Some More News - SMN: A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

Hi, woke moralists! In today's episode, we take a look at Jordan Peterson through the lens of Jungian archetypes - just as he would want - and explore some of his other ideas about climate change, gender, marriage, hierarchies, and lobsters. Don't check the timecode! Get your BILLIONAIRES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS merch here: https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/312... Check out our new compilation series, CODY COMPS here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Please fill out our SURVEY: https://kastmedia.com/survey/ Check out our new series SOME THIS! - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Support us on our PATREON: http://patreon.com/somemorenews Check out our MERCH STORE: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/some... SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqego... Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/even-mo... Find your new favorite shoes for sunny days and upcoming travel at allbirds.com. That's http://ALLBIRDS.com. High-performance beauty and skin-care products made with clean, skin-loving ingredients. Right now, you can get 15% off your first order when you visit thrivecausemetics.com/MORENEWS  Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciPKIdTqGdHsxsj-7vjlcnyq4JDYlLBM-UyH3LBi3No/edit?usp=sharing Support the show!: http://patreon.com.com/somemorenewsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello news enjoyers. Do you have a family? Gross. But if you said yes, or heck, even if you didn't say yes, well, you should have a VPN in your home that may or may not have kids in it. And if you're going to have a VPN, why not try ExpressVPN? It will keep every device in your home that might be a family home secure and safe from any weirdo trying to get your information. You see, all those devices you and your theoretical children use have a unique IP address that can expose all kinds of information about you and your theoretical children. ExpressVPN encrypts that and also does so much more. You and your maybe existing kids like Netflix? Well, ExpressVPN allows you

to expand your access to their shows by changing your country. Take that streaming program. So try out ExpressVPN for yourself and I don't know, perhaps your family that you may or may not have. It is so easy that even a child who may or may not exist can use it. You just tap one button and it's good to go. So secure your maybe family's online activity and unlock tons of new shows by visiting expressvpn.com slash more news. Use our link and you can get three extra months free. That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash more news expressvpn.com slash more news to learn more. Casual greeting. Welcome to the Some More News News Network's Some More News,

a silly show about silly things. But today, we're going to get serious and talk about my favorite guy, the smart and normal Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. This guy. There's no such thing as climate, right? Okay, wait, let him finish. Not to fanboy out or anything, but I'm a pretty huge freaking fanboy of his. So show some absolutely motherhecking respect and let's hear him out. Climate and everything are the same word. Shut up. He's not done. Surely he's not done. And that's what bothers me about the climate

change types. Oh, okay. I see what he means. See, you just got to let him talk more to really understand him. So he's being derisive here, see, as though the climate change types claim that climate is everything and they want to change everything. I don't really think that's true, but maybe I just don't quite grasp exactly what he's saying. Also, I don't know what he means by everything, but let's give him a little more time. We keep interrupting him. This is something that bothers me about it technically. It's like, climate is about everything. So, okay. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the

variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything? And that's not just a criticism. That's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything. All right. Maybe this isn't the best clip to start with because I haven't seen it before. But don't worry. I have other clips. He's great. And, you know, we're pretty fair and balanced on Cody's show.

And again, I don't know what he means by everything. So a good question to follow up with would be. What do you mean by everything? Perfect. Thank you, Joe. Great question. Hope this clears things up. What do you mean by everything when you say?

Well, that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything. It's like everything, eh? Okay. Glad he said in some sense because, yeah, I guess in some sense, people who think climate change is real and something about which we should be concerned do think that we need to change, well, not everything, but a lot. So we're off to a good start. And the same with the word environment. That word doesn't mean.

Oh, good. He stopped himself before he claimed that the word environment doesn't mean anything. That would have been, that would have been embarrassing of him. Okay, go on, doctor. It means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Okay. Embarrassing of him. Okay, go on, doctor. It means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Okay, you're still, in some sense, just saying that the word environment doesn't mean anything, but maybe you're getting to a reasonable point. I will try not to interrupt. Like when you say everything, in a sense, that's meaningless, right? Because,

well, what are you pointing to? Well, I'm pointing to everything. Well, what's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference. So this is a crisis of everything? It's like, no, it's not. Or if it is, well, if it really is, then we're done because we can't fix everything. Well, specifically, what they mean specifically is what human beings are doing

that's causing the earth to warm. Right, right. But you have to include all these factors in the models to determine that, all these factors. Well, what can you not include? Well, then by deciding what you don't include, you decide which set of variables are cardinal. And you have to make that decision in some sense before you even generate the models. This is a big problem. It's partly, it's not the only reason, but there's another reason, another problem that bedevils climate modeling too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model's in error.

And that's a huge problem when you're trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest. And so at some point, it's all error. In fact, it's already the case that even if the climate models are right, the error bars are so wide by 100 years out that we'll never be able to measure the effects of the changes we're making now. We'll never know if the changes we're making, you know, to save the climate actually worked. We can't measure it. The errors are too large 100 years out. Sorry, I just have to jump in here real quick and say that there are decades and

decades of scientific inquiry and literature about some of these things. And climate models are largely accurate in predicting climatic change. And we know that the greenhouse effect is real. And we humans dump tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which along with solar forcing heats up the planet and a bunch of other stuff that scientists know since the first half of the 20th century. And when people talk about the environment, they traditionally mean the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival, otherwise known as the literal definition

of the word. And what was that about errors compounding like interest, like one week, two weeks, months in the future? Mr. Doctor, sir, it sounds like you're confusing climate and weather. And weather predictions do get more wrong over time. Kinda like you, it sounds like you're confusing climate and weather, and weather predictions do get more wrong over time, kinda like you, I guess, actually. But climate is conditions over time, takes carbon and solar forcing into account,

et cetera, and so forth. Any error is accounted for by providing ranges based on the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. But then again, atmosphere is everything, so it's really nothing, right? Why is he being so purposefully obtuse and being like, well, what's climate even mean? What even are words?

I thought this guy was a scientist. I'm sorry. I know I said I was a huge Jordan Peterson fan, but maybe I'm thinking of a different guy. I said I had other clips. Can I see one? Let me tell you, as a neuroscientist, neuroscientist. Okay, so wait, he's a neuroscientist?

I mean, that explains the tuxedo, but that has nothing to do with climate science. Explain yourself or interrupt me with another clip. I'm an evolutionary biologist, by the way, not a political philosopher. All right, hold up. So he's an evolutionary biologist and a neuroscientist, neither of which have anything to do with climate science.

Still, that is a lot of degrees, so he must be smart, right? I wonder where he went to school. Wish I could look that up. Oh, you know what? I just remembered that thanks to the miracle of tiny rectangles, I can! Fake typing, fake typing, and... oh, okay, so it looks like he completed his undergraduate degree at Grand Prairie College and the University of Alberta and got a PhD in psychology and that's it. No mention of neuroscience or evolutionary biology, the two things he's said on camera that he's a doctor of. Peterson went on to be a professor of psychology at Harvard in the 90s. Oh, maybe he met that Will Hunting fellow. That'd be cool. And then a professor at the University of Toronto, where he also teaches psychology and that's still it.

Okay, well, charitably, I think maybe he wasn't necessarily being a weird liar, but was instead saying that he is arguing from the point of view of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. That's a generous interpretation. Also, Will Hunting went to MIT and not Harvard, so they probably didn't meet at all. Also, that was a fictional film.

Still, considering there's a D and an octer before his name, it seems easy to assume he's like an expert in those things. Like if you were a professor, a doctor of psychology, and let's say one of your rules to follow for life is to be precise in your speech, a serious scientist wouldn't flippantly say, "'Let me tell you as a neuroscientist,' or, "'I'm an evolutionary biologist.'"

Because you're not, you're a psychologist. You'd say it differently. Not to mention how confidently he speaks, specifically about climate science, which I'm sure you've realized he appears to have absolutely zero academic experience with. I mean, I don't either. I majored in juggling at piss university.

Go fight in kidney stone. So who am I to talk? But also I think maybe, I think maybe I just don't know enough about this guy to call myself a fan. And me calling myself a fan was just a flimsy premise for me to originally reject the notion that Peterson is actually a ridiculous clown man.

But now I'm going to accept the call to adventure, cross the threshold into knowing more about this guy and maybe being critical of some things he says and go on a journey of discovery for I am the hero. So yeah, I guess I'll just go watch a bunch of Jordan Peterson videos. Okay, this guy's a real piece of work, man. I got some stuff to say, but before we go into all the clips

and papers and thoughts and bullshit, I want to address those fans of Peterson who might think I'm taking him out of context or being uncharitable, or as Peterson notes here, dismissing everything he says because of one weird statement here and there. But then it's necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. You know, one of the things I see with readers who are unsophisticated and intellectually arrogant is they'll read someone great. Maybe they'll read Nietzsche, for example. And they'll find the odd thing that Nietzsche said that grates against their current moral sensibilities, whether they do that in context or out. And then they'll throw away the whole book. It's like, you don't throw away the whole book.

It was Nietzsche. You don't throw away the book. He's like one in a billion. You read it carefully and you think, well, okay. No to that. But yes to this. And so we're going to try to do that. No to that.

Yes to this, et cetera. Because that's what he would want. And we will try going to try to do that. No to that, yes to this, et cetera, because that's what he would want. And we will try to be as fair and balanced as we can be with this allegedly reasonable man. And we'll try not to nitpick or straw man or take things out of context. And we will try to focus on the broader ideas that he wants folks to internalize and think are true.

Things he brings up often, so there are sound bites of him saying it multiple times. Personal YouTube uploads of the topics relating to his larger project. What messages he wants to resonate with his audience. We will try to see how much chaff there is, and how much wheat. And we're going to start by continuing our look at this climate interview with Joseph Rogan. And it's going to be great. Except we now have to do an ad. Before we even really begin the video and i'm sorry but also

counterpoint and this is important watch these ads sup clothes heads you clothes freak like me perhaps you also enjoy slapping things on your feet when you use them to walk oh boy the naked world sure doesn't understand us but we'll make them understand we'll make them understand. We'll make them all understand. And so might I suggest the Tree Runner from Allbirds. It's a lightweight, breathable, and silky soft sneaker made from eucalyptus tree fiber. And it feels like absolutely nothing on the feet. What a dream. The perfect shoe to convert all the naked weirdos of the world. They do outnumber us, but not for long. Here, look at them. Look at mine. I named them Jerry Pocket Corn and Dynamite. Dynamite's the left one. See, Dynamite here, he owns a video store in Newport Beach. We don't know much about Johnny Pocket Corn, though.

We don't know what his shady past is. Anywho, because they're so super lightweight, tree runners are the perfect shoe for things like travel and exploring a new city and exercising and just generally existing comfortably while in clothes. Which is why all you naked heads will take to it immediately. So try them out, why don't ya? Find your new favorite shoes for sunny days and upcoming travel at allbirds.com. That is A-L-L-B-I-R-D-S.com. Hello, and welcome back to this video about, right, this is going to be a whole thing. Okay, it's our Jordan Peterson episode, and we're going to take a fair and balanced look at the things this very silly man actually says. And we're starting a little light and breezy with his statements about climate change whilst chatting with Joe Rogan. After

confusing weather with climate and claiming the words climate and environment are meaningless and all that, Rogan asks him to clarify about what errors in the climate models he means specifically. And Peterson starts by saying, look, imagine that you're gonna predict how your life goes. And then Peterson goes on for, no exaggeration, six minutes about how climate modeling is wrong because of the vague idea that things in general in your life are hard to predict. During this no exaggeration six minutes,

he talks about how predictions get more difficult in the future, saying you can game it out by offering someone $5 today or $5 one month from now, and how some people are more impulsive than others. He then moves on to the tale of the Ant and the Grasshopper. The Grasshopper fiddling all summer and the winter comes and he dies. But the Ant, well, the Ant stored up and prepared and so it survived. But what if the Grasshopper was in 1923 Germany and there was hyperinflation?

Well, in that case, the grasshopper's doing fine. At one point, he talks about this classic example, as he calls it, of a chicken and some farmer. The chicken gets used to getting fed every day and thinks everything's fine. But then one day, it's dinner time. The chicken had a theory, but there was a massive flaw in the chicken's plan.

So you just you just can't predict the future, you know, climate models and such. I really can't stress how I'm not making up any of this. And Rogan, bless his heart, I guess, really gives it his all. And that makes sense when you talk about chickens and farmers. But when you're talking about human beings and CO2. And then Peterson continues to talk about whether or not you want $5 today or $5 in a month.

And then the grasshopper thing, again, nearly six minutes. And I feel like we can just end the video here. You know, the man is ridiculous and clearly talking in mythical shaman speak in order to push his ideology. But he does eventually get to the semblance of a smidgen of a qualification

as to why he can talk so confidently about this stuff that he is wrong about. Yes, after he was corrected by all the scientists for his extremely wrong things that he said, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson clapped back on Twitter by pointing out that he, quote, "'Served for two years on a Canadian subcommittee "'on sustainable development for the UN Secretary General.

It's something he mentions as a credential any time he's about to say something wrong about climate change. I worked on the UN committee that wrote the Secretary General's report on sustainable development. I worked on the Canadian subcommittee, to be technically accurate. I worked for a UN committee for two years on sustainable economic and ecological development and read a very large amount during that period of time and learned a lot. Wow, what a fancy chair. I bet he's a serious man.

And it is actually true that he served on that subcommittee in that he was one of some advisors to one of the chair people on the subcommittee, specifically James Lawrence Balsillie, who is the co-founder of BlackBerry. And this is unimportant, who in 2006 tried to buy the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins and move them to Hamilton, Ontario.

And in 2007, tried to buy the Nashville Predators and move them to Hamilton, Ontario. And in 2009, tried to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to Hamilton, Ontario. And in 2011, was rumored to try to buy the Buffalo Sabres and presumably move them to Hamilton, Ontario. And in an unspecified year, was rumored to try to buy the Buffalo Sabres and presumably move them to Hamilton, Ontario. And in an unspecified year was rumored to try to buy the Atlanta Thrashers before they were bought

by somebody else and moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba. Again, unimportant, but this is all to say that while I'm sure Dr. Jordan B. Peterson helped research and edit James Lawrence Balsillie's contribution to this subcommittee, it could be argued that his general experience doesn't give a lot of weight to him saying the climate models are wrong,

and also that there's nothing we can do about it. And maybe he didn't have a particularly pivotal role on the subcommittee, but he sure likes to pretend that he did in order to say stuff like this. First of all, it's very difficult to separate the science from the politics. And second, even if the claims, the more radical claims are true,

we have no idea what to do about it. And so, no. So he worked on this subcommittee and read a lot of books. And his conclusion is that even if the extreme predictions of climate change are true, we just don't know what to do about it. Which is funny because the report put out by this aforementioned subcommittee that he worked on

and uses as his qualification, actually very specifically proposes things we can do about climate change. And we'll get back to that. But also this one subcommittee isn't the only organization or person who's put forth many ideas of what to do about it. And Peterson's complaint seems to just be like,

it's hard to pick one idea or do a bunch of ideas. The genius order and responsibility guys like, uh, pfft. But the point is that I guess Jordan read a lot of books, so he must know better. I can't read physics papers in physics journals. I'm not mathematically gifted. And so there are all sorts of scientific

and mathematical claims that I can't evaluate. Oh, okay, interesting. Seems then like maybe you shouldn't go on a really big platform and speak confidently about concepts you admittedly can't grasp, especially when your position is in direct opposition of people who specifically do grasp those concepts. Speaking of all those books Peterson's read,

another thing Peterson did when called out by actual climate experts for his word salad was to respond with what was basically a fake news CNN tweet before posting a single book as his proof that his gibberish was in fact correct. That book, Hot Talk, Cold Science, Global Warming's Unfinished Debate by S. Fred Singer, the founder of a climate skeptic advocacy group partially funded by a think tank

that's partially funded by ExxonMobil. Nice work, Jorbson, way to show up decades of climate science by skimming a single book and rambling on about a chicken and a grasshopper in 1923 Germany. It just, it feels like we're going in big frustrating circles here, which spoilers isn't going to be a rare occurrence. And so I guess that brings us back to the question

as to why this guy who sure appears to be a dip about climate change science in more than several ways is being allowed to talk so confidently about climate change to such a large audience, despite being such a silly man. Like for some reason, one of Jordan Peterson's defining details of his brand is that he's somehow an impartial academic

who calls it like he sees it. You're one of those rare animals that said, "'Wait a minute, he's saying bullsh-t because I know that I can think and I'm not getting him. The problem is that most people that are sitting passively in the audience didn't come with your confidence. Which is odd considering everything I'm about to talk about

in this very brief video covering Jordan Peterson. Don't check the time code. Because this sure isn't the only subject this professor of psychology will speak very confidently about despite having no actual background in and also being pretty obviously wrong and in some cases fucked up and dangerous. In fact, it seems that lately the internet

just can't get enough of Jorbson and his constant need to be the biggest and wrongest weirdo in the room. Perhaps you've seen clips of him randomly crying, which we will get to, or that time where he tweeted that a plus size model was quote, not beautiful before getting mocked so hard he claimed to quit Twitter because of bullies,

even though he's the one who decided to tweet totally unprompted about this woman who did nothing to him or apparently for him. His whole point was that Sports Illustrated was trying to push a false idea of beauty, which is a subjective concept that changes throughout culture and history. And in response, he was like, um, science is on my side.

