point them out.
Which is just ignorant.
We've seen plenty of social movements in the past that pointed out real issues and then ended in genocide. It's that refusal to do the real personal work of individuation and development that leads people down the path of mob injustice.
Instead of confronting the issues they have with themselves or their own flaws, they project those things into the external world and attack it which becomes a form of escape.
Every internal issue you have becomes manifest in the world around you and instead of improving those issues within it becomes an excuse to oppress or punish society.
This is fantastic. I know many people are criticizing the interviewer but I thought the was a great discussion between 2 very intelligent people who deeply challenged each other. Particularly Peterson of Rowson and his beliefs/ideas, which are very important to him as an academic. And in this regard I though he was very respectful and conciliatory despite being very forceful at times. What is not to like? Peterson is not infallible and needs to be challenged and also asked to fully elucidate what he is saying. Which is great.
I was so glad to look down at the comments section and find out that everyone else also found this guy to be a quack.
Thanks guys...
Guy starts explaining the crux of his question, time preference, very succinctly. The host interrupts him and 10 seconds later is complaining that he doesn't understand the question.
Johnny Clune "I don't understand the question" the questioner should've said "not asking you mate"
With stuff like this on YT, why would anyone buy a TV licence in the UK? RIP BBC. Superb discussion.
in the UK, if you watch any 'live' TV, whether through cable, aerial or satellite you are required to have a TV licence. If you stream BBC Iplayer content you're also supposed to have one.
A Honey Monster the tech giants are working overtime with unlimited amounts of resources to covertly 'fundamentally transform' all social media into the BBC/CNN.
"Compassion masking uselessness." That just about sums up everything that's wrong with the world today.
Right right right right right right right right right right. Listen dude! Don't just try to find the slightest opportunity to interject. Listen and maybe learn something!
I disagree. He has read his book and has obviously listened to his lectures. If you let JP go, he just repeats his talking points (however brilliant and valuable they are) and I'm actually grateful that the host pushed the conversation further.
You noticed how Peterson eventually calls him out on that near the end? He's like "NO not just 'CORRECT', it's a big deal"
@John Ny Same here, I really have found Peterson useful in my own life and in questions I had about the structure of reality, but this is the best interview I have seen him do. This interlocutor knew his stuff, didn't let Jordan dominate the conversation and really put him through his passes. I learned more from this interview, and I think Jordan acquitted himself well despite the very pointed questions. Wish it could have been longer, I could listen to these two go at it for hours
Dumb stuff from you. See my reply to Libertas above.
I like the point the Dr. Peterson is making which prompts the dismissive "Right right right from the narrator" around 23:32. "Part of the problem with Climate Change is irreducible complexity." Does the narrator really understand this, do the students does the audience.
I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson stuff and I have to say this interviewer was the most respectful, the most agreeable of any who disagreed with him an any major way, props to the interviewer, he has integrity, even though you could tell he totally wanted to debate most everything Prof Peterson said. If you think this guy was bad, compare him to others on the left and you will come to understand his integrity.
What is this trend of interviewers speaking more than interviewees and using the platform to expose their own views, instead of learning about the guests'.
Because this tactic has worked for so long and no one has figured out a way to have a discussion with Left Wing ideologies that staraw man into putting you to what they THINK you are actually trying to say.
So he basically say no that is not what i am saying at all, then he calmly and definitively explains his point and you realise that the interviewers are infact making ZERO sense and it is obvious that thy are just trying to find a crack in his armor and try to fit him in to the evil stereotype that the Left had been telling us for decades the RIght is like.
JP is going to go down in history as the first person to side step the Left Wing nonsense about how the other side is evil, merely because they disagree. IF the RIght can use this as a lesson on how to deal with identity politics, the ONLY strategy the left hvave will be done. They will have literally NOTHING to argue about and their points will go down the drain.
Then we have two options, the Left can get angry that they have been made looks like fools cans cause violence, or they can try to change by adapting the younger Generation G/I who is very fiscally conservative. Good time for a Bill Clinton type to come in. But if the left continues to push people like Obama and Clinton and even this inteviwer their party is doomed.
