"Welcome to this curated educational transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience. In this session, we provide a deep-dive examination of the critical perspectives and historical dialogues presented in Episode #1070. Our mission is to offer a high-fidelity, searchable research resource for students of cultural history, emerging technology, and global discourse. This transcript has been specifically optimized for academic reference, linguistic study, and archival preservation regarding Clinical Psychology, Archetypal Systems Analysis, and the Psychology of Meaning." Four, three, two, one. Boom, and we're live.
12 rules for life. So without reading this, so
what you're saying is... There's only 12 things
you need to know in life, right? That's it? Yeah.
This interview that you just did with this woman,
Kathy Newman, was that in the UK? It was, Channel
4, UK. I just went... I felt bad, but I was also
laughing. I went to her Twitter page to read
like and with each one of her tweets, no matter
what she says, someone writes underneath it.
So what you're saying is and then some ridiculous.
But by the way, the your fans were mocking her,
but. Politely, non -aggressively. I didn't read
any rude things. There was no insults. Well,
maybe a few insults, but there's no swears. It
was just playful mocking of the interview that
she did with you because the interview was ridiculous.
It was a ridiculous interview. I listened to
it or watched it several times. I was like, this
is so strange. Her determination to turn it into
a conflict. It's one of the issues that I have
with television shows. Yeah. Because they have
a very limited amount of time and they're trying
to make things as salacious as possible. They
want to have these sound bites, these clickbait
sound bites. And she just went into it incredibly
confrontational, not trying to find your actual
perspective, but trying to force you to defend
a non -realistic perspective. Yes. Well, I was
there. I was the hypothetical villain of her
imagination, essentially. Well, what happened
was interesting, too, the way it played itself
out. Because I met her in the green room beforehand.
You know, she was being made up. And then they
put a little bit of powder on me. And we had
a friendly kind of interchange. And then we went
and sat in front of the cameras for a couple
of minutes, you know, before the show got rolling.
And we had a pretty pleasant back and forth.
And then as soon as the cameras went on, she
was a completely different person. And I thought,
oh, I see. I see what's going on. Yeah. Yeah,
well, so that kind of alerted me to, well, the
fact that there was something rotten in the state
of Denmark, let's say. Yeah, but, you know, this
is also why YouTube is going to kill TV. Because
television, by its nature, all of these narrow
broadcast technologies, they rely on forcing
the story, right? Because it has to happen now.
It has to happen, like, often in five minutes,
because they only broadcast five minutes of that.
They did put the whole thing up on YouTube. To
their credit. It hasn't ceased to amaze me yet.
I think that they thought that the interview
went fine. That's the scuttlebutt I've got from
sort of behind the scenes, because I know some
people who know what's going on at Channel 4,
and they're shell -shocked by the response. And
then, of course, there is the counter -response.
The Guardian the next day published an article
saying that, You know, the head of Channel 4
had to call in police security because of threats.
You know, well, first of all, you can call the
police in about anything. And they never did
detail out exactly what the threats were. You
know, but then about 20 newspapers picked that
up and went for the, well, Kathy Newman is now
being harassed by an army of online trolls for
doing nothing but doing her job, which, well,
and then there was a backlash against that in
the press. So it's been a... Well, someone took
an audit of the actual interchanges between fans
and her, and there was way more negative ones
coming your way. Yes, that were seriously negative.
Yeah, that's right. Seriously negative, violent,
harassing, just rude. There were way more, and
no one picked up on that at all. It was all the
narrative was, she's a victim, even though she
was highly aggressive. Well, she's a funny victim.
It's not like she's not successful. Yeah. You
know, it's like at some point you think you should
have to hand in your victim card. I think like
when you go to an Ivy League university, it's
like right then and there. You get to hand it
in. Yeah, because you don't get to be oppressor
and oppressed at the same time. That's just too
much. Well, one of the things that you pointed
out was when you were talking about competition
for very lucrative jobs, and you were saying,
look what you've done. You must have had to work
here. And she proudly was saying how hard she
had to work to get there. I'm like, well, yes,
of course. No one's going to hand this to you.
No, definitely not. And this is why you were
saying you are opposed to equality of outcome.
Equality of outcome. I can't imagine. Anything
we could possibly strive for in our society that
would make it into hell faster than equality
of outcome. Like, the historical evidence for
the pathology of that root is so strong. It's
like, you have to be... historically ignorant
beyond belief or malevolent or resentful beyond
comprehension in order to think that that's a
good idea to argue for that. I agree with you,
but I think that even if you came into this with
no knowledge of history, but a complete understanding
of human beings. you would say, well, that doesn't
make any sense. And one of the best quotes that
I've ever read about it is that if you have real
true freedom, you're never going to have equality
of outcome. Because with real true freedom, you
have the freedom to not engage. Well, look, if
you look at a guy like Jeff Bezos, for instance,
that Amazon guy is worth more money than anybody
ever, right? That guy works all day. I mean,
he's a maniac. He's acquiring all these different
companies, and everything he's doing is designed
to succeed. I mean, he's just fanatical about
it. Well, that's what Gates just said, too, in
a recent interview. And I know some guys that
are, you know, they're in approximately the same
universe as those two, and they just work. All
the time. That's all they do. All the time. And
they don't just work. They work so efficiently
and so effectively and make use of every second
in ways you can't even imagine unless you're
in that sort of position. So, you know, doing
that doesn't mean that you will succeed, but
not doing it certainly means that you will fail.
Well, not doing it certainly means you will never
achieve that level of success. And that's what
we're talking about. We're talking about a quality
of outcome. I don't want that. I don't want to
be that guy. I don't want to work like that.
I don't want to do what he's doing. And I should
have the freedom to not do that as he should
have the freedom to do that. If we're going to
play this game called capitalism, which we're
all agreeing is probably at least in as far as
the models that we have right now is the best
one that we have. If we're all going to play
this game, if someone decides to be the Michael
Jordan of capitalism, you can't stop them. You
can't say, no, no, no, no. You're playing this
game too well. You're playing this game too hard.
You're too obsessed with this game. You're going
to have that. Yeah, you can stop them. You can
try to stop people from winning crookedly, which
is what you should do. And, you know, there's
a couple of things that are really worth delving
into with regards to that, too, because there's
this sort of Marxist notion that all this inequality
is generated as a consequence of capitalism.
And that's actually technically false. Because
if you look at, there seems to be something like
a law of nature that's described by this statistical...
model called the Pareto distribution. And it
basically suggests that in any creative domain,
there's going to be a small number of people
will do almost all of the output. But it doesn't
just apply to human beings. It applies to the
heights of trees in the Amazon rainforest. It
applies to the size of cities, and it applies
to the mass of stars, which is something like,
the more you have, the more you get. You can
imagine how that would work with a star. As it
gets bigger and bigger and its gravitational
mass increases, it's going to attract more and
more matter. And then as a city grows, well,
more and more people are excited to move there
because of all the opportunities. And so some
cities start to grow tremendously and others
don't. But this... where a small number of people
end up controlling a tremendous proportion of
the resource is not only limited to money, and
it doesn't only occur in capitalist societies.
It occurs everywhere. It's like a natural law.
So you see the same thing with number of points
scored by a... you know, a spectacular sports
figure, there's always a tiny proportion of people
who are way ahead on the curve, or people who
make records, or people who sell paintings, or
people who compose music, or people who sell
music online. It's all the same. It's the 1 %
gets 80%. And so, well, first, we can't blame
that on capitalism. And second, we should note
that it actually does constitute a problem, which
is what the left -wingers are always jumping
up and down about, right? Like, too much inequality
starts to destabilize your society. And it isn't
obvious how to shovel... from the top end, maybe
the one -tenth of one percent who have almost
all the money, down to the people who have almost
nothing, in a way that's effective, so that they
don't get thrown out of the game completely,
and so that the whole society doesn't destabilize.
We don't exactly know how to do that. It is a
problem, because inequality does exist, and it
does tend to magnify across time. And then there's
another problem too, which we haven't figured
out, is imagine that in order to make everyone
rich, you have to tolerate a certain amount of
inequality. It seems obvious. We don't know how
many units of inequality you need to tolerate
per unit of wealth generated. But the answer
is definitely not zero. It's definitely not zero.
Yeah, so it goes back to this equality of outcome
idea. And this thing has perplexed me since I've
met you and since you were involved in this original
debate over gender pronouns. And there was an
article that was written recently. I forget the
exact title of it. I think it was something along
the lines of why can't people hear what Jordan
Peterson is saying. You are misrepresented more
than anyone I know in a weird way. You are villainized
in a weird way where I can't believe that these
people are honestly looking at your opinions.
And coming up with these conclusions, I can't
help but feel like what is happening is people
are consciously deciding to ignore reality and
paint you as this archetypal figure of oppressive
white male patriarchy, ignorance, fill in the
blank with all the rest of the descriptives that
you'd like to use. But they've decided to paint
you in this way, like as. As a target, because
they need a target to sort of reinforce this
idea that transgender people are being victimized
and women are being victimized. Well, even deeper
that the right narrative is the way that we should
view the world is victim versus oppressor, because
that's the basic postmodern neo -Marxist template.
It's the right way to view the world is that
it's a power ground. It's a battleground of power.
competing constantly. The ones that win are oppressors.
The ones that lose are oppressed. That's the
way you look at the world. And I think that that's
wrong. That's a bad way of looking at the world
psychologically, sociologically, politically,
economically, ideologically, you name it. It
ends in nothing but catastrophe. I mean, first
of all, because it puts your group identity as
something that's paramount. And I mean, that's
just not, well, that isn't what we do in the
West, let's say. We put your individual identity
paramount. And then, well, that's just for starters,
fundamentally. And then I guess the other reason
that people are on my case to some degree is
because I have made a strong case, which I think
is fully documented by the scientific literature,
that there are intrinsic differences, say, between
men and women. And I think the evidence in that,
this is the thing that staggered me, is that
no serious scientists have debated that for like
four decades. That argument was done. By the
time I went to graduate school, everyone knew
that human beings were not a blank slate, that
biological forces parameterized the way that
we thought and felt and acted and valued. Everyone
knew that. The fact that this has become somehow
debatable again is just... especially because
it's being done by legislative fiat. They're
forcing it. To me, as a scientist, it's just,
well, in the States, too, with Title IX, for
example, because Title IX is sort of predicated
on that viewpoint. What is Title IX? Oh, Title
IX was originally just a piece of legislation
that... mandated that female sports teams were
funded to the same degree that male sports teams
were funded in the American universities. But
it's been expanded out so that if there's any
differences in any areas whatsoever between the
genders, then the universities are being taken
to court. And like 200 of them, I mean, last
I looked, about 200 of them were up. And they
can have their funding revoked if they violate
the Title IX provisions. So it's become like
a vicious weapon for social justice warrior equality
of outcome types. So it's not just about sports.
No, it's got way, way beyond that. Yeah, it's
become an equality of outcome issue fundamentally.
There was an article that I sent you. One of
them was from, I think, I got it off of dig .com,
but it was Jordan Peterson is having his moment
and we should ignore him. I sent this to you
and there was one part of it. The last part of
that might be true. But one of the things in
the article was citing this study that showed
very little difference between men and women.
Oh, yeah. I read that damn study. Oh, God. It's
a pathetic study. Yeah. I sent it to you because
I was like, this is not right. Well, the thing
is, like most things, it's complicated. Yes.
You know, so are men and women more similar or
more different? Well, it depends on how you define
the terms first. But they're more similar. Well,
why? Well, they're the same species. So we could
start with that. But the question is, what are
the differences, and how do they manifest themselves,
and are those manifestations important? So here's
an example. If you took a random woman out of
the population and a random man, and you had
to bet on who was more temperamentally aggressive,
if you bet on the man, you'd be right 60 % of
the time. But you'd be wrong 40 % of the time.
And that's not a walloping difference, right?
60 -40. It's not 90 -10. So there's a lot of
overlap between men and women in terms of their
levels of aggression. And you think, well, they're
more the same. Yeah, except. So then let's say,
no, no, let's play a slightly different game.
Let's pick the 1 in 100 most aggressive person
from the random population. Well, they're all
men. And that's why all the people in prison
are men. So even though on average, men and women,
well, yeah, it's 90 to 95%, right? And often
if the women are in prison, it's because they
got tangled up with a really bad guy. So one
of the problems is that differences at the extreme
are where the differences really start to manifest
themselves. And so you can have a small difference
at the level of the average, but out at the extremes,
it starts to make a massive difference. Google
engineer, which is hard, right? Because not only
do you have to be an engineer, but you have to
be a very good engineer. Say, well, you have
to be interested in things rather than people.
That's a huge difference in interest. Like, men
are more interested in things, generally speaking,
and women are more interested in people, generally
speaking. Now, there's still a lot of overlap
between them, but that's one of the biggest differences
between men and women. It's been demonstrated
cross -culturally. It's also a very big difference
in the Scandinavian countries. On average, the
difference isn't that great, even though it's
a relatively large difference. But at the extremes,
it's the same thing. Almost all the people who
are hyper, what would you call, hyper -focused
on things, they're almost all men. And all the
people who are hyper -focused on people are almost
all women. And so how does that play out in the
world? Well, in the Scandinavian countries, it
plays out this way. About 85 % of nurses in Scandinavia
are female. And about 85 % to 90 % of engineers
are male. It doesn't mean women can't be engineers.
It doesn't mean men can't be nurses. It also
doesn't have anything to do with intelligence,
but it does have to do with interest, and the
differences in interest are big. Now, at the
extremes in particular. So when you read a review
like that, the one that was pointed out, the
first question is, well, what do you mean by
big and little? There's more overlap. There's
more overlap between men and women than there
is difference on virtually every parameter. Okay,
fine. Are the remaining differences significant
in how they play out in the world? And the answer
to that is overwhelmingly significant, because
you select for extremes. So here's another example.
Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115. So
in the typical population overall has an average
IQ of 100. 15 points is about the difference
between the typical college student and the typical
high school student. Okay, so it's not a massive
difference, but if you go to the extreme, say,
well, let's go look at people who only have an
IQ of 145, which is kind of where you hit the
beginnings of genius level. It's like the Jews
are overwhelmingly overrepresented. So, relatively
small differences in the average can... produce
walloping differences at the extremes. People
don't understand that. It's not surprising, because
it actually requires a fairly sophisticated grasp
of statistics. But when we're talking about things
like differential outcome in the workplace...
then you have to take a sophisticated statistical
approach to it or you don't know what the hell
you're talking about. And unfortunately, many
of the people who are talking about things like
gender differences, they have no idea what they're
talking about. They don't know the literature.
They don't know there is a literature. They don't
understand biology. Like the social constructionist
types, the women's studies types, the neo -Marxists,
they don't give a damn about biology. It's like
they inhabit some disembodied universe. So the
review was poorly written at best and did not...
showed a very poor grasp of the relationship
between group differences and economic and practical
outcomes. It's not just that. It's deceptive.
And there's a need in some way on that side,
this side of the debate, the anti -Jordan Peterson
side, to label men and women as being virtually
identical. There's so much evidence that that's
not the case. And what you're saying, what you've
never said, one is superior, one is inferior.
What you are is a guy who's pointing out the
reality of the difference between the various
types of human beings. And you've been very open
about. The extremes about you. Look, I'm well
aware of the extremes. I deal with MMA fighters.