Look at this study about baby's attraction to symmetrical faces, which is not about a person's weight or like whether or not it's possible to be attracted to thick women. So weird study to post to make a bad point, Dr. Peterson. Oh, and by quit Twitter, I of course mean he, just kept tweeting, like constantly. Weighing in on the jerk off to ability of various women,

like a true intellectual, before posting a transphobic statement about Elliot Page that violated Twitter's rules against dead naming trans people, and it got him suspended unless he deletes the tweet in question. Jordan then saw this extremely common and deserved social media punishment as his own personal William Wallace moment. And so instead of just being,

you know, an adult and deleting the tweet, he instead put out a 15 minute video on this harrowing attack on his freedom to be a bigot on a social media platform. Hello, everyone. A few days ago, I penned an irritated tweet in response to one of the latest happenings on the increasingly heated culture war front. In response to the decision of an actress, actor, named ******, Elliot Page. I am employing this awkward and impossible naming style because it is now apparently mandatory and I'm probably doing it wrong nonetheless as you're doing it wrong is the whole point of what has been made mandatory but also I'm trying to make a point I've essentially been banned from Twitter as a As a consequence, I say banned, although technically I have been suspended.

But the suspension will not be lifted unless I delete the hateful tweet in question, and I would rather die than do that. And hopefully it will not come to that, although who the hell knows in these increasingly strange days. Hey man, just delete the tweet. It's super not hard, just a few buttons at most. You don't have to set up two cameras and deliver some kind of a ransom video

from the catacombs of your culture warrior chateau, like your Vincent fucking Price. Now we don't have to dwell on this hilarious and embarrassing video, except to say that it's really hilarious and embarrassing. What do you mean this impossible naming style? Call him Elliot, that's his name. It's easy.

You literally did it just then and are purposefully doing it awkwardly because you just don't want to. Why pretend it's hard or confusing? Aren't you supposed to be a smart man? Just say you don't want to. Jordan goes on to break down his question. Remember when pride

was a sin in probably the least self-aware way humanly possible. I don't regard pride as a virtue. It has been classically regarded as a sin. I don't see that sexual orientation or sexual desire of any sort is something to celebrate or to take pride in. And so what I said was merely a fact. Now, it's possible that I hurt someone's feelings because I pointed out that pride goes before, for example, a fall. That's right, libs. Jordan was just stating a fact and doesn't care if your feelings get hurt. That fact, of course, being that he believes that pride is a sin according to the Bible. His, you know, personal feeling based on a religious text,

otherwise known as a fact apparently. Also, he can't seem to acknowledge that gay and trans people have been consistently shamed and oppressed for like ever. So maybe there's a reason they're pushing to be out and proud now. Also here he is proudly announcing a speaking engagement. Checkmate Jordan, video over.

Anyway, Jordan and his defenders seem to bounce back and forth between claiming this is actually about free speech and then spewing some purposefully anti-trans nonsense in the same breath. Curious. Let's go ahead and skip to where this video heads. And finally, with regard to the final phrase, criminal physician, I must say that I've had some post-coital, so to speak,

regrets about that phrase. It is clearly the case that the surgical operation performed by the butchers who butchered Elliot slash was. So, was it criminal or not? Were the operations undertaken by the fascist physicians who carried out the Nazi medical experiments legal? Yes, under the laws of the time. But were they criminal? I'll leave that question up to you to answer. Ah, geez, thanks for leaving the question up to me, Jordy,

because I do have an answer. You see, back in the early 1900s, a physician named Magnus Hirschfeld opened up a clinic called the Institute for Sexual Research that in 1930 performed the first modern gender affirmation surgery in the world. The purpose of that clinic was to create a level of dignity other clinics lacked when studying LGBTQ subjects.

It was extremely ahead of its time and made breakthroughs that would be forgotten for decades to come, breakthroughs that would help normalize trans people in society. There was a massive library covering sexuality in general, but of course had a lot of work on transition surgery as well. Anywho, the Nazis burned it to the fucking ground,

as in that library was one of the first and largest book burnings once Hitler rose to power. And I guess my answer to your question, Jordan, is that it's pretty fucked up that you would try to compare gender affirmation surgery to the motherfucking Nazis that tried to eradicate trans people from the planet. Not to mention that your criminal doctor's claim

is pretty ironic, considering that you had to move to Russia to be put in a medically induced coma for an addiction problem because you couldn't legally have it done in the Americas. Anyway, we'll get back to more Nazi stuff and coma shit a little later. You like Nazis, right? It'll be like Indiana Jones, but spoilers,

it's just Jordan Peterson saying Nazi stuff. But for now, what I'm getting at is that despite being what sure seems like an emotional absurdity filled with vile hate, a man who appears to exist solely so Twitter can dunk on him, Jordan Peterson is still hauntingly popular. So why is that? Again, the question remains,

and we've yet to really even scratch the surface. Why is this man somehow allowed and encouraged to go on extremely popular podcasts and discuss topics he has no business discussing? Why do people look to him for guidance? Well, let's start with his background, what Peterson actually is, not a neuroscientist or evolutionary biologist.

We know he's a professor of psychology, but of course that's not the kind of thing that earns you an experience with the Joseph Rogan. No, Peterson makes his real money on the internet or how he's put it. Well, financially it's been a boom, right? Yes. It's which, which is hilarious. Oh, well, I, yes. I mean, the thing that I've, I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to, because it's just so funny. I can't help but say it. I figured out how to monetize social justice warriors. Yes, as of 2018, he was reportedly making nearly a million dollars a year just on Patreon alone.

He has a YouTube page, a podcast, and goes on speaking tours. He wrote a book called 12 Rules for Life that includes such bangers as stand up straight with your shoulders back, never, and be precise in your speech, blemver. His official website offers links to self-assessment quizzes and online personality courses at a price, of course.

Get your just-for-me individual assessment at the low, low cost of $9.95. I shit you not. In other words, all due respect, the dude is mainly a self-help guru. That's sort of it. He's an Oprah or Gwyneth Paltrow or future president Dr. Oz, in that his primary offer is to aid those

who feel like they aren't in control of their lives. Yes, he had a psychology practice and was a professor and contributed to the field of psychology in various ways. But mostly, it's this. Also, he sells lobster stickers and we will get to that later. But for now, the entry point to Peterson tends to start here and then quickly expands

to some concepts that are gonna be a little tough to wrap our heads around. But I'm sure we will manage. And in a short amount of time, I swear it, just don't check the time code. In true self-help fashion, Peterson's journey starts with a young man at rock bottom finding a specific wisdom

and then preaching that wisdom to the world. In this case, the wisdom of a Swiss psychoanalyst named Carl Jung. As described in his very first book, Maps of Meaning, in his youth, Jordan Peterson was left-leaning. He went to socialist meetings, but became disillusioned with the left, and as we'll see years later,

became consumed by his hatred of them. But he also became disillusioned by ideology in general, and as we will see years later, pretended to not have one even though he totally does. Young Jordan became focused on why people believe things and how they derive meaning, and he became plagued with apocalyptic nightmares and suicidal thoughts.

According to the book, he finally found peace once he picked up the works of Carl Jung, and specifically the theory of a collective unconscious. See, while Freud talked about the unconscious mind as in the meanings of dreams or repressed feelings or phobias or anything else that can be attributed to our brains working on autopilot and sifting through our days,

Carl Jung theorized that the same kind of subconscious thinking existed for the entire human collective, as in a shared unconscious. And while you could say, well, no shit, that's what instincts and pop culture is, this spawned a borderline mystical way of thinking for Jordan, centered on something called Jungian archetypes.

These are symbols common among us all that come from this collective unconscious, otherwise perceived as common character stereotypes, such as the sage or the everyman or the surly Bostonian with a heart of gold who is wicked smart. What I'm getting at is that none of this seems particularly different from the kind of thing you learn at a weekend screenwriting seminar,

but apparently this is an entire psychological belief structure. And you could argue, as people have argued, that these Jungian archetypes aren't really impressive so much as they're vague and work off of centuries of storytelling shorthand. But I also suspect that I'm being very reductive about this as well.

And surely common myths and stories have effects on our psychology and how we deal with the world and people. But I'm trying to keep this video short and I succeeded, so I don't have a choice but to be like, Jungian archetypes are goodwill hunting. And hey, if this all helps someone become a better person then who the hell cares right? The nature of self-help is of course that as long as you're not hurting anyone, more power to you. And on its surface this all just seems like yet another way to work on yourself. The

primary Jungian archetypes that especially relate to the individual are the persona, the shadow, the animus or anima, and the self. To sum them up, the persona is the day-to-day mask we all wear, how we present ourselves to others, while the shadow is our unconscious mind, like our sex drive and inner desires to eat our own shoes that everyone feels. The anima and animus are archetypal images

of the opposite sex. You could argue that it's simply our expectation of an ideal mate. And finally, the self represents our unified unconsciousness and consciousness. Basically all the other pieces rolled into one, an integration of everything. And while being a little dated,

this kind of thinking is perfectly capable of motivating a person to be more confident or I don't know, quit smoking. Except as you might've assumed by him talking about shit like climate change, it doesn't really stop there. Peterson's obsession with the concept of myth, archetypes and this collective unconscious

urges him to not only comment on the individual, but society. And so he sure has a lot to say about subjects that completely branch away from psychology, aka shit he has no business talking about. In fact, what I just said about quitting smoking being a self-help goal, apparently Jordan wouldn't agree with that. We have no way of confirming that this something mystical or supernatural actually can happen. What this is, this is about the language people

from smoking. Well, you can stop smoking without any sort of supernatural intervention. No, not really. You can't stop smoking without supernatural. There aren't really any, any reliable chemical means. Like, holy shit, man. Why does he have to make everything so fucking weird? I mean, I smoked cigarettes for 10 years, looked awesome doing it, and quit cold turkey because it was bad for me and my girlfriend didn't like it. Is that God to you? Well, let's figure out why he has to make everything so fucking weird.

Briefly, of course. Since Jordan Jorpson Peterson Porpson really loves these Jungian archetypes, it might be fun to actually look at who he is through this lens. Think of it like a self-help seminar for just one person, which I think is called an intervention. We'll explore his persona and shadow and animus

and ultimately his self. And then after we do all of that, we'll, I don't know, understand why he thinks he can say climate models are wrong because grasshoppers played violin against ants during 1923 Germany, I guess. So let's get started. Sorry, let's not get started. Let's cut to ads one last time and then get started.

Sorry, actually, no, I'm not sorry. How dare you? How dare all of you? Watch these ads. Hello, it's Cody Johnston from TV's The Internet. I wanna talk to you about your flesh. Nothing weird, I just think it's important to have nice flesh.

That's why I think you should check out Thrive Cosmetics. That's Cos-medics, like the word cause, because I'm told that every purchase supports organizations that help communities thrive. The program is called Bigger Than Beauty, and they have over 300 partners giving to things like LGBTQ and education and racial and social justice causes. That's good.

Did I mention the flesh stuff? Thrive has so many high-performance beauty and skincare products, all made vegan and cruelty-free for your wonderful, perfect flesh. I want your flesh to be happy, not in a weird way. I feel like you're the one making this weird. Huh? Listen here, you need your lashes done?

They are your head flesh's curtains after all. Well, their best-selling liquid lash extensions mascara has over 20,000 five-star reviews. They mimic the look of lash extensions without any damaging glue or expensive salon trips. There's also this eye brightener that makes the eye flesh look rested and vibrant, and a liquid balm lip treatment that gives your mouth flesh a smooth, glossy look.

Again, all with the best and flesh nourishing ingredients. Now is a great time to try Thrive Cosmetics for yourself. Right now you can get 15% off your first order when you visit thrivecosmetics.com slash more news. That's Thrive Cosmetics, C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I-C-S.com slash more news for 15% off your first order. For your flesh, F-L-E-S-H.

Sorry if I made it weird. Hey, we're back, we are so back. We are blasting through Jordan Peterson in this quick vid, quibby length vid. And we're about to look at him through the lens of Jungian archetypes, because why not? And we are going to start with the persona. Not to be confused with fursona or persona the game

or Furiosa from Fury Road, the persona is once again, how one or one Jordan Peterson presents himself to the world. And the most obvious archetype to start with is of course, the sage. I mentioned that he is a sort of self-help guru, which Peterson is often praised for being. There's a reason a lot of clips during this video are vertical 50 second YouTube shorts

with graphics and text all over them, because a lot of his lectures and interviews are shared on channels called like One Minute Advice, and The Mentor House, and Bite-Sized Philosophy, and like Alpha Brain Academy and whatnot. You know, quick self-help, which really encapsulates Peterson's wisdom. Just try not to do things you know to be stupid and wrong for a month. And that means not to say things you know to be stupid and wrong as well. Maybe that's the most important thing.

Just do it as an experiment. See what happens. And it's so fun because I have people writing to me from all over the world who are saying they're doing that. They're saying, well, you know, I cleaned up my room and then I stopped saying stupid things and my God, it's like things are way better. It's like who would have guessed it? Clean room. Try not to do and say stupid things. Make sure you like the people you have lunch with. Okay, got it, all right, thank you, Jorpy. Look, it's not bad advice, especially for young people

who are perhaps just starting out in the world. Peterson will often spin some yarns about fans coming up to him and telling him how much he helped them turn their life around by dealing with a relationship in a certain way or approaching their immediate environment with more responsibility. And with these stories, I believe him,

because it's just, it's therapist stuff, you know? He was a practicing clinical psychologist at one point, so he can probably help people sort some stuff out. I don't want to diminish your experience if he helped you clean your room. But they're not exactly such profound observations that he can take or should be taking these quick bites of speed advice

and then applying them to populations in broad ways or pretending like this qualifies him to weigh in on climate change, or as he puts it, everything. Again, this is President Dr. Oz shit, you know? It's innocuous right up until the ego outweighs reality. And you see exactly this dynamic with Jordan Peterson, the teacher,

because he was a teacher, as in a literal professor. And while it's hard to rely on something like Rate My Professors, it might be worth pointing out that his professor rating is almost entirely impeccable for the years he has been in the spotlight as a dark web intellectual or what have you. However, if you scroll back to the early years, you'll notice that his reviews dropped significantly

during the time he was less famous. But what I mainly want to point out is that both the good and bad reviews comment that above all else, Jordan Peterson is a really good lecturer. He's passionate, entertaining, engaging, and unique in that regard. But what a lot of the average or poor reviews argue

is that his information is often flawed. Meanwhile, the positive reviews often credit him with, quote, changing their lives, which to me sounds like a motivational speaker more than a teacher. In other words, he's great at talking, but doesn't seem, to put it politely, beholden to facts, which you might realize is probably bad for a teacher.

And while that's from a bunch of anonymous reviews on a website, everything I just said was echoed by a former colleague and mentor and friend from the University of Toronto named Bernard Schiff. According to his op-ed, Schiff was actually the reason Peterson was hired. He had campaigned for him, put him under his wing like an old widower trying to help

a surly Bostonian genius. According to Schiff, Peterson, quote, "'Objected in principle to having his research reviewed "'by the University Research Ethics Committee.'" Upon reading his teaching reviews, Schiff noticed that students, much like his online reviews, credited Peterson for changing their lives. But again, like his online reviews,

he also noticed students flagging him for, quote, "'Delivered truths.'" And so finally Schiff decided to sit in on one of Peterson's classes, only to discover that, to put it politely, Peterson was full of shit most of the time. Or to quote the op-ed, "'Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact

"'many times throughout his lectures. "'Every time Schiff called him out for it, "'Peterson would acknowledge that he was doing it, and that it was bad for him to do it before continuing to confidently throw out his own opinions or bullshit theories like they were proven reality. To quote the op-ed again, he was a preacher more than a teacher.

Interesting phrasing that I'm sure will not come up again. But it seems like what made Peterson a beloved teacher is directly related to his ability to state complete hogwash with a level of confidence only an old white guy could get away with. In a lot of ways, he's a very simple man, perhaps not worthy of a really long video about him, which is why this video is so short,

in that his secret is mainly just to lie, except boy, can he make those lies and wonky half-truths sound credible? And to really show how far that ability can go, I'm going to take you through one of his most famous talking points. Remember that lobster stuff I foreshadowed? Well, buckle up your pincers, because this entire episode has a lot of long clips of this guy talking. So these creatures engage in dominance disputes, and I think dominance is the right way to think about it because lobsters aren't very empathic and they're not very social and so it really is the toughest lobster that wins

you know and what's so cool about the lobster is that when a lobster wins he flexes and gets bigger so he looks bigger because he's a winner it's like he's advertising that and the neurochemical system that makes him flex is serotonergic and you think well who cares What the hell does that mean? Well tell you what it means It's the same chemical that's affected by antidepressants in human beings and so like if you're depressed You're a defeated lobster like you're there like this. I'm small. I'm not you know things are dangerous I don't want to fight you give somebody an antidepressant

It's like up they stretch and then they're ready to like take on the world Well, if you give lobsters, who just got defeated in a fight, serotonin, then they stretch out and they'll fight again. And that's, like, we separated from those creatures on the evolutionary time scale somewhere between 350 and 600 million years ago, and the damn neurochemistry is the same. And so that's another indication of just how important hierarchies of authority are. I mean, they've been conserved since the time of lobsters, right? There weren't trees around when lobsters first manifested themselves on the planet. And so what that means is these hierarchies that I've been talking about, those things are older than trees. Okay, so first off, neat video. I don't know who made that, but good work. I felt like I was right there in the lobsters.