Which would be horrible, a two patty system sucks, but one party being in power? Yikes...
SO YOU'RE SAYING interviewers are actually interviewing themselves?
"Why is this other person talking, I came here to hear my god king speak"
Usuly the big fail in a police interrogation.
michiganradio.org/post/detroit-man-pleads-guilty-terrorism-charge-facebook-rant-against-police
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and other "advocates of free speech" will say nothing. "Free speech is about empowering white supremacy, not criticizing it." This would be a bigger deal to the media if it was a conservative speaker getting kicked out of a university
Despite criticism, I found the interviewer very on top of things, trying to challenge Dr. Peterson and making good points.
The world is very complex & there isn't a simple solution to everyone's concerns.
I think that both did a very good job here.
The interviewer seems to believe the audience came to listen to him.
See the Cathy Newman interview with Peterson on C4, she constantly interrupted, willfully misunderstood, used feminist scripture and then got roundly spanked for acting like the silly schoolgirl she is.
Greg Cowell shes doing her job.
The interviewer did absolutely fine. He prevented Jordan from going into his usual stuff and pushed the conversation into unknown territory (in a constructive way). I'm a vivid JP fan and I wished this happened more often.
The interviewer is hung up on JBP's critique of student activism 20:50 (ie. at their age what do they actually know?) & he won't let go of the topic for most of the conversation, practically up to Q&A. That's a long time for him to air his own preoccupations when I imagine the audience hoped for a wider ranging talk.
I think Petersons is wrong to say you can only protest after you got your act together. It is a weak argument and the interviewer hit the nail on its head.
"its compassion masking uselessness"..LEGENDARY!
Jordan Peterson has not been talking to young men. Young men have been drawn to him. I am a 56 year old woman and have been listening to him for an entire year. (100s of hours).
I would go to his lectures, but I live in the US.
I have sent his UA-cams to all my friends and children. I have retired from teaching; however, if I were still teaching, his lectures would be included in my classes.
His lectures are about this thing we call life. And this life is an extremely complex thing I, too, have been trying to figure out my entire life. He addresses many of the topics I have contemplated in my life.
Thank you, Jordan, for all the researching you have done the past 30 years. Your lectures make sense to me and have helped me tremendously this past year.
What is the point of inviting Jordan Peterson to be interviewed if your just going to argue, conflate and talk over him? Christ, the interviewer couldn’t stop grandstanding and was downright offensive at some points.
I get what you're saying, but at the same time if you can't defend your ideas at the drop of a hat then maybe they aren't good ideas. That's what JP does every time someone challenges him, he calmly defends his position in a way that makes it seem obviously right. It's kind of like getting mugged. Should you get mugged? No, you shouldn't, but it's possible you'll get mugged so you should have the means to defend yourself readily available.
Well, good interviews and discussions are not about talking over and interrupting. The interview is in some parts good and in some parts less. But being challenging is not about interupting and talking over, but providing point and then letting react.
Agreed, I'm just saying you need to be prepared for the worst, which JP clearly was.
You need to watch more of Jordan and his channel. That's the point. The guy's is trying to be difficult and that's a good thing.
Remember that is the reason why free speech is crucial. Perhaps the interviewer will see your comments and get better across time.
And most importantly Jordan is not God.
Jeremy Ridgeway not to mention a deuchebag, passive aggressive deuchebag. As well as having 1/10th the intelligence, character and is less than a 10th as interesting.
My dad would always say "how can I trust you to do "X" if you can't take out the trash properly".
I love how many reactions the video got to the interviewer being an intellectual equal with another set of ideas, articulated well. The lemmings aren't here to consider and grow but to hear another sermon and comment,
This is brilliant. The interviewer actually did a great job in challenging what JBP was saying. It may have not be well thought out, but he's raised the right concerns of being myopic about the trade-off between self transformation and social change, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that one doesnt directly impact the other.
The production feels/looks like it was filmed in the 70’s.
Wow cool to see you here!
