Thank you, Mr. Peterson for being with us.
Thanks for the invitation.
What I found most interesting in your book is the stuff you write about child development and child upbringing and
for example you explain how overprotective parents can damage their children?
You say it's far better to render beings in your care competent than to protect them.
Do you think that the parents today are
more protective of their children than previous generations.
I would say that it looks like that.
Yes, I think there are complex reasons for that. I don't think that you can necessarily
lay that at the feet of the parents people are having fewer children and
and they're having them later in life and
So I think both of those things those are major demographic shifts
and I think that one of the
Consequences of that is that children's lives are much more organized than they used to be
which might have some advantages
but that also parents are more likely to over protect their older and more cautious and
the children also don't have as many siblings and of course siblings were part of the child raising process and and
It's hard to be over protected in some ways when you're competing with a bunch of siblings
So it's complicated but I think that over protection is a problem
Rule 11 is do not bother children when they are skateboarding. This is a recurring theme in your book
If we are overprotective with our children
We will create weak individuals.
Well you you demolish people's resilience that way.
I mean life is difficult and you cannot protect your children?
What you can do is prepare them and you can prepare them to be strong and courageous and
truthful and
resilient and
reciprocal in their interactions with other people and that means you equip them for
what life will be which is at minimum a series of difficult challenges and and
often more than that because of course people go through very difficult times in their lives and a
resilient person is capable of standing up to things in the face of fear and moving forward voluntarily
convinced of their own
competence and ability to prevail and
so the primary, your primary goal as a parent apart from
facilitating your child's social desirability, which is a major
obligation on your part is to
encourage your children and to, and I mean that literally to instill in them a sense of courage in the face of the difficulties of
life and not to protect them from that.
We don't even want to be protected from those difficulties because a major part of life and its meaning is the
The challenge that comes with confronting difficulties
So...
What do you want to say to those parents?
That allow their eight or nine-year-old sons to sleep in their beds at night instead of sleeping in their own rooms
well
I the first thing I would say about that is you might want to ask why you don't want privacy with your spouse
You know
The last thing you want to do is use your child as an excuse to not interact properly with your wife or your husband
there's all sorts of reasons that people allow their children to interfere with their relationship and
so and by eight or nine a child is more than capable of
Spending time on their own and they need to do that anyways
Because you don't want your child to be either unable to spend time alone or terrified of it
you, you also destroy to some degree their, well, their ability to cope on their own but also their imagination by not requiring them to
rely on themselves for their own like
Call (?) for self calming and safe and also for self amusement
There's a rule when you're dealing with people who might be
dependent and this includes and includes the situation where you're dealing with sick people or or elderly people and the rule is
Do not do anything for anyone that they can do for themselves
Because you take away their competence by doing that I want to ask you about
I want to ask you about
the use of physical force on children because you think it is important to allow kids to explore and harm themselves to gain experience
still you believe strict parenting is important and you think this
Justifiable to flick the index finger on to certain types of two-year-olds
Why is the use of force justifiable
Well it depends on the context and it also depends on what you mean by force
There isn't a disciplinary strategy that you can utilize that doesn't involve something that's unpleasant while you can use reward
But that that's a different there's different
Circumstances underway and you should use reward every time you can because it's more effective but you often need something that's...
Instantaneous and that gets the message across and a flick is a very good
technique because it's instant. It's harmless it gets the message across you can use it publicly
It can't be misused. You won't hurt the child
You have to have an effective disciplinary strategy for you since in social situations, for example.
Yeah, you talk about the minimizing
Minumum. Yeah, well the basic rules are quite straightforward
minimum number of rules because otherwise the enforcement costs accrue and you end up
constraining yourself and the child too much and then
minimal necessary force and you might ask well what's minimal necessary force and the answer to that is
Minimum intervention necessary to bring the behavior to a halt as rapidly and harmlessly as possible and that has to be negotiated with the child
Because some children are much more difficult to stop than others.
But isn't it possible that the parent-child relationship
can be damaged if basic trust and safety is lost?