So Jordan's argument, also described in his second book, is that when you give a loser lobster serotonin, they become puffed up and gain the will to fight again. And that appears similar to what happens when you give a depressed human serotonin. And so the mechanisms in these primitive species are the same as us, enforcing the idea that hierarchies, like a battle for dominance, is somehow a natural occurrence that is built into our DNA and the fabric of the universe.

And he's so sure of this that he has built a lot of his theories around this and even sells lobster-themed merchandise. But here's the thing. It turns out that if you ask science about this, people who study lobsters and junk like that, the reason why injecting a lobster with serotonin makes them puff up is because serotonin

actually causes aggression in invertebrate species. To quote a study from 1997 that Peterson is citing in his book, invertebrates lowered levels of 5-HT, endogenous or experimentally induced, or changes in amine neuron function that lower the effectiveness of serotonergic neurons, generally correlate with increased levels of aggression, whereas in invertebrates, the converse is believed to be true.

Meaning that lobsters, aka invertebrates, react aggressively to increase serotonin levels, while the opposite is true for humans. The same goes for other boneless animals like fruit flies. The only real takeaway is that serotonin affects aggression levels somewhat across the board, but affects species differently. In other words, Jordan's starting off point is just kind of wrong here,

and cites the study that says he is wrong. Lobsters don't participate in an aggressive hierarchy because they're given antidepressants. They participate because serotonin chemically roids them up. It's not puffing up like a human stretching because they're not depressed anymore. It's going. But Peterson is basing an entire string of philosophy

off of this very incorrect starting point. It's kind of like how the alpha male theory is based on a completely incorrect study that's been debunked for years. And generally speaking, trying to make any observation about humans based on fucking sea bugs is silly. As one marine biologist points out, even if this information was accurate, Jordan's selection of the lobster is completely arbitrary, especially as it relates to humans. If you were to link these two species, you have to do it by going back to their most common recent ancestor, as in the point in which a species branched off

to create humans and lobsters. In this case, that would be a fucking worm called the Aeseal. They're the size of a grain of rice, typically hermaphroditic, so sorry, Jordan, and engage in zero social or aggressive hierarchy because they are worms. I'm not sure why I need to explain this, but my point here is that no, we are not like lobsters.

And to be clear, he's not exactly saying we are like lobsters, and we'll get to that aspect of the argument. But using lobsters to justify anything in human society is silly. Even if his science was right, which it really, really isn't, Jordan is skipping over the part

where everything evolved past lobsters or the worms, where society grew and formed and advanced. But he loves talking about these really pre-evolution or pre-societal concepts and applying them to today. But in his, I don't know, defense, Jordan is also surfing around very profound thoughts and feelings here. We are deeply connected to every single thing on the planet, living and dead and never living.

The rocks and trees and the water are older than time. Well, not time literally, but they're quite old is my point. So if everything is connected and there's a natural hierarchy, if we're all just a bunch of protons and neutrons swimming around and circling each other, shouldn't that motivate us to help each other? And when you take progress into account, survival of the fittest has long evolved into survival of the collaborative for human beings in many ways.

It's not just about which individual can get to the top of the lobster pyramid, but Jordan's not going to make that connection. In fact, spoilers, he's going to make the opposite conclusion. And I think that's partially why, when you stand back from it, really this entire lobster theory

is all for him to point out that hierarchies simply exist, which is a thing that is absolutely true and provable without even mentioning the word lobster. Like, just look at monkeys, man. Not sure if you realize this, but primates are like closer to humans than lobsters. And if the point of lobsters is to show how hierarchies

are super old or whatever, then just look at studies that point that out. Heck, we know that human hierarchies have been around for at least 7,000 years. Why is he bringing up lobster serotonin into this? Well, if I were a betting man, which I am, I would wager that Peterson likes lobsters because it implies human hierarchy of a specific shape

is somehow built into the foundation of our DNA. One of the truisms for what constitutes real from a Darwinian perspective is that which has been around the longest period of time, right? Because it's had the longest period of time to exert selection pressure. Well, we know we evolved and lived in trees, something on the order of 60 million years

ago. We're talking 10 times as far back as that for the hierarchy. And so the idea that human beings, that the hierarchy is something that has exerted selection pressure on human beings is, I don't think that's a disputable, that's not a disputable issue. See how he makes that triangle with his hands when he says hierarchy? That shape is of course what we commonly associate with the hierarchy, as in a system where people

or groups are ranked with few or one at the top, but that's not exclusive to what a hierarchy can look like. Lionesses and female mongooses communally take care of their young, for example. African wild dogs will have a dominant pair in each hunting pack, but are largely social and don't have an aggressive hierarchy beyond that. And even take care of their own sick and wounded.

The point being that hierarchies are indeed everywhere in nature and society, but don't necessarily adhere to that shape he's always doing with his hands. Not to mention that you can easily rethink or redefine that structure. Corporations have a board of directors and not a single person.

Co-op businesses function through democracy and so on. But what Jordan is setting up here is that that very rigid version of a hierarchy, few at the top, pyramid shape, is the natural, older than trees, unchangeable hierarchy he wants to push with his lobster theory. He goes on after this inspiring clip to talk about it from a Darwinian perspective.

Darwinian here is notably a placeholder for survival of the fittest. That's what he's actually talking about. He is justifying this specific hierarchy in his mind because chemicals made lobsters fight to get a limited resource. But he's also omitting how those hierarchies are created and change because of the environment.

A species with lots of space and resources like giraffes tend to have no dominance hierarchy in the wild. But when they're put in a zoo, where they share a small space and limited trees, that dynamic changes, much like the prison rules of that debunked alpha dog study. But by presenting this one pyramid shaped hierarchy as some kind of unwavering truth,

he's laying a specific groundwork based on bad science for how he can discuss other issues like poverty and sexism and racism, a shorthand he can refer back to. Organisms that have to cooperate and compete with other organisms of their type inevitably arrange themselves into hierarchies, and that's been going on for so long which which is at least 300 million years that our nervous systems have adapted to

hierarchies as if they're a permanent element of being right more permanent than trees like seriously permanent at the most fundamental neurochemical the one that regulates the entire brain ser serotonin, is acutely sensitive to hierarchical distinctions. And so that's part of the proposition. So the reason I laid that proposition forward was to say, whatever pitfalls hierarchies might produce, you cannot lay them at the feet of the West, patriarchy, or capitalism. It's like, that's a non-starter. You're wrong.

See, he's circling real studies about how the chemicals in our brains will react to our social status. But the conclusion he's drawing is absurd, mainly because he's equating stuff like the patriarchy or capitalism with natural hierarchies. And so again, I think that's why he's using the lobster comparison,

to cover up the reality that today's human hierarchies, as in very few at the top, are absolutely artificial and more importantly, malleable. In fact, scientists generally believe that our ancestors were largely egalitarian, as in considered those within their tribes as equals, before agriculture created a more rigid and unfair hierarchy.

That isn't to say that hierarchies didn't exist before that, lobsters proved that they did, but this information really seems to imply that the concept didn't exist before that, lobsters proved that they did. But this information really seems to imply that the concept of a really rigid hierarchy, the pyramid he's making with his hands, or literal pyramids, started with our first big industry. Agriculture on a large scale creates the need for distribution and supervision

and leads to fewer people at the very top. And while that was vital to our society today, that information creates a pesky gray area when actually talking about how hierarchies work or should work or could work. It implies that the shape of them is a social construct and therefore can be changed. And I don't think that works with Peterson's worldview.

So instead of talking about this, he talks about a bunch of roided up lobsters that have nothing to do with humans. But once you believe his lie that number one, rigid hierarchies are in our nature, and number two, concepts like capitalism are synonymous with natural hierarchies, you can then be taken on a much more insidious journey.

And when you implement a solution to a complex problem socially, you produce a hierarchy because some people are better at the implementation than others. So there's a hierarchy of competence, and then there's a hierarchy of distribution of the spoils. And so in both of those hierarchies you get a disproportionate clumping of resources at the top and dispossession at the bottom. It's in the nature of hierarchies. So what's the left for? The left is to remind those who are benefiting from the hierarchies that the hierarchy comes at a cost.

And the cost is the clumping of people at the bottom. And that that's an eternal cost and it's not trivial. And so that's what the left should be properly focused on. The left should be providing the voice of those who are dispossessed by hierarchies. should be providing the voice of those who are dispossessed by hierarchies. And the right should be saying, yeah, but the damn hierarchies are necessary. And they're not only necessary, but they're also productive. Then the left says, yes, but they tilt towards tyranny and they can be occupied inappropriately by people who are playing games of power.

Fair enough, the right has to take that into account. The hierarchy can rigidify and is likely to do that, and it can be taken over by people who are corrupt, and that's likely to happen. And so, but it's okay because the dialogue can work out. The right can say, well, yeah, we need the damn hierarchies, and they need to be buttressed, and the left can say, yes, but they have to be maintained properly so they don't deteriorate and degenerate. And I think that's, I think that's ancient wisdom. I think the ancient Egyptians had figured that out in their symbolic representations. Ah, yes. Ancient Egyptians, famously known for taking care of the people at the bottom. This is where we get back around to Jordan's teaching style

and why I think he seems reasonable to some people. He's speaking from a centrist perspective and pointing out flaws from the right and the left, but mostly the left, which makes him seem unbiased and logical and an intellectual and all of that. Of course, he's also stating a lot of personal opinions like they are facts,

which his students and fans might not pick up on. But putting aside the fact that this is all based on a flawed perception of what a hierarchy is, or his weird conclusion that every hierarchy is the same shape, or that every hierarchy not only necessitates but also reflects competency, here's how Jordan finishes his thought. So the left can't just demolish the hierarchies in the name of some equality of outcome, let's say, because you blow out the future, you leave people aimless, and you destroy the very institutions that allow people to make competent progress in the world. That's not an acceptable outcome. to live with the tension, necessity for hierarchies, the proclivity for them to pathologize, and the necessary voice of the left in speaking for the dispossessed. So his conclusion to all of this hierarchy talk

is that we should do nothing. It's all just fine the way it is. How very, very convenient. So just to recap, using bad science, Jordan Peterson laid down this foundational idea that hierarchies, specifically every dominance hierarchy shaped like a pyramid, are rooted in our nature, ignoring the fact that more rigid and unequal hierarchies

are actually artificial. And just because something is in nature doesn't mean it's good or necessary every time you see it. He then lumps in other artificial constructs like capitalism and the patriarchy into this broad concept of hierarchy, framing them as unmovable concepts we can't do anything about.

He's a guy in medieval Europe confidently saying feudalism is good and natural, and we need it because the concept of hierarchies has existed since before dragons or whatever. Next, he takes the stance of an unbiased academic, stepping outside of politics to ponder what this all means, and then concludes that ultimately, there isn't anything to be done,

and that the people on the left pushing for change are incorrect to do that. And to make it seem centrist and logical, he says, it's the duty of the right to recognize the injustice that comes with what he's spun into a natural occurrence. Except that's very conveniently a conservative view, isn't it? Because the truth he's laid out

while pretending it's an impartial idea actually supports right-wing beliefs by pretending the very concept of capitalism or whatever the current system is, is natural because it involves hierarchies. And then his conclusion is that the right wing doesn't have to change at all. It's a magic trick, flim-flam as the kids say.

And this step-by-step pattern of bad logic actually resonates throughout everything Jordan Peterson argues. You start by very confidently stating a fact that isn't actually true or accurate. Then you build off that falsehood, sprinkling in real information or analogies about chickens or other things that have some sort of aesthetic

or rhetorical connections that seem to reinforce that very wrong starting point. You draw a conclusion based on that, then equate that conclusion to subjective, societal, and political ideas, treating the comparison as a factual connection. Suddenly you've taken a human-made problem and made it seem rooted in science and nature, unchangeable.

And so the only logical conclusion you can make is that we can't do anything about it. At best, he will conclude that the subject is very complicated or complex before offering no solution and moving on. All of it, coincidentally, designed to protect the status quo, often the one set by conservatives, by wearing down his audience until they're willing

to simply accept inaction. We'll call it the Peterson pattern because pee-pee like a dick. It's honestly a very impressive technique that he uses for almost everything. But once you see it, you really can't unsee it. So, and the data on this is quite clear. It's like, and it's the same with private schools.

The reason that people who go to private schools do better than people who go to public schools is because generally speaking reason that people who go to private schools do better than people who go to public schools is because, generally speaking, the people who go into private schools are smarter. It's not the education that's any better. The liberals won't take into account individual differences. Well, obviously, that's part of what the whole politically correct discussion is about. It's like, everyone's the same. It's like, yeah, they're not.

Like, I love to come to Silicon Valley. I've been here many, many times. And, like, it's really something to come here and meet. There's so many people here who are off the scales intelligent. And they're all, you know, clustered together, which is why this place is so unbelievably rich and so unbelievably productive. One of the reasons.

But it's also very annoying that it's so left-leaning because one of the things that the left-leaning Silicon Valley geniuses should understand that is that they're the beneficiary of a genetic lottery And they should take that seriously. It's like yeah. Yeah, you worked hard. Yes, you're entrepreneurial. Yes, you're on point You put in your 60 hours a week, you know, you do everything you could but you have an IQ of 150 And like that's not you're doing Right. That's something that happened to you. Now that doesn't mean I think that people of disproportionate intelligence shouldn't be rewarded Disproportionately, it's possible that they should because it might be in the best interest of everyone else to dump as much money as possible Because it might be in the best interest of everyone else to dump as much money as possible to the top 2% of the cognitive strata, because they're going to be most generative with it.

And so, and even if it's not fair, because you might say, well, just because he won the genetic lottery, does that mean that you should have more money than anyone else? It's like, well, not on the grounds of fairness. But if you have to distribute money, well, who are you going to distribute it to? Did you catch all of that? He starts by stating that it's a fact that smarter kids get into private schools, which teach the same as public schools.

He's not wrong that private and public schools are more or less the same in terms of results, except private schools tend to prepare kids more for the SATs. But then he completely ignores the fact that only about 12% of private school students are there because of full scholarships. The rest either have some financial aid

or can just afford to be there. The obvious answer there is money, something he completely skips over when talking about why people in Silicon Valley are so rich. One of the reasons, he says, is that they have high IQs. Hey, what are the other reasons, Jorbson? But most importantly, this is all to equate people with high IQs with being wealthy.

Doesn't seem to stop to think if it's high IQs that produce wealth or wealth that produces high IQs, despite him stating how important nutrition and education are in early development. And so he implies that wealth inequality, therefore follows some kind of natural pattern. But while it's actually true that people with a higher IQ are more likely to have a higher salary,

studies have shown that they're just as likely as anyone to make bad decisions with the money they are making. Because the way IQ works is that it's a measure of certain mental facilities that often mesh well with a very specific school system, but don't necessarily equate to making good decisions or actually being intelligent. One example being how and where to invest money.

This study from the Ohio State University looked at over 7,000 people and specifically found that people with high IQs, despite making more money, ultimately had just as much money as people with average IQs. They concluded it was because the high IQ people weren't saving their money, which is funny because Jordan's last point is that

if we had to distribute money, it would make sense to distribute it to high IQ people because they would certainly know how to spend it. Also IQ testing is fucking racist. It's eugenics shit, especially when proposing to give more resources to those with higher IQs shouldn't be taken seriously at all

and doesn't have any place in any advanced society. And boy, we will circle back around to that. A lot of circling this video and it's very short. So once again, he laid down a bad foundation, equating wealthy schools and students with wealth and high IQs, then extended it to Silicon Valley and makes the conclusion that it must mean high IQ people

are not only rich, but should have all the money based on this natural law, even if it's not air quotes, fair. And once again, he treats his assessment like a wise centrist criticizing both sides. And liberals see the liberals think everyone's roughly equal. And there's a job for everyone, you just have to train them. It's like no wrong. And the conservatives think, well, there's a job for everyone if they just get off their ass and work. It's like no,

no, that's wrong, too. Even though if you work, that's better. And well, so that's on the conservative end. Ah, see how he slips a win in there at the end for conservatives? So he's once again linked bad science about how IQs work with societal constructs like wealth and schools as if they are forces of nature. He completely ignored any other factor like inherited wealth, race, gender, your zip code,

and instead concludes that smart people naturally have wealth. And so rich people must be smart, and that's why they're rich. And then he hits us with this. Well, hopefully you're going to do some halfway intelligent things with it, and hopefully you'd expect that the more intelligent people would do more than halfway intelligent things with it. So if you have to have unequal distribution, then a meritocracy is probably the best way to do it.

But it still leaves you with this terrible problem, which is, what do you do with all the people who stack up at zero? And the answer isn't have contempt for them because they don't work as hard as you. It's like, yeah, a bunch of them don't, you know, because conscientiousness also predicts success. So among the poor, there are people who don't work, you know, but you never want to underestimate the contribution of cognitive ability.