"ideologies are a parasitical meme on a religious substructure" -- did anyone else love that?
Yeah, I loved that. By his facial expression it seems he was finally able to formulate those exact words in that moment. He may have been thinking about that for a while and it finally coalesced.
Discussions are absolutely THE KEY! AND....
Excellent thanks for having this talk!
I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE THIS. I could write a 20 page paper on the problems this interviewer has or the bad arguments he posed and all that, but many of the other comments have that covered. What I love is the functional proof of concept this man has signed himself up to be. He is the definition of why people need to humbly focus on their own life before entering the larger spaces. This is precisely what it looks like when an over inflated leftist ego attempt to "tackle the worlds problems" despite an utter lack of competence in any aspect. The lack of humility seeps through his whole character.
D G
Excellent observation.
The interviewer is bright in his own right, but is so caught up in the activist mindset that he can think of little else. The idea that an 18 year old protestor knows anything about anything, yet alone capable of solving complex problems is mind blowing. The interviewer should be ashamed of himself thinking an 18 year old kid should not worry about their room because they have a planet to save, what an utterly stupid comment and how out of place that a smart person should have such a thought. When I think today of how little I know (today) and contrast that with all I thought I knew when I think of my 18 year old self it scares the hell out of me. How thankful I am, and most certainly the world should be, that I did not have the freedom make decisions all those many years ago.
Conventional but very wrong. Pre-normalisation (raw) IQ test scores peak at age around 17-18. And to your obvious rebut "Ah, but no life experience" I say more often than not, a fresh intelligent mind unpolluted by tradition, custom and sheer exhaustion of adult life is better for solving problems.
Most top physicists and mathematicians do their best work before 30.
He is NOT bright. He does not :get; the important message that JDP is delivering to him.
He does however think he is bright, and therefore does not need to listen - That makes him dangerous
In that case, I'm dangerous, too. Can you tell me what Peterson's "important message" is and why it shouldn't be contradicted? You're not allowed to use religion or tradition.
Yes. The interviewer (imminently forgettable) did not know how to be still and listen. He kept looking for places to jump in and 'take over'. Sort of like the irritating 3 year old that barges into an adult party, adding nothing and irritating everyone.
Mark Frank yeah...it's that weird fetish with virtue signalling: I cant wait for the grownups to fix the mess they caused (it's just too impending!!l), so I'll pretend to slacktivist my way to doing it myself...that way I can sort of disingenuously relieve myself of any guilt while living & taking part in the greatest time in human history. A twisted narcissism, and utterly blind to it. Bizarre.
I love hearing Jordan Peterson's message again and again but I do enjoy when an interviewer gives him a bit of a challenge. I find that the conflict draws out some extra flame of Peterson's brilliance.
I'm always so amazed by how JP is able to tackle such complex issues in a concise and clear way with little thinking time. It would take me at least a few hours to answer these issues, let alone with an insightful and ingenious idea.
I think the interviewer did a great job.
Why is the interviewer saying "this is my last point..."?
Why do you have points to make? I'm supposed to be watching a Jordan Peterson talk, I want to hear his points structured with your SHORT questions.
Interviewer thinks it's a debate.
I love hearing JP speak.
"Compassion masking uselessness."
Spot on!
The easiest and strongest rebuttal to the hosts’ claim that Peterson’s revisiting of the sjw/university activist scenario being futile: is that ideas are generally initiated and propagated by the university, thus making it actually a necessity to combat furiously (an example being post modernism itself).
It is Peterson's ideas which need to be opposed "furiously" and defeated in universities. Attitudes like his would lead to a return to fatalistic feudalism and its institutionalised inequality and privileges, along with the absurd dominance of religious beliefs and traditions, when capitalism inevitably collapses as Marx predicted.
This seems to me to be the best exploration of the weakness of Peterson's views, especially because it comes from someone who is largely in agreement. Pity that Peterson doesn't apply the principle that the person he is speaking to might know more than him. Worth watching more than once.
Among my favorite discussions with Jordan. The difficulty of sorting yourself out is critically important, and not something he talks about very often.