I know a lot of female MMA fighters are as aggressive
and as tough as any man you're ever going to
meet in your life. And I know a lot of men from
comedy that are meek little guys who they're
not nearly as aggressive as some of these female
fighters. I think one of the beautiful things
about freedom is that people get. an opportunity
to express themselves in a way that's genuinely
them. And whether that is like our friend Alex
Honnold, who's a free climber, who is like climbing
up these fantastic mountains with no ropes, or
whether it's a female MMA fighter like Raquel
Pennington, who's just a tank and beating the
shit out of people. And that's what she loves
to do. All of these extremes are available to
people because of freedom. This is not a suppressive
thing. No one's stopping people from choosing
these paths. I don't know if you saw the most
recent slip -up by the CEO of YouTube. I retweeted
it today. They were talking about why there's
not as many women in tech. And she basically
said they both, her and the CEO of Google, said
exactly what James Damore was saying in his memo.
They completely fucked up. They tried to... Did
you find this? Look at this. This is goddamn
hilarious. And James Damore had this on his page.
They respond, women, a lack of tech... No, go
to James Damore's tweet. Just go to what I retweeted
and what he said. So there was a study published
a while ago about... No, Jamie, scroll back up.
It was right there. It's right there. Just make
his tweet larger. There you go. Look, see, he's
saying, did I read this right? I don't know how
to say her name is Susan. I'm sorry. I don't
know how to say her name. W -O -J -I -C -I -C
-K -I said that women find geeky male industries
as opposed to social industries not very interesting.
And Sundar cites research on gender differences.
That's exactly the difference in interest that
I just pointed out. That's exactly right. This
is what James Damore wrote in his memo that got
him fired. And this, in my mind, if I was the
lawyer for James Damore, I'd be like, oh, well,
look who we have here. This is checkmate, you
dummies. You just said what he said. The DeMora
story is really interesting, you know, because
I think it's such a classic story of an engineer
getting tangled up in politics. So DeMora went
to this diversity seminar, and he wasn't very
happy about it because he knew the literature.
And so at the end of the seminar, they asked
for feedback. Well, James DeMora is an engineer.
So when you tell an engineer that you want feedback,
the engineer thinks, oh, you want feedback. facts
and stuff, right? Because that's what feedback
would be like. So Damore went and wrote this
like thorough memo and gave it to them. He said,
well, you know, this is what I think. Here's
some feedback. And then it traveled around. He
got no real response from the diversity people.
And then he posted it on one of these internal
boards at Google where people can discuss things,
which people at Google do all the time. So it
was perfectly reasonable for him to post it because
he didn't get a response from the diversity people.
He thought, well, let's see what other people
think. And then it was there for a long time
until it was leaked. into the outside world.
It wasn't like DeMora was trying to expose Google
for what it is. He was just doing what an engineer
type would do when someone asked him to provide
feedback because he's not thinking politically.
He's not thinking, oh, they just want to hear
what they already said. He thought they actually
wanted some facts. Anyways, I think they picked
on the wrong guy because DeMora turns out to
be pretty damn tough. Well, he's very smart and
a very kind guy. When you sit down and talk to
him, he's not a sexist. He's a guy that's talking
about facts. In fact, he wrote more than a page
and a half, I believe, on strategies for getting
more women interested in tech. He's not a sexist.
This is just a guy that was talking about the
differences in the choices that people make that's
based on just the variations that you were just
discussing. Well, there's a good study done a
while ago, and unfortunately I don't remember
the author, but they were looking at... junior
high math prodigies. And they're pretty equally
distributed between boys and girls. But by the
time university came along, the math prodigy
boys, they tend to go into the STEM fields, but
the girls wouldn't. And it isn't because they
lacked ability, because they had stellar ability.
It's because they weren't interested. And it
turns out, like the interest thing turns out
to be a big one. So with personality alone, if
you measure men and women's personalities, and
then you add up all the differences in personalities,
you could tell with about 75 % to 80 % certainty
by looking at a full personality readout whether
a person's male or female. So you'd be wrong
25 % of the time, something like that. But if
you add interest to that, you can get it up to
about 90%. And so, you know, you say, well, are
these differences large? Well... Individually,
they're not that big. They make more difference
at the extremes. But if you add them up, then
you can almost completely differentiate men from
women. So by that token, they're very large.
And the interest thing actually turns out to
matter a lot. Like, it's probably the most important
individual difference that has been discovered
between men and women at the psychological level.
It has real decent explanatory power, because
you might say... Well, men have a slight edge
in spatial intelligence, and that's why they're
overrepresented in STEM fields. And women have
a slight edge in verbal intelligence. This is
debatable, but literature kind of indicates that.
And that's why they're overwhelmingly the majority
of fiction readers, for example. Is that the
reason that there's differential representation
in the STEM fields? It's like, no, it doesn't
seem to be. It doesn't look like it's an intellectual
issue, which is also what Damore pointed out,
by the way. He never said once that this was
a cognitive issue. But it's a matter of choice.
Matter of interest. And women tend to be more
people -oriented. Now, the thing is, this is
also being discovered in chimpanzees and other
primates. Like, if you offer baby or child chimpanzees,
juvenile chimpanzees, the choice between thing
-like toys, like cars, or people -like toys,
like dolls, the males will go for the thing -like
toys and the females will go for the people -like
toys. So you see that in primates. And you think,
well, is that surprising? It's like, well, no,
it's not that surprising, really. I mean, women
have to take care of infants, tiny infants. And
you have to be really people -oriented to do
that, because a tiny infant is an unbelievably
demanding social relationship. And it's a primary
relationship for about two years. And so women
are tilted towards the kind of temperament that
makes that possible. It's like, well, is that
such a shock? Really? That's such a surprise?
No, it's not a surprise. And what's confusing
to me is the narrative that anybody that points
out these differences is somehow a sexist or
discriminatory. Yeah, worse. Yeah, yeah. Well,
whatever epithet they can... Well, I think the
other reason that the radical lefties have been
going after me constantly is... Well, there's...
One reason is if you stand up against the radical
left, you're in a group that also has Nazis in
it. Because the Nazis also stand up against the
radical left. So it's perfectly reasonable from
a strategic perspective for the radical leftists
to say, well, you're against us. How do we know
you're not a Nazi? It's like, well, statistically,
statistically, I'm probably not. You know, so
there's that. But you could say at least the
question is open. But then the next part of it
comes is that it's motivated epithet slinging.
Because if I'm reasonable... and I'm standing
up against the radical left, and they admit that
I'm reasonable, then there has to be an admission
that reasonable people could stand up against
the radical left, which kind of implies that
the radical left isn't that reasonable. And so
while they're not going to go there, of course,
they're not that reasonable. They're unreasonable
beyond belief, as we saw in the situation with
Lindsay Shepard in Canada. So at Wilfrid Laurier
University... Yeah, let's talk about that real
quick, because that was a fascinating thing,
too, and that also had to do with you. So she
was discussing you in class, and could you fill
in everybody? Yeah, she's in the communications
department at Wilfrid Laurier, and they were
talking about the role of language in communication,
which is kind of what you would do in a communication
class, and she decided to show a five -minute
clip from a program I had done for TV Ontario,
which is a public television station, mainstream,
left -leaning, liberal television. station news
program and a good one a good one and i had been
on there with a number of other people including
a professor nicholas matt from the university
of toronto who claimed essentially that there
were no biological differences between men and
women and that had been the scientific consensus
for the last four decades so anyways she showed
a clip from this and well she got hauled in front
of two professors and an administrator, Adria
Joel, who was basically hired for that purpose,
and raked over the coals for daring to show this
video. And she had the wherewithal to tape it.
And then she made the tape public. And in that
tape, they compared me, it was really blackly
comical, you know. They compared me to Hitler.
But then said, well, it's Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos.
I thought, you guys, you're so damn clueless,
you can't even get your insults right. It's like,
you can't say... That's like playing a video
of Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos. It's like, first
of all, Hitler and Milo Yiannopoulos, they're
actually not in the same category, right? Except
that they're both human. That's about the narrowness
of the category. And then Milo's like a comic
provocateur. And you can hate him or love him
or be indifferent. But to put him in the same
category as Hitler just shows how muddle -headed
you are. And then to assimilate me to that category
so carelessly. Like, you don't mess about with
epithets like that. You know, Hitler was one
of the great supervillains of the 20th century,
right? I mean, he's up there with Stalin and
Mao in the panoply of satanically possessed leaders.
You don't just toss that around, especially not
when you're torturing your teaching assistant
for daring to show a video. about language in
a communication class. And so that was a massive
scandal in Canada. I think it was the biggest
scandal that ever hit a university in Canada.
And it got a lot of international attention,
and rightly so. And she also turns out to be
a tough cookie. I mean, the last I heard, she'd
started a club at Wilfrid Laurier, and I think
it was last night or the night before, maybe
it's coming up, they're going to show the whole
video from Television Ontario. at a club meeting
and invite people to come and discuss it. It's
like they picked on the wrong girl there, too.
Well, they certainly did. She's obviously very
smart. You can hear that in her discussion with
them and how flabbergasted she was by their take
on things. But this was essentially proof to
a lot of people that were on the outside of how
preposterous some of the dialogue was inside
these universities. Yeah, well, they couldn't
have done me a bigger favor than having that
scandal because when I made videos about Bill
C -16, 15 months ago, I said, look, here's what's
going to happen because this legislation is written
in an appalling manner and the surrounding policies
are pathological. I said, here's what's going
to happen. And so I laid it out. And then people
came out and said, no, you're being paranoid.
It's like, that's possible. No, the bill, the
legislation isn't going to have that effect.
No, you're not a legal expert. What the hell
do you know? Et cetera, et cetera. You're crazy.
You're a bigot. You're a transphobe. You know,
they threw everything but the kitchen sink at
me. Like, fair enough, you know, because there's
always a possibility that I was wrong. But the
problem was, is I read the policies and I understood
them and I knew where they were leading, but
I never imagined. that one of the consequences
of Bill C -16 and its sister legislation was
that a teaching assistant at a Canadian university
would be pilloried and accused of breaking the
law, and then accused of all sorts of reprehensible
political beliefs by two professors and an administrator
hired for that purpose, merely because she showed
a video about two people talking about the law.
It's like that, paranoid as I am, let's say,
that... That exceeded the grasp or the reach
of my imagination. And then, of course, it was
made public and people just couldn't believe
it. And then you think, okay, well, what's the
defense? Well, they misinterpreted Bill C -16.
It's like, no, I don't think so. They aren't
representative of the university professor at
administration. Well... All of Pimlott and Rambucana's
colleagues rose to their defense, the whole department.
The university, when they apologized, did it
in a very mealy -mouthed way. Like, there's no
evidence that it was an anomalous occurrence.
So what had happened is they overextended the
reach of Bill C -16 in exactly the way that I
said would happen. It was inevitable. And it
wasn't an anomaly. It was actually, that's actually
the way that the universities are. And it is
the way that they are. It wasn't a one -off.
It was exactly diagnostic. And it's appalling.
It's appalling. The universities have so much
to be ashamed of. Well, there was an article
in the Boston Globe this week saying the same
thing, that all of this crazy postmodern identity
politics, equality of outcome nonsense, has not
only disrupted the university in a way that might
be irreparable, as far as I can tell, but it's
rapidly spreading outside into the... normal,
say, business world, which is exactly what you
see, for example, at Google. Well, the tech industry
in particular seems to be more left -leaning
than pretty much any industry there is. And I
guess it's because there's so many intelligent
people there, so many people that have spent
a tremendous amount of time in universities,
and they get indoctrinated into this mindset.
And you're seeing that in this. The CEO of YouTube's
response to the James Damore memo completely
misrepresented it. They're talking about harmful
gender stereotypes. That's not what he talked
about at all. What's fascinating to me about
all of this is it it just reeks of tribalism
that these people on the left have decided. I
mean, and I'm. mostly on the left, which is really
crazy. I mean, when it comes to most policies
and most thoughts of equality and the idea of
just letting people be who they are, I mean,
that's what the left used to stand for. It used
to stand for being open -minded. It used to stand
for being a reasonable person. Now it seems to
be all about this very toxic tribal ideology
and... This is one of the reasons why so many
of these attacks on you are so baffling to me.
It's because there's a willful ignorance or a
deceptive narrative. There's a deceptive description
of who you are and what you're saying and what
you represent. conveniently categorized, not
even convenient, willfully deceptively categorized
into these categories of homophobia, transphobia,
sexism. These are reprehensible categories that
if they can just shove something that you're
saying, figure out a way to push you into this
little narrow confined, then everyone has to
disagree with you. Everyone has to insult you.
And everyone has to take that girl into their
office and chastise you for not even speaking
up for you. Right. And she said she wasn't. Yes.
That's what was more fascinating about it than
anything. Yeah, and then they gave her hell for
that. It's like, well, you can't present something
like that neutrally. That's like presenting something
Hitler said neutrally. Or maybe Milo Yiannopoulos.
It's so strange. But what they don't understand,
and this is what's really crazy, is that the
world, is watching and that most people, maybe
it's a 60 -40 like we were talking about before
when it comes to aggressive women versus aggressive
men. I don't know what the number is. I think
it's about 50 to 1 actually. Like I've been watching
the comments on YouTube and so forth trying to
track this. It's like I think that like I think
that what the radical leftists are doing is overwhelmingly
unrepresentative of the general population overwhelmingly
but they're they're a very well organized and
and verbal and prepared minority and they've
occupied powerful positions in many many institutions
hr and one of the things i really can't figure
out right now and for anybody who's Running a
company that's listening, they should think this
through. Like, to let these postmodern neo -Marxists
into your company through the guise of human
resources is an absolute catastrophe. You're
going to pay for that. The ideology that drives
postmodern neo -Marxism, this identity politics
movement, and its insistence on equality of outcome
is powerfully anti -capitalistic. It's powerfully
anti -Western. Why you would let that into your
company? so that you can look good socially,
let's say, is beyond me. It's a big mistake.
I agree with you, but I don't think people are
aware of it. I think part of the problem is this
battleground is largely ignored by the general
population. I don't think most people are aware
of what's going on. You are, because obviously
you're deeply embedded in the university system
in Canada, and you're obviously... Now branching
out into YouTube and podcasts and all these different
ways to get this information out. But the average
person that is a CEO of a company or they're
concerned with their own company. They're concerned
with their own individual needs. They're concerned
with organizing things and keeping their bottom
line. Yeah, well, they're also concerned with
looking fair and making sure that they're not
prejudiced and all of that, which is laudable.
I just don't think they see the wave coming.
No, they don't. They don't see it coming. They
don't understand it. and they're incautious about
it, but they're going to pay for it. Well, Google
is a good example, because now Google is in court
on the feminist end for being prejudiced against
females, and also on the conservative end for
being prejudiced against conservatives. It's
like, well, so both camps are after them, and
I think, well, why is that? It's like, well,
that's what happens when you play identity politics,
this tribalism. This is really what I can't stand
about identity politics, and I've been warning
about the consequences on the right wing, too,
because what I see happening is that... As the
left, like, let's say the left gets to define
the linguistic territory, which was what I was
objecting to in Bill C -16. When it came out,
I said, look, I'm not going to use these. Neologism,
Z and Zer, etc. Because as far as I'm concerned,
they have nothing... People who don't know what
you're talking about. A bunch of different made
-up gender pronouns to describe people in a non
-male or female way. That's right. So there's
like 70 different categories of non -binary gender,
something like that, generated now. And there's
lists of pronouns that hypothetically the people
who are in those categories can choose to be
addressed by. And now that has the force of law.
And I don't care if they choose to be addressed
by those pronouns. Whatever. That's up to them
and whoever else they can convince or ask or
entreat or negotiate with. Fine. As soon as it's
law, that's a whole different story. Okay, so
now I have to use a certain terminology. So then
I look at the derivation of the terminology.