So it's rough, man. And we don't take it seriously. And we don't know what to do about it. And it's clear that as inequality increases, societies destabilize. That's clear. So it's something that has to be dealt with. But we don't know how to deal with it. Uh-oh, I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

He recognizes wealth inequality as a problem, just like he recognizes unjust hierarchies as a problem, but has presented them both as like natural occurrences and concludes that there's nothing to be done to solve them. You know, so that things stay exactly the same. Nevermind the fact that there are absolutely proposed ways to solve wealth inequality. He presumably dismisses those based on this bizarre

starting idea that high IQ people are naturally better with money and therefore we should give all the money to high IQ people and there's nothing we can do to change that. The logic is staggering to wrap your head around. And so because he presents it as being confusing or a complex problem that's so hard to solve, you might make the mistake of concluding

that he must be right. But the reality is that he is making it confusing and complex and hard to solve. It's why you might notice that one of his favorite things to say is, "'Well, it's complicated.'" And he often does this by referring to a lot of intellectual sounding concepts.

He likes to mix and match, all with the goal of presenting inequality as a natural occurrence that we can't even mitigate. And that's not the fault of any ideological system. If you look at any creative endeavor that human beings engage in, so that would be an endeavor where there's variability in individual production. It doesn't matter what it is. Here's what happens. People compete to produce whatever that is, and almost everybody produces zero. They lose completely.

A small minority are a tiny bit successful, and a hyper-minority are insanely successful. And so the Pareto distribution is the geometric graph representation of that phenomena. And so here's how it manifests itself. If you have 10,000 people, 100 of them have half the money. So the rule is the square root of the number of people under consideration have half of whatever it is that's under consideration. So this works everywhere.

So if you took 100 classical composers, 10 of them produce half the music that's under consideration. So this works everywhere. So if you took a hundred classical composers, ten of them produce half the music that's played. And then if you take the ten composers and you take a thousand of their songs, thirty of those songs, which is the square root of a thousand, roughly speaking, are played fifty percent of the time. And so there's this underlying natural law, which is, it's expressed as the Matthew principle, which is from a New Testament statement. The statement is, to those who have everything, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, everything will be taken. It's a vicious statement, but it's actually, here's one of those places where it's actually empirically true. This happens everywhere. And so what Marx

observed was that capital tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And he said that's a flaw of the capitalist system. That's wrong. It's not a flaw of the capitalist system. It is a feature of every single system of production that we know of, no matter who set it up and how it operates. Never mind the fact that popularity and talent have nothing to do with economic equality. What Jordan is breezing past there is something called the Pareto principle, which is a ratio that states that only 20% of a group

is producing 80% of an outcome. It can be easy to misunderstand, if only because those two numbers aren't mathematically related. They happen to add up to 100%, but aren't percentages of the same thing. The origin came from Vilfredo Pareto, who first observed that 80% of the land in Italy

was owned by 20% of the people. He went on to notice that 20% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the people. He went on to notice that 20% of the pea pods in his garden were producing 80% of the peas. Because his observations were about both nature and economics, some people have decided that this is a natural law. And when I say some people, I think you know who I mean. One of the things that you'll find if you look at creative production in any domain, it doesn't matter, artistic domain, food production, novels written, novels sold, money generated, number of companies generated, number of goals scored in hockey, etc. Any number of paintings painted,

number of compositions written, anything like that, where the fundamental underlying measure is human productivity, what you find is that a very tiny percentage of people produce almost all the output. It's called a Pareto distribution. Pareto distributions govern for example the distribution of money, which is why 1% of the people in the general population have the overwhelming amount of money, and 1 tenth of that 1% of the people in the general population have the overwhelming amount of money, and 1 tenth of that 1% has almost all of that. And you think, well that's a terrible thing, and perhaps it is, but what you have to understand is that that law governs the distribution of creative production across all creative

domains, right? It's something like a natural law. Jordan loves talking about the Pareto principle as it relates to income inequality, concluding it to be a natural law because it's, according to him, something that occurs in everything from novels to food production.

Except, bit of a snag. It doesn't? Well, it does sometimes, and it doesn't many other times. For example, in food production, the USDA found that family farms, aka 98% of all farms, provide 88% of all production. That doesn't really follow this distribution. Though to be fair,

it is from the cultural Marxists at the USDA. On the flip side, only 1.3% of traditionally published authors make over $100,000 on their books, while 53% make under $1,000. That doesn't follow the rule either. You know what else also doesn't follow the rule is wealth inequality. Currently in the USA, the top 20% owns 90% of the wealth. Shouldn't Dr. Peterson be screaming about how

we need to get it down to 80%? If you Google it, you'll find tons of lists of things that supposedly follow this 20-80 rule. Everything from social media to city traffic to how disease spreads. The problem is that almost all of these lists are impossible to actually find data to back them up. Because generally speaking, this 20-80 ratio

is just a rule of thumb people apply to things like marketing and management. In a lot of ways, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A manager will read somewhere that only 20% of employees produce 80% of the work and then give raises based on that, never bothering to check if that's actually true. Every time we try to fact check this principle, it really seems to lead back to that.

For example, here's an article stating that 20% of a store's product produces 80% of the profit, but there's no data you can find backing that up. If you go on Wikipedia, they give a single example of this with video rentals, saying that 20% of the movies produced 80% of all rentals. But the only source is an old New York Times article that says, quote,

"'Many stores suggest that something like 80% "'of their revenues stem from 20% of their tapes. That's it. There's no hard data here. It's just like a loose estimate. As far as I can tell, no one has recreated Pareto's peapod observation, nor does that come up with any other crop.

And in fact, there are bunches of other ratios seen in nature and economics that don't follow this idea. Like, hey, Jordan, did you hear of the 1090 gap where less than 10% of global funding is spent on research for diseases that affect over 90% of the population? How does that fit in your natural hierarchy? Is it good?

In other words, the Pareto Principle is just, it's kind of a saying, like don't put all your eggs in one basket or a dick in the toaster makes jizz even roastier, where people will use the 20-80 rule to make decisions. Others argue that it's not a good rule at all. Peterson uses the rule to claim that as you expand your company,

competence at the top is linear and incompetence increases exponentially because you can't like hire different people. If you replace the unproductive 80% with productive people, do they magically become unproductive? It's silly. Now this isn't all to say it's wrong or right, but rather subjective and not any kind of harsh truth

or cosmic force that binds everything together. Although there is something with data backing it up called Pareto distribution in some sense, more specifically the double Pareto log normal distribution. Here's a paper laying out the math I'm sure Peterson will admittedly not understand, and some examples and graphs displaying the distribution, which can be more or less wiki described as a situation

where an equilibrium is found in the distribution of the small to the large. It's this shape. There are varying degrees of matches when plotting out distribution of large cities to small cities, or large oil fields to little oil fields. It's a distribution that pops up sometimes, and Peterson seems to think it's everywhere and great every time.

It's a very, very vicious statistic, and you won't learn about that in psychology for reasons I have no idea about. Ah yeah, no idea why this random ratio that shows up sometimes, but also often doesn't, isn't taught in psychology classes. You might notice that in these videos, Jordan will also mention the Matthew effect, or talk about ratios that aren't just 20-80.

That's because he'll often merge the Pareto principle with something called Price's Law. Often in the same breath, he'll sort of mix and match several different theories as if they are all related in some way. It's called a Pareto distribution, P-A-R-E-T-O, and it was studied in detail in scientific productivity by someone named De Sola Price. It's a square root law, so here's the law fundamentally. If you look at the number of people who are doing, who are in a given domain, who are producing in a given domain, the square root of the people produce half the product.

So that means if you have 10 employees, three of them do half the work. But if you have 10,000 employees, 100 of them do half the work. Now, Price's law, when it was first conceived, was specific to scientific papers, stating half of the literature on a subject will be contributed by the square root of the total number of authors publishing in that area. That has since been expanded to basically say that 50% of work done at any company is produced by a small percentage of employees. Not 80-20, but again, there's no data here.

In fact, when we looked into it, we didn't just fail to find evidence of it being real, but rather we succeeded at finding a series of studies specifically saying that there's nothing solid to support Price's law as a serious theory. Nor does it really connect to the Pareto distribution or the Matthew effect, the latter saying that famous people tend to get more credit for things than non-famous people who helped out, or the basic idea that the rich get richer. These are all perfectly fine ideas, but all of them are considered hypotheses and not some kind of natural law.

But Jordan loves ignoring that fact, as well as mixing and matching all of these concepts into a turducken of false facts, and then warping their meaning almost exclusively to support the idea that a hierarchy of privileged people on top is natural and good and not a construct of society. That the rich and powerful are there

because they deserve it somehow. Because it's much easier to convince someone that something is unchangeable if it seems to follow a mathematical pattern, I guess. Dude loves throwing out numbers this way. He's a big fan of little percentages of something leading to big percentages of something else. But if you haven't noticed yet,

it's all kind of gibberish when you look into the things he's talking about and how he's talking about them. They sound informed, but equate to nothing actually intelligent, nor does it recognize actual data or just how people work or reality. And so going back to Peterson's persona, him as the sage and his beloved archetypes,

well, it really seems like he's closer to the magician, as in someone seeking to use magic, AKA lying, for their own purpose. Also, there's the magical way he decides to pronounce Joaquin Phoenix's name. I just watched Joaquin Phoenix in Joker. And he's a very charismatic actor. Come on, man, no one says it like that.

Also, you notice that he always makes little magician fingers when he talks? Not sure what that's about, maybe he's casting a spell. And in general, the magic of Peterson's presentation is often rooted in very aggressive emphasis in his speech, as well as a general need to tie everything back to mythology and lore, like say a chicken and a grasshopper,

but specifically biblical imagery. And even more specifically, the story of Cain and Abel. Even when it doesn't really make sense, like here's a super cut of Jorbson talking about a bunch of supposedly completely different things. God doesn't punish Cain. And you think, that's kind of strange.

I mean, the Old Testament God, he's punishing people left, right, and center. It's like, why not Cain? There's this idea in Cain and Abel. It's like Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel. It's Cain and Cain and Abel. Dude's weird, weird guy.

And the way he speaks really comes across as a sort of quirky Hogwarts professor spinning white hot ropes of magic to get his point across. But again, in this case, the magic is more often half-truths and outright lies presented with a sort of grandiose confidence. He really wants the world to have a very specific order rooted in our history and mythology,

and we'll find that meaning in literally everything he teaches. So this is Fuxy and Nuwa. I think I've got that right. But I just love that reference. It's so insanely cool, this representation. So you see the sort of the primary mother and father of humanity emerging from this underlying snake-like entity with its tails tangled together.

I think that's a... I really do believe this, although it's very complicated to explain why. I really believe that's a representation of DNA. So, and that representation, that entwined double helix, that is everywhere. You can see it in Australian Aboriginal art, and I'm using the Australians as an example because they were isolated in Australia for like 50,000 years. They're the most archaic people that were ever discovered. And they have clear representations of these double helix structures in their art. So, and those are the two giant serpents out of

which the world is made. So sure, perhaps these ancient civilizations drew these snakes intertwined because they represent the structure of DNA and these people secretly knew that. they represent the structure of DNA and these people secretly knew that. Or, you know, maybe it's because that's what snakes look like when they do sex with each other. So if you wanted to draw two steak people creating the world or whatever, it seems like you draw them on the express bus to pound town.

Also DNA doesn't really look like snakes boning. It's more like a twisted ladder than two ropes, spooning each other. It seems like Jordan could have Googled this, but instead has decided to teach a classroom of students that early humans knew what DNA looked like because of serpent coitus. And at least some of those students are going to believe him

and then enter the world with that belief and then get jobs where they're in charge of others and making important decisions. Now for the record, I don't think Peterson actually knows he's being deceptive for the most part, or maybe he does, who the hell knows, and we will explore that in a bit.

But for the most part, I think he's just a guy who really believes he's smarter than most, or all, and therefore has the best opinions that are so good and bestest that he presents them as actual facts. And so as a teacher, that makes him terrible. As a self-help guru, that's fine, I guess. We distort facts all the time to motivate ourselves, and for good reason.

I know this because I myself am extremely smart and wise and can do a backflip, more backflips than you. But Peterson is more than just a terrible yet inspiring teacher, obviously, because Peterson has long graduated from being some random professor from the podunk town of Toronto. As we noted, Jordan rose to fame

from becoming a prominent right-wing figure. Those who admire him might characterize him as challenging the status quo of academic and PC culture, which brings us to the second part of his persona, the outlaw. The first story that put Jay Pete on the map comes from the fall of 2016, when Peterson began trending for his vocal defiance

of Canada's gender identity rights bill, C-16. In a series of extremely fucking long YouTube videos, I wonder what that's like, Peterson claimed that C-16 was an attack on free speech. He claimed that C-16 counted as compelled speech, forcing people like himself to use specific words lest they be put in jail. To quote an interview,

"'Bill C-16' writes social constructionism "'into the fabric of the law. "'Social constructionism is the doctrine "'that all human roles are socially constructed. "'They're detached from the underlying biology "'and from the underlying objective world. "'So Bill C-16 contains an assault on biology and an implicit assault on the idea of objective reality.

Hey Jordan, you know what else is a social construct that's an assault on objective reality? Religion. Anyway, when speaking to the Toronto Sun, Peterson claimed, "'These laws are the first laws that I've seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words to speak a certain way,

instead of merely limiting what they're allowed to say, so the laws put words into our mouths. It was a big public stink as Peterson boldly proclaimed that no good, sir, he will not be forced to use preferred pronouns of his students. Though recently, he's also said that he'd personally judge if someone legitimately needed him to use their legal name or pronouns.

And if they were trying to trick him, though also every chance he gets, he deadnames Elliot Page and calls him her. So maybe not actually the thing he said he would do. But the point is no law such as C-16 will force him to do it. And if they dared to jail him, he would go on a hunger strike

to defend our precious rights to free speech. If they find me, I won't pay it. If they put me in jail, I'll go on a hunger strike to defend our precious rights to free speech. If they find me, I won't pay it. If they put me in jail, I'll go on a hunger strike. Wow, that's some real V for Vendetta shit. If the government of Canada is indeed threatening to jail teachers for using the wrong pronouns with students, that would be straight up dystopian. When do we all revolt against Canada? Is it now, eh? I got my war rig all warmed up. It's just sitting there in my yard. So let's do this. Except wait, here's an idea.

Let's look at what Bill C-16 actually says, because it turns out that Bill C-16 is just an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, adding the words gender identity as a protected group in three sections of the original act. And that's it. It has trans folk in the list of groups protected from discrimination along with age, race, sex,

disabilities and religions. And it amended the criminal code for hate crimes and hate speech to include gender identity on that list as well. And that's it. It didn't force anyone to use a preferred pronoun lest they be jailed. It's extremely innocuous and for like discrimination in housing

and employment. C-16 was later passed and wouldn't you know it, nothing changed. I mean, except for trans people having a tad more rights to not be discriminated against. No one was jailed for using the wrong pronouns because of course they weren't. In other words, everything Peterson was taking this bold stance against, hunger strike threats, freedom fighter shit, was a fantasy. It was never in this bill something anyone who simply read the thing would know. He was performing theatre, virtue signalling against trans rights, and putting himself in the spotlight as a free speech warrior. Yes, he apparently was asked by his bosses at the University of Toronto to respect the

pronouns of students, but not under the penalty of jail time. Just like to make school better for students, but also just fucking say okay and do it. Or use they or call them by their actual names because you're a teacher in a professional environment and not a big weird baby. But of course, Jordan got big and famous for his anti-trans pretending to be about freedom of speech stance and has been

playing the hits ever since. But the suspension will not be lifted unless I delete the hateful tweet in question and I would rather die than do that. Just delete it man, it's easy. Jordan the outlaw retired in 2017 from his role at the University of Toronto, but kept his tenure until recently. He has since broken up with them completely because quote, "'An appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion, and equity "'is demolishing education and business.'"

Dude literally quit because there was too much inclusion, going on to say that his heterosexual white male graduate students weren't getting enough research positions. To me, it's pretty clear that Jordan Peterson has officially found it way more lucrative to play the role of a right-wing grifter going on speaking tours and writing useless books

than to work a regular job that might provide something for society, like me and my important work with Warmbo. Because clearly, his lobster ideology got in the way of his ability to work with others, which is what inclusion is kind of all about. The thing about Peterson's railing against inclusion and equity and all that

is that he never gives an alternative. If he can't admit that or acknowledge that there is a very clear history of racism in places like the United States and Canada that is still reverberating and affecting people, then he's unserious. And if he acknowledges it, he needs to admit he doesn't think anything

should be done about it. But apparently he can't seem to accept working with trans or liberal or diverse students. And so he's just gonna be this conservative loud mouth instead. Of course, funny fact, if you were to ask Peterson if he's a right winger, he would actually disagree with you.