Professor Jordan Peterson like always brilliant.
Gawdam this guy was a piece of work (interviewer):
"isn't it true that you don't have any sociological imagination and that you don't have any vision for how the world out to be OR any sense of how we would get there - you just want people to clean their rooms?"
"Look you are a very charming guy and people listen to you because your charismatic - but isn't it true that you just don't really understand the material very well ?"
"Look I get all the stuff you are saying but the rage and anger that you feel and your attacks on people who are trying to make a difference (protestors) ... "
***Peterson tries to answer***
"let me just make one last point - its a big point - and hopefully you can Deal with it...
Jesus ....
This should be pinned.
Best part was when he had absolutely nothing to backup these very serious accusations.
Wow I really enjoy listening to JP but I can't with these quotes being a thing.
so rude
The second at least is a straw man, he said on subjects where JP had less expertise he displayed more rage, not what you wrote. It's pretty clear that he knows less about politics and political theory than psychology, you really find that controversial?
It is wrong to conflate anger and excitement. To pretend that passion is the same as rage is completely ignorant and shows a remarkable lack of depth. Well played Dr. Peterson, well played! Stay passionate and keep the mental slugs working to keep up with real thought-processes.
Best interviewer he's had so far.
I really like this interviewer. I love Jordan so it's good to finally see someone actually challenging him a bit.
i really enjoyed the exchange, the interviewer challenged without being snarky and listened to the answers
I agree. I think it's important to notice and appreciate when people actually ARE having civil discussions despite how rare such talk seems to be these days.
there seems to be a real appetite for this more nuanced and in depth discussion, a healthy dialogue with a determination to get at the truth.
It's a discussion, not an interview as such, and it's good to see Dr Peterson gently challenged for a change. There are enough JP lectures online, if that's what you want. Not sure why people seem upset by this.
I will fully watch any interview with the great Dr. J.B. Peterson
That was wonderful to watch!
Jesus if this interviewer mumbles "yeah" or "right" one more damn time...
Julian Rodriguez right
Julian Rodriguez "yeah"
lol
Yeah, right?
36:53 triple right
"Its not a mechanical problem; it's a socio cultural, political, economical problem."
He's right that sounds way easier to solve. Much simpler than a helicopter.
I thought this was (one of) the best Peterson interviews yet. The interviewer was almost as provocative as, but still the polar opposite of, the Vice guy; actually educated, intellectual and a genuinely curious admirer of Peterson with well founded criticism. And the feeling I got from Petersons' expression when he was confronted and asked why is he still hung up on campus activists when he knows he now has a global audience, was that he really took it to heart. And then when he was challenged to express himself on issues and subjects in which he's 'not an expert', such as climate change and sociology, he replied brilliantly and thoughtfully. I wish there were 2 hours more of their conversation.
oh that was fantastic. Two of my favorite authors, locking horns.
Actually a very good conversation and discussion between 2 intelligent people.
This was a pretty interesting talk, the interviewer didnt do too bad
I am listening to the Audio book, its been a really interesting listen so far, well worth it!
BLOODY AMAZING...
Anyone chastising the interviewer is just wrong. Peterson himself would say he did a great interview here.
Why are these things always so rushed? Just schedule more time. Everyone should know by now how long winded jbp can be.
A good reason to rush, However, he is aware that he has to state his case carefully as any thing that can be misinterpreted will be twisted into something faraway from his intention.
To add to these points, Peterson can talk for hours and not everyone has that kind of stamina or spare time to hear that kind of thing to the end. Also, having a shorter time-frame means you need to express your central ideas more quickly so that he spends less time wandering frivolously through his ideas.
Obviously, there's a balance because if an interview is 5 minutes long like with the BBC then nobody really learns anything either.
Jordan peterson doesnt need any of his supporters to defend him or to attack his "critics". he can bloody well take care of himself. In fact these interviews, even if they get heated at times is exactly what will help Jordan Peterson spread his message to those who doubt him. In challenging his beliefs directly he can crystallize his message and show how bulletproof they are. He even said himself in a different interview that as long as he is being forthright and telling the truth and being consistent all these criticisms can do is help him.
compassion masking uselessness. brilliant quote from JP
Wow this interviewer is a mess.
