yeah we wanted to start off despoja
you introducing yourself a little bit
telling us about your general work
particularly you talked a lot about
faculty freedom recently and I'm
wondering if you think you want to talk
a little bit about what you see as the
ideal relationship between a university
and its faculty members I think in many
ways the best thing for the university
to do with its faculty members is to
leave them alone and I mean that in the
best possible way I mean that was
actually one of the things I taught here
from 93 to 98 and one of the things and
I have the same relationship I would say
with the university at the University of
Toronto is that the universities go to a
tremendous amount of trouble to identify
promising people in terms of their
research capability from all over the
world and generally speaking if you
identify promising people your best bet
as a manager is to stay out of their way
now and to remove obstacles from their
from their from their movement forward
and I think the universities do a
credible job of that although my sense
over the last few decades has been that
increasingly there are more impediments
placed in the path of research for
example I've seen that with the
multiplication of the powers of
institutional review boards for example
ethics committees which have vastly
overreached their their their their
reasonable powers and they slow things
down and that's a big mistake if you're
dealing with people who are conducting
research into important topics then you
want to do everything you possibly can
to let them move forward as rapidly as
possible in what ways do you think these
institutional review boards are these
ethics committees have particularly
damaged the process or the speed of
research research do you think there are
times like you have any examples in mind
of when you think they've overreached
their powers well they may regulate
I got asked that one's not on okay find
it here that better okay now you can
hear me which at least in principle
should be an improvement yeah well I
mean oh yes that's much better
yeah well in the social sciences for
example the the institutional review
boards insist upon reviewing the use of
questionnaires in research which i think
is it's it's not helpful questionnaires
aren't dangerous and they have no real
policy set in place to determine the
difference between dangerous research
and the normal dangers that people
expose themselves sells on to on a daily
basis so and they've certainly the
institutional review boards have
certainly slowed down the work in my lab
for example and made it much more
onerous we have to do a tremendous
amount of writing