I say, oh. That's terminology generated by the
postmodern neo -Marxists. Oh, well, I think those
people are reprehensibly murderous. So guess
what? I'm not going to say their words, period,
because I know what they're like. I know where
that leads. Okay, so... But most people think
that that's a gigantic step to go from saying
you don't want to say Z or Zer or any of these
made -up gender pronouns to these are murderous
people. The ideology is murderous. The ideology
being Marxism. Yeah, absolutely. Well, Jesus,
how much proof of that do you need? Right. But
most people don't understand Marxism. Like when
you're saying this, like when you were so adamant
about it, I had to start reading about it myself
and I had to start doing a lot of research about
it myself. And I think most people hear Marxism
and they think socialism. Yeah. They think pooling
all your money together, you know, making things
more even for people. Yeah, like they are in
Venezuela. Everybody has an equal chance to starve
to death. So you know how the Venezuelan government
solved the problem of kids starving to death
in hospitals? How? They made it illegal for the
doctors to report starvation as the cause of
death. Right. Wow. That's Venezuela in a nutshell.
Yeah, everyone's equal there. They all have the
same number of bones to gnaw on. Yeah, that's
a horrible thing. Yeah, it's a horrible thing.
Undeniably. But there's no, like, the connection
between gender pronouns and murder. It's a big
leap. Yeah, that's for sure. That's for sure.
Well, that's why you have to look at the underlying
ideology, you know. And you think, well, what
is the level at which these things should be
addressed? Well, is it economic? Is it political?
Or is it the beginnings of this ideology, and
you understand where the roadmap leads? You understand
the X at the end of the road. Yeah, right, absolutely.
Well, and I think that's why I recommend it to
people continually to read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag
Archipelago. So, actually, there's a set of books
that lay this out perfectly. You read, Dostoevsky
wrote a book called The Possessed, or The Devils,
and it's a description of the initial breakdown
of the... Orthodox Christian society in Russia
in the late 1800s, and the rise of radical socialist
ideas. So it's sort of like the prodroma to the
Russian Revolution. It's a brilliant, brilliant
book, brilliant book. And it concentrates on
the personalities that are involved. And then
if you read after that, Solzhenitsyn's Gulag
Archipelago, where he details what he does in
that book is quite remarkable. So he says, look,
there were tens of millions of people killed
from 1919 to 1959 in the Soviet Union. And as
a consequence of internal repression. And it's
so dreadful that words can't do it justice. I
mean, it's absolutely dreadful what happened
in the Soviet Union. I mean, just for starters,
6 million Ukrainians died in the 1930s because
of enforced starvation. In fact, in the 1930s,
here's how terrible it was. All the food that
the collective farmers, newly collectivized farmers,
had produced, which wasn't very much, by the
way, was taken from them and brought to the cities.
So all the farmers starved to death. Now here's
how draconian it got. So let's say you were the
mother of some children, and all your grain had
been shipped off to the cities, and you thought,
well, I'm not going to have my children starve
to death. I'm going to go out in the field, and
I'm going to, on my hands and knees, and I'm
going to pick up the grains that are left over
that the harvesters didn't. get, and I'm going
to feed those to my kids. That was punishable
by death. You were supposed to hand in those
extra bits of grain so that they could be shipped
to the city as well. So that was just the beginning
of the fun in the Soviet Union. And what Solzhenitsyn
did was say, look, this wasn't a consequence
of the Marxist system gone wrong. This was a
consequence of the Marxist system. It was an
inevitable consequence of the... of the Marxist
system. And then he lays that out. And it's,
I think he got it right. Which is why he won
the Nobel Prize. But what is the connection?
How much tyranny you have to impose in order
to produce something like equality of outcome.
And Thomas Sowell's talked about this a little
bit too. He said... What the people who are agitating
for equality of outcome don't understand is that
you have to cede so much power to the authorities,
to the government, in order to ensure equality
of outcome that a tyranny is inevitable. And
that's right. And another problem with equality
of outcome, this is also a big technical problem,
is like, well, what measure of outcome? You know,
there's lots of outcomes, like how happy are
you? How much pain are you in? How healthy are
you? How much money do you have? How much opportunity
for movement forward do you have? What's the
width of your social connections? What's the
quality of your friendships? Do you have exposure
to art and literature? You can multiply the number
of dimensions of evaluation between people innumerably,
right? Because there's all sorts of ways to classify
people. You're going to get equality of outcome
on every one of those measures? Is everyone going
to have to be equally happy in their relationship?
And if not, why not? Why stop with economic,
why stop with pay? There's no place to stop.
So, and that's a huge technical problem. Because
there is no place to stop, there will be no stopping.
It's like nobody can have anything else, nobody
can have anything that everyone else doesn't
have at the same time. That's the ultimate outcome
of equality of outcome. Well, you think about
what that would mean. It's terrible. Well, instantly
you think, oh, well, there's nothing but a tyrannical
system could impose that. Have you ever debated
a Marxist supporter? Have you ever debated someone
who is pro -equality of outcome? No, they don't
debate me. Well, the closest thing, I think,
to that was the debate I did at the University
of Toronto about the Bill C -16 issues. But they
didn't actually have a debate. They had a forum,
which is the postmodern equivalent of a debate.
It's supposed to be friendlier, I suppose. But
no. I haven't because people don't do it. They
don't ask me to do it. But what is it about that
idea or that ideology about Marxism that's so
attractive to young students and to university
professors? Oh, that's a good question. I think
it goes back to the issue of inequality. And
this is something that has to be dead seriously
addressed. It's like you might say, well, why
is the left wing necessary? Let's put it that
way. And then a subset of that would be, well,
why is the left wing attractive? Well, the left
wing is necessary because inequality does spiral
out of control. And so there has to be a political
voice for the dispossessed. And you don't want
people to stack up at zero, you know, where they
can't play the game at all. It's a bad idea.
Not only do you not... If people stack up at
zero, they're too poor to get ahead at all, let's
say. They're too poor to open a bank account.
They're too poor to buy enough food. Like they're
stuck at zero and they can't get out of it. It's
a really bad scene because, first of all, that's
a lot of suffering. And that's not so good. Second
of all, well, at least in principle, a lot of
those people might have something to offer the
world. Or their children might. And you want
to open up avenues of opportunity. to them so
that they can succeed, but so that everyone else
can benefit from their success. So, and then
the next thing is, well, if the inequality gets
out of hand too much, then the whole society
starts to destabilize, because if you get enough
people stacked up at zero, especially young men,
you get enough young men stacked up at zero,
they think, oh, to hell with it, we'll just flip
the whole board over. it'll settle in a new configuration,
and maybe we won't be stuck at zero in the new
configuration. So it foments revolutionary thinking.
So there's lots of reasons to be concerned about
inequality. And so you need a voice on the left
to say, look, we've got to parameterize the tendency
towards inequality so that it doesn't destabilize
the entire society, so that everybody has an
opportunity to advance. Like, yes, right, you
need that. Okay, so that's the technical reason
for the necessity of the left. And then I think
it's attractive because... Well, because young
people can be resentful, partly because they're
at the bottom of the heap, so to speak. They're
not because they're young. Like, look, you want
to be poor in 18? You want to be rich in 80?
Which are you going to choose? Most people are
going to take poor at 18. Well, yeah. Especially
if you've been rich at 80 and you understand
you can get back there. Yeah, well, that's the
thing, you know, is that most of the people who
have a million dollars or more in the United
States are old. Well, why is that? Really, do
we need an explanation for that? It's like, you've
had a lot more time to make money. How would
that be? That's the explanation. So that's one
of the big drivers of inequality is just simply
age. But it's not obvious that the old rich people
have an advantage over the young starting out
people. So, anyways, but anyhow, maybe you're
resentful and irritated because you're young
and you're still at the bottom of the heap and,
you know, you've got other problems too. It's
more difficult for people of your race or ethnicity
or gender, at least you think it is. So you say,
well, I want to make things fair. And then that's
also driven by some real compassion, because
nobody really likes that, the consequences of
radical inequality. Like, nobody likes the fact
that homeless people exist and have to go to
the emergency ward, you know, to get treated,
and they don't have medical coverage, and they
have to live in tents on the street. And so if
you have some compassion, then you think, well,
we've got to do more for the poor and dispossessed.
It's like, okay, that's... That's an understandable
sentiment, but the problem is that that desire
to help is contaminated by resentment and ideological
certainty, and then also by something that George
Orwell pointed out so nicely in his book Road
to Wigan Pier. It's like the typical middle -class
socialist, this was his diagnosis, and he was
a socialist, by the way, his diagnosis was the
typical middle -class intellectual socialist
doesn't like the poor. In fact, They don't want
to have anything to do with the poor. They're
contemptuous of the poor. But they hate the rich.
And I think it's even more devious than that,
because I think who they hate are the successful.
Some of the successful are rich, but really who
they hate is the successful. It's like Cain and
Abel. It's the retelling of Cain and Abel. And
so there's some positive motivations for being
engaged on the left, and there's a lot of negative
motivations as well. And the people who are really
driven by the radical left ideology, the real
radicals, they're almost all driven by... by
resentment and hatred, as far as I'm concerned.
Now, let's look at both extremes. So, back to
the idea of the ideological and verbal territory.
I said with Bill C -16 that I wouldn't speak
the language of the radical leftists, because
I don't think that that language should define
the game. But let's say it does. So here's the
game. The world is a battleground of groups,
and they're battling for power. That's it. That's
the game. And some of them win, and they oppress
those who don't win. So that's how we're going
to view the world. Okay, now the leftists say,
okay, well, here's the oppressed people. The
oppressors, the patriarchal types, they should
be ashamed of themselves and give up some power.
The right -wingers, the radical right -wingers
look at that and they say, oh, I see, so the
game is ethnic identity, is it? It's identity
politics. Okay, we're white males. We're not
going to lose. That's the right -wing version
of identity politics. It's like, screw you. If
we're going to divide into groups, if we're going
to divide into tribes, and I'm in my tribe, I'm
not going to get all guilty and lose. I'm going
to get all cruel and win. And that's like, then
you think, well, there's people in the middle.
They're kind of looking back and forth. Which
side of the identity politics spectrum am I going
to fall in? Do I want to go with the... Do I
want to go... Do I want to be driven primarily
by compassion? And am I going to accept guilt
for my historical privilege? So that's one possibility.
And then I'm the oppressor. I'm the member of
the oppressor group. Or am I going to say, oh,
no, to hell with that. I'm just going to play
to win. Well, then I'm going to go to the right.
It's like, well, my sense is, how about we don't
play either of those games? And the reason we
shouldn't play them is, well, the Soviets played
the left -wing game and, like, killed. Who knows
how many tens of millions of people? You can't
even count it accurately. The estimates range
from 20 to 100 million. Those are pretty big
error bars. And the Maoists, maybe 100 million,
certainly 60 million. So, okay, that didn't work
out so well. And then there's the Nazis. Like,
they played ethnic identity politics and racial
superiority. It's like, we want to play that
game? See, what I've been trying to do, really,
what I've been trying to do for the last 30 years
is say, look, There's heavy temptations to play
those sorts of games. But that's not the only
game in town. It's a much better game to play
individual. It's like, get your act together.
Stand up in the world. Make something of yourself.
Stay away from the ideological oversimplifications.
Set your house in order. That's rule six in this
book. So I have a book rule in there that says,
set your house in perfect order before you criticize
the world. And it's a very dark chapter about...
the motivations of the Columbine High School
killers, and this other guy named Carl Panzram,
who was a serial rapist and arsonist and murderer.
And he wrote an autobiography, and the Columbine
kids also wrote about why they did what they
did. They're resentful to the core, bitter, bitter,
resentful, terrible. And, well, I'm suggesting
that people stay away from that resentfulness
and bitterness, even though life is hard, and
there's malevolence in the world. It's like,
yeah. You can tell a story where everyone's a
victim. Because we all die. We all get sick.
And things happen to us that are bitter and terrible.
Betrayal, deceit, lies. Like people hurt us on
purpose. So it's not just the tragedy of life.
It's malevolence as well. Everyone's a victim.
You can tell that story. The problem is if you
tell that story and you start to act it out,
you make all of that worse. That's the problem.
And so this is why partly I got attracted to
Christian imagery, at least in part, because
there's an idea in Christianity that you should
pick up your goddamn cross and, like, walk up
the hill. And that's, dramatically, that's correct.
That's the right answer. It's like, you've got
a heavy load of suffering to bear, and a fair
bit of it's going to be unjust. So what are you
going to do about it? Accept it voluntarily,
and try to transform as a consequence. That's
the right answer. It's the right answer. Because
the rest of it is tribalism. And we're too technologically
powerful to get all tribal again. What's exciting
to me is that I think this is the first time
in my life that I've ever seen so much communication
on these subjects. And I think so much recognition
about the consequences of tribal. Toxic tribalism.
This tribal thinking that everyone seems to be
engaged in on the right and on the left. I mean,
in America, you need to go no further than going
back and forth from CNN to Fox News to say something's
wrong here. These are supposed to be news outlets.
You have two completely different narratives.
And that has nothing to do with what we're talking
about with gender politics and radical left socialism
and Marxism. A radical departure from what I
always considered universities great for. What
I always considered universities great for is
separating from your parents, challenging belief
systems and being engaged in the works of brilliant
people who you can compare all of their findings
and their discoveries and sit down and debate
them in class. And when I was a kid, when I was
in high school. Went to a very good high school,
Newton South High School in Newton, Massachusetts.
And one of the things that they did is they put
on a debate between a guy from the moral majority,
which was this right wing Christian group that
I don't even know if they're around anymore.
But this was 19. I was 14. So 81. And Barney
Frank, who was that congressman, is now one of
the first openly gay guys in Congress. And you
got to watch these two people in this auditorium
debate their points. And this moral majority
guy had this right -wing Ronald Reagan sort of
point of view. And Barney Frank was kind of crazy.
He got busted in some male prostitute scandal.
But the gay community, that's not that big of
a deal. And just Barney Frank took them apart.
It was brilliant to watch, but it was a real
debate. It was fascinating. And you got to see
a mediocre mind versus a great mind. And you
got to see this little thing. And I was like,
wow. And it's one of the things that's always
attracted me about the idea that two people.
with differing viewpoints can get together in
front of a neutral audience, and these people
can sort of decipher which way these people are
thinking and why they're thinking. Yeah, well,
bad as that is, and rife with conflict as that
is, the alternative is to separate, as you pointed
out, into two camps that don't talk. Yes. And
the thing is, the consequence of not talking
is that you fight. That's the end game. Because
the only way you can stop from fighting with
other people... is by negotiating with them.
And, you know, one of the things that's also
interesting, and this is partly why Silicon Valley
leans to the left, is that a fair bit of your
political preference is determined by your biological
temperament. It's strongly influenced. So if
you're a creative type who's kind of disorderly,
then you're likely to be on the liberal left
end of the distribution. And if you're a non
-creative type who's orderly and... And especially
if you're orderly, then you tend to be on the
right wing end of things. And so, and, well,
why is that? Why do those variations exist? Well,
they exist because some of the time your best
strategy is to do what other people have done
and shut the hell up and just do it. Run the
algorithm, right? The pathway's already laid
clear. It works. Stay in the damn rut and move
forward. Okay, so that's the conservative approach.
And when things are going right, it's the right
approach. The problem is that sometimes it's
not the right approach because something has
shifted. And so something new has to emerge.
And so then there's a bunch of people who are
adapted to the new. And those are the entrepreneurial
and creative types. And, of course, they dominate
Silicon Valley because it's a very entrepreneurial,
it's a very entrepreneurial, what would you call
it, geography. And so they're going to lean to
the left. But they have to understand, people
have to understand that the left and the right
need each other. The liberals and the conservatives
need each other. Liberals start companies. Conservatives
run them. And the problem with the conservatives
is, well, they can only run a company in one
direction. Because they're conservative. They
don't think outside the box. So if the company
is working and the product line is good and everything
is stable, like, hire some conservatives because
they'll maximize efficiency and they'll move
down that track. But if the track is no longer
going in a good direction because something's
changed, the environment's changed, well, then
you've got to bring in the creative people. And
so we need each other. The only way that we can
survive the fact that we're different and the
fact that we need each other is by continually
talking. We have to talk constantly. It's like,
well, how much of what we're doing should we
preserve versus how much of what we're doing
should we transform? And the answer is, we don't
know, because the environment keeps changing.