DeuPKay Well... His job isn't easy to be fair
I disagree. I think he's looking for real-world applications of JP's ideas.
I like Jordan Peterson and I liked the interviewer
I thought he was very good actually. Really grilled JP on the actual substance of the book in a way you don’t often see from an interviewer these days
yep bad one,and rly insecure.
Maybe I'm misreading things but this interviewer comes across as an insufferable control freak.
You got it right.
Some of that, I'm pretty sure, was due to him trying to get as much out of the occasion as possible, within the time frame. And Peterson is not the best at delivering concise answers.
Eeeh, I don't know. I have respect for him for being able to remain civil, even though he was clearly uncomfortable. RSA remains a fairly stable institution for free speech.
it seemed to me like he was just stressed out about time. but possibly
Nah thats precisely how I read him too. Just a quick guy with zero humility or wisdom. Most of these interviewers are animus possessed as Peterson pointed out about Cathy. The funny thing is I bet that once they're not in work mode they're probably fine among their peers as far as getting along. Once the camera starts rolling though it's time to become something they think the viewers want to see.. aka a virtue signaler untethered by first principles.
The interviewer raises points that go through most people's minds when encountering Peterson. He is articulate and pushes forward in a constructive way. I really enjoy this so far.
I'm in love with Peterson's mind.
At 20m, there's a story from the strangest secret. A man's young son was pestering him one day and to keep him occupied he tore up a page from a magazine with a picture of the globe on it and asked him to tape it back together. Off the young lad went but returned in a surprisingly short space of time for someone so young. The father looked at it and indeed the globe was back in place; he asked his son how he'd managed to put it back together so quickly. The boy replied, "it was easy, there's a picture of a man on the back, I just put him back together." and so it goes when the man is all together so is his world.
OMG! This interviewer is so annoying.
Glad I am not the only one who got annoyed by the interviewer and his offensive style. Interesting how hostile and provocative the on stage or on screen interviewers are (Cathy Newman on Channel4) compared to the audience here, who are genuinely interested in JP's thoughts or to the remarks from the general public on the UA-cam videos, who are wholeheartedly in support of JP. I wonder why...... Are they trying to influence the viewers/audience that they are listening to a discreditable nutcase? It is not working!
Not at all. He's illuminating Peterson's views by questioning his principles and motivations. That's how science works and how everything else should work. He's not sucking up.
Cathy Newman did a pretty good job for a non-science person. She failed to catch him on a couple of small science mistakes though. But the only people who should expect a sympathetic, admiring audience are preachers - and I would never join an audience for a preacher. You need perceived hostility to the interviewee's views.
The impression I got was that he really wasn't listening, that's why there was a noise or a repeated word after every sentence (no, actually he even did it while he was talking). I think he read the book and made notes of how he was going to keep bringing the topic back to a place where he could attack (ever so subtly), or how and where he would get the opportunity to belittle (hoping to discredit) Dr Peterson's work. But Dr. Peterson did brilliantly in spite of his attempts to discredit him in the minds of his listeners.
I disagree with the "criticism" about the interviewer.
They've just had different issues on their mind & tried to fairly mix those into the conversation.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that and Dr. Peterson had a fair chance to respond to those.
That's how you keep people honest.
Challenge them, let them talk & think about other perspectives & re-model or affirm your own views.
Interviewer was prepared & respectful, in my estimation.
Enjoyed seeing the host push Dr. Peterson on his ideas, while conducting himself in a credible and respectable manner. Also, some great summaries by JP of some complex ideas in a very limited format.
Very good job. Interviewer brought out some deeper insights from Peterson. Good balance.
Midway through the interview, the interviewer gets possessed by the ghost of Karl Marx. Very strange.
Oh, did Marx have a thing about student climate change activism being legitimate?