It's absolutely the case that it's it will be damaged yes, but the application of
judicious disciplinary force doesn't damage the relationship it actually strengthens it and everyone knows this. look if
If you have a relationship with your wife, let's say the relationship is partly based on mutual respect
Not merely on mutual love. It's also based on mutual respect and you
everyone tests out their partner to
Determine what their limits are and if you're not
Subject to corrective action on the part of your partner. You will have no respect for them
Your relationship will just deteriorate very rapidly
so and it's very important to understand that the limits that you place on children are not something that
Impede their child-parent relationship, but actually further it, substantially.
I want to talk about gender equality now
Yeah.
In chapter 11 you write about the so called oppression of the patriarchy and you write it looks
to me like the so-called oppression of the patriarchy was instead an imperfect collective attempt by men and women
stretching over millennia to free each other from privation disease and tragedy so
The oppression of women happened because it was practical
No, the, the oppression of men and women happened because life is difficult and treacherous and
So we were subject and still are to all sorts of terrible burdens that are intrinsic to life itself
I mean one of the things that's happened is because we're so
Technically and materially wealthy right now. We don't understand what privations our
Ancestors even a few generations ago faced. I mean it was very difficult for women to function
Let's say as, as technical equals in the absence of reliable control of menstruation
That's only been a reality for say seventy years and the birth control pill as well
Is it a major technological revolution.
You, you mentioned technological advancement?
Yes
So the hurdles have been removed in part way but you talk about the so-called oppression of the patriarchy.
Yes
Women were oppressed for centuries.
I mean, well, that's one way of looking at it or the other way of looking at it
Is that men and women were oppressed for centuries.
I mean there are certain burdens that women bore that men didn't bear but the opposite is equally true
Men suffered dreadfully for example in incredibly dangerous occupations,.
but its a fact that women suffered more than the men.
I don't believe that no. I don't think it is a fact I think that most people suffered by modern standards
immeasurably and that I don't buy the
Historical narrative that the fundamental reality of our history was that men were oppressing women
first of all women aren't that easy to oppress as you might have noticed if you've ever had a relationship with them and
You might say well it took women a long time to struggle forward
Until they attained civil rights status that was equivalent to men and I would say that's true
But it also was the case for men that it took very long time to struggle forward before there was anything approximating?
individual rights and that they were granted to women quite rapidly in the aftermath of that and that a lot of that was a
consequence of
technological transformation made that sort of thing even possible.
But we are both privileged white males
Can we really understand the suffering of women?
Well, it depends on how how useful your, your capacity for understanding the suffering of others is or how well-developed that
Is I don't see that it's necessarily any more difficult to understand the suffering of women
Well, I would never pose the question that way because I don't know how you understand the suffering of a group being an individual
I don't think a woman can understand the suffering of women because that makes the that's predicated on the assumption that a
Individual can take on the burden of a group and I don't buy that assumption to begin with. I think we, we vary in
the ability to
Let's say empathize with others, but I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that you can't empathize across a gender barrier
Otherwise no relationship would even be possible.
A lot of people argue that cultural oppression is still a fact in modern society
For example, something feminine is considered insulting
Doesn't that sustain the oppression of women?
Well, I think that there are negative
stereotypes associated with both forms of gendered behavior and that if those are
Utilized inappropriately, they can result in prejudicial attitudes. I think that most enterprises are
Imperfect enough so that some residual prejudice remains. It might be sex
It might be preference by gender or prejudice by gender
It might be prejudice by race, might be prejudice by ethnicity or, or attractiveness or intelligence or character
there's all sorts of things that warp the proper selectivity of
hierarchies, but I think we're doing a
An unbelievably good job at getting rid of those as rapidly as is humanly possible and that we've moved
So fast in that direction so quickly that we deserve some credit for it
There's one line in the book where you say you don't agree with the theory of the feminist revolution of the 20th century
but isn't that a fact that the feminist movement of the 20th century had a
significant impact for gender equality
No, I don't really think so.
