[Interviewer] So dr. Peterson, you talk about this idea of ending unnecessary suffering,
and this idea of committing one's life to that.
[Dr. Peterson] At a minimum! I mean, that's just the obvious thing that you could do.
[Interviewer] A lot of students, I think, accept that premise and view what they're doing as trying to
eliminate or reduce unnecessary suffering,
and they see activism or other forms of direct service as fulfilling that goal.
Do you simply disagree with, like the content of what they think,
the tactic that they're using to end unnecessary suffering,
or do you think, that their motives or their intentions are not even the same as yours?
[pensive moment]
[Dr. Peterson] It's too public. You know, there's this old saying fom the New Testament about not praying in public.
[Interviewer] Hmm.
[Dr. Peterson] And the idea is, that if you're going to commune for the higher good, you should do it in private.
Because otherwise, you're warping your ethic in some sense, by demonstrating how virtuous you are to the world.
It's like you know, I'm- You go out there with a stick and a sign on it, that says "I'm against poverty".
It's like: yeah, no kidding, man. Really.
Like, who's FOR poverty? Noone's for poverty.
So, it's an abdication of responsibility with the mask of social virtue.
You wanna solve difficult problems, see if you figure out how to get along with your brother, the one you've been fighting with for five years.
Or see if you can staple your family back together.
See if you can stop fighting with your girlfriend, and have a relationship that lasts for more than two weeks.
You know? It's like, there are things that you should be doing in the confines of your own life,
that are private and humble, that would constitute genuine accomplishments.
And those are the things that you should attend to.
And no one's gonna come along and say: "Hey, you know, good job! You're changing the world."
Because it's private. But it's real!
And people don't do that. So no, I don't trust the activists...
I don't trust the activists' ethos at all.
I think everything about it is...
superficial and trendy, and too easy, and...
it externalizes the blame - the evil is always elsewhere, which is a dreadful mistake to make.
Because the evil isn't elsewhere. That's the thing that you understand when you're wise,
is the evil is not elsewhere. It's you.
Because you're not everything you could be.
And so you know, you should work on that before going and telling someone else, that maybe they're not who they should be.
So, I think it's... you know, I don't buy it, it's too easy.
It's far too easy, and it's too public, and it's too self congratulatory.
And then there's the murderous, like Marxist element - which you know, I'm always often inclined to mention.
[Interviewer] So certainly I think you've identified certain causes, where the public element
[inaudible]
or the self-congratulatory virtue trying to do good could be harmful,
but do you think there are cases - for instance, I'm thinking of policy,
influencing policy, being a policy maker.
It seems like something like that - public policy - could be used to eliminate some unnecessary suffering,
but would involve a more public domain, something where you are trying to attract...
followers, trying to attract praise from other people.
[Dr. Peterson] Look, if you've established yourself in the world as a credible human being,
and people are asking you to enter public service because of your accomplishments,
then it's time to do it, right.
But before that, it's a little on the premature side.
And if you're just setting yourself forward as an avatar of an ideology,
then there's nothing to you, except I think of it as the chattering of various forms of demons.
It's like, you're not helpful.
And if you... Look, you [might] wanna think "Okay, are you fit to lead?"
Let's put it that way. Okay, first of all:
Do you know where you're going? Because that's actually one of the hallmarks of a leader - leader knows where he's going.
And maybe other people are also interested in going that way.
But the leaders I've met, have carved themselves out a personal vision, right?
It's not some cookie cutter ideological solution to the ills of the planet.
They've done a detailed analysis, right? They know what they're talking about. And they're usually people...
Well, they've had a successful relationship. They've had a successful family.
They have a couple of degrees. They've established a business.
Like, they've made themselves credible in 5 or 6 dimensions!
Well, then maybe you know enough about the world, to DARE to mess with its internal mechanisms.
And if you don't have that kind of in-depth knowledge, then you should just...
you shouldn't... you should no more work on the economic systems of Western civilization,
then you should try to adjust the electronic systems of your automobile.
Because the latter is far less complex than the former.
So of course there is utility in policy formulation and in government service, and in all of those sorts of things.
But you have to have transformed yourself, at least to some degree, into someone who's actually competent,
before you should even dare to do such things.
You think "Well, I've read some Marx, and now I know how to change the world!" It's like...
That's a very bad idea. Because the probability, that you're gonna take something complex,
that doesn't work too badly, and fix it with your idiotic intervention - is zero. So...
[Interviewer] ...well put.
[audience laughter, applause]