Props to the interviewer. he was consistent and impassioned. Yes, many of what he said was disagreeable, but he was pressing for real answers. this is the kind of thing we want to see MORE of. Jordan should absolutely be challenged on his ideas, thats how they get better.
I came here after reading the interviewer's (Rowson) paper on Peterson called "12 Perspectives on Jordan Peterson." He asked really good questions and clearly appreciated Peterson's work and did show humility as well as a combative spirit. If you think he did a bad job I'm afraid you may have your own ideological blinders to examine. He asked tough questions in a clear way that I have not heard others put to Jordan so well.
“Your bedroom is a microcosm of the world.”
Brilliant! I never thought about my room that way.
Came here to learn about his new book, all i got was an inept interviewer.
Interviewer: "We need to solve climate change!"
Peterson: "How did you get to this interview this morning?"
That pretty much summarized this whole shitty interview
If you want to learn about the actual content of the book, search for the rubin report interview with Peterson.
Canadians taking public transportation this winter are worried about global warming.
So true haha.
Interviewer: One of the criticisms against you is that you try to tackle issues outside your field of expertise.
Peterson: Here is a problem I see with indoctrination and censorship on university campuses that is well within my expertise as a psychologist and educator.
Interviewer: But what about climate change? Why don't you talk about climate change?
I appreciate your reply and I'm glad you found this interview to be great. I personally felt like he was asking improper questions and wouldn't get off them. Particularly at 25:00 to about 32:00 when the interviewer reverses his argument and then just starts spouting off in several different directions
also there's something to be said for people not acquainted with a field questioning why things are done the way they are. Often there are improvements made in one field that can be transferred to others, and that's where a lot of innovation and progress occurs. Just look at guys like Elon Musk getting out there and reasoning through problems from first principles. Elon didn't train as a rocket physicist or an automotive engineer. His first really big product was PayPal. But he's succeeded in these other realms because he didn't listen to all the assholes out there who say you need to have a degree in a subject to ask good questions.
"i'm gonna listen to 3 questions at a time and have you answer just ones i want"
Oh yeah? Which questions did he skip?
Great debate. The interviewer raised many good points and listening to Peterson respond it's a treat.
Nice job! To both of you!
actually finally an interviewer that has made some points and engaged in a real debate.
The interviewer IS the person Dr. Peterson is trying to fix. Like staring at the anti-Peterson.
Great question about time preference towards the end.
Excellent discussion from both sides.
This guy isn't getting what JBP is trying to say. He's going on and on about "These things need fixing! These people need to DO SOMETHING!" and Peterson is saying, concisely, that if you can't even manage to affect a state of order on a small scale and simple problem that the chance of doing so on a large scale complex problem is not only negligible, it's almost certainly going to be counterproductive.
To extend the attack helicopter metaphor, this guy is basically saying that there's a bunch of kids who've never held a spanner in their lives are milling about the chopper saying "WE NEED TO FIX IT NOW" and pointing fingers at everyone else as to their failures to make it fly, whereas Peterson is saying "Well, at least take a small engine repair course before you attempt it... you'll still likely mess it up, but at least at that point you'll know which end of the wrench to hold."
Honestly, he's repeated that simple idea multiple times and in multiple ways, his host appears to simply not WANT to understand what Peterson is saying.
I don't see why it can't be true both that 'we need to fix it now' and that 'you can't fix it unless you have the appropriate expertise - and you don't'. Sometimes situations are simply tragic. My impression is not that the host doesn't understand what Peterson is saying, but rather that what Peterson is saying seems insufficient to the problem he's describing.
I'd say that any situation where whether or not someone has the expertise to fix a situation MUST be preceded by awareness of a need to fix.
The problem is the hubris of kids running headlong into the situation and potentially making things worse while declaring "I'M HELPING", rather than taking a measured approach and getting at least some level of competency before the attempt.
No, Peterson's not saying that. He's saying people need to conform to HIS [traditionalist] lifestyle (which would admittedly be easier than major problems HAD THEY FREELY CHOSEN TO CONFORM) before anything they say can be of use. That is completely fallacious.