Their basic proposition is that, you know, first of all, that I'm a right winger, he would actually disagree with you. Their basic proposition is that, you know, first of all, that I'm a right winger of some sort, and that's just not the case. So apparently there's an argument that Jordan Peterson is not a right winger, and he is one of the only people who makes it. And a lot of others have pointed out that most of what he teaches is about philosophy

and apolitical, and his anti-PC culture stuff has been overly highlighted and doesn't reflect the full spectrum of his opinions. The fact that he frequently attacks the left has attracted some far-right fans, but by at least some accounts, his audience tends to be pretty diverse. So you could argue that calling him a right-wing grifter

is a bad strategy because it paints the left as being against everything he talks about, as if he is not against everything the left talks about. And he is occasionally the subject of misinformation. He went viral for apparently saying we should have enforced monogamy to solve the incel problem, as if he was proposing mandatory wives for depressed young men. But he wasn't actually saying that. What do you mean by enforced monogamy? Well we could start by what I don't mean. I don't mean taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men, which

is essentially the accusation. It was really interesting to watch that unfold. meant was that monogamy as something that's socially valued appears to be essentially a human universal. That doesn't mean that human beings are universally monogamous, because obviously we're not. We can be serially monogamous, and some people are players and have multiple partners and all of that. players and have multiple partners and all of that, but there's a strong proclivity across known societies to tilt towards monogamy,

and the enforcement is social norms. Fair enough. I mean, I don't know if he's correct, but the point is that he was trying, perhaps failing, to say that we should stress monogamy as a social norm, which again, not sure I agree with that, but maybe I'll ask around at the next orgy. This is all to say that Peterson isn't exactly

your Ben Shapiro or Stevens Crowder, in that he allegedly doesn't actively push right-wing talking points, and often comes across as reasonable. And again, as a self-help guru, I would argue that he's generally, probably, maybe okay at it. Of course, I'm not a self-help expert, so maybe he's actually terrible.

But it should stand out that while Peterson often goes after Marxism and the radical left types using extremely flawed arguments, he almost never points that lens at the far right, often unfairly so. For example, I think what I would have done was walk into the voting booth with the intention of voting for clinton and then at the last minute gone to hell with it i'm not doing it and voted for trump i think that's what i would have done and i thought about it a lot afterwards i mean for the entire election virtually i thought well clinton has the experience necessary to at least keep the status quo in motion you know so in some sense she was a conservative choice because she'd been in politics for so long so but then as the campaign

continued and she continued to beat the identity politics drum louder and louder i became more and more concerned about her political direction or ideological direction. Once again, he takes the centrist position, claiming that he would have voted for Hillary, except noting that it would have been a conservative choice, and then decides that ultimately, he would have voted for Trump instead,

because Trump doesn't play identity politics. You know, Trump, famous for not politicizing religion or race, social background, by waving a Bible around and saying, I love Christmas, or calling Mexicans rapists, or bragging about how rich he is. Clearly it was only Clinton, who totally unprompted by her opponent, resorted to identity politics. Interesting how all of Jordan's totally centrist beliefs

always land on the side of the right wing, even when his reasoning makes zero sense. And in fact, when you look at the things he does believe, he sure seems to be a right winger who specifically pushes identity politics, as well as strongly supporting the status quo and so-called traditional values. Like, I'm sorry to quote the fucking Wikipedia definition

of right-wing politics, but at its baseline, right-wing politics is a support of the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority, or tradition. Natural law, inevitable hierarchies, tradition,

literally everything from those clips we showed you earlier. Peterson was a political science major. And so it is absurd that he would be surprised people categorize him as right wing. Their basic proposition is that, you know, first of all, that I'm a right winger of some sort, and that's just not the case. Like literally the thing he's famous for

is taking something in nature and using it to promote and defend hierarchies as inevitable and just the rest of the fucking definition. And to dig more into this, we're going to move out of the persona section of this video and dive into the Jungian archetype of the shadow. But not just any old stupid shadow, we're gonna talk about Jordan Peterson's shadow,

the Alec Baldwin with a fake nose of it all, if you will. This manifests in the stark difference between what Peterson claims he is, a logical, moderate thinker and teacher, with who he actually is, which is a right-leaning self-help celebrity. In fact, considering some of the ideas and people he props up,

you could argue that Jordan Peterson is far, far right-leaning. For example, here's a tweet by Jordan Peterson, you know, the guy this video is about, signal boosting what he calls the largest study ever done on the effects of diversity, diversity being a thing he reflexively hates and probably pretends there's no definition of.

And wouldn't you know it, it's a link from the American Conservative and concludes that diverse communities create distrust. This 2007 Harvard study of 26,200 people in 40 American communities found that people questioned in more diverse areas of the country displayed less trust in the institutions around them as well as neighbors. Jordan shares this with his usual intellectual detachment,

but the conclusion drawn here is that diversity is bad. After all, this is a 130 question survey of over 26,000 people, or the largest study ever done. Except, hey, fun fact, this 130 question survey wasn't taken specifically for this Harvard study. It was actually data taken from a 2000 survey called the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey and only five of the questions were actually about trust.

And when other researchers took a look at the data, they found that this original conclusion was heavily flawed. For example, the survey very loosely defined what a diverse neighborhood is, their measurement counting communities with 80% whites and 20% blacks as equally diverse. It also didn't ask questions specifically relating to trust as it pertains to community or diversity. What I mean is that different races in general will often have different levels of distrust

regardless of where they live. So of course, an area with more diversity will have more people showing general distrust of things like authority, often for good reason. And finally, as an aside, it found that the people who displayed the highest level of distrust across the board were white people living with more racial minorities.

Golly gosh, that sure sounds like a different issue than diversity. Feels like there's a different word for what that is. Not to mention that the original author of that Harvard study spoke out to say that his research was being twisted to conclude that diversity was bad. Quote, in the short term, he writes,

there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. And going back to that specific American conservative article covering it, the one Peterson shared instead of the study itself, it actually mocks the original author's attempt

to clarify his study as a weak parody of Bertolt Brecht's parody of communist propaganda after the failed 1953 uprising against the East German puppet regime. And then I assume the word chachi after that. It goes hard into the idea that this flimsy survey proves that diversity is bad actually. A huge chunk of that article is a personal story

about the very white author living in Chicago's uptown district and how little he trusted his neighbors. Hey, like the survey said. And then goes into another personal story about going to Mexico and how diversity there is also bad. It's a really meandering article that spends very little time on the actual study that Peterson mentioned in this tweet.

The study whose abstract says, "'In the long run, however, "'successful immigrant societies "'have overcome such fragmentation "'by creating new cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions,

and earlier waves of American immigration. But the article doesn't mention that. And you kind of have to wonder why Peterson picked this telling of it instead of a straightforward news story that includes the other parts. But the framing of this specific American conservative article becomes less of a mystery when you consider its author, Steve Saylor,

who is a fucking white supremacist. Steve writes for the Unz Review, a site that has, let's say, not so great things to say about the Jews and sure doesn't think the Holocaust was real. Saylor himself has written way too many articles about how white people have higher IQs. Oh good, more IQ stuff. And once wrote in an article about Hurricane Katrina

and the supposed looting, what you won't hear except from me is that let the good times roll is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.

So yeah, Steve Saylor sure speaks like a fucking Nazi. And it was Steve's extremely bad and unacademic interpretation of this Harvard study that Jordan Peterson, a totally not right wing guy, chose to share with the world. Seems like a super smart professor guy should have caught all this nuance, but he sure didn't. If I'm being charitable, we could say that Peterson

was simply incurious and gullible, and really wanted to confirm his bias that diversity is bad, as opposed to willfully propping up a known white supremacist, if I'm being charitable, because he's also found a lot of common ground regarding IQ and race with Stefan Molyneux, cult leader, and eventually admitted white supremacist. Also incidentally, Steve Saylor is the originator

of what is called the Saylor Strategy, which partially influenced Donald Trump. The Saylor Strategy proposed that Republican candidates can gain political support in American elections by appealing to working class white workers with heterodox right-wing nationalist and economic populist positions. Protectionism, identity politics,

and opposition to immigration, et cetera. But like Peterson said, Hillary Clinton is the one who played identity politics, not Trump. And hey, on the subject of IQ and Nazi shit, I'm going to show you one of the most subtly insidious clips of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson that I have. He discusses the issue in several videos, one with Molyneux himself,

and refers to it as the most horrifying fact he has ever heard. And it's the main reason I've always wanted this video about him to exist. Here we go. One of the most terrifying statistics I ever came across was one detailing out the rationale of the United States Armed Forces for not allowing the induct... You can't induct anyone into the Armed Forces in the U.S. if they have an IQ of less than 83.

Okay, so let's just take that apart for a minute, because it's a horrifying thing. So the U.S. Armed Forces has been in the forefront of intelligence research since World War I, armed forces has been in the forefront of intelligence research since World War I, because they were on board early with the idea that, especially during wartime when you're ramping up quickly, that you need to sort people effectively and essentially without prejudice so that you can build up the officer corps so you don't lose the damn war. Okay, so there's real motivation to get it right, right, because it's a life and death issue. So they used IQ.

They did a lot of the early psychometric work on IQ. Okay, two things. Number one, everything you just said is wrong. The armed forces don't do IQ tests and don't have a rule about having an IQ less than 83. They just don't. They do have something called the armed forces qualification test,

but have said that those tests do not perfectly match up with an IQ test. And the requirements are flexible. You can do poorly on the test and still get into the military. Also, as I noted, IQ tests aren't exactly perfect anyway, in that they suck and are racist. Secondly, Jordan tries to mitigate that fact

by talking up how during World War I, the military took IQ really seriously and therefore conducted really good tests. Except we know that's not true either. In fact, the tests at the time were extremely flawed and mainly focused on familiarity with American culture, as opposed to any universal intelligence. Like they were specifically and historically seen as bad.

You could just go on Wikipedia and find that out. So where did he get that 83 number from? Well, before I answer that, I wanna play more of this clip. The United States Armed Forces is also really motivated to get people into the armed forces, peacetime or wartime. Wartime, well, for obvious reasons. Peacetime, because, well, first of all, you've got to keep the armed forces going.

And second, you can use the armed forces during peacetime as a way of taking people out of the underclass and moving them up into the working class or the middle class Right you can use it as a training mechanism And and so there's and left and right can agree on that you know it's it's a reasonable Way of promoting social mobility so again the Armed Forces even in peacetime is very Motivated to get as many people in as they possibly can and it's difficult as well You it's not that easy to recruit people. So you don't want to throw people out if you don't have to.

So what's the upshot of all that? Well, after 100 years, essentially, of careful statistical analysis, the armed forces concluded that if you had an IQ of 83 or less, there wasn't anything you could possibly be trained to do in the military at any level of the organization that wasn't positively counterproductive Okay, you think well so what 83 okay? Yeah one in ten One in ten that's one in ten people

And that what that really means that as far as I can tell is if you imagine that the military is Approximately as complex as the broader society, which I think is a reasonable proposition, then there's no place in our cognitively complex society for one in 10 people. Okay, so what he's saying is that by this military standard that again, doesn't actually exist. If your IQ is below 83, then there's nothing you can do to better society or contribute to it in any way. In fact, there's nothing at all for you to do. And that applies to society as a whole,

based on, you know, just his opinion. Like, because you can't get into the military, which is desperate for recruits, but also needs to be maximally efficient, you can't do stuff outside of the military. There's just nothing for you to do. You got the bad number on the test, so you're just maybe going to bring down efficiency, the ultimate sin. So where is he going with this? So what are we going to do about that? The answer is no one knows

say, well, shovel money down the hierarchy. It's like the problem isn't lack of money. I mean, sometimes that's the problem, but the problem is rarely absolute poverty. It's rarely that. It is sometimes, but rarely. It's not that easy to move money down the hierarchy. So first of all, it's not that easy to manage money. So it's a vicious problem, man. Oh, of course. What do we do about this fact I just made up? I don't know. It's a mystery. And so he just leaves us with this fact that is false, claiming that one in 10 people are useless, which they aren't, and presents the only two choices, even though they're not, throw money at them,

which we can't do, even though we can, and that they can't do anything, which they can. And therefore, there's simply no solution for these, let's call them useless eaters. But of course, if you're say, a fascist, you probably have a solution, one that's pretty final. And Peterson probably knows that. He probably knows this is the conclusion

he's leading us to, but won't say it. It's horrifying! Same way he knows that by sharing that false study on diversity from before, he's pushing people to think diversity is bad. It's the reason why he never finishes these thoughts, but simply says that no one knows what to do about it. He loves to lead people down a steep hill

toward horrible conclusions, and then let go at the last second so he can pretend to be impartial. But as we've been pointing out, the facts he keeps throwing out there are almost always false. And this is when I tell you that the claim that the military doesn't allow people

with an IQ less than 83, which is false, seems to come from a single academic paper written 20 years ago and says it's actually less than 80. There's no other origin for this that we can find, just this one paper that cites absolutely no sources and was written by a woman named Linda Godforsen. Back in the 90s, Linda made it into the newspapers for conducting studies on race and IQ

that were funded by a group called the Pioneer Fund, which is literally a pro-eugenics organization that was founded by, again, literally, an American Nazi. So whether or not he knows it, which he should, Jordan Peterson is basically just relaying Nazi propaganda in this video. And the optimistic, extremely charitable explanation is that he is simply ignorant of that.

Although according to Peterson, I've studied Nazism for four decades and I understand it very well. And I can tell you there are some awful people lurking in the corners. They're ready to come out. And if the radical left keeps pushing the way it's pushing, they're going to come.

So if you don't stop doing things I and Nazis don't like, then the Nazis from over there are gonna get you. Oh, so maybe he actually does know about how they burned the Sexuality Institute. That's worse, probably. He has had fans ask him about the Jewish question and to his credit, he tried to push back on it, but also he made it about IQ.

And although he is correct that a lot of the alt-right don't like him for pushing back on ethnic nationalism, his pushback is, you don't play racial, ethnic, and gender identity games. The left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride. I think they're equally dangerous.

Equally dangerous stuff, acknowledging and trying to rectify the well-documented and racist history of a nation and thinking other races are inferior and wanting them to be dead. He's just a moderate thinking regular Joe or Din Peterson. Anyway, I guess my point is that Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has a, he has a lecture called, "'You Probably Would Have Been a Nazi."

And it's like a sort of banal point about how your environment and society affects you. And maybe it's true. To be clear, I am not saying that Jordan Peterson is a Nazi. I'm just saying he definitely would have been. You have to admire Hitler, that's the thing, because he was an organizational genius. Anyway, this is not the only time Peterson has blindly,

or maybe purposefully, walked into fascist nonsense sword first. In fact, remember one of his most favorite theories, that Pareto distribution stuff? Well, it might be good to mention other people that Vilfredo Pareto inspired, that person being one person, that one person being Mussolini. In fact, before his death,

Pareto himself welcomed Mussolini's rise to power as necessary to implement the system he desired. Although people have speculated that he ultimately would not have been a fan had he stuck around. But in general, Pareto's theories are often associated with totalitarianism because they prop up the idea that there's a natural superiority of the elite. In 1909, Pareto developed something called the income curve,

a graph based on data he collected from wealth and income from a bunch of different countries from a bunch of different eras. The results didn't resemble a bell curve or normal distribution, but rather a very large number of poor people at the bottom rung and a few at the top. And so based on this, Pareto concluded that democracy was a lie,

and that this unjust distribution where the very few got all the spoils was in the nature of man. Thing is, even if that's true, Pareto ultimately concludes that the very idea of progress is a sham, which is why this is used to justify fascist or totalitarian rulers. It's also an incredibly nihilistic way of thinking

to claim that inequality is a natural law that we can't do anything about. After all, gravity is a natural law too, but we constantly defy it with airplanes and rockets and killer kickflips. It's also not exactly accurate to call this natural so much as a symptom of manmade societal structures. But if you're paying attention,

you might notice that this is exactly what Jordan Peterson is pushing with all that lobster hogwash, as well as his weird stance that high IQ people should have all the money and how low IQ people should be well, who can say? And of course him sharing works by a white supremacist who loves to claim that white people are the smartest people. And also, the game Monopoly? Well, imagine what

happens when you play Monopoly. What happens? Everybody has the same amount of money to begin with, right? So then you start playing. It's basically a random game. Well, some people start to win a bit, some people start to lose a bit. And then if you win, the probability that you'll keep winning starts to increase. And if you lose, your vulnerability increases as you lose. And then maybe you've got, say, six people playing Monopoly. Soon one person has zero. What happens when they have zero? They're out of the game. So zero is a weird number, because when you hit zero, you're out of the game. So then if you keep playing, people start to stack up at zero right what happens at the end of the game? One person has all the property and all the money and everyone else has none

Right that's what happens if you play an iterated trading game to its final conclusion And that's part of the law in a sense that's underlying this kind of distribution And that's part of the law in a sense that's underlying this kind of distribution. So it's really, it's not a consequence necessarily of structural inequality. It's built into the system at a deeper level than that. So inequality is built deep into the system and not structural or man-made because it occurs naturally. In a 100-year-old game literally called Monopoly that simulates a structural system we made. Or did the first monopoly grow from a plant? If Monopoly actually grows from a plant,

then somebody please let me know and I will apologize for pointing out how hilariously bad this argument is and how it in fact proves literally the opposite of what he's saying. In fact, Monopoly was originally called the Landlord Game and was specifically designed to illustrate how the quest to amass large sums of money results in fucking over everyone else

and, well, monopolies. That's why you can become a railroad baron and people arbitrarily go to jail and are punished for existing on a physical space. So Peterson could have probably looked that up before acting like it's proof of a natural order, but I feel like he doesn't actually care and like bad jazz you gotta listen to what he's maybe Trying to say he's pointing to the the random elements of the game as proof that inequality is inevitable

If money is exchanged randomly if everything is random He seems to not grasp that the game of money was made up by us and the rules are ours and we can restart the game whenever we want and the distribution and an acquisition of resources happens via decisions made by people. He's just snatching up so many straws, throwing so much against the wall and the third analogy about haphazard item sorting,

all to overwhelm his audience into accepting his very wrong ideas about how all hierarchies work and how they're inevitable and good. You probably noticed how much time I have to spend on a single Jordan Peterson tweet, or like a 30 second clip of him talking, or simply having to summarize the beautiful six minutes of talking about how chicken hoppers during inflation

prove climate models are all wrong. That's generally the problem with folks like him and Ben Shapiro in that their answers are often quick and simple, or it's a fire hose of needlessly complicated or misleading bullshit. It just takes so long to let them talk and then break it all down. Don't look at the timestamp.