So what do we do about that? We talk. I was on
a CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, interview
a couple of days ago, and they took me to task.
I tweeted out this... this invitation to the
Keck boys to fill out this program that I developed
called Future Authoring, and it helps people
make a plan for their life. Explain the Keck
boys. Yeah, well, they're an online group. I
know what it is. They run Keckistan. It's this
fictional polity. It's a satire of identity politics,
essentially. We're going to be our ethnicity.
Highly demonized satire. Highly demonized satire,
right. And with good reason, with some individual
examples of racism and Nazism. Yeah, there's
lots of misbehavior. Yeah, yeah. It's like graffiti.
It's like online graffiti, something like that.
So, and the Keck boys are the ones who are often
using the peppy memes, for example. You know,
the left regards Pepe as a hate symbol. Pepe
the frog. Pepe the frog. The feels -good frog.
That's right. That's right. Kind of reprehensible
frog. And so I tweeted out to them. I said, Keck
boys, seek your 4chan. Rescue yourself from the
underworld. Use code Pepe. For future authoring.
So it's free for one week. So they had to figure
out what it meant. And then I showed this picture
of Michigan J. Frog, which is the frog from an
old Warner Brothers cartoon, Dancing Frog, that
wouldn't perform when anyone was watching it.
So CBC hauled that out and said, well, look,
aren't you like... appealing to the radical right.
And I said, well, no, what I'm doing, I said,
look, these people are attracted by the radical
right, although they're satirists and juvenile
satirists and graffiti types and, you know, they're
playing a weird satirical game. They're having
fun, being naughty. Yes, that's exactly what
they're doing. They're provoking. And my sense
was... Well, why don't you develop yourself as
an individual and get the hell out of the ideological
trap? So here's my program, which helps you write
about your future, and that'll help you decide
who you are as an individual, because that's
the way out of the ideological trap. Obviously,
what's the way out of tribalism? First, the way
out of tribalism is not to never join a tribe.
You actually have to join a tribe as you mature,
right? Because what happens is, first of all,
you're an infant, and then you have... your parents
to make a relationship with, but then when you
move from your parents, you have your tribe,
you have your group. Maybe it's the music you
listen to, it's the gang you hang around with,
whatever. You have to be socialized into the
tribe. You have to. Because otherwise you stay
a dependent infant. Okay, but now you're socialized
into the tribe. Well, is that where it ends?
It's like, no. The next thing to do is differentiate
yourself from the tribe while still knowing how
to behave within the tribe. Well, that's the
call to individualism. And that's, I think, what
the West got right. We figured that out. It's
like, you have to be a member of a group because
otherwise you're not socialized. You're not good
for anyone. You have to be able to play on a
team, man. You have to have team loyalty. Okay,
but that isn't where you should stop. You should
take the next step and become a fully developed
individual. See, the problem with being just
a group member is that the group, it's the problem
with conservatism. The group is a fixed entity.
It has its rules and its regulations. And if
you're a member, that's all you are. But the
group can go badly wrong. So the group needs
individuals to keep the group alive and revivified.
So you have to become an individual so you can
revivify the group. That's the call in the West
to heroism, essentially, to noble way of living
is to... Develop yourself past your group identity
so that you can reconfigure the game when that
becomes necessary. And I think that there's a
very influential line of developmental psychology
pioneered by Jean Piaget that laid that out as
a developmental progression. First you're a child,
then you're a member of a group, then you're
an individual. It's like, get to the individual
level. That's the solution. It's the solution
to tribalism. But you have to accept responsibility
to do that. And this is what your future authoring
program is basically all about. I mean, it's
a wonderful program. And along with this book,
Rules and Guidelines for Life, I think that's
one of the things that a lot of young people
are lacking is a structure to how to go about
establishing who they are in the world. Well,
that's, you know, what's really cool, and it's
been really quite remarkable, I would say, is
that... What I've noticed when I've been speaking
publicly, say, over the last year and a half,
because there's a hole in our culture where there
should be a discussion about maturity, truth,
and responsibility. No one's talking about that.
Okay, so now I'll come up and I'll start talking
about that. I'll say, look, like, what should
you do with your life? Well, take care of yourself,
but take care of yourself in a way that... Also
means that simultaneously you're taking care
of your family. And also means that simultaneously
you're taking care of the broader community.
So that's kind of your goal. So orient yourself
towards that. Personal success, but in a way
that your success breeds success. Because if
you're going to establish an aim, why not establish
like a really good aim? That's a good one. It's
good for you. It's good for everyone else. Yes.
Okay. That'll give your life some meaning. Now
adopt, make a plan, generate a vision. That's
what the Future Authoring Program helps people
with. Make a... Develop a vision of what your
life could be like if it was worth living, despite
all its suffering. It's like, what would you
need so that you would be happy to be alive?
You'd find your life meaningful, so you don't
get all bitter and resentful and cruel and hostile
and ideologically addled and murderous and genocidal.
It's like, none of that. You think real hard.
How would you have to configure your life so
that despite its suffering and the malevolence
that's part of it, that you would regard it as
worthwhile? So that's up to you to develop a
vision. Then put a plan into practice. And so
when I talk to people about this, and most of
my audiences are young men, it's probably about
65, 35, more and more women are showing up, but
that's about what it is right now. The halls
are dead silent. You can hear a pin drop. Because
nobody's said so clearly for like 50 years that
almost all the meaning that you will need to
get you through the hard times of your life is
going to be a consequence of adopting responsibility.
Not of rights and impulsive action. Impulsive
freedom. Like, fine, rights, yeah, got it. Freedom,
no problem. Even freedom to do impulsive things,
fine. But that isn't where you're going to find
the meaning that keeps you sustained through
the storms of life. That's going to be, you take
care of yourself, you take care of your intimate
partner, you take care of your damn family. You
don't run off. You take care of your community.
You rescue the wisdom from the past. You stand
up straight and you be courageous despite the
fact that life is tragic and tainted by malevolence.
It's like that's ancient wisdom. That's what
that is. And understanding that there's structure
and discipline. And that, you know, I am in a
lot of ways both of those things you described
earlier. I'm in a lot of ways my mind is creative
and I'm always sort of half. paying attention
to things, but I'm also disciplined. Yeah, right.
And it's one of the reasons why I think I so
relate to both sides of this issue. It's also
one of the reasons you're successful. I could
have easily been some hardcore right -wing asshole.
I'm a competition -oriented person. I've been
since I was a child. I grew up competing in martial
arts tournaments. And you have to be a hard person
to do that. You have to understand what discipline
is. But before that, I was an artist. I wanted
to be a cartoonist. I wanted to do comic books.
That's what I wanted to do. I wanted to be an
illustrator. If it wasn't for one... bad teacher
in high school that totally shied me away from
art i probably would have went into that as a
as a living when i look at both sides i see myself
in both sides yep yep well the other thing i've
been telling young men is that and and this is
something i think that you could relate to tremendously
is i read this new testament line well decades
ago, and I could never understand it. The line
is, the meek shall inherit the earth. And I thought,
there's something wrong with that, that line.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Meek just doesn't
seem to me to be a moral virtue. And so I did
a series of biblical lectures this year, like
15 of them, and that was also a weird little
experience that we can talk about. But I was
looking through these sayings, these maxims,
and that was one of them, the meek shall inherit
the earth. I've been using this site called Bible
Hub, and it's very interesting. It's organized
very interestingly. So you have a biblical line,
and then they have like three pages of commentary
on each line. And so, because people have commented
on every verse in the Bible, like to the degree
that's almost unimaginable. So you can look and
see all the interpretations and all the translations,
and get some sense of what the genuine meaning
might be. And the line, the meek shall inherit
the earth, meek is not a good translation. or
the word has moved in the 300 years or so, 300
years or so since it was translated, what it
means is this. Those who have swords and know
how to use them, but keep them sheathed, will
inherit the world. And that's another thing I've
been telling, yeah, no kidding, that's a lot
different. That's a big difference. That's a
big difference. It's so great. And so like one
of the things I tell young men, well, and young
women as well, but the young men really need
to hear this more, I think, is that you should
be a monster. You know, because everyone says,
well, you should be harmless, virtuous. You shouldn't
do anyone any harm. You should sheath your competitive
instinct. You shouldn't try to win. You know,
you don't want to be too aggressive. You don't
want to be too assertive. You want to take a
back seat and all of that. It's like, no, wrong.
You should be a monster, an absolute monster.
And then you should learn how to control it.
Do you know the expression, it's better to be
a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war?
Right, right, exactly. That's exactly it. Yeah.
And that's exactly right. And so when I tell
young men that, they think, well, lots of them
are competitive. They're low in agreeableness,
you know, because that's part of being competitive
temperamentally. It's like, is there something
wrong with being competitive? There's nothing
wrong with it. There's something wrong with cheating.
There's something wrong with being a tyrant.
There's something wrong with winning unfairly.
All of those things are bad, but you don't want
people to win? What's the difference between
trying to win and striving? You want to eradicate
striving? Well, it's the uncomfortable feeling
that people associate with losing. When they've
personally experienced it, they look at losing
as they've been oppressed or they've been hurt.
But what they don't understand is that is the
motivation for growth. And one of the most beautiful
things that I think a young person can get involved
in is martial arts because martial arts teach
you that in a way that very few things do. They
teach you it in especially jujitsu because jujitsu
is so complex and there's so many possibilities
to it that it attracts a lot of really smart
people. If you think of jujitsu, you would think
of like brutish individuals engaging in this
hard martial art. If you go to a real good jujitsu
school, you see. nerds. You see a bunch of really
smart kids that really get obsessed with the
possibilities of this physical language. This
physical language also teaches you the consequences
of not working hard, of not being prepared, of
not understanding positions, of not doing due
diligence and doing the work. And it's an amazing
scaffolding for developing your life. But it
also teaches you how to lose. Yes. That's very
important. One definition of a winner is someone
who never let losing stop them. Yes. And the
idea that... A single loss in a competition is
somehow a defeat. It's completely insane. First
of all, well, let's say you're a hockey player
and you're a good player and you lose the tournament.
It's like, well, so what? You played the game.
You're increasing your skills. It's like there's
always next time. And one of the things that
I've also been telling people... informing people
about is the idea that life isn't a game. It's
a series of games. And the right ethic is to
be the winner of the series of games. And part
of that means you have to learn how to be a good
loser because you're not going to win every single
game. But you also have to embrace those losses
as learning experiences. And the people that
have never lost are afraid of losing. They're
afraid of learning. You're afraid of that feeling,
that terrible feeling that you get from losing
is so beneficial. It's aided me in so many ways.
It's one of the reasons, also one of the reasons
why talk so openly about bombing on stage. And
I do it with other comedians. I always want to
tell people, yeah, I'm an established comedian.
I've been a comedian for a long time. Let me
tell you about when I was two years in or five
years in or four years ago. Let me tell you about
some horrible moments on stage where it went
wrong. Just so you understand, those things took
me to another place because I realized I don't
want to ever feel that feeling again. And so
I ramped everything up. And then I went back
to work and I went over my notebooks and I went
over my... recordings, and I figured out what
I was doing wrong, and I tried to improve upon
it. But if it wasn't for that horrible, sick
feeling, that's the same feeling you get when
you get tapped out in jujitsu class. Same feeling
you get when you lose a martial arts tournament
or anything else. Losing is important. Well,
you might also say, like, let's say that you
can pick your level of competition in life to
some degree. Okay, so let's say you pick a level
of competition where you're always winning. It's
like, well, all that means is you've picked the
wrong level of competition. Yes. Because, you
know, like, let's say you're a grandmaster chess
player and all you do is play amateurs. And every
night you go home and congratulate yourself on
what a genius you are because you just stomp
these people left, right, and center. It's like,
you're not a genius. You're dimwit. Right. What
you should be doing is playing people who are
beating you like, well, as much as you can tolerate.
Right. So maybe that's 40 % of the time. Maybe
it's 60 % of the time. But that way, because
to be a winner. You want to be disciplined. You
want to know what you're doing. And then you
want to be on the edge where your skills are
being developed. And if you're going to be on
the edge where your skills are going to be developed,
you're at a place where loss, where losing is
always a possibility. Because otherwise you're
not pushing yourself beyond your current capacity.
And so one of the things that I've outlined in
12 Rules for Life is a theory of meaning. Because
meaning, as far as I'm concerned, the sense of
meaningful engagement is the antidote to malevolence
and suffering, essentially. Because you want
to have a life that's so engaging that you think,
despite the fact that I'm limited and that we're
mortal and that life is tragedy and there's evil
in the world, despite all that, this is worth
doing. And I think that there's a technical meaning
that genuinely exists. And that's the meaning
that you get when you're... in a domain where
you have some discipline and some skill. So you're
laying out your competence and your ability.
But you're simultaneously pushing yourself to
develop past where you are. That's really engrossing.
And what that is doing is expanding your competence.
And so life is suffering and betrayal in many
senses of the word. But you can adopt a way of
traversing through life that... is more powerful
than the tragedy and the malevolence. I agree,
and I say to many people that what is going on
in your life is you have a series of human reward
systems that are in your body, encoded in your
body, in your genetics, and it's the reason why
human beings survived to 2018. And in order to
be happy, you have to feed those things. You
have to feed all of them. You have to feed the
one that wants to overcome difficult tasks. You
have to feed the one that wants to solve problems.
You have to feed the one that wants to be with
a loving tribe of people that you care about.
You have to feed the one that wants to procreate.
You have to feed all of these things. You have
to feed the love. You have to feed the competition.
You have to feed the discipline. And that, to
me, is the only way to stay balanced. Or with
me, with my body and my mind, that's the only
way I've been able to stay balanced. And when
any of those things get out of whack, I get out
of whack. Yeah, well, so part of that is, so
imagine this. So imagine that you're this loose
collection of all these things that need to be
gratified, that need to be fed. It's a perfectly
reasonable way of looking at it biologically.
Okay, so now you have to conjure up a mode of
being that satisfies all those necessities simultaneously.
But then, and this is a technical explanation
of why the postmodernist insistence that there's
an infinite number of explanations, turns out
to be wrong. An infinite number of interpretations.
There's a very finite number of viable interpretations.
So the first constraint is exactly what you just
said. You have these inner demons, let's say,
all of which need to be satisfied. But they need
to be satisfied in a very particular way. Not
only do they need to be satisfied today, but
they need to be satisfied today in a way that
doesn't interfere with satisfying them next week,
next month, next year, and in a decade. So because
there's no point in you You're betraying your
future self to gratify your present self. It's
a stupid game. Okay, so you're constrained by
the necessity of satisfying yourself, but of
maintaining that satisfaction across time. But
then it gets even worse. That's hard enough.
But it's like there's an infinite number of yous
extending indefinitely into the future, and all
of them have to be satisfied simultaneously.
But then it's worse, because it isn't just you.
You have to figure out how to gratify all those
internal demons in a sustainable way, in a way
that other people not only don't object to, but
probably help you with, and that benefits them
at the same time. Well, then you think, well,
there just aren't that many ways of solving that
problem. And we know some of them. One of them
is reciprocity. You know, like, if you go out
of your way for me, it's incumbent on me to notice
that and to attempt in some manner to repay you.
And, like, if we're good friends, that's what
we'll do. If we're good brothers, that's what
we'll do. That's what you do with your wife.