What about (unintelligible)who are, what would equal pay?
What about what happened 60s?
I think that, I think that to, to, to lay, that to attribute that
primarily to the feminist political
movement is
to give far more credit to the feminist political movement than it deserves and I think the people who are pushing that are primarily
feminists
I think that most of what freed
women was the
extension of the idea of individual rights
To everyone including women and that, that was happening not only on the, on the front of women. Let's say but also
with regards to people of different races and ethnicities
I think it's part of a much broader cultural movement to extend the idea of individual rights universally
I think that's deeply embedded in the judeo-christian tradition
and I think that a very large number of
Technological innovations played a far more important role in the emancipation of women than feminist political
ideology even though
You can point to certain movements like the suffragette movement
for example that pushed hard to have the vote extended to women, but even that I would say was a
manifestation of deeper transformations at a cultural and technological level
I think the people who are pushing the idea that it was the feminists
It was feminist political macinations that produced the equalization of the situation between men and women are mostly diehard ideological
Feminists who like to think that way but it doesn't look to me like that's a valid historical
Interpretation in the least.
I would like to move on now.
I would like to talk about truthfulness, in Chapter eight and rule eight you write about the lie, the life lie
Mm-hmm.
It's, you say someone living a life lie is attempting to manipulate reality with perception
Based on what you write in the chapter
Couldn't one say that a large part of the population in 21st century
Live a life lie because they avoid conflict. They say what they think pleases their spouses or their bosses instead of telling the truth
Oh, yes
If they do what is convenient at every given moment instead of saying what they really want.
Yes
Well, perhaps not at every given moment, but they certainly fall prey to that temptation. It's conflict avoidance. Yeah, well as a psychologist
psychologists deal with a variety of problems, but I would say the two most common normal problem our
anxiety and depression that would be one class and the other would be lack of assertiveness and
and lack of assertiveness subsumes the, the
Problems that you just described people won't stand up for themselves and say what they need and want and then they don't negotiate
properly and you might and they're avoiding
They're avoiding conflict in the short term, which is a form of lie by omission and what that means is that problems
Aggregate around them that's often why people end up divorced, you know?
People will stay married for a long time and one partner will say to the other eventually
Well, I've been unhappy for the last eight years
it's like well that
might have been something to announce in increments
Say weekly or even daily
Long before everything accrued to the point where the only possible solution is a catastrophic
dissolution there's a lot of conflict involved in setting a relationship straight
You have to let each other know who you are because you're different that's going to cause conflict
You're going to conflict about
Whose job takes priority and win you're gonna come conflict have conflict about how to spend your free time about how to raise your children
about how to manage the domestic economy
About what disciplinary strategies you should use about where to vacation about what to eat like all of those things have to be negotiated
through and all of that requires truthfulness so that each of you know
What the other is wants and will be satisfied with and conflict. It's very very
What would you say the only thing more exhausting than telling the truth and
Negotiating with your spouse is not doing it and waiting for the divorce
Both of them are difficult, but I would recommend the former.
Yeah, we if we talk about the workplace
What do you want to say to those viewers that regularly, you know?
Agree with their bosses and instead of telling the truth. What are they doing to themselves in the long run?
Well, they're taking the soul out of their work. You know, let's say well just imagine for the sake of argument that you
encounter one annoying thing a day at work a small annoying thing and then let's say
for the sake of argument that you could have a little battle about that and
Improve it somewhat or you could just say it doesn't matter. It's like probably doesn't matter today
Oh, it might not even matter tomorrow
But if you make a thousand decisions like that
Which you will do or three years then now you have a thousand things
Bugging you at work, and if you wait for five years then it's well
Then it's 2,000 things and the same thing happens with your kids and the same thing happens in your marriage those things
Accrue and they turn into a monster.
Yeah you but you would agree that conflict avoidance is practical sometimes
People do it just go along with their...