Had Peterson said "they need to learn basic arithmetic and high-school algebra before attempting to solve the world's problems", I would agree enthusiastically because that's a prerequisite for any intellectual activity. But he didn't, he used an aspect of traditional lifestyle and values.
BTW, only the ignorant would class an attack heli engine as "small".
Jordan Peterson: facts logic, facts
Interview man: I agree with the facts. But feelings
Jordan Peterson: Yes there are feelings, and there are facts and logic too.
Interview man: But feelings though
Jordan Peterson: No buts. Feelings don't change facts. Feelings has nothing to do with the facts. You want to deal with those feelings, make your bed and sort out your life.
Interview man: But....but feelings though
I like Peterson, but Peterson is not purely facts and logic, in particular not logic as seem by the Sam Harris discussions.
Did you watch the video? The Interviewer had valid and rational points. This isn't a debate on facts anyway.
Hi yay The interveiwer was stuck on an idea so simply dismissed, his ego pulled the discussion into a circular spin. He wouldn't accept it.
There's nothing complicated or irrational with what Peterson said. Do you want a competent person or an incompetent person to put their weight behind solving a problem? A competent person. So, before engaing in planning restructuring the socioeconomic institutions of a nation, learn to articulate your thoughts, find truth and take responsibility. Ennoble yourself to reduce the risk of ruining whatever you interact with.
That starts in the microcosm of your room and expands. Step by step improve your life, eventually others as the responsibilities you can bare grows.
The interviewer wouldn't accept that basic principle. I don't see how you can be stuck on it either.
Absolutely. Doesn't take a psychologist to sense the interviewer was going beyond making valid points in some cases, and introducing he's ego together with questions that is irrelevant to what JP was trying to explain. The interviewer I think is a good one. He actually brings up good points once in awhile. But he had a strange mix of personal ego and delusion between separating a person's feelings, and the process of success.
Topic A: Specific actions leads to success
Topic B: The feelings and urges to skip these steps/ stir up/ experience, dream the "intent" and dream of success.
These are different topics. You can't agree with A, play devil's advocate against it and put B against A. Topic A and B don't contradict each other at all, they are just different categories on their own. Topic B demands a different type of discussion about irrelevant to A.
Doesn't take a psychologist to sense the interviewer was going beyond making valid points in some cases, and introducing he's ego together with questions that is irrelevant to what JP was trying to explain. The interviewer I think is a good one. He actually brings up good points once in awhile. But he had a strange mix of personal ego and delusion between separating a person's feelings, and the process of success.
Topic A: Specific actions leads to success
Topic B: The feelings and urges to skip these steps/ stir up/ experience, dream the "intent" and dream of success.
These are different topics. You can't agree with A, play devil's advocate against it and put B against A. Topic A and B don't contradict each other at all, they are just different categories on their own. Topic B demands a different type of discussion about irrelevant to A.
JP is simply brilliant
Wow! Now, THIS is a debate!!! Jordan Peterson is the man, man...
I loved the way this host gave real challenge to jordans ideas! this is how ideas get better
I didn't feel he really challenged the ideas, it felt he was just on the side or political correctness and was confronting without understanding the meaning. He even sounded quite arrogant with the insinuation that cleaning his house is beneath him.
Thomas Putt - funny you should say that, I came here from the Channel 4 interview and by comparison this interviewer seems excellent!
This was an excellent stretching of JP's ideas.
He was an antagonist who did not come prepared.
Highly agree Thomas.
People are being too hard on the interviewer. I was curious to hear Peterson's answers to the questions he was asking. He was asking good questions.
I like the self-confidence of the host. He is respectful but doesn't just fold in the face of Peterson's strong arguments. This is a good debate, with Peterson being outside his comfort zone at times.
I'm definitely getting this book.
Shout out to the woman who was questioning the problems of democracy.
It was frustrating to hear the host making it about him and the problems he had with the book's message. The host seemed hung up on Jordan's message of self-responsibility and his criticism of some forms of activism. It felt like the host was trying to defend his own beliefs and protect his ego rather than engage the guest to elucidate more.