It's a reciprocal arrangement. And that keeps
things flowing properly across time. So there
is an ethic. This is the answer to the postmodern
conundrum. It's like, well, is life meaningless?
Is everything just nihilist? Is nihilism the
right answer? Or maybe, you know, the, what would
you call... identification with an ideology as
a counter position to nihilism. So nihilism is
wrong. Life is meaningful. And that's what 12
Rules for Life is about. The first meaning of
life is suffering and malevolence. There's indisputable
realities. Okay, well, what's after that? Well,
there's a noble way of being that allows you
to exist properly despite that, and also not
to make it worse. So can your life be meaningful
enough so that you, what is it? Confront chaos
voluntarily. Establish and revivify order. Constrain
malevolence. That's a good three -part doctrine
for life. There's things to do. And so that's
what I've been talking to the audiences that
I've been seeing over the last year. It's like,
get your act together. Stand up forthrightly.
That's rule one. Stand up straight with your
shoulders back. There's a vulnerable position,
right? Because you're open. But it's a powerful
position because it means that you're brave enough
to take what's coming. And it isn't like what's
coming isn't dangerous. It's dangerous. But your
best bet is to be dancing on your feet and ready
for it. Pay attention and be awake. And to treat
yourself properly. That's rule two. Figure out
how to treat yourself as if you're someone worth
coming to the aid of. To detach yourself in a
bit and say, okay, I'm going to set up my life
so that it... It's good for me and good for other
people as well. That's a corollary to that. So
the book is all about the meanings of life, the
negative meanings, suffering, malevolence. Those
are indisputable realities. And then a mode of
being that integrates the sorts of things that
you were talking about, these underlying needs
with everyone else's and like doing that voluntarily.
It's a call to responsibility and meaning. And
I actually think it's not the thing that's been
so exciting for me. for the last three decades,
looking into these things, is that I believe
that there is a genuine human ethic. It's not
arbitrary. It has to do with reciprocity, for
example. It has to do with honesty. That's another
thing, is that you should speak the truth. Because
your life turns out better if you speak the truth.
And so does everyone else's. So, in this biblical
lecture series I did, I looked at the first chapter
in Genesis, and there's a theory in there. It's
a really interesting theory. And the theory is
that there's three parts to being. There's chaos
and potential. And that would be like the potential
you should live up to. Because everyone says,
well, you should live up to your potential. It's
like, what the hell is that? You can't measure
it, or touch it, or taste it, feel it. It's this
hypothetical thing that everyone regards as real.
It's like the future. What's the future? Well,
it's not here yet. You can't measure it. What
makes you think it's real? Well, we act as if
it's real, and that seems to work. So there's
potential, that's chaos, chaotic potential. Then
there's order, and that's the structure that
you need in order to confront the chaos. And
you'd be born with that, biologically. And then
there's your ability to call forth from the potential
new order. That's what you do with your speech,
and that's what happens in the first chapter
of Genesis, is that God uses, God order, let's
say, uses... the power of truthful speech, that's
the logos, to transform potential into order.
And that's what people are made in the image
of. So there's this theory, it's a lovely theory
that's laid out right at the beginning of the
Bible that says that if you tell the truth, you
transform the potential of being into a habitable
actuality. That's how it works. So we say, well,
how do you make the world better? Tell the truth.
Because the world you bring into being, as a
consequence of telling the truth, will be a good
world. And I believe that's true. I think it's
true metaphorically. I think it's true theologically.
And I think it's true at the practical and scientific
level as well. I think it's true in all those
levels simultaneously. So that's been ridiculously
exciting to sort through. I think this notion,
and one of the things that you said that I think
really resonates, is that there's not a voice
out there. that is advocating for responsibility.
And that is talking about how important this
is. And I think this is an inherent principle
that most people are kind of aware of. And it
feels good to them to hear. Like, it resonates.
You feel it. When you're saying this, clean your
room. You know, put your house in order. People
are like, yeah, yeah. How come I'm not hearing
this? Right, right. How come I'm not hearing
this? Well, it's so funny because one of the
things psychologists have done for the last 20
years, especially the social psychologists, is
push this idea of self -esteem. You should feel
good about yourself. And I think... Why would
you tell someone 20 that? It's like, you should
feel good about who you are. It's like, no, you
shouldn't. Why should you feel good about who
you are? It's like, you should feel good about
who you could be. That's way better, because
you've got 60 years to turn into who you could
be. But wait a minute, are you what your accomplishments
are, or are you this individual going through
this journey? I mean, I don't think there's anything
wrong with feeling good about who you are as
long as it's tempered by an understanding of
potential and what you have accomplished versus
what you can accomplish. But having confidence
is a big part of it. It is. It is. And I'm not
saying that people shouldn't have confidence.
But, like, often you take young people, say they're
16 to 22, and they're not really feeling that
good about who they are. Right. Because their
life is chaotic and in disorder and they don't
know where they're going and they don't know
which way is up. Also, there could be bad parenting.
Oh, God, yes. Bullying. Oh, yes. be a lot of
abuse going on and i think that's one of the
reasons why that resonates with people this idea
of be happy for you about who you are right feel
good about who you are right but but the thing
is it has to be stated with precision it's like
yes it's like you should you should treat yourself
as if you're valuable especially in potential
but you should concentrate on who you should
become especially if you're young and so let's
say you're miserable and nihilistic and chaotic
and depressed and all of that now and you have
your reasons you know terrible parenting, abuse,
all of those things. It's like, well, you should
feel good about yourself. It's like, no, no,
it's not the right message. It's more like you
should understand how much potential there is
within you to set that straight. And then you
should do everything you can to manifest that
in the world, and it will set it straight. And
that's better than self -esteem. It's like, you're
in a crooked, horrible position. Okay, fine.
There's a lot of suffering and pain associated
with that. Yeah. You can't just feel good about
that, because it's not good. But you can do something
about it. You can genuinely do something about
it. And I think all the evidence suggests that
that's the case. Yes. So I'm telling young people,
look, no matter how bad your situation is, I'm
not going to pretend it's okay. It's not okay.
It's tragic, tainted with malevolence. And some
people really get hurt by malevolent people.
Like, you know, terribly hurt. Sometimes they
never recover. It's really awful. But there's
more to you than you think. And if you stand
up and face it with a noble vision, with discipline
and intent, you can go far farther to overcoming
it than you can imagine. And that's... the principle
upon which you should predicate your behavior.
And I think that one of the things that's really
nice about being a clinical psychologist is that
this isn't just guesswork. Like one of the things,
we know two things in clinical psychology. One
is truthful conversations redeem people. Because
if you come to a clinical psychologist whose
worth is salt, you have a truthful conversation.
The conversation is, well, here's what's wrong
with my life. and here's what caused it. You
know, maybe it takes a year to have that conversation,
and both of the participants are doing everything
they can to lay it out properly. Here's how it
might be fixed. Here's what a beneficial future
might look like. And so it's a completely honest
conversation if it's working well. And all that's
happening in the conversation is that the two
people involved are trying to make things better.
That's the goal. Let's see if we can have a conversation
that will make things better. Okay, so we know
that works. It does make things better. And then
another thing we know is that, Well, let's say
there's a bunch of things that you're afraid
of that are in your way. So you have some vision
about who you want to be. Maybe you have to,
you know, you want to be successful in your career.
So you have to learn to talk in front of a group.
It's like, okay, well, you're afraid of that.
It's like, no wonder you don't want to be humiliated.
So, okay, so what do we do about that? Well,
maybe we first get you to speak in front of one
person and then three people, you know, for five
minutes and then for 10 minutes, like graduated
exposure to what you're afraid of. Voluntary
graduated exposure to what you're afraid of is
curative. And that's true. It works. The documentation
is in. It's how people learn. So to tell people
that if you confront the world forthrightly...
If you speak the truth, and you expose yourself
courageously to those things that you're afraid
of, that your life will improve, and so will
the life of people around you. Like, as far as
I'm concerned, that's as close to undeniable
fact as we've got. And it also dovetails nicely
with the underlying archetypal stories, the heroic
stories. It's like, go out there, find the dragon,
confront it. It's a dragon, it might eat you,
it's dangerous. But it's worse to cower at home
and wait for it to come and devour you. Go out
there, confront it, get the gold. Share it with
the community. It's like, yeah, it's the oldest
story of mankind. I think one of the factors
in the resistance to these ideas of discipline
and of taking responsibility for yourself and
of a lot of the things that you've been saying
in regards to all the things that we discussed
earlier is people recognizing that they're not
doing that in their own lives and they get upset.
And instead of looking internally, they try to
attack the thing that's upsetting them. They
attack your message. They attack. the philosophy
behind it rather than look internally and objectively
and having some sort of introspective point of
view where you go okay am i uh reacting to this
because this resonates like i'm missing this
aspect of my life is this guy does does this
diminish me Or is this guy pointing something
out that I can benefit from? Very few people
are willing to do that. Very few people are willing
to take that critical moment to look at their
own behavior and look at their own thought process
and wonder if the actual adverse reaction they
have to this person's message is because they
know that they're wrong. There's a couple of
reasons for that. One is, well... what makes
you think that you're someone we should listen
to? It's like, hey, fair enough, you know, so
you've got to be poked a bunch to see if that's
true. And then the next thing is, well, it's
painful to understand how much of what you're
doing isn't productive. So I'll give you an example.
So I've done this a couple of times with classrooms
full of students, usually when I'm lecturing
about career development, say, okay. How much
time do you waste? So then I get the class to
vote. How many of you waste 10 hours a day? It's
like 10 % of the kids will put up their hands.
And it's interesting because I don't define what
constitutes waste. I just ask the question. So
they're diagnosing themselves, right? I'm not
saying you're wasting 10 hours a day. I'm just
asking. It's like, given your own attitude, how
much time are you wasting? 10 hours a day. It's
like 10 % of the people put up their hands. Well,
when you get to like six hours a day, 80 % of
the people put up their hands. So then we do
the arithmetic. It's like, because I like doing
arithmetic with people. People hate arithmetic,
but I like doing it. It's like, okay, six hours
a day. It's 42 hours a week. So let's call that
a work week, 40 hours a week. So that's a work
week. Let's say, what's your time worth? You're
a university student. Well, it's certainly worth
minimum wage, because obviously, but it's worth
way more than that, because if you spend a productive
hour when you're 20, then you gain the benefits
of that hour for the rest of your life. So there's
the compounding effect of time spent when you're
young. So I say, well, let's assume your time's
worth 50 bucks an hour, which I think is an underestimate,
but whatever. Let's call it 50. We call it 25,
but we'll call it 50. That's $2 ,000 a week you're
wasting. It's $100 ,000 a year. It's like, how
much better would your life be if you weren't
wasting $100 ,000 a year? It's like, what is
that over 40 years? $4 million. It's like, you're
rich. You don't even know it. Quit wasting time.
By your own definition. It's like people shake
their heads. Like, well, I never thought about
it that way. It's like, yeah, think about it
that way. Don't waste your damn life. And then
you think, well, why would people be resistant
to that message? It's like, well, you really
want to wake up and figure out that you're wasting
half your life? And, you know, when people do
that kind of wasting, they actually hate it.
You know, and I've had lots of people come to
my clinical practice who were chronic procrastinators.
You know, and so they're... watching YouTube
videos, say, but not ones that are good for them,
although sometimes they will do that, but just
browsing in that kind of mindless way that you
do when you're not paying attention and you're
trying to kill time. People doing that, they
feel bad. They get depressed. They feel anxious.
They can't get away from it. They feel kind of
quasi -addicted. That's what they're saying about
social media now. It's a huge issue with young
kids. Absolutely. But there's this feeling of
kind of internal rot and corruption that goes
along with it. It's like, yeah, well, you're
wasting your life. So it's painful. It's painful
to recognize that. Then it's painful to think,
oh, my God, look how undisciplined I am. I don't
know anything. I can't use a schedule. I can't
stick to a calendar. I don't have any aims. I
don't know anything about the world, right? And
maybe there's a part of me that's bitter because
I haven't got everything already, and I'd just
like to say to hell with it. That's the recognition
of the Jungian shadow. It's like that's what
makes you vicious and untrustworthy, all of that.
No one wants to look at that, and no bloody wonder.
But, hey, the alternative is worse. The problem
is you say, like... Just saying you stop wasting
your life. Like, I think that that's not enough.
I think this is one of the reasons why a book
like this is so important. Like the idea of discipline
in most people's eyes is like if you're not a
disciplined person, it's uncomfortable. It's
going to be painful. It's frustrating. You have
to force yourself into these things. It's a muscle,
and it's a muscle that has to be developed, and
these patterns have to be developed in your own
mindset. Incrementally. Yes. Yeah, well, so you're
right. Just telling people not to waste their
lives is not enough, and this is another reason
why I've so much enjoyed being a clinical psychologist,
because clinical psychologists don't stick with
high -level abstractions, especially the behaviors.
They're really practical. It's like, okay, you
want to get your act together. It's like, well,
how about if, let's say you're not studying.
Well, and so we do a real analysis of how much
you're studying. You say, well, I go to the library
four hours a day. It's like, yeah, yeah, okay.
How much time do you actually study in the library?
Well, you know, I waste time. I have to travel
there. I look at my phone. It's like, okay, well,
how much? 15 minutes? Half an hour? How much
is real studying? Well, maybe we figure out it's
15 minutes. Say, okay, so what you're going to
do for one week is you're going to study for
half an hour. That's all. You don't get to go
to the library for four hours. You have to sit
down. We'll figure out a time, 10 o 'clock in
the morning, whatever. We'll put it in your schedule.
Try to study for half an hour, no more. And then
just come back and let's have a conversation
about how well that worked. And people come back
and they say, well, you know, I managed it four
days. And one day I went over and one day I couldn't
do it at all. It's like, okay, that's better.
Instead of 75 minutes of studying. you know,
15 minutes a day for seven days. What is that?
15, 70, 105 minutes. You've managed about 210
minutes. So you've already produced an improvement
of 50 % and you're bumbling horrible way. You've
got a 50 % improvement in one week. It's like,
that's deadly. It's like, so in the future authoring
program, what we ask people to do is, well, think
about your life along six dimensions. What do
you want for your, so the goal is this, you're
going to take care of yourself. You're going
to have a life in three years that justifies
its suffering. That's the goal. So you can invent
the damn life, but you have to think what you
would be satisfied with so you wouldn't be all
bitter and resentful. It's like, okay, what do
you want from your family? What do you want from
your friends? How are you going to educate yourself?
What do you want for your career? How are you
going to use your time outside of work? How are
you going to handle drugs and alcohol and other
temptations like that? How are you going to keep
yourself mentally and physically healthy? These
are open questions. You get to answer them. The
idea is, you can have whatever you want, but
you have to figure out what it is. It has to
be realistic, and you have to figure out what
it is. It's okay, so now develop a vision. What's
your life going to be like in three to five years?
So you write it down. Then we do something else,
which is, okay, your bad habits and your resentment
and your bitterness and all of that, your procrastination
gets completely out of hand, and you auger down,
and you're in your own personal version of hell
in three to five years. What does that look like?
Well, everyone knows that. It's like everyone
can look into the future and think, well, if
I keep going on this dark path, this is where
I'll end up. Well, then you've got little hell
outlined for yourself to run away from, and you've
got a little heaven outlined for yourself to
run towards, and then you're motivated. Because
sometimes, you know, you're just hopeful. I would
like a good thing to happen. It's like, yeah,
but, you know, I'd like to drink half a bottle
of whiskey tonight, too. It's like, so which
is it going to be? Well, just being hopeful about
the future might not be enough, but then you
think, oh, I see, like... There's that little
hell thing that I outlined that's waiting for
me. And maybe I'm afraid of taking the next step
forward because it's demanding and challenging.