Anyway, because of all of this and all of his apolitical posturing, Peterson can easily pretend to not be a right winger, but simply an impartial academic that the left is too scared to debate. There's no attempt really to contend with the issues that I'm raising. It's all vilification. And that's because they can't contend with the issues that I'm raising.

The idea that his haters can't contend with the issues that I'm raising. The idea that his haters can't contend with the issues Jordan Peterson is raising and resort to broad name calling is something he speaks to a lot when criticizing the radical left types, and it protects him from seeming politically biased. He's characterizing all of his opponents as radical ideologues, which he's not at all, and his critics as angry, unreasonable college kids,

because it means he can dismiss any and all actual criticism. But also, the truth is, what I've already expressed, that debunking Peterson often takes a lot of patience and words. And so ultimately, it's kind of just easier to call him a dipshit and move on, because it's not like he's going to actually change his mind or even make sense, even in the face of people calling him out. And another thing you've done is that unlike Haidt you have a more sort of comprehensive political program. You've talked a lot in defense of traditional hierarchies both of gender, of

class, so on, though emphatically not of race. And so it seems that- I haven't talked about defense of traditional hierarchies in terms of gender and class. That's not true. Well, you've talked about hierarchies in society you've talked about yeah that's true i have done that but i haven't justified them on the basis of gender and class you you whatever it was okay category you talk not okay that's an important distinction but you defend hierarchies in society in a way that you talk a lot about the pareto distribution. Yes. That doesn't mean I defend it. Well, okay. No, not well, okay. Yes. Well, I mean, I think you talk a lot. Observing that something exists is not the same as defending it. How in the world? People attack it, right?

You don't. People attack it. Attack the hierarchies of society is inherently unjust, right? Well, they're unjust but they're also useful okay so you you just you say they're useful some people would disagree with that proposition okay look at it this way you obviously think that it's worthwhile to stand up and ask a question yes so you think that standing up and asking a question is better than not standing up and asking a question yes okay that's standing up and asking a question. Yes. Okay, that's a hierarchy. Yes. Of values.

Yes. Okay, without the hierarchy of values, you couldn't act. Of course. No, no, not of course. Wait, do you- It's partly why I'm defending the hierarchy. Without a hierarchy, there's no impetus to act. I'm sorry you had to see all of that.

I'm sorry you had to see any of these Peterson clips. He sounds like Kermit and looks like Oscar the Grouch. But you see how incredibly frustrating it is for a student to actually call him out on things that that student is correct about. It's Mad Hatter shit. This kid points out that Peterson often defends concepts like hierarchies as it pertains to gender and class, as well as the Pareto principle. Peterson constantly interrupts him, needling his superficial uses of language and saying,

I haven't talked about defensive hierarchies in terms of gender and class, which is just wrong. We've shown you clips of him doing literally that. Whatever pitfalls hierarchies might produce, you cannot lay them at the feet of the West, patriarchy, or capitalism. In a single breath. We'll probably show you even more later on, but here he is denying it.

And in a debate setting, it's really hard to pull out your phone and find this clip or all of the other clips. Jordan goes on to say that observing that something exists is not the same as defending it. In terms of this hierarchy, he claims is a natural thing that we need to preserve and maybe let the left criticize sometimes if they behave.

But again, as we covered, that is not a fact. The Pareto distribution slash Matthew effect slash Pareto principle slash Price's law isn't a hard fact for everything. It seems like he's trying to say that all his lobster talk is simply and only pointing out that hierarchies exist. And like, no shit. But the existence and usefulness of hierarchies generally don't mean that all of them are useful or good or just

or perfectly organized. The fact that the hierarchy of waiting in line exists doesn't address what the student was pointing out. Interesting, this is the angriest he's ever been. I wonder what that's about. Also to top it all off, at the very end, he adds, "'That's partly why I'm defending the hierarchy.'" Literally moments after claiming

that he's not defending the hierarchy. In other words, he's a right-wing dipshit who can't contend with the things he says. And it's just easier to say that than trying to meet him on his own incredibly bad faith terms. He is not worth debating because the words coming out of his mouth are inconsistent, performatively indignant,

needlessly condescending, and often questionably descriptive claims said in a normative way via tradition and nature so that he can act pedantically affronted if you accuse him of making normative claims that extend from his naturalist viewpoint. What it comes down to is that Peterson just doesn't like that trans people exist.

He doesn't like having to change for the sake of inclusion or like anything that changes. He has specific biases and beliefs like everyone, but really wants to justify them by pretending like his biases and beliefs are rooted in some kind of grand design that we can't and shouldn't try to change. And it just so happens that his beliefs are largely right wing or protect the status quo, or, and boy, this is concerning,

really close to some Nazi shit. Dude loves the free market and capitalism as well. And so when faced with anything that challenges that, like our effect on and the effects of climate change, he's going to frame it as something we simply can't do anything about. First of all, it's very difficult to separate the science from the politics.

And second, even if the claims, the more radical claims are true, we have no idea what to do about it. And so, no. Except when he says, we don't know what to do about it, that we is doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it? Because people do know what to do about climate change. We know that the cause of climate change is greenhouse gases.

We've spent hundreds of years doing experiments to discover this. We can measure it using satellites and special equipment and know from those measurements that carbon dioxide is increasing in our atmosphere and causing the planet to trap more heat. This is elementary school shit. So even if we don't perfectly nail down the studies tracking it, it's extremely silly to act like there's literally nothing to be done. But of course, those solutions just aren't solutions he likes. Again, it's the Peterson pattern at work.

He ignores science, over-complicates the details and semantics, and concludes that it's too hard to fix. A series of gibberish claims and observations that sound intelligent, followed by no actual solutions. Well, climate change is real. Well, what do you mean by real? What do you mean by change? What do you mean by climate? How much do you know about climate? And I'm just picking on that because it's a real overgeneralization. It's not helpful. Hey, Jorbson, remember when we fixed the ozone layer?

Also very funny that that's from a channel called One Minute Fixed Thought. But sure, go off on how people aren't clear about what they mean by the word real, you very silly man. Hey Jordan, I bet when you talk to these experts, they say things like climate change is real, and you know what they mean by it. Even when he does claim to have a solution, he manages to make that solution completely useless. Because I lied, you see. Jordan Peterson did offer his view on what could be done to help the environment. Mostly what I learned, and this was really cool, was that this was so cool, and I really believe it's true. The fastest way to make the planet sustainably green and ecologically

viable is to make poor people as rich as possible, as fast as we possibly can. Because the thing about poor people is that, well, first of all, they live in... They're not resource efficient. They use a lot of resources to produce very, very little outcome. If you can get resources to the poorest section of the population, as soon as they get to the point where they have some hope of a genuine future, especially for their children, they immediately become concerned about broader environmental considerations. And then the attempt

to make the environment habitable and sustainable, that comes up of its own accord at a grassroots level and spreads everywhere. Okay, I mean, yeah, let's give poor people money. He's also not wrong here in the sense that there are studies showing that a person's socioeconomic status affects their concern for the environment, in that wealthier people in countries tend to have the time and energy to care about such things. What's not entirely clear is why.

It could be better access to education or simply having the money to make sustainable choices. There are also studies questioning those results, saying that people in poorer countries actually have more concern about the environment than wealthier countries. But to say the solution is to simply give a lot of people money is not only an idea

he would outright reject, but it's also a little simplistic in that there are obviously other better solutions to helping the environment now. Because obviously getting people concerned about climate change is just a first step. You still have to do something about it. But again, sure, Jordan, obviously,

let's make the poor not poor, even if that doesn't necessarily solve climate change and there's other stuff we can do about climate change right now, I am all for no more poverty. Although you have said, "- It's not that easy to move money down the hierarchy." I mean, what are you gonna do?

Tax the grotesquely wealthy and transfer it to people in some form? So, OK, hard to move money. How do you suggest we do this then? If the politicians who are discussing environmental sustainability were serious, especially the left wing ones, and I say especially because the left wing ones always say, well, we care about the poor and dispossessed. It's like, do you really? If you are serious about the environment and even vaguely concerned about poor people,

all of your policies would be devoted to making the poor rich as fast as possible. But that would violate the anti-capitalist presumption, let's say, that the reason for environmental degradation in the first place is, say, entrepreneurial and free market development, which it most certainly isn't, that's actually completely backwards, make poor people rich. So what should a COP26 mean about? That's fairly straightforward. It should have been about trying to generate as much energy as we

possibly can to be distributed as widely as possible in the cheapest possible manner. So your solution to poverty and by extension climate change is the free market of capitalism. You know, that thing that has totally helped consistently reduce poverty in America. You've singled out the left, of course, as usual, and are claiming that in order to make poor people not poor anymore, we should continue the exact same capitalist system we already have and just wait, not universal basic income, free healthcare, not limit the carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere. Just keep on doing what we're doing to the point that you're like scoffing at anti-capitalists as the people who want people to stay poor. And so we should increase production,

which will magically give poor people money because of the free market that has stagnated wages while increasing production for decades, which will magically solve climate change. Why do I feel like he doesn't actually think this is a serious solution? And of course it just so happens that his answer requires no drastic change

and ultimately is just him not wanting to do anything. He also seems to ignore the fact that whether or not he thinks poor people care about climate change, around the world, it still affects them, and it's going to affect them the worst, even if they don't care. That should be obvious to somebody like Peterson,

but we can't do anything about it. Let me offer a possible alternative explanation, or rather, let me restate what I've been saying here. Jordan Peterson is a right winger, he just is. For whatever reason, he believes in conservative values, which doesn't always come out in his lectures, but ultimately he believes in maintaining the status quo at all costs.

And so conveniently, all of his solutions to things like inequality and climate change conclude that right wing ideas are the solution, no matter how much mental gymnastics or gibberish he has to perform to get to that conclusion. In the end, he's just not complicated at all. And this is all reflected in his anima and animus, the masculine's feminine, the feminine's masculine,

the extension of Jordan Peterson's shadow to use his Jungian technique. And our next section, the anima and animus He might make it seem more complex or academic But ultimately all of Jordan J. Jorps and P. Peterson's conclusions on society are no different than some conservative boomer romanticizing the good old days when minorities and women had the same rights as children and everything fit his neat little Triangle and I really think it's part of why he had to stop being a professor when minorities and women had the same rights as children and everything fit his neat little triangle. And I really think it's part of why

he had to stop being a professor. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'm guessing he's not a great person to work with, you know, what with all the magic spells he's casting. The only real unique difference is that he often likes to pose his bigotry as open questions like he's exploring a topic as an educator. Here he is pondering if the reason women are so outraged

is because they long for the touch of infants. You know, how infants are famous for calming people down. Here he is just asking the question if feminists secretly long for male dominance, like he's fucking Aristotle orating from a mound of enlightenment. How dare you if you find these humble questions offensive, for you must clearly be trying to censor his wisdom

based on the fact that unfair hierarchies are natural, based on puffy lobster fights, and therefore, feminists secretly want to be dominated and impregnated. Here he is reflecting on the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Quote, I'm not saying Harvey Weinstein's victims invited their own victimization, but I'm not impressed by the fact that this went on forever and no one said anything.

And again, what? What is your point, Jordan? Are you blaming the victims or not? Jordan loves to do this. He loves to claim he's not making any specific conclusion while pondering absolutely wild questions seemingly designed to portray feminism or equality as some kind of unsolvable enigma. Here is an absolute gem you may have seen where he's pondering the question of women in the

workplace. Here's a question. Can men and women work together in the workplace? Yes, I do it. How do you know? Because I work with a lot of women. Well, it's been happening for what, 40 years? And things are deteriorating very rapidly at the moment in terms of the relationships between men and women. Is there sexual harassment in the workplace? Yes. Should it stop? That'd be good. Will it?

Well, not at the moment it won't because we don't know what the rules are. Do you think men and women can work in the workplace together? I don't know. Without sexual harassment? We'll see. We'll see.

How many years will it take for men and women working in the workplace together? More than 40. To get a sense. We don't know what the rules are. Can men and women work together? Who can say? Who knows? It's a mystery. Where even am I? It's never been done before. What are the rules? Why aren't there any rules? Why isn't there like a book of policies or a code of conduct that a job gives you about their rules. It's an unsolvable contraption. Speaking of rules. In fact, I've been told that at the university.

Yeah. Never have a meeting with a student with the door closed. It's like I ignore that because there's no damn way I'm doing that. But that's common practice. So we don't know the rules, but also the rules I do know about I hate and will not follow. It's this moment from his 15 minute video about getting banned from Twitter. What rules you sons of bitches. The rules you can read Jordan, the ones you know about and broke on purpose. Sorry to get distracted.

The point is we clearly can't have women in the workplace because of course it's the women who are the problem. Women and the color red. Here's a rule. How about no makeup in the workplace? Why would that be a rule? Why should you wear makeup in the workplace? Isn't that sexually provocative? No. It's not? No.

What is it then? What's the purpose of makeup? Some people would like to just put on makeup. Why? I don't know why people put on makeup. Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal. That's why.

Why do you put rouge on your cheeks? Same reason. I mean, look... How about high heels? What are they for? What about high heels? What about them? They're there to exaggerate sexual attractiveness.

That's what high heels do. Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't use sexual displays in the workplace. I'm not saying that. But I am saying that that is what they're doing. And that is what they're doing. Interesting how he doesn't identify any sexually provocative displays a man might do in the workplace as a problem. Should all men have to shave? Are shoulder pads banned? Is the shaft okay to show off if I cover up the tip? Almost like he's actually some kind of weird creep trying to justify his behavior through a half-assed academic sounding exercise.

But yeah, I guess we should like ban the color red from the office because it makes us horny. Or get rid of makeup. You know, like the Nazis did. Great solution. But of course, he's not saying that. He's just asking some really weird and specific questions, framed in a way to force one specific conclusion. And if you noticed, he's once again doing that lobster thing

where he takes something from way back in our history or evolution, in this case, the idea that makeup simulates sexual excitement, which has been one use of makeup in some contexts at certain points, and applying it to modern times as if we haven't evolved past that in our society. He's saying, we just don't know if men can keep their dicks to themselves if women have red lips.

It's something you see with a lot of these pickup artists when they talk about peacocking to attract women. And so again, if you're ever finding yourself making decisions based on what an animal would do thousands or millions of years ago, you might want to rethink your approach. I mean, except for my Dilophosaurus diet. Dietophosaurus!

Find the cookbook series wherever books are sold. Use promo code spit on your food for 20% off the first book, Dietophosaurus. Eat like you got dangly little flap dildos all up on your neck. It's sweeping the nation. And like, let's say we even take Peterson as a reasonable person.

Ban makeup because red lips and cheeks can simulate sexual arousal. Do you want to ban only red makeup? What about blue lipstick, black lipstick, nail polish? Eyeliner was used by Egyptians to protect from evil spiritual dangers. Is eyeliner okay if the reason is demons and not horny? Oh no, what if it's both?

Do you see how silly this is yet? And yeah, if for some reason you're still wondering what Peterson's views are on feminism and women It's not great In fact, Jorbson absolutely loves to claim that the patriarchy doesn't exist But also that there are patriarchal elements that are good, but also there's no patriarchy doesn't exist, but also that there are patriarchal elements that are good, but also there's no patriarchy. There's an asymmetry in all sorts of places, but that doesn't mean that Western culture is a male-dominated patriarchy. The fact that there are asymmetries has nothing to do with your basic argument. Western society is a male-dominated

patriarchy. It's like, no, it's not. That's not true. And even if it has a patriarchal structure to some degree, the fundamental basis of that structure is not power. It's competence. The doctrines that I'm opposed to are predicated on, well, one assumption they're predicated on, it's probably the primary assumption, is that the best way to view history is as the domination of a tyrannical male patriarchy. Well, here's some clear ones, right? Like major corporations, the vast majority of CEOs are male. Yeah. We think of that as part of the patriarchy. Yeah. Government, never been a male, never been a female president, vast majority of senators, congressmen, etc., male. Yeah. So I guess we could say, well, the patriarchy is all those elements of hierarchical structure that are still dominated by men. Law enforcement, military, male, mostly male.

Right. Well, what's the hierarchy? It's a tyrannical patriarchy. It's like, no, it's not. You're grateful for the productions of a tyrannical patriarchy. How does that make sense? Tyranny isn't good, is it? I mean, that's the definition of tyranny, something that isn't good,

and yet it's produced all these things that you're grateful for. Side note, interesting point that the definition of tyranny is something that isn't good. Good definition, or un-tyrannical definition, as Jordan might say. Anyway, here is an interview where he says he believes that women were never discriminated against, ever.