No, I don't actually I think in a marriage for example, there's almost nothing so small you shouldn't fight about it
But the question is what does fight mean? It doesn't mean win
Like if if you and I have a relationship, let's say it's a business partnership
it doesn't really matter if we have a relationship and we have a
Difference of opinion we need to battle it through
But the purpose of the battle isn't so that your viewpoint prevails or that my viewpoint prevails because either of us might be wrong
The purpose is to engage in the conflictual exchange of opinion so that we can see a joint path
forward to peace and
that's and that's the thing is like if you're fighting with your wife the first thing to remember if you're fighting with your wife is
You have to live with her
So maybe beating her in the argument is not the right outcome. What the right outcome is is saying what you have to say
listening to what she has to say and see if you guys can come up with a
Mutually agreed upon solution that will make the problem go away
so if we explore conversation
Between people in society a lot of these conversations are full of falsehoods and lies
People are nice to people they dislike
They're being fake. because we try to be friendly. Yeah, I mean, it's
Is it in fact morally wrong to live your life in that way?
Yes. Yeah it is it is I mean
you can't avoid the
Necessary conflict of negotiation towards peace. If you avoid it all that it means is that it accrues and multiplies.
It's the oldest one of the oldest stories we have the oldest stories
We have point to that as part of the prime moral doctrine, you know, it's it's it's a form of impulsivity, you know
If you only do what you want in the moment
Impulsively that there would be consequences of that into the future which is why you shouldn't act impulsively
Impulsively avoiding conflict is exactly the same and people, same problem
people know this, you know, if if someone's casually rude to you in, in, a bus driver for example, and
You'll, you, there's always the possibility that you'll stew for hours over what you should have said
It's like when someone
Transgresses against you let's say you have to say what you have to say. You don't have to say it as if you're the
totally, correct
authoritarian tyrant you can say it in the spirit of of
inquiry inquiry
You know because there's always the possibility that you're wrong and you want to listen
This is also why you want to listen to your partner your, your, your spouse even if what they're saying to you is
You find very annoying
It's always possible that they're right and you should listen because if they're right then they can stop you from
Heading for trouble in the future.
I want to go backwards I want to talk about rule number seven. Pursue what is meaningful not what this expedient
You write in the book there is no faith and no courage and no sacrifice in doing what is expedient
What do you say to those viewers that don't pursue their dreams and are locked into their careers?
Because they are too afraid to take risks and pursue something meaningful
well, the first thing I would say is well, you should be afraid of taking risks and pursuing something meaningful, but
You should be more afraid of staying where you are if it's making you miserable
it's like the first thing you want to do is dispense with the idea that you get to have any any
Permanent security outside of your ability to contend and adapt it's the same issue with children
it's like
You're paying a price by sitting there being miserable and you might say well the devil I know is better than the one I don't
It's like don't be so sure of that. The clock is ticking
and if you're miserable in your job now and you change nothing in five years
You'll be much more miserable and you'll be a lot older.
but isn't it a luxury to pursue what is meaningful?
Our viewers have mortgages. They have children. they have payments and loans. It's a luxury to pursue because we lack the resources
Well, I don't think I don't remember now. I'm not talking about what makes you happy
It's a luxury to pursue what makes you happy
It's a moral obligation to pursue what you find meaningful. And that doesn't mean it's easy
it might require sacrifice if you need to change your job to let's say you have
a family and, and, and, and children and, and a mortgage you have responsibilities
You've already picked up those responsibilities. You don't just get to walk away scot-free and say well I don't like my job
I quit that's no strategy. But what you might have to do is you think well this job is killing my soul
All right. So what do I have to do about that? Well, I have to look for another job
Well, no one wants to hire me. It's like okay. Maybe you need to educate yourself more
Maybe you need to update your your curriculum vitae your resume. Maybe you need to overcome your fear of being interviewed
Maybe you need to sharpen your social skills
Like you you have to think about these things strategically if you're going to switch careers
You have to do it like an intelligent responsible person that might take you a couple of years of
Effort to do properly.
When you say pursue something meaningful. Is it important to have a vocation?