It's like, yeah, I'm afraid of that, but I'm
way more afraid of where I might end up if I
don't get my act together. And people should
be. That's why there are conceptions of hell
in so many religions. It's like, hell is a real
place. Whether it's eternal, that's a whole different
question. Whether it's waiting for you in the
afterlife, that's a whole different question.
But if you've never met anyone in hell, you haven't
lived very long. You haven't had your eyes open.
Yeah, it's undeniable. That feeling of total,
complete misery is undeniable. Yeah, especially
when it's compounded by the fact that you know
you did it to yourself. That's the real fun.
That's the real fun part. It's like I'm having
a bitch of a time and I richly deserve it. Jesus,
that's rough, man. This is another concept that
doesn't have a voice right now. This is another,
I mean, this is a giant part of being a human
being. And instead of identity politics and right
versus left, I think these right versus left
battles, oftentimes what they are is simply the
battleground for the conflicts in your own mind.
Better to have the conflict in yourself. That's
another thing I really learned, well, not only
from the New Testament, but a fair bit from that.
The idea is that, well, there's evil in the world
of all sorts. And some of it's the evil in other
people. And some of it's the evil in your brother's
heart. But the part of it that you can really
do something about, that's the malevolence in
your own heart. You can actually do something
about that. And that's actually way more useful
than you think. Because if you can face it in
you, then you start to understand it. And that
also makes you strong enough to identify it and
to fight it when you see it in the external world.
Plus, you don't do any harm. It's like there's
lots of people all over the world going out and
doing reprehensible things. And you might say,
well, you should go out and protest against them.
And sometimes you should. But most of the time
you should think, where am I falling short of
the ideal? My own ideal. It doesn't have to be
one that someone puts on you. Where am I less
than I should be? Where am I bitter? Where am
I making the world a worse place than it has
to be? If you ask yourself those questions, you'll
be in for a big shock. Say, well, what would
happen if you stopped doing that? That's what
12 Rules for Life is about. It's like, stop saying
things that make you weak. Stop telling lies
that you know to be lies. Stop doing things you
know to be useless and counterproductive. Aim
high. Adopt some responsibility. And then see
what the hell happens. It's like, it'll work.
And that's what I'm hoping people will do. Yeah,
I'm hoping people do that too. And I think if
more people live their life in this sort of a
manner, I think we're going to have less differences
in terms of our ideologies and more of an understanding
that people have different ways of looking at
things and different ways of living. And this
combat between people, this internal strife that
manifests itself in this combat between ideologies,
I think. You are much more inclined to let other
people live their lives if you're living your
life in a satisfactory manner. That's exactly
it. I have a chapter in there on raising kids.
It says, don't let your kids do anything that
makes you dislike them. It's like, well, that's
first predicated on the observation that you're
quite a monster and it would be better for your
kids if they didn't get on your bad side. And
like, again, because I'm a clinical psychologist.
You keep saying monster. Why do you use that
term? Because I've watched families, like I've
seen families where, It's as if every single
person in the family has their hands around the
neck of the family member that's close to them,
and they're squeezing, but only tight enough
to strangle them in 20 years. But you're not
always using it as a pejorative. You've also
used it, you should become a monster, you should
be a monster. Yeah, but that's, you shouldn't
be, it shouldn't be accidental. That's the thing.
So what do you mean by monster then, in a positive
sense? Oh, I'm a monster. Oh, that's easy. A
positive monster is somebody who says no and
means it. Because when you say no, what you mean
is, there isn't anything you can do to me that
will make me agree to do this. Why is that a
monster? Because you have to be, because no one
will take you seriously otherwise. No one will
take you seriously. Like, no means, if you keep
pushing this, something that you do not like
will happen to you. That's what no means. You
don't have any strength of character unless you
can put up a fight. And to be able to say no
to something is to be able to put up a fight.
And you can't do that if you can be pushed around.
You'll just get argued into submission, or you'll
feel guilty because you're causing conflict or
something like that. But isn't there confusion
using those terms as a positive and a negative?
Maybe there's another word instead of monster.
Well, there is the potential. There is the potential
for confusion. You say, well, is that something
that can be... Because I think a monster is a
horrible thing. I don't think of it as being
like a wall, like someone who is just rocks out
in their belief system and rocks out in their
understanding of themselves. Well, when you fight
someone who's formidable, say, what do you think
of the person that you're fighting? Like, how
would you characterize them? I mean, they have
a monstrous side because they can bring physical,
substantial physical force to bear on the situation.
And be willing to do it. So they're not naive
and harmless by any stretch of the imagination,
right? They have a well -developed capacity for
mayhem. You think, well, is that monstrous? It's
like, well, I would say yes. I would say fierce.
Fierce, fine. Let's go with that. Yeah, because
someone who's fierce and formidable is not necessarily
a monster. You know, I think of a monster as
being just an awful person who's done awful things
and just, you know. Okay, well, so fair enough.
Well, so back to the situation with your kids.
Well, you definitely don't want to have your
kids act in a way that awakens your inner monster.
Right. Let's put it that way. And so you need
to organize your family with a certain amount
of discipline and a certain amount of structure
so that you get to do what you want, which is
back to the point that you made earlier. You're
happy to have your kids around so that you won't
take revenge on them. And so you want to lay
your life out so that, well, so that it's providing
you what you need to not be bitter and to work
for your best interests and for the interests
of everyone else. That would be lovely. And I
think it's attainable. You know, because the
book is very dark, and I'm a very dark guy in
some ways, because I've looked at... the terrible
things that people do to one another. That's
a fascinating way of looking at it. You think
of yourself as dark? Because I don't. Oh, that's
good. I don't think of you as dark. Oh, that's
good. You're a very friendly guy. I think you're
very serious, and especially about these very
complicated issues. And I think that's one of
the reasons why you have made this gigantic wave.
in online discourse and people discussing these
very tumultuous times we live in is because you're
a guy that did extrapolate. You're a guy that
did look at that C -16 bill and look at Marxism
and go, do you know where this is heading? And
you were the guy that had the courage to say,
murderous. And people are like, what the fuck
is he talking about? That doesn't make any sense.
And you had to spell it out and explain it. And
when you do, you realize why. This is so significant
to you. Yeah, well, the tribalism issue that
you were discussing earlier doesn't seem to be
all that, what would you say, debatable. If we
degenerate into tribalism, the probability of
bloodshed becomes vastly enhanced. It's like,
well, that always happens when people devolve
into tribalism. So, and I'm pointing to a particular
kind of tribalism. I guess the darkness is that,
you know, I'm very aware of the terrible things
that people not only are likely to do to each
other, but do do to each other all the time.
I mean, what, it's about 40 % for divorce rate,
right? You have to go through a fair bit of ugliness
to get to divorce. Canadians are nicer, though.
americans maybe you guys are 40 maybe maybe i
think we're like 80 yeah i mean i think i i think
actually it's 50 here somewhere around that line
but yeah yeah you have to go through a lot that's
really ugly too you know and chris rock had a
joke about that he's like 50 of people uh get
divorced he goes and he goes but that's just
the people who had the courage to leave he goes
how many cowards just stay and suffer And meanwhile,
he wound up getting divorced a few years later.
Right. Horrible divorce. So. Yeah. True story.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it's a good point.
Yeah. I think we need more people who are actualized
human beings, more people who understand themselves,
more people who have gone through adversity,
both. in real life and personal in terms of their
understanding of their own growth of their own
potential and their own uh understanding of how
they've managed their their life their mind their
their actions and the the more we have people
that have personal sovereignty the better we'll
be able to have these these conversations well
that that'd be the hope you know one of the things
i've been suggesting to people is that they pick
something difficult to do i read this This funny
little paragraph by Kierkegaard, it was written
about 1840, and he was thinking about his role
as a student and writer, and he was a student
and writer forever, you know, he never really
had a career apart from that. And he said that
he wasn't one of these people who was capable
of inventing something wonderful to make life
easier for everyone, like so many people were
doing, you know, during the Industrial Revolution.
He said, well, maybe I'm one of these people
who's... benefit to society will be that I will
make things more difficult for everyone because
there will come a time when what people want
not they don't want ease they want difficulty
instead and I think well that is what people
want that is what they want you think well I
want an easy happy life it's like no actually
that isn't what you want I think what people
want is things that are difficult that they can
overcome yeah right that's right they want an
optimal challenge that's a whole different thing
When you overcome something, when you do something
difficult, whether it's, I mean, I've never written
a book, but I assume when you write a book, when
you're done writing that book, there's a great
feeling of accomplishment because it's very difficult
to do. That feeling of accomplishment. For me,
it's like when I put together a comedy special
or when I, you know, just anything that's difficult.
There's a feeling like I did it. Yeah. Yeah.
Well, one of the mysteries is why that feeling
exists. You know, it's a genuine, it's not a
trivial thing that it's to say. I did something
difficult, and that was worthwhile. Basically,
what you're saying to yourself is, well, there
was a lot of suffering attendant on that, along
with the just general suffering of life, but
it turned out that was worth it. That's what
you want. It's like you want that sense that
you're engaged in something that's worth it.
And I say, well, like, I try to, I'm not a, like
a casual optimist about these sorts of things.
I mean, One of the things I do in 12 Rules for
Life is lay out the rationale that drives people
like the Columbine High School killers. Because
I understand that rationale. I've studied it
for a long time. I know why they did what they
did. And they have a powerful argument. But it's
wrong. But you don't... There's no sense in showing
how it's wrong before showing that it's a powerful
argument. Like, life is suffering. There is lots
of malevolence. It's no wonder that people want
to bring being itself to a halt. They want to
take revenge on it. It's not surprising. It's
the wrong way of going about it. The right way
is, it's akin to the sorts of things that you
were just observing. You take on a difficult
task that pushes you past where you are already.
And you succeed in it, and you get this sense
that, yes, that was worthwhile. It's like, that's
what you want. You want to live in that place
where things are worthwhile. That's paradise
on earth. That's what that is. And it isn't some
happy little place where, you know, someone's
feeding you peeled grapes. That isn't what it
is. It's more like... It's more like victory
on the honorable battlefield or something like
that. Yeah, the perception that people have of
ultimate success and ultimate happiness is it
seems motivated by what they don't have rather
than an understanding of what success and happiness
really is. Their idea is that one day I'm going
to go and I'm going to be in my golden years
and I'm just going to be able to sit around and
do nothing and tell everybody to fuck off. You
won't be happy at all. Yeah, I talked to one
of the people that I was working with who had
like a vision for retirement. I said, well, what's
your vision for retirement? Well, I see myself
in a beach, you know, some tropical country drinking
margaritas. And I thought, first, that's not
a plan. That's a travel poster. It's like, okay,
let's walk through this. All right, so you go
down to this tropical country and you go sit
on the beach and you have a margarita. It's like,
okay, well, how many margaritas? Like 10? Okay,
so you're going to do that for six months? You'll
be dead. Yeah, well, you'll be this, like, pathetic,
sunburned, like... Fat. Yeah, unhappy, hungover,
cirrhotic. In pain. Yeah, yeah, it's like that's
your vision. Dehydrated. So how long can you
have a margarita on a beach? Like, maybe you
can do that once every six months for, like,
ten minutes, something like that. It's not a
vision. It's true, but when you are working and
slaving away, you think about that beach with
your feet up and the waiter comes over, would
you like another margarita, Mr. Peterson? Yes,
I would. Yeah, absolutely. You're like, all right,
baby. Exactly. But it's like this 16 -year -old
fantasy of paradise. It's like, well, and it
just doesn't work out. And the thing is that
the thing that sustains people through life really
is... the lifting of a worthwhile burden. It's
something like that. And it's partly because
we're social animals, right? It's like we're
evolved to be useful to the people around us
because they're much more likely to let us live
if we're like that. And it's been very fun talking
to, especially talking to young men about this.
It's like, well, and that's the other thing too,
is I think the world is full of darkness, let's
say. And we could say each of us have a little
bit of light. We release that light if we let
it shine properly. Christ, it's too cliched to
go on with in some sense. But the world is a
lesser place if you do not reveal from within
yourself what you have to reveal. And the fact
that the world is a lesser place actually turns
out not to be trivial. Like if you aren't everything
you could be, more people will die. More people
will suffer. More evil will be unconstrained.
More tyranny will reign. More chaos will remain.
chaotic and dangerous, all of that. Do you mean
this in the sense of like the old proverb of
the wings of a butterfly fluttering become a
hurricane? It's something similar to that, but
it can even be more local. It's like your family
is more messed up than it could be if you were
less messed up than you are. Right. So if you
just got your act together, like 10 % more, your
family would be 1 % better. Right. It's like,
well... Do it. And that would ripple off into
the people that they interact with. Yes, and
it ripples fast. That's the other thing that's
so cool is that people think, well, there's 7
billion of us, and each of us is just this separate
dust moat floating in the cosmos, and what the
hell difference does it make what you do anyways?
It's like that is not how we're connected. It's
like you're the center of a network, and you
know, well, you know way more people than this,
but let's say typically. you're going to know
a thousand people in your life, well enough to
have an impact on them. And each of those thousand
people is going to know a thousand people. So
you're one step from a million, and two steps
from a billion. And we are networked, technically.
That's how human interactions work. And so when
you do something that you shouldn't do, it's
worse than you think. And when you do something
that you should do, it's better than you think.
And so you think, well, this is why I've been
telling people, clean up your room. It's like,
well, your room is actually networked too. It's
not that easy to clean up your room, to set it.
So you want your room to be set up so that when
you walk in there, it tells you to be better
than you generally are. It's organized. It's
got direction. Everything's in its place. You
try to do that in a chaotic household. You know,
I've watched people do this because I had students
do these sorts of things as assignments. I'd
say, look, pick a small moral goal, clean up
your room, and just write down what happens as
a consequence. So maybe these are students in
a... chaotic household. The whole place is a
bloody mess. No one's taking any responsibility
for anything. And so they decide they're going
to start to clean up their room. And then the
people in the household notice. Well, the first
thing they do is get pissed off. It's like, who
do you think you are? Like, you think you're
better than us? Like, why do you think this is
worthwhile? Who died and made you God? All of
that. So just by trying to organize this little
part of their life, they immediately run into
the people whose... actions they're casting in
a dim light by trying to improve themselves to
some degree, they might have to have like a thorough
war in their household to be allowed to do something
as simple as keep the room orderly. They find
out very rapidly that A, that's way more difficult
than it sounds, and B, that the consequences
of it are far more far -reaching than people
think. So that's quite fun. You know, because
maybe part of it is that everything around you
is full of potential. Everything. Maybe more
potential than you could ever possibly utilize.
And so maybe all you have is this little rat
hole of a room in some run -down place in the
world. It's like, fix it up. There's more there
than you think. See what happens if you fix it
up. And you'll fix yourself up simultaneously,
because you'll have to get disciplined in order
to fix up the room. Then you'll have a fixed
-up room, and you'll be a more fixed -up person.
It's like, you think that nothing will happen
as a consequence of that? It's like all hell
will break loose as a consequence of that. It's
really worth trying. It is worth trying. And
it's a concept that seems alien to people. But
if you think about it, it makes sense. Well,
people don't take what they have right in front
of them seriously enough. It's like the wasting
time thing. They don't do the arithmetic. And
they also don't understand. They devalue what
they have right in front of them. Like another
client I worked with was having a hard time putting
his kid to bed at night. And so we did the arithmetic.