His argument being that since men worked under bad conditions, discrimination against women couldn't exist. It's an extremely flawed argument that devolves into him talking about how his grandmother was a farmer's wife in Saskatchewan, and how much wood she chopped, and then how in the 50s, Betty Friedan started to quote, whine about the plight of women,

even though men fought in wars. And like, I don't know, did the women want those wars? Were they in charge of starting those wars? Did they vote for the people who were in charge of starting those wars? Well, eventually, once they were allowed to vote. This is the guy who talks about how it's unfair and inappropriate to talk about the 1%

or the smallest percentage of men who own most of the things and are in positions of power, et cetera, while also saying how aggressiveness on the extremes is a male trait, and also there's no patriarchy, and men fight in war started by who exactly? It's so fucking weird and completely misses the nuance of like all of history, the kind of thing a 15-year-old would post on 4chan, and this guy is supposed to be

some kind of centrist reasonable thought leader? Not to mention that by claiming there's no discrimination against women, isn't he ignoring the natural hierarchies he claims exist? Whatever pitfalls hierarchies might produce, you cannot lay them at the feet of the West patriarchy or capitalism. It's like that's a non-starter. You're wrong. So which is it Jordan? Is the patriarchy a symptom of It's like, that's a non-starter. You're wrong. So which is it, Jordan? Is the patriarchy a symptom of the natural hierarchy that we can't do anything about,

or does it not exist at all? If women aren't discriminated against, then why do you also recognize that the pay gap for women is at least in part due to gender? It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist. But that's just not true, is it?

I mean, that 9% pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists. Yeah, but there's multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it's not the only reason. The pay gap doesn't exist. Actually, it does, and one of the reasons is gender, but not the only reason. It sure seems like you're constantly saying two completely contradictory things that both conveniently conclude that feminism is bad.

There's plenty of women that are watching my lectures and coming to my talks and buying my books, it's just that the majority of them happen to be men. Hmmmm. Such a mystery! One of the reasons might be that in his book 12 Rules for Life, he describes men as representing order and women as representing chaos. See, I won't get too much into it, but Peterson's also seemingly fixated

on the concepts of order and chaos. It is heavily featured in Maps of Meaning. Here are some silly diagrams he put in there. He talks about it all the time. I'm actually impressed I haven't mentioned it until now, but he's all deep into how a balance between order and chaos can be beneficial to life and like the universe and stuff.

Big order and chaos guy. It's also discussed in 12 Rules for Life, in which he describes men as order and women as chaos. So men are order, but also there's no patriarchy. We're like, men are order. When asked about literally this, funnily enough, by Barry Weiss, of all people, Jordan explains.

I think that it's nihilism and hopelessness that constitute the major existential threat, especially to young people at the moment, that I was concentrating on the necessity of discipline and order. And the issue with regards to the metaphysical or symbolic representation of chaos as feminine well That's a very complex problem and the first thing you have to understand is that there's no a priori supposition that Order is preferable to chaos in any fundamental sense. They're both Constituent elements of reality you can't say one's bad and the other is good You can say that they can become unbalanced and that's definitely not good too much chaos is not good

Obviously too much chaos is not good. Obviously, too much order is not good. Equally obviously, those are the two extremes that you have to negotiate between. Too much women and too much men are bad. You have to negotiate. Like this is such a funny answer to the simple question, why did you think men are order and women are chaos? And first of all, you know what's orderly? Having two X chromosomes and a regular monthly menstrual cycle. You know what's chaotic? Tossing in a Y chromosome and just

your little goons all over the place. But more importantly, male and female, order and chaos? Neither has to be either. He's so obsessed with his theory of everything being about the balance between order and chaos that whenever he sees two things, he can't help but think, well, surely one must be order and the other chaos.

No man, that's not how it works. Well, plants are order and animals are chaos. See dogs? Dogs are chaos, whereas cats are order, I bet. It's absurd. he's absurd. Anyway, back to how Dr. Jordan Porben Peterson doesn't think the patriarchy exists. And also orderly men dominating chaotic women is natural.

You see, even when people, specifically women, curious, but sometimes Joe Rogan, curious, point out inequalities or aspects of history relating to women, like their lack of the vote or representation in democracy, he changes the point to be about, well, not that. Maybe you just think that representative democracy should be representative. Maybe you just think that women should be equally represented in the decision-making fora of our nation. I don't understand your question, I guess.

Well, I guess you don't. That's pretty obvious, unfortunately. Well, how about if you phrase it more clearly, instead of just insulting me? Let's talk about quotas for a minute. So there's a very wide array of jobs that are fundamentally done by men. 99.9% of bricklayers are men. Should we have quotas for women? Is bricklaying representative democracy? That has nothing to do with the question.

If there's evidence of structural inequality and oppression because women aren't precisely represented at 50% in all professions at all levels, then why don't we have a conversation about having women represented in all professions at all levels? So there is no patriarchy, in the fact that for a while, women couldn't even own a credit card and positions of power are predominantly held by men

and specifically about representational democracy. His response is, well, if we're talking about representation in all possible domains, which we're not, she wasn't. You are now. Also Peterson frequently talks about career choice and how boys from a young age are interested in things, whereas girls are interested in people. So shouldn't women be more represented in politics?

It's just this constant dance where he needs patriarchy to not exist, but has to admit when it does and claim that those are the good parts or just change the subject to be about something he's pretending some blue haired college student is yelling about. He's like, it's important for the left to be about something he's pretending some blue haired college student is yelling about. He's like, it's important for the left to point out inequalities and injustices, but I get to be mad about it

and dismiss them every time. You might also start to notice another pattern here, which is that when it comes to his loose lobster science or the Pareto distribution, Jordan Peterson will address those ideas with total confidence, no gray area, as opposed to when he talks about subjects like climate change or discrimination against women, or really anything that has a lot more science and data to back it up. But it just so happens that science goes against what he wants to be true. And this is where I talk about his extremely convoluted views on gay marriage.

So we wanted to start off with a with a kind of a straightforward question to you. Are you in favor of gay marriage, of legalizing that by law? Well, I'm in favor of marriage, and I'm in favor of the continuity of marriage. And I think it's a reasonable social experiment to extend that the way it has been extended. So, I mean, homosexuality has been around forever. It looks like, particularly on the male end of the distribution, it has a fairly powerful biological component. It seems like a reasonable experiment. I mean, it leaves open questions, because we have no idea

what the long-term viability of such relationships might be compared to heterosexual relationships. That's a completely open question. Thanks for answering that very simple question, Jordan. Hey, if you're wondering, we actually have data on the long-term viability of same-sex marriages. And according to this study from America,

this study out of Denmark, and this study out of the UK, or just go to the Wikipedia page about divorce rates for same-sex couples, and you'll see that they're equal to that of heterosexual marriage. So there you go. Hope that helps.

Anyway, go on, Lurch. Now, I think the conservatives who objected to the legalization of gay marriage had their point because they believed that the institution of marriage had been under sustained assault for a substantial amount of time, which is something I also happen to believe. And so they had their reasons for resisting further change. But I think you can make a strong conservative argument for the utility of gay marriage as well as a libertarian or liberal argument. So we'll see. Wait, what? So you think conservatives were right

to think that gay marriage is an assault on traditional marriage and you agree with them. So is that a no? Why can't you just say yes or no? What is happening here? We actually have a quote of you about your opinion on gay marriage and regarding gay marriage in Australia. And you've said, quote, I would be against it if it was backed by cultural Marxist, because it isn't clear to me whether it will satisfy the ever increasing demand for an assault on traditional modes of being. it will satisfy the ever increasing demand for an assault on traditional modes of being. But don't you think that opposing gay marriage just because it was also, it's also in the agenda as you say of cultural Marxists is problematic and it's kind of against your

principles as a principally liberal person? Ah, so apparently Jordan Peterson said that he would be against gay marriage if it was backed by cultural Marxists. Cultural Marxism is something you may have heard before, and Peterson doesn't use the term often because it's too associated with Nazis. He'll often instead use the term postmodern neo-Marxists. Peterson's theory is that Marxism and communism didn't work out and got a bad reputation,

so the Marxists changed it to not be about class, but about race and other identities in order to insidiously subvert and destroy the West. So if you care about, you know, the racist history and effects of the United States or gay marriage, you're a secret communist hell bent on destroying the West, I guess. Anyway, I don't wanna put words in his mouth, I don't want to put words in his mouth

or let those nicely dressed gentlemen put words in his mouth. So here he is saying it with words from his mouth. Well, I would be against it too if it was backed by cultural Marxists because it isn't clear to me that it will satisfy the ever-increasing, what would you call it, demand for an assault on traditional modes of being. So that's what he said with his Muppet tongue,

which as pointed out, doesn't seem like a centrist or even logical view on it. Seems like Peterson is saying that his views on gay marriage aren't based on data or morality, but rather if it's supported by the people he doesn't like. But I'm sure he can clarify that statement. I said if, right? So if you read the quote again, that's what it started with. I mean, it's complicated when you're trying to determine what stance to take on a particular issue,

because it's very complicated to determine just exactly what the issue is. what the issue is. Right. Yes, you did say if, which, okay. It seems like you're not denying that at all, and it doesn't change the question or point in any way. It's actually extremely weird and ideologically poisoned of you to disagree with something if the vague idea

of cultural Marxists agree with it. Also, I bet cultural Marxists do support gay marriage because lots of people do. Also, if you're confused what the issue is, it's gay marriage. And if you're for or against it, it's weird how you can't just say yes or no still. But all right, let's try this again,

but with a different question. Being gay and in a long-term relationship, we are considering kids. What are your thoughts about gay people raising children? I think the devil's in the details to tell you the truth. If I was ever talking to any individuals about that, the question is, well, how would you raise them? I mean, you have problems, right? If you're both of the same sex, then you're going to have the problem of how to provide the proper model for, you know, let's say you have a boy and a girl. We know this is indisputable, and this is something I've talked to Warren Farrell about.

Kids in intact heterosexual families where the father is present do way better on multiple indices than kids who are part of single-parent families. Now, that doesn't mean that there are no single parents who do a good job, right? That's not the same bloody claim. Those are different claims. But on average, not only do kids where fathers are present do better, but societies, or even local societies, where there are more fathers present do better,

not only for the kids that they're fathering, but the kids in the neighborhood where there are lots of intact families with fathers do better. And so I believe quite firmly that the nuclear family is the smallest viable human unit. Father, mother, child.

Smallest viable unit. Okay, wow, it's weird how he seems to rocket past actually answering the question. Instead, he talks about data around kids raised by a single parent versus kids raised by two parents, which yes, data shows it's better to have both parents for a kid or rather that kids missing their mother or their father have a harder time.

Maybe it's because of divorce or abandonment or death or because the father was from the future and actually sent back by the child. We don't know. Perhaps it's easier to raise kids when there's more people to help out, either an income and someone at home or two incomes and someone else at home,

a robot assassin reprogrammed to help, et cetera. That seems logical, but you might notice that this two parent question literally has nothing to do with same sex couples. Jordan doesn't answer that and instead seemingly compares studies on single parent households with same sex couples. And maybe that's because we do have studies on the effects of same sex couples and children.

Cornell looked at 79 studies on same-sex parents and found that only four found negative effects. Here's another study that tracked 1,200 children raised by same-sex couples and found that they actually do better in school. But it would be unfair to say that Jordan Peterson is against gay marriage or gay adoption. I think the more accurate summary comes

from how he finally gets back around to the question at hand. gerrymander the damn question that way and avoid your moral responsibility. Or you can face it squarely and say, look, you've decided to step outside of the cultural norm and to organize a non-standard relationship, which puts a tremendous responsibility on you. And then you have to figure out how you can provide for your children what it is that they would get in the classic minimal human unit. So, and more power to you. I hope you can do a good job of it. You know, I think there's room in the world for a diverse range of approaches to complex life problems like having kids and finding a partner. But that doesn't mean you get to bury your head in the sand about the absolute realities of life and the fact that there are biological differences

between men and women. To deny that is reprehensible in my estimation. So I think what he's ultimately saying is that if you're a same-sex couple raising kids, you need to be aware of the challenges of not having a specific gender represented to them. And I don't know, I'm not sure, but okay. You can just say that, like I just said it. Like you just said, you're against gay marriage

if cultural Marxists are for it. Peterson's position, as he's expounded on elsewhere, is that there are benefits to having a mother and a father because you need, for example, the father to instigate and set the parameters of acceptable rough play. What Peterson's struggling with in these clips is that he's ultimately not saying a child needs two distinct genders represented,

but that he wants certain stereotypically gendered qualities represented in at least one parent. So like, maybe you should only be able to get married and adopt kids if you can successfully exhibit your ability to perform both sides of a stereotypical gender binary? Like a feminine man and woman, no adopt kids. A masculine woman and feminine man, maybe adopt kids? If you're worried about gender binary, like a feminine man and woman, no adopt kids. A masculine woman and feminine man, maybe adopt kids. If you're worried about gender roles,

would you be okay with a masculine woman and a feminine woman? You see how silly this approach is. Like, okay, interesting bit of advice about introducing play during early child rearing, but unless you have a specific plan for what specific combination of stereotypically gendered behavior

two people should have to demonstrate for this hierarchical structure you feel compelled to push, you know, the government gives rough house tests to the father unit and nurture courses to mother bot, the answer to should gay couples be able to get married and raise kids is yes, sure, why not? And the reason Peterson can't just say that, I think goes back to his obsession

with hierarchy and natural order and the sheer terror and anger he seems to feel for anything that challenges the validity of that. He's smart enough to know that gay people have existed for a long time, and there's no evidence that same-sex marriage or parents do harm to children. But that knowledge also contradicts his belief

that there's an unchangeable hierarchy in society that we can't do anything about, because obviously the legalization of gay marriage is proof that we can change things, and that not everything has to fit his fantasy of order. The hierarchy that is a mommy and a daddy is, it seems, not the only path. And you can see all of that mashed together in this next clip, which is the closest to a direct answer we get from Peterson on the issue.

You know, if the marital vows are taken seriously, then it seems to me that it's a means whereby gay people can be integrated more thoroughly into standard society, and that's probably a good thing. And maybe that would decrease promiscuity, which is a public health problem, although obviously that's not limited to gay people, although gay men tend to be more promiscuous than average, probably because there's no women to bind them with regards to their sexual activity The problem is is that it does seem to me to be part of a wedge and it isn't obvious to me that that Legalizing gay marriage has done anything to decrease the demands that the radical left neo-marxist types are placing on traditional society

so left neo-Marxist types are placing on traditional society. So those are my views. I know they're confused, you know, because I'm in favor of extending the bounds of traditional relationships to people who wouldn't be involved in a traditional long-term relationship, but I'm concerned about the undermining of traditional modes of being, including marriage, which has technically and historically been a union between a man and a woman fundamentally for the purpose of raising children in a stable and optimal and stable environment. By his own admission, his answer is confused.

And that's probably because he's trying so hard to rectify the contradictions of his viewpoint. In the end, he thinks gay marriage is good because it potentially assimilates same-sex couples into this traditional mode of being he loves so much. Except the truth that he comes so close to is that there actually isn't a correct or traditional mode of being.

In the end, he has it completely backward. The acceptance of LGBTQ people isn't about the nuclear family or some natural hierarchy assimilating people who didn't fit into it, because the existence of those people clearly show that there was never a natural or traditional hierarchy to begin with. And that's actually what this acceptance is showing. The same way civil rights and women's rights

change the norm, so does this. That's not the norm absorbing people, but the norm never existing in the first place. The norm is what we make of it. Like fate or our gruff Bostonian charm. There is no single natural hierarchy that we must follow. Everything can evolve and change. That pyramid is a lie.

Everything is on a spectrum. There is no spoon, I know Kung Fu. But that idea is just something Jordan Peterson can't accept. He loves the idea that everything can fit into a specific and rigid structure because in terms of self-help, that proves useful to people. This is probably why there's a noticeable contradiction

between what Peterson says a person needs and should do in their life and his complete lack of solutions for large societal problems. If you ask him what you should personally do to improve your situation, he will offer so many solutions or stress the importance of specific elements. The one thing I always recommend to people who are excessively anxious is, on this first thing I'd ask you is, um, what do you eat for breakfast? If you want to have a great career, it's hard to do that if you're alone and without a family. You need to learn to think, because thinking makes you act effectively in the world.

Thinking makes you win the battles you undertake, and those could be battles for good things. He talks constantly about the need for a family structure, or big air quotes, good diet, or education education and how specific things create better outcomes for children. As we've shown, he seems to know that poverty is a huge obstacle for achieving these things. And yet he never advocates for any specific action that we can take.

He never actually says, hey, I think we should work to eliminate poverty or we need to make sure every kid has access to food and education. And so I guess I think he should at least do that, right? Like on the off chance you are watching this, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, you're a silly man, but a lot of people listen to you.

So you could at least actually advocate for eradicating poverty and feeding people and making sure they have at least the bottom of the hierarchy of needs in order to achieve their individual and our collective potential. The perfect balance between order and chaos, you weird dope. Like, hey, you're not scared that by seeking specific solutions for these problems,

you will accidentally agree with the cultural Marxist left, are you? Surely you and all your buddies on the intellectual right can solve these problems that you are in fact identifying as a problem. Can't you talk to Elon about this? You know, you see someone like Elon Musk. I mean, what the hell do you make of someone like that? You know, I mean, what did he do? He made an electric car, which is basically impossible, and it works, which is basically impossible. And it works, which is basically impossible. And then he built an infrastructure so that you could charge the damn thing wherever you drove. And that was basically impossible.