I think it's more important to, to have a, an ethos, an ethic
So I have a program for example called the future authoring program
which is a writing program that enables people to develop a vision for their life and then to develop a strategy and
So it's based on the idea
Imagine that and it's an extension of the ideas in the book or at least something along the same lines
The first thing that you want to do is figure out imagine you were taking care of yourself like you were someone you cared for
Which is rule number two, by the way
essentially
Then you should figure out well if you could have what you needed and wanted what would it be?
What sort of friends would you have? What would your family relationships look like? How would you conduct yourself with your children?
How would you educate yourself you need to think through how it is that your life could be properly
Arranged if you had that ability and then you can aim at that. And the funny thing is is that if you do
Pause it a goal of that sort and work towards it
you will move towards it the goal will change because you'll learn things along the way but I mean I've
dealt with hundreds of people in my clinical and consulting practice and we set a goal we develop a vision and
Work towards it and it things
Inevitably get better for people. So it's not a luxury. It's it's difficult. It's a moral responsibility and it isn't happiness
It's it's not the pursuit isn't for happiness.
It's a moral responsibility to pursue what is meaning.
Absolutely.
I would like to end the interview with a, with
Citing criticism from your friend.
Oh, yes.
Bernard shift.
Yes
Your friend for many years and former colleague at the University of Toronto
Yes.
He wrote an article about you in the Toronto Star recently.
Yes.
It was quite hard criticism on what you've been doing in the last few years and he wrote
Jordan is fighting to maintain the status quo to keep chaos at bay or so. He believes
He is not a free speech warrior. He is a social order Warrior
Are you a social order warrior?
I think that people can decide that for themselves. I mean one of the things that Bernie
criticized was my
lecturing style at the University. Now all those lectures are online all the
Essentially like a representative sample of my lectures from the last 30 years are online and I mean hundreds of hours
it's not a few fragments and
hundreds of thousands of people have watched them and the
Criticisms that Bernie leveled at me have not been leveled at me by the watchers
And so people can go watch the lectures and make up their own mind about that.
But he also questions your motives
he, he wants to know what your end game is all about. I mean, what is your primary motive?
My primary motive as a clinical psychologist and educator is to help individuals
Live more meaningful and productive lives. In harmony with their families and their community. That's my motive and
The evidence for that I think is well if people go online and first of all
You can watch the lectures and decide for yourself, but you can also go. There's I suspect probably
Maybe
250,000 people have commented on the lectures and their effects on them. And so
That's what people say. I'm watching the lectures. Yeah, I'm trying to develop a vision for my life
I'm trying to become more
Responsible and its really helping and that's and that's what I hear all the time
When I do these public lectures, which aren't political
But when we gain success we raise the bar we set our ambitions higher. I mean, what is your end game?
What do you want?
That's all that's what I want. I want I want to help as many
Individuals as possible become more courageous
more truthful and more engaged in the pursuit of
Individual familial and social harmony. That's what I want.
You're pursuing what is meaningful.
I'm pursuing. I believe that to be the case. It's certainly meaningful to me. I mean there isn't everywhere I go now
Doesn't matter where I land and what airport or if I walk down the street
Three or four people will come up to me and they'll tell me I was in a dark place. I was anxious depressed
nihilistic, drug-addicted, alcoholic, homeless, in jail. You name it bad relationship with my girlfriend.
Bad relationship with my parents. I've been watching your lectures or reading your book
I've been trying to tell the truth to get my life together and everything is way better
And so then you think well if you could have what you wanted and what would be meaningful
You imagine you could go anywhere in the world and people would come up to you that were strangers and tell you that
That's as good as it gets.
What about politics? Do you have political ambitions?
No.
No political ambitions
No, I I have ambitions to speak with people who are politically motivated if they want to speak with me
But personally I've already decided that
what I'm doing at the moment is more and
I thought this, I've made this choice multiple times in my life that this approach is more suitable for me.
Okay, Mr. Peterson Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much for the interview
[I spent much more time on this than I initially expected, when will people get paid for transcribing YT videos]