It's like, well, I'm fighting with my kid. for
45 minutes a night trying to get him to go to
bed. Okay, so let's analyze that. All right,
so what does that mean? Well, it means that both
of you end the day upset. That's not so good,
because why would you want that? It means that
you're spending 45 minutes fighting when you
could spend 20 minutes doing something positive,
like reading to him, say. It means that... You
don't get to spend that time with your wife,
so she's not very happy with you. Plus, you're
annoyed because you don't see her. Plus, you
blame it on the kid because he's the proximal
cause. It's like, that's pretty damn ugly. And
then let's do the arithmetic. It's like seven
days a week, 45 minutes a day. Let's call that
five hours. 20 hours a week. 240 hours in a year.
It's six. You're spending a month and a half
of work weeks fighting with your four -year -old
son. Think you're going to like him? You don't
like anyone you spend a month and a half a year
fighting with. It's a bad idea. Fix it. It's
important. Get him to bed. Make it peaceful.
You do it like these things that repeat every
single day. That's a motif in this book, too.
Your life isn't margaritas on a beach in Jamaica.
That happens now and then. Those are exceptions.
Your life is how your wife greets you at the
door when you come home every day. Because that's
like 10 minutes a day. Your life is how you treat
each other over the breakfast table. Because
that's an hour and a half or an hour every single
day. You get those mundane things right, those
things you do every day. You concentrate on them
and you make them pristine. It's like you've
got 80 % of your life put together. These little
things that are right in front of us, they're
not little. That's the first thing. They are
not little. And they're hard to set right. And
if you set them right, it has a rippling effect.
And fast, too. Way faster than people think.
I want to talk about the rippling effect, because
I know you've got to get out of here at one.
But I want to talk about the rippling effect
that you have had on people and how that makes
you feel. I mean, you were relatively unknown
just a year and a half, two years ago. And now
you have become, I mean, for lack of a better
term, you're an online celebrity. Your reach
is fantastic now. This thing that you were talking
about, about how your impact can affect the people
around you in a not insignificant way, a very
significant way. What has that been like for
you? I mean, what has that adjustment been like?
Oh, I haven't adjusted to it. How old are you?
55. So for 53 years, you're relatively anonymous
outside of university. Yeah, yeah. I had a little
bit of exposure. I did some work with a... public
television station in Canada. And, you know,
I had my little flashes of public appearances,
that sort of thing. But compared to... Oh, yeah,
this is crazy. What you've done on this show
means millions. Yeah, millions. Millions of people
have listened and watched each individual episode.
Yeah, there are about 2 million views each. And
that's nothing compared to YouTube. YouTube is
nothing compared to the audio. Yeah, so the audio
is like five times that or something. Yeah, so
that's, yeah, it's completely crazy. No, I haven't
adjusted to it. It's like, I don't know. I mean,
have you adjusted to your status? I'm numb. Yeah,
so what's it like when you think about it? You
wake up in the morning and you think, okay, I'm
going to get a billion downloads this year. I
don't think that. I think I'm going to talk to
Jordan Peterson. What do I want to talk to him
about? Okay, that's how I handle it. It's exactly
the same thing. For the last 15 months, this
is what I've done. I've got up in the morning.
I've looked at the, like. 25 things I have to
do in a mad rush before 7 o 'clock at night.
I think I'm going to go through them and I'm
going to concentrate on them, do the best job
I can. Then at 7 o 'clock tonight I'm going to
have a rest. I'm going to take a look at what
I have to do tomorrow and I'm going to do the
same thing. That's what I've been doing. And
then when I stand back a little bit, like when
it sort of dawns on me, you know, then it's disconcerting.
Like it's surreal. I can't figure it out. I can't
understand it. But then I... But there's no sense
dwelling on that because, first of all, I don't
know how to conceptualize it. I don't know why
it's happening exactly. Like, I think what's
happened is that two things. One is that I said
there was something I wouldn't do with regards
to this legislation. And I meant it. I actually
meant it. I wasn't going to use those words under
legal compulsion, period, no matter what. And
I actually meant that. So there was that. But
then I think the more relevant thing is that
I've been studying these old stories, these archetypal
stories, for a very long period of time. And
they have power. They really have power. And
they manifest themselves everywhere. They manifest
themselves in movies and in books. I mean, Harry
Potter's a mythological story, and it made Roland
richer than the Queen of England. You know, these
stories have power. And I was fortunate enough
to study a large number of people, a large number
of scholars, who knew what that power was, Carl
Jung in particular. I could make it more accessible
to people. And so that's a big part of it. But
what the overall significance of that is, well,
I just, it just leaves me speechless. I mean,
this Kathy Newman thing is a good example. And
I mean, so many things have happened. I've got
involved. I've been in a scandal of some sort,
a serious scandal of some sort, probably every
three weeks for a year and a half. You know,
and there are things that are just... Well, the
James Damore thing is a good example of that.
Like, that's a big deal, you know? That explosion
that emerged around him and the court case that's
coming out of it, it's a big deal. And this thing
with Lindsay Shepard, that was the worst scandal
that ever hit a Canadian university. And then
there was all the protests, and then there was
what happened with Channel 4 in the UK, and it's
like, I don't know what to make of it. I don't...
What I'm trying to do is... Have a good conversation
when I come and talk to somebody like you where
we can have a good conversation. Try not to say
anything stupid. That's really what I'm trying
to do is to not say anything stupid. That's hard.
Or too stupid. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it's been
high stakes poker. Yeah. You know, it's not quite
so bad now because especially after what happened
with Channel 4 and some journalists, like people
have been trying to take me out for quite a long
time and it's not, it isn't working. So far,
it's not working. You actually believe what you're
saying, and it actually makes sense. Well, you
know, that's not a bad start. It's not a bad
start, but it's rare in this world, especially
in these ideologically charged times. This toxic
tribalism that we keep bringing up. Well, and
I also decided, like a long time ago, and I think
this runs through 12 Rules for Life, is, well,
I believe that people's decisions tilt the world
towards heaven or hell. I think there's no more
accurate way of describing the consequences of
each of your decisions than that. You face potential.
That's what you face. That's what you face in
the world, is potential. It's not material reality.
It's potential. And every decision you make,
you're deciding whether you want to make the
world better or worse. And if you, like, the
ultimate better is heaven, and the ultimate worse
is hell. We know how to make the world into hell.
We've done that multiple times. Much of the 20th
century was that. It's like I looked at all that
and I thought, okay, I would rather that the
world didn't degenerate into hell. And I understand
why people wanted to degenerate into hell. They're
angry. They're angry because they suffer. They
suffer unfairly. And they suffer because people
hurt them. And so they think this is a bad game.
I'm not going to help make it better. I'm angry.
I'm going to make it worse even. That's what
the Columbine kids did. You know, that's what
all the mass shooters do. They say, to hell with
this. I hate it. They're so far behind the game,
they just want to flip the table over. Yeah,
worse than that. They want to obliterate the
game. Yes. And they want to do it with as much
malice as possible just to obtain revenge. And
I understand that. But I decided a long time
ago that I would rather not play that game. I
think that it's possible that we could make the
world better. I really believe that. I believe
that too. So I think, well, so I'm trying to
tell people, look. There's more to you than you
think. There's more potential. There's more than
enough potential to go around. There's definite
suffering and malevolence in the world. We could
fix it. You haven't got anything better to do.
That's a very big point, that there's more potential
to go around. More than people understand. We're
not going to run out of potential. No, we're
not. And this idea, the famine thinking, is one
of the reasons why people get upset at other
people's success. They think somehow or another
that this other person's success takes something
away from them. Yep. Yeah, well, the other thing
too is that I've realized that people actually
act like what they confront in the world is potential.
It's so funny because whatever potential is,
it's not materially measurable. But if you tell
someone, you're not living up to your potential,
they go, yeah, well, I know that. It's like,
well, what is that potential that you're not
living up to? And then when you say, well, there's
potential in front of you, you know that. You
can walk out on the street and you go right or
left or straight ahead. You're facing this thing
that isn't fully formed, and you get to decide
how it's going to form. And you can make it better.
And so my question is, like, the world's a rough
place. There's no doubt about it. It's a harsh
place. But my question is, what would happen
if we stopped making it worse? How good could
it be if we stopped making it worse? And I don't
know if there's an upper limit to that. Like,
it might be, maybe we could make it really, really,
really good. Why not? And we don't have anything
better to do than that. It's like, aim at heaven.
Start at home. Aim at heaven. Tell the truth.
Let's see what the hell happens. You know, like,
it is the case, clearly on the facts of the matter.
In 20 years, there wouldn't have to be a single
person in the world that was hungry. In 20 years,
we could get rid of the five biggest diseases
that currently plague the planet. We could straighten
things up. And God only knows what things could
be like then. Or we could let the whole thing
degenerate into hell. So when each of us is making
that decision, with each decision, that's the
other thing that I've understood. So, take a
choice. You want hell or you want heaven? If
you pick hell, just remember, you knew what you
were doing when you picked it. But nobody picks
hell. Yeah. They just sort of let it slide. Yeah,
but they do it because they blind themselves.
You know. You know when you do it. You say, ah,
well, you know, I let that slide. And then you
don't think about it. It's like you could think
about it. You could think about it. You could
know. But you don't let yourself know. Is any
of this, all the pressure and the scandal every
three weeks, is it a way on you? Is it difficult?
How are you feeling? Well, I'm feeling stretched.
Yeah, it's like simultaneously the worst possible
thing and the best possible thing that could
happen. Well, financially, it's been a boom,
right? Yes. Which is hilarious. Oh, well, yes.
I mean, the thing that I've... I shouldn't say
this, but I'm going to, because it's just so
goddamn funny, I can't help but say it. I've
figured out how to monetize social justice warriors.
That is what it is. I know. It's so funny. I
just can't believe it. The other way. Every time
I think that, well, it's just one of the surreal
circumstances that characterize my life. It's
like I'm driving the social justice activists
in Canada mad because if they let me speak, then
I get to speak, and then more people support
me on Patreon. It's like, hmm, that's annoying.
It's like, goddamn capitalist. He's making more
money off this ideological warfare. It's like,
okay, fine. Let's go protest. So they go protest
me, and then that goes up on YouTube, and then
my patron. account goes way up so it's like they
don't know what to do and so one of the things
they keep accusing me of yeah they keep accusing
me of uh like hauling in the loot and i think
well look here's the situation guys i give away
everything i do online for free it's free And
people are giving me money. They're just sending
it to me. I'm not twisting their arm. I'm not
even asking them for it. Well, I guess that's
not exactly right because I set up the Patreon
account, but that's more complicated than it
looks. A lot of that was curiosity. And I thought,
well, I could increase the production quality
of my online videos. Well, it was also the potential
of you being removed from the university. Well,
yes. And that was real potential. Oh, yeah. And
people wanted that. Yeah, they haven't stopped
wanting that. In October, when the Lindsay Shepard
scandal broke, and it looked so bad for the left
-wing ideologues, like 200 University of Toronto
community members signed a petition to get me
fired again. And I was kind of upset about that.
This is what my life has been like. My son came
over that day, and I said, Jesus, Julian, you
know, like 200 people at the University of Toronto
petitioned the Faculty Association, and then
they sent in a petition to the administration
to get me fired. It was the Faculty Association.
That's my union. They didn't even contact me.
And Julian said, don't worry about it, Dad. It
was only 200 people. And I thought, that's what
my life is like. It's like a day where 200 people
sign a petition to get me fired as a professor.
My son can come in and say, well, that's not
so bad. It's like it's only 200 people. That's
how weird the scale's gotten. Yeah, that's right.
It's so surreal. Because you could say that online
and look what's happening. And then the support
would be overwhelming from who knows how many
people. But it would be multiple times of that.
Yeah, absolutely. Well, in the administration
at the University of Toronto. They didn't take
it seriously at all, the call to have me removed.
It didn't even cause a ripple. Now, who are these
200 people, and what was their motivation? Oh,
well, they're hard to say what their motivation
is. They're not very happy about me. If they
read the transcript or listened to those recordings,
how could they possibly be against you based
on that? Oh, because they think that the people
who conducted the Inquisition were right. Well,
that's madness. Oh, yes. But look, I mean this
formally. Like 20 members of Pimlott's and Rambucana's
faculty, that was communications at Wilfrid Laurier,
wrote a letter supporting them. So that's why
it's not an isolated incident. It's like, no,
no, they thought that what they were doing was
right. It's mass hysteria. Well, there is an
element of that. That's for sure. And there's
certainly, again, I hate to bring this term up
again, but this toxic tribalism thing. It's like
they're supporting their own. And they understand
that their own ideologies have been completely
connected to the same type of groupthink that's...
going against Lindsay Shepard in that meeting.
Oh, yeah, when they tried to paint her as a radical
right -winger, which she certainly isn't. Of
course not. Neither are you. I mean, the whole
thing is ridiculous. You're not alt -right. You're
not a neo -Nazi. I've read a lot of crazy things
about you. And knowing you personally, seeing
this stuff, I'm like, this is a fascinating time.
Yeah, that's for sure. That's for sure. Yeah,
and it's been, well, it's been crazily, well,
what would I say? Crazily stressful. The best
way to describe it is surreal. It's like I stepped
outside myself. I can't put this in a box. I
don't know what to make of it. I don't know what
to make of the Channel 4 interview. It's like,
what the hell? Really? It's crazy. These conversations
are so limited by what you were saying before
that they're trying to get this five -minute
soundbite in, and that's what television has
become. It's a dying medium. It doesn't make
any sense. It doesn't make any sense to sandwich
these commercials in every 15 minutes or whatever
they do. None of it makes any sense. It's an
archaic way of communicating ideas. Yeah, well,
and I think that is part of it, too, is that,
like, I happened to catch a technological wave.
Well, like you did, you know? Yeah. I mean, they're...
Television offers nothing over YouTube. Nothing.
Because YouTube offers everything. I get YouTube
on my TV. Yeah, well, exactly. And there's no
space requirements on YouTube. So you don't have
to do this, twist the complex event into a short
soundbite and entertain everyone. And it turns
out, too, that there's this huge audience online
for actual content. just genuine conversation.
Because like one of the things that's happened
between you and I, when I've come down here,
is we've actually had a conversation, right?
We're trying to figure things out. You know,
we've got our viewpoints and everything, but
we're basically, and I outline this, and there's
a chapter in 12 Rules for Life called, assume
that the person you're talking to might know
something you don't, which is like the formula
for a good conversation. It's like, There's a
bunch of things I don't understand about the
world. I mean, that's a big book. Things I don't
understand about the world, right? That's a very
thick book. And I can come in here and talk to
you about what's going on, and hopefully we both
emerge with better understanding. We're not the
same people that we were when we walked in. And
that's a good thing. And then we have those conversations
online, and people can participate in that. And
I'm trying to do that in my lectures, too. Like,
when I did this biblical series, because that
was another thing that was so strange, Joe. It's
like, imagine I walked into a... like a venture
capitalist organization. I said, look, I want
you guys to bankroll me. I'm going to do 15 lectures
on the Old Testament, and I'm going to try to
attract young men. I'm going to rent a theater.
Like, they just laughed me out of there. Could
you imagine anything less saleable than that?
But I did that. I went ahead with it. I rented
the theater, and then I walked through these
stories. And I was learning a lot because, like,
I knew the first stories in Genesis up to the
flood. I knew them pretty well. I kind of understood
what they meant. But then all the stories from
Abraham onward, I had read them, but I hadn't
done a detailed, in -depth analysis. And so I
was learning a tremendous amount walking through
those stories. And they had a big impact, man.
I'm going to do Exodus soon because I want to
do that. But it's just another example of how
surreal things have become. But also the utility
of a good conversation. Because when I'm up on
the podium, say, lecturing, I'm not exactly lecturing.
I'm trying to figure something out and sharing
that process with the audience. Which is so different
than what is going on in universities that is
freaking everybody out. What's going on is this
indoctrination. Into this group thing. Yeah.