The problem I see with the type of activism that Dr. Peterson rails against is that it is naive and an untenable game. You're going to yell at the people in power to "FIX IT!" Well, how about you fix it? Oh, that would be hard, like, really hard. What do you know? Exactly. Dr. Peterson is saying fix yourself, get yourself straight first, become competent in your world as it is right now. Then, and that's a big then, then start to look around your world, and look with caution and care. Then think about what you could do and how you could help you, your family, and your friends. Then play that game and play it well. Then the world will follow. But it all starts with you. Get yourself in order first.
I think that is an unreasonable claim about the host. Jordan's reasoning that you ought to only participate when you meet some (rather difficult to define) standard of orderliness is sound only if either A : activism has not demonstrably caused measurable positive change in the past, or B : activism up until this point has only been successful because each movement has been filled with individuals who had 'cleaned their damn rooms'.
A is probably a bit of an untenable position. 'Activism' has a pretty broad scope but in general strikes, protests and the like all fall under that umbrella, and the legacy of those movements persists today. B seems to be more along the lines of what Jordan was arguing, evidenced by his comments on the suffragettes. I think this is also untrue. You can be a deeply deficient and flawed human being in almost all ways, and yet still have the potential to contribute to great change. It's actually rather telling really that if you look back at a wide variety of influential figures from history, they all possessed some sort of noteworthy ability but were simultaneously not 'in order'.
I suppose you could make the argument for option 'C', that activists are qualitatively different today either in general patterns of ideology or as individuals from previous activists, making it a case of historical exceptionalism. I don't think anyone really has the data to prove it either way, but the standard to demonstrate it would be very high.
You should sort your life out, not because it will somehow allow you to be an activist, but because it will likely increase the likelihood of achieving your goals. Get yourself in order in a way that allows you to flex your maximum potential, that might be tidying your room, or it might be ignoring your room and sleeping 5 hours a night whilst you try to start a business. There isn't an absolute standard, and I think that is where Jordan might miss a beat.
Peterson's example of cleaning your room is almost certainly about building competence & motivational orientation, I think the point about orderliness is a strawman. Cleaning your room is used as an example because it's become popular as an internet meme- it's meant to communicate a deeper point.
The core utility of facing chaos is not actually to increase your competence, but to better orient your motivations. Most people are so blinded by their personal demons/weakness that if they were magically given superhuman competence, they would swiftly put that competence to full use in acting out base motivations that make themselves and everyone around them miserable in the long run, without even realizing it. It seems to me that this is the core dissonance between Peterson and the interviewer- that Peterson intuitively feels the motivational corruption of the youth’s passion and their lack of self-awareness about their true motivations, where the interviewer seems to believe that the youth's passions are fundamentally oriented towards the good, whatever their competence. Thus, Peterson sees sorting yourself out as necessary to acting out the good rather than the bad, where the interviewer sees sorting yourself as simply intensifying the velocity with which you act the good.
Would you not like for ideas to be tested? I actually liked to host exceedingly and if anything found Jordan's demeanour a little distasteful at times, not letting the counterargument be enunciated. I was glad the host had the tenacity and rhetorical skills to not let himself be verbally bullied out of articulating a well considered critique. The host was clearly coming from a place of genuine goodwill and a wish for frictions and apparent contradictions to be discussed and straightened out. Jordan was a little defensive. I will watch this again later and see if i get the same read of the situation but that is how it came across to me.
On the other hand you can't demand perfection from yourself either. In the end of this talk they got to that point about Proust: There will always be a chaotic element. Don't demand 100% perfection, it's unreasonable and unachievable, might actually lead to neurosis and depression. No, but do your best and try to improve, challenge youself and become a better person.
You can be an activist too, but be smart and humble about it.
What you are saying is straightforward traditional conservatism, to be dismissed out of hand, IMO with great contempt. It's something you might hear from a private-sector middle manager or a military NCO, not an intellectual.
I love the rush at the end. Like the world's going to end.
Shout out to the individual who posed the question about time preferences and Hoppe's sociological insights regarding them.