And then he made it cheap. Because if you buy an electric car and you factor in the price of gas, the electric car is actually about as expensive as the gasoline car. And so that was unbelievable. And then he built a bloody rocket which was one tenth the price or less that of a NASA rocket that you could reuse which was impossible and then he put one of his cars on top of the rocket and he shot it up into space and then this happened right this all happened and he's still alive. Yeah see ask Elon He's an alien who single-handedly invented electric cars and everything at SpaceX.

He sent a car to space 60 years after we put a human being into space and onto the moon. Wowza! Also, no need to fact check that or even look to see if Elon actually has his name on any of those patents or just open his Wikipedia page. The guy who Jordan Peterson considers a genius apparently. Even he can't solve poverty, I guess.

How odd. By your metric, he should have the highest IQ, right? Because he has all the money. Anyway, Jordan, glad you're watching this, but it just seems weird that you or your buddies haven't solved poverty or even advocated for solving it in any meaningful way. I thought you were supposed to be smart.

Maybe you should ask yourself why your specific and rigid belief system, while good for self-help, doesn't actually offer solutions for large societal problems. But again, that's just not something he will allow himself to accept. It's probably why he loves those Jungian archetypes as well, because they sort people into nice little groups,

define people, project an identity onto them. But even when going through them in this video, I had to sort of fudge a lot of the Jungian meanings, mold them into something else, because like all self-help tools, they are meant to be flexible or reinterpreted, much like hierarchies are meant to be flexible or changed. They're a diagnostic and organizational tool,

not a rule of life. But Jordan Peterson has a lot of trouble wrapping his head around that, probably because he's, you know, kind of a conservative. In some cases, Nazi adjacent. And on top of that, kind of a religious conservative, not Christianity specifically always, even though he loves biblical imagery.

But Peterson has sort of spiraled in his mishmash of random beliefs to the point that he treats them more like a dogma than a flexible concept. And so on that subject of Jungian archetypes, here's where we get into the self. This is the persona, shadow, anima and animus all wrapped up in one place, like a fruit roll-up but made of person brain. We step back and look at the entire Jordan Peterson, and who

he really is, by looking at who he thinks he is. Just getting back onto this issue of you sort of almost being a prophet in a way, do you view yourself as that? I mean, as religion declines, you go on this world tour, millions of people read your books, billions of people probably watching videos online. Do you see yourself as a sort of new religious phenomenon for people? Not new. Not new. And I see myself as fortunate, that's how I see myself, that I have the opportunity to do this. But are you a prophet? See, to say yes or no, I have to think about how I might be conceptualized, how what I'm doing might be conceptualized. No, I think I see myself as a psychologist.

And fundamentally, I am a psychologist. I'm a behavioral psychologist. Oh, thank God he figured it out. When asked if he's a religious prophet, Jordan Peterson stares off into the middle distance for the better part of 15 fucking seconds before finally concluding that no, he's not. And you really have to wonder what the fuck was going on in that head of his for all of that time. And to do that, first we need to go all the way back

to that Bernard Schiff op-ed, saying that Peterson was more like a preacher than a teacher, and point out that this article actually starts with Schiff claiming that Peterson told him that he's interested in buying a church to deliver sermons every Sunday. Because that's why Peterson, a psychology professor and self-help guru, loves to venture into subjects

he absolutely has no business venturing into. He has a passionate belief that, based on bad lobster science, there is an indisputable hierarchy to the world and that it runs through everything and is part of a natural order that cannot and should not be changed. And it just so happens that this natural order

proves that capitalism and inequality are good and natural. The patriarchy is fake and the traditional marriage is unchangeable. He believes it no differently than a person might believe in God. And hopefully he's moved on from when he was a teenager and lost a school election and said, I won't be happy until I'm prime minister.

But boy, it sure seems like he's very, very close to graduating from a self-help teacher to a self-proclaimed prophet, otherwise known as a cult leader. I am the embodiment of a set of ideas, just as a cult leader. in place, to the degree that I can be wise in my generation, a biblical phrase, a very astute biblical phrase, then I can transmit, I can communicate those ideas to myself and to other people. But I don't want to be mistaken for their source.

I'm not their source. And I'm very aware of that. And I do what I can to make that clear to myself and my family helps me out with that a lot. They understand the danger as well. Ah, yes, you see, he is a mere vessel for the truths of the universe and needs to be reminded of that by his family.

Nothing fucked up there. There's probably no question why his first book, "'Maps of Meaning,' his opus that explains everything, starts with this quote, "'I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world, Matthew 13, 35. That book also includes this letter to his father while writing the book, quote, I don't know dad,

but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I'm not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can only see parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensively in writing." On the subject of his family in that aforementioned op-ed, probably one of the more concerning bits

was that Peterson also told Bernard Schiff that his wife, quote, "'had a dream, and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. "'She dreamed that it was five minutes to midnight. And that's unsettling in like five different and individually wrapped ways. Jordan has a big relationship with dreams. If you recall, this all started

with him having apocalyptic nightmares and he still heavily mystifies their origins, seemingly with zero patience for any scientific explanation of them. And so Jung got very interested in dreams and started to understand the relationship between dreams and myths because he would see in his clients' dreams echoes of stories that he knew because it was deeply read in mythology. And then he started to believe that the dream was the birthplace of the myth and that there was a continual interaction between the two processes,

the dream and the story, and storytelling. And, well, you know, you tend to tell your dreams as stories when you remember them. And some people remember dreams all the time, like two or three a night. I've had clients like that, and they often have archetypal dreams that have very clear mythological structures. I think that's more the case with people who are creative, by the way, especially if they're a bit unstable. There's something going on inside you that you don't control, right?

The dream happens to you just like life happens to you. I mean, there is the odd lucid dreamer who can, you know, apply a certain amount of conscious control, but most of the time it's you're laying there asleep and this crazy Complicated world manifests itself inside you and you don't know how you could you can't do it when you're awake And you don't know what it means. It's like what the hell is going on and that's one of the things that's so damn frightening about the psychoanalysts because You get this both from Freud and Jung you really start to understand

That there are things inside you that are happening that control you instead of the other way around. You know, there's a bit of reciprocal control, but there's manifestations of spirits, so to speak, inside you that determine the manner in which you walk through life. And you don't control it. And what does? Is it random? You know, there are people who have claimed that dreams are merely the consequence of random neuronal firing, which is a theory I think is absolutely absurd because there's nothing random about dreams. The theory Peterson is dismissing at the end there is that we largely give order and story to our dreams after we wake up. And the dreams themselves are like inkblot tests of random ideas and images floating in our brains. Again, just a theory.

I personally believe dreams are the farts we smelled during the day. But Jordan is far more interested in dreams as some kind of higher power. And he links this with the idea of the collective unconsciousness by giving probably the worst example he could create. Or maybe you dream up a nightmare and try to make that into a reality, because people do that too if they're hell-bent on revenge For example and full of hatred and resentment. I mean that manifests itself in terrible fantasies You know, those are dreams then people go act them out

These things are powerful, you know and whole nations can get caught up in collective dreams. That's what happened to the Nazis That's what happened to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. It was absolutely remarkable amazing horrific destructive spectacle. So the amazing spectacle that is the Holocaust is the result of a collective dream. And it's hard to figure out if Jordan is being abstract here, or really what the fuck he's trying to say about dreams in general. But I bring all of this up because he clearly believes that there is an unseen power behind the universe, which is certainly not a unique belief. And it really seems like

he also believes that our dreams give us access to that unseen power. I had a dream once. I was in the cemetery of an old church, an old cathedral, surrounded by the graves, and there were indentations in the grounds where all the graves were. And all of a sudden, the graves started to open. And it was a graveyard where great people, great men of the past had been buried. And so grave opened and an armed king stood up.

And then another grave opened and another armed king stood up and then another grave opened and another armed king stood up and this happened all around me and these were very formidable figures right they were the great heroes of the past and after a number of them appeared on the scene they looked around and saw each other and being warrior types, they immediately started to fight. And the question is, what stops the great kings of the past from fighting? And I had a revelation after the dream. I can't remember if it was part of it, but yes, it was part of the dream. They all bowed down to the figure of Christ.

Notice how he says he doesn't know if the Christ figure was something he made up after the dream and then decides that it was in the dream. It seems like that thing where we give meaning and structure to our dreams after the fact, but I'm not here to talk about dreams and what they mean and how other people's farts or where nightmares come from. I think it's okay to have theories about dreaming

and how we are all connected in the universe and if there's a larger force out there. Like if God was actually farts. Except in Jordan's case, when you combine that with everything else he believes to be rooted in our lobster nature, unfair hierarchies, the weird idea that a percentage of humanity is useless, this business with Nazi Germany being a collective dream

instead of a specific ideology. And finally, that he's some kind of a vessel for these truths. Well, you really start to see a man who truly believes that he has no control over his life. Most likely because he feels out of control. He has a lot of emotions and pretty messed up thoughts that I don't think he understands

and attributes them to some kind of outside cosmic influence seeping in. control. He has a lot of emotions and pretty messed up thoughts that I don't think he understands, and attributes them to some kind of outside cosmic influence seeping in. But I'm trying to be gentle here. Perhaps the answer is that he might just need help? Like, I'm not going to sit here and try to diagnose Jordan Peterson, but one of the other pretty viral things about this guy is his ability to say extremely weird statements and or break into tears at what sure seemed to be incredibly inappropriate moments. A close reading of 20th century history indicates as nothing else can, the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. They seem animalistic is what I mean. No, they're worse than animals.

They're worse than animals because animals, they just kill to eat. Human beings, they have a twist in them that makes them far worse than animals when they really get going. Well, I think it's, I think, you really want to know what I think? I think it's revenge against God for the crime of being. That's really what I think. It's Cain, and Cain and Abel. It's like, oh, Abel's your, Abel's your guy, eh, God? How about if I take him out in the field and beat him to death? How do you feel about that? All my sacrifices went unrewarded. Yeah, it's like, yeah, that's what it is at the bottom of the hell of things.

This band was playing Kelly's Heroes, a great guitarist, best guitarist I've ever seen. And they were playing old country music with a heavy blues rock twist. So they do this great version of Ghost Riders in the Sky, it's 15 minutes long. I've ever seen. And they were playing old country music with a heavy blues rock twist. So they do this great version of Ghost Riders in the Sky. It's 15 minutes long. And this brilliant guitarist just goes way out on a limb. And everybody in the crowd, it was so fun to be there. They're just thrilled to death because they're watching this man

doing the same thing that surfers do. He's like dancing on the edge of chaos and order in this virtuosic manner. And everyone is so taken by that, that it just lifts them out of the normality of their existence. You know, you see this joy just transfuse them. And again, I don't know, man, it's okay to cry. It's good to cry. Just like it's okay to find meaning in dreams or farts or religion or religious farts. And most of all, I don't really want to attack someone in dreams or farts or religion or religious farts. And most of all, I don't really want to attack someone for having mental health issues or suffering hard times.

But we're talking about a guy who, after opting for an all-meat diet and lying about not sleeping for 25 days after having a sip of cider, fell into depression and benzodiazepine addiction after having himself put in a medically induced coma in order to rehabilitate. He just doesn't seem like a guy in control of his life, and should probably seek serious help instead of trying to continue this right-wing anti-trans self-help schtick. He seems, quite frankly, overwhelmed by it all. I've been very ill for quite a long time and it's not obvious why but i think one of the sources was that i've i just was overwhelmed by insight into misery so many i saw so many people that were so

well grateful is part of it to me and i had some some somebody called me this week he just got my number so randomly and he said uh who is this i answered the phone he said who is this i said no no who is this since he was calling me and he said uh he told me his name he said are you dr peterson i said yes he said really and i said yeah it's yes really and he just burst into tears and he just sobbed for like five minutes, uncontrollably apologizing. And then he said his grandmother had died, and his mother, and that he had become suicidal, and that my lecturers, he'd watched a lot of them, and that it helped him, guide him through that.

Well, I've seen a lot of that. And that's dangerous. It's dangerous. I'm not unhappy about it. I'm not unhappy about it i'm not unhappy about it it's an honor to be able to help people really it's a privilege and i'm thrilled that that's what's happening but by the same token it's a lot of it's a lot to see i have to be very careful to see all that and to be able to handle it. Again, nothing wrong with being touched by someone reaching out to you. And it's great that as a self-help personality,

he's able to actually reach lives and help them. But Jordan has very clearly extended the importance of his role as some kind of spiritual Christ-like figure, feeling the feelings of his followers so much that he sees himself as a sort of martyr, literally becoming ill for you, when the reality is that he's probably just a guy in over his head.

And I think it would be one thing if he was just a spiritual leader or psychology professor or self-help dude, but again, he's clearly not that. Since boldly standing up against pronouns, Jordan Peterson has slowly morphed into this weird right-wing grifty culture war figure. And it's clear that he's found more success as this figure than he did when simply focused

on self-help or as a teacher. I would argue that he was probably too unstable for those professions, burnt out pretty fast, and then found that being paid to ramble about Twitter bans on the brand new Daily Wire Plus to be way more lucrative. Why did I decide to do this? And what does Daily Wire Plus offer? First, I like working with Ben Shapiro and his crew. Second, I like the unabashedly shameless capitalist ethos of the Daily Wire crew. They made me a great deal financially. He literally just says that they paid him a lot of money. Also, yeah, totally not a right winger

on Ben Shapiro's, The Daily Wire. Oh, and that a lot of money originally came from a homophobic fracking billionaire. Side note, there's a whole section we cut from this of Peterson on Rogan talking about fracking and how solar power is deadlier than nuclear because people fall off of roofs installing it, which is true. And then he's like, and you know, that's a good example of unintended consequences because systems are complex. And when you change them, you think only good things will

happen. It's like, well, you know, what are you going to do? Figure out how to get people to not fall off roofs. And then he talks about how great fracking is in terms of environmental progression. And when Rogan points out that it poisons people's drinking water, Peterson first denies that. And then, well, here. Fracking. Yeah. Fracking. Really? This thing that environmentalists hate. It's like, don't frack. But it's a double-edged sword, right? Because fracking has definitely polluted some water supplies. Not really.

No? It hasn't polluted any water supplies. Not really. No? It hasn't polluted any water supplies? Look. Did you ever see that? Everything, everything pollutes something. Everything pollutes something! And in this case, that something is drinking water. Anyway, back to how Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

abandoned academia and clinical psychology to find major success playing up homophobic fracking billionaires that Daily Wire-style culture wore hogwash. You can see this when Peterson talks during his regular lectures. The God in the Old Testament is frequently cruel and arbitrary and demanding and paradoxical, which is one of the things that really gives the book life

because it wasn't edited by a committee, you know, a committee that was concerned with with not offending anyone, that's for sure. So. That's from his lecture about dreams. And as you can see, the biggest reaction he gets is a jab on like PC culture or whatever. It's just like his whole deal now. He has been so consumed by his fear of communism and wokeness that he's just all in and blinded to many, many issues with his ideas.

Peterson loves giving out warnings to the left, the postmodernists, the climate change types, but he should maybe heed his own warning. But instead of taking a step back and examining his own problems and extremely confused beliefs about hierarchies and collective dreaming and all that Nazi shit, Jordan Peterson has been embraced by a right wing bubble that will instead nurture

the very real instability that he clearly struggles with. And I kind of feel bad for him for that reason, which is why I wanted to keep this video short. Don't check the time code. It's also why it's so important to talk about him in this brief video, because he seems to have a very real influence, especially on young men who are also not totally in control.

And boy, he really shouldn't be. Dude is a fucking mess. And so even the slivers of truth in what he says or the self-help he gives should all be ultimately ignored. He's like three grains of wheat buried at the bottom of a dumpster of chaff, because those things were only helpful or accurate because they happened to fit with this top-down,

quasi-religious view of the world that he preaches. And that's, you know, pretty much any cult leader. They draw you in with some very truthful or compassionate or seemingly logical ideas, and then introduce you to a belief structure that includes those ideas, but also a lot of, let's call them less truthful ideas. And to subscribe to him,

literally on Daily Wire Plus, I guess, will likely lead you far down a very long, confusing and unsatisfying path that has increasingly become less academic and serious, and simply morphed into culture war nonsense. Not my words. And help us continue educating and informing and battling on the side of tradition in the raging culture war.

And one day, you'll wonder why the world didn't work out the way you thought it would. The way he told you it would, based on his lobster science, his weird and pretend and rigid structure to a world that is, in reality, quite fluid. A world that Peterson truly doesn't understand and has only become more and more angry at and detached from. I can't stress enough how few answers Jordan Peterson actually has, and in fact, he's a man in serious need of help. Because to make this as clear as I can, if somebody believes they or their family

have prophetic dreams and seems to think that they are a prophet, but a whole lot of what they say is completely false, what would you call that person? Is there a useful term for that? Besides, everyone knows that the true path, the actual answers, are... I don't know.

Something. You know? Something. You know? Something. You know? Well, we did it! So... Thanks for watching. Make sure to like and subscribe

and do all the YouTube stuff to support the channel. We'd really appreciate it. We also have a podcast called Even More News that's shorter than this. And this show has a podcast, if you'd like that. And all our other episodes are also shorter than this. So thank you.

Merch got Wormbo on it. You remember that guy. He's right over there. He's doing well. You all right, buddy? Yeah. Yeah. So here's the thing about Jordan Peterson.