It's like, here's what's right. Memorize it.
Right. It's like my lectures are more like, well,
I don't know what's right. Like, here's some
things I know and they seem to be working. And
here's how I use those tools to dig at this story.
And here's what it might mean. And this is what
I got from it. And here's some universal truths
about human beings. That seem to be. And then
I try to explore that. It's like, well, should
we believe this? Should we, like when Abraham,
in the Abrahamic story, for example, I mean,
Abraham's an old guy and he's basically lived
in his mom's basement. That's really the beginning
of the story. And he gets a call to adventure.
You know, God says, well, get away from your
family and your kin, get out there in the world.
It's the call to adventure. Think, okay, fine,
that's a heroic motif. But then Abraham goes
out and the first thing he encounters is like
tyranny and starvation and then a bunch of guys
who want to steal his wife. So it's... It's been
entertaining to take those stories apart and
to see why they're foundational. Because they
are foundational. And they're not mere ignorance.
Whatever they are, ignorant superstition is not
the right category. How has this changed your
classrooms? Well, I haven't gone back teaching
since all of this hit. When did you stop teaching?
Well... Oh, no, I guess that's not true. That's
not true. I taught from January to May of 2016.
Well, the first way it changed was that I was
so shell -shocked when I went to teach last January,
and I was really sick. I've been really sick
this year. Last January, Jesus, it was just dismal.
I wouldn't have wished that on my worst enemy.
I had three weeks where I didn't sleep a wink.
Try that. That's really entertaining. One long
day of misery that's three weeks long. What kind
of an illness? It looks like an autoimmune disorder.
Do you think this is because of stress? No, I
don't. You don't think it's connected at all?
Well, yeah. I think it probably made it worse.
But no. It's something that I've battled with
for a long time. And it's something that really...
Both my wife and I have autoimmune illness. And
my daughter got... What autoimmune illness? Don't
know exactly what it is. I don't know what it
is. Have you adjusted your diet? In my daughter,
it manifests... Yes. That's what's fixed it.
What fixed it? All I eat is meat and greens.
That's it. No juice, no vegetables, no carbohydrates.
Meat, greens. That's it. And that fixed it. That
seems to have fixed it. That fixes so many people.
Well, I can tell you. I don't know if you've
listened to any of the podcasts I've done. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I've been following them
because my daughter has a blog, too, called Don't
Eat That. And my daughter had a terrible autoimmune
disorder. It was awful. I detailed that out in
Chapter 12. She had 38 affected joints, and she
had her hip and her ankle replaced when she was
16. Jesus. So she walked around on two broken
legs for a year in excruciating pain. She was
on extremely high doses of opiates. And so she
was addicted to opiates. Once she had her surgery,
she just went off them cold turkey and suffered
through the withdrawal for two months. Compared
to what she had been through, that was nothing.
What she went through, man, it was dreadful.
And that was just the surface of it. That was
only the beginning of her illness. She had all
sorts of other things that were worse than that.
And we figured she was probably going to die
by the time she was 30 because my cousins...
daughter had a similar autoimmune problem and
she died when she was 30 so it was bloody dreadful
but she figured out at one point that it was
associated with diet and then she went on a radically
restrictive diet and she christ she she was on
antidepressants she's not she had to take ritalin
to stay awake she could only stay awake about
six hours a day and she had to take high doses
of ritalin to stay awake she what is this autoimmune
disease well she had her diagnosis was rheumatoid
arthritis right But she didn't have the blood
markers for it, but she had all the other symptoms.
Anyway, she figured out this restrictive diet.
She only ate chicken and broccoli for about two
months, and almost all her symptoms went away.
And she's pretty much symptom -free now, which
is a complete miracle. And she convinced me to
try this diet about a year and a half ago. And
so I lost seven pounds a month for seven months.
That was the first thing, which was just bloody
amazing. Yeah, it was unbelievable. I couldn't
believe it. Was your diet rich in refined carbohydrates
before that? Rich enough. Yeah. Rich enough,
you know. Pastas and bread and things along those
lines. Yeah, bread in particular. I ate a lot
of bread. So the first thing that happened was
I quit snoring. That happened immediately. It
took one week, and I was snoring quite badly.
So that disappeared in a week. And that was amazing.
I thought, oh, that's interesting. And then I
had gastric reflux disorder. That went away.
And then I lost seven pounds the first month.
I thought, oh, that's a lot, seven pounds. I
had psoriasis. That went away. I had floaters
in my right eye, which is also an autoimmune
problem. That went away. I have had gum disease
for 30 years. That went away. That went away.
That's amazing. I'm 55. Like, my gum disease
went away. It's ridiculous. I figured all that
out. My life in the last year was so strange
because I'd get up in the morning and I'd think,
God, all these bloody scandalous things are happening
around me and I have to deal with that. And then
I'd think, I need a break, but I can't eat anything.
I can't eat anything because if I ate the wrong
thing, it would, like, knock me out for a month.
So I was trying to figure out what the hell was
wrong with my diet, and I was feeling wretched.
And so it was like wolves at the back door and
crocodiles at the front door, something like
that. But whatever, like, I'm down to the same
weight I was when I was 25. Wow. Yeah, no kidding.
And I've got lots of energy. I wake up in the
morning. And I wake up, that's never happened
to me my whole life. I've always had to have
a shower. It took me an hour to wake up my whole
life. That's gone. I'm not hungry. I don't have
hypoglycemia. I have lots of energy. I can't
eat anything, so I can't go out for dinner. But
you can't eat nonsense. You can eat. I'm on the
same diet. I can eat meat and greens, man. I
don't have a disorder like you did in the same
regard, but I take a day. Well, I have a cheat
day. No, I don't even do it every week. Well,
I'll have a cheeseburger or something like that.
Yeah. But for the most part, that's the diet
that I follow as well. Yeah. Well, for some people,
it seems like, well... For a massive amount of
people. Well, I think for far more people than
we know, I think people are carbohydrate poisoning
themselves like they can't believe. Yes. And
along with all the other things that go along
with it, insulin. Yeah. High blood sugar is not
good. This idea that cholesterol and saturated
fat are the problems that people are experiencing,
it's not true. No. The real problem is sugar,
and cholesterol has been demonized. I'm sure
you read the article from the New York Times
about the sugar industry. Yep. Paid off scientists
to lie about the results. Yep, yep. Well, I know,
too, that two food scientists in the UK resigned
about three years ago. They were part and parcel
of the organization that had produced the food
pyramid. They said it was the worst public health
disaster in the last 40 years. They pretty much
got it backwards. And you look around. You drive
through the U .S. It's really obvious in the
U .S. is people are overweight like mad. Like
mad. Yeah, like crazy. It's ridiculous. Go to
Disneyland. Yeah, exactly. It's insane. It is.
But the reason is, as far as I can tell, the
reason is that they're poisoning themselves with
carbohydrates. That's what it looks like. And
the thought process is so out of whack. I retweeted
an article today from Nina Teicholz. She tweeted
it. about this trend of eating only egg whites
and how terrible it is for you. It's a health
disaster. And this idea that cholesterol from
the egg yolk is bad for you. It's one of the
most important things you can eat. And then Weight
Watchers has adjusted. Yeah, see, it goes, Weight
Watchers diet program now adjusts their protocol,
and they say that eat all the eggs you want.
It is now a zero -point food, which is fucking
incredible. So the way I don't get hungry is
I eat a lot of oil, like a lot of olive oil.
Yes. And that keeps... Fats. So you're basically
burning fat. You're on like a ketogenic diet.
Yeah. So and it seems to be... Well, and that
would have been complicated enough to keep me
occupied for the last two years, especially sorting
it out with my daughter because she... Well,
that was quite the bloody nightmare, I can tell
you. It was really something. But I can't believe
she figured it out. It's amazing. It is amazing.
And like she's really... She's in pretty damn
good shape. She just had a baby like five months
ago. That's amazing. Yeah, we're stunned, man.
We're stunned because like it was rough. Well,
she sounds like an incredibly extreme example.
She is quite the tough cookie, that girl. Sounds
like it. Yeah. Many people are experiencing the
same revelation that their diet is killing. Look,
I was tired all the time. I would hit a nap.
I mean, I was always very, very active. So I
stayed lean because of my physical activity.
But by the end of the day, I need a nap. I would
always take a nap before I'd go to jujitsu. I
was like, I have to take a nap or I can't train.
And it was because of carbohydrates. Yeah, I
nap about two hours a day. And now I don't nap
at all. Me too, same thing. Well, that's not
exactly true. When I've been Zooming around,
I take like two -minute naps when I'm in the
airport or whatever. Well, that's also you're
probably not getting enough sleep. Yeah, right,
exactly. Big difference, yeah. Exactly. So, yeah,
it's been remarkable. So why did you stop teaching?
Oh, well, I took a sabbatical. Because of all
this? Yeah, well, I told my department chair,
I said, look, I had a sabbatical coming up next
year. I said, look, you know, I... There's too
much going on. It'll be better if I take the
sabbatical this year, then I can concentrate
on my teaching next year. So you take the entire
year off? Yeah. So you're about eight months
in? Is that correct? Yeah, yeah. Well, and I
always teach from, I put all my courses from
January to March. I teach all of them in the
same semester, and that enabled me to concentrate
on my research for the rest of the time. And
so, technically, I'll be going back teaching
in January of 2019. Technically? Technically.
You're not convinced? Well... I can't think a
year ahead at the moment. I don't know what the
hell's going on. I'm not going to go back and
teach the same way. Because, see, at some point,
the technological transformation means you have
to approach things differently. And so now, if
I do a lecture online, whatever the lecture happens
to be, I can get 150 ,000 people to watch it.
That's minimum. So the first question would be,
well, why would I teach 300 people when I could
teach 150 ,000? That's just stupid. Who would
do that? Those same 300 people will also have
access to the 150 ,000. Well, exactly. That's
right. That's exactly it. And the next thing
is, well, I taped my Maps of Meaning class and
my personality class for three years running.
It's like, it's there. Well, I could do it again,
but why? It's taped. I would rather lecture about
new things. So that's what I did this year. I
did this biblical series, which I hadn't done
before. But now if I'm going to lecture again,
I'm going to lecture about different things because...
Because the technology has transformed the landscape.
We're not in 1990 anymore. Not even a little
bit. This is something I brought up to Brett
Weinstein, and I'm hoping he follows along the
same line. Brett Weinstein, not Steen. I make
that mistake often. Sorry, Brett. But same thing.
Brilliant guy, restricted by his university,
big scandal, leaves. I'm hoping he follows the
same path because he has so much to offer. And
he has so much to offer for anybody who can get
online. Well, and one of the things that's really
fun about YouTube and having my lectures on YouTube
is that the only reason people watch them is
one reason. It's because they want to learn.
That's it. Right. And so you might think, well,
where is the university? Well, the university
is where people want to learn. Right. It's like,
okay, well, YouTube is the university because
there's... Hundreds of thousands of people on
YouTube, maybe millions, who just want to learn.
It's like, fine, I'm an educator. I'll talk to
people who want to learn. Because if you're an
educator, that's what you do. Is that most effectively
done in the universities? Not self -evidently.
And so now I'm trying to figure this out. You
know, like, I like my job at the university.
U of T has treated me well, apart from this scandal
thing, but they were kind of taken aback by it.
They didn't know what to do about that. You know,
it was a new law. And when I made the video criticizing
Bill C -16, I said, I think that making this
video is probably illegal in and of itself. Was
there controversial moments in your career before
that? No. Wow. No. I mean, it surprised me because
I've always, I would say that the content of
my lectures has been atypical. But it's been
atypical in a good way. Like, the student response
to my lectures has always been, well, extremely
good. Extremely good. I'm always surprised that
I was able to teach what I'm teaching because
I always thought that it was, like, insanely
revolutionary. But it was revolutionary in a
really, like, in a scholarly way. You know, like,
I'm a careful scientist. I'm a careful thinker.
I think things all the way through to the bottom.
And I'm really self -critical. Like, when I wrote
Maps of Meaning, which was my first book, I suspect
I rewrote every sentence at least 15 times. It's
probably more than that. And I really literally
mean rewrite it. So I take the sentence out of
the paragraph, put it in another document, write
like 10 variants of the sentence, and then pick
the one that was best. And I did that. Like it
took me 15 years to write. I did that over and
over and over. And so what I was, I'd write a
sentence and then I'd think, okay, have I got
all the words right? Every single word. Is that
the proper words? The proper phrase? Is the proper
sentence? Do I believe that this sentence is
true? Then I'd think like of 10 ways I could
attack it and see if I could break it apart and
find out what it was wrong. And I only kept the
ones that I couldn't destroy. And like I was
going out full force to destroy them because
I wanted to come up with a, you know, I wanted
to produce a book that I could not break no matter
what I did. And so I spent 15 years on that.
And then that was the basis. Well, it's the basis
for 12 Rules for Life. It's been the basis for
all the lectures I've done and so forth. Like
I can't see where it's wrong. And mostly what
I was trying to do was to see where it was wrong.
And I can't get underneath it. I can't break
it. That's what's so fascinating to me about
all this stuff. And not to overly exaggerate
the significance of this, but just to be completely
honest about it. You're the right guy for the
job, and it's sort of found you. It's real weird
because there's not a lot of people that are
that meticulous about their thoughts and about
their work and about their writing and about
their criticizing their own ideas to the point
where they break them down, try to break them,
try to tear them apart. I had a big problem.
So when I started to write Maps of Meaning, I
thought, okay, what's the situation? This is
the Cold War. We've divided into two armed tribal
camps, and we've decided that. settling the difference
between us is worth risking being itself. We
could drive everything into extinction. We're
willing to take that chance. It's like, what
the hell is going on? So I wanted to know two
things. What was truly driving the tribalism
of the Cold War, including the generation of
that vast nuclear arsenal? Because that just
seemed to me to be insanity taken to the final
pinnacle. So I wanted to know that. And I wanted
to know, okay, having figured out why that's
happening, what could be done about it so it
would stop? And at the same time, I was also
studying what had happened in Auschwitz with
the Nazis and all of that. And so it was a very
serious problem. And I actually wanted to have
the answer. I actually wanted the answer. I didn't
want to write an interesting book about it. It
wasn't even that I wanted to write a book exactly.
It was just that writing a book was the best
way to figure out the problem, because writing
a book is so rigorous, you know, because you
think, but you can only remember so much. You
have to write it down, because then you can remember
way more, and you can write, and then the next
day you can go back and think, okay, I'm going
to take that goddamn argument apart. I'm going
to see if there's anything about it that's weak.
And so, and I think I did figure it out. I think
I did figure it out. So, and then when I... Well,
and then I started lecturing about it. And the
lectures were always unbelievably well regarded.
Like people, the kids in the classes would always
write for the evaluations at the end of the year.
80 % of them would say, and this happened for
20 years, they'd say, this class changed everything
about the way I look at the world. It's like,
yeah, that's what happened to me too when I wrote
that book. It's like, I didn't think the same
way at all when I was done. I started to understand
what these ancient stories meant. It was like
shocking. Never recovered from it. Wow. Listen,
you're out of time. Thank you. Always. 12 Rules
for Life, An Antidote to Chaos, Jordan Peterson.
I made a discount for your viewers again for
the future authoring program. Okay, so what do
they have to do? Rogan. Just use Rogan, and how
do they get to the website? Selfauthoring .com.
Okay. Yeah, and I'll send you a link for that.
Thanks a lot. Thank you. And also, thanks for
everything. Really, you are the portal into this
weird world that I'm in. And people say that
all the time. They come up and say, look, I heard
about you on Joe Rogan. It's like thousands of
people have told me that. Well, it's been an
honour. It's been an honour. I appreciate it,
sir. Thank you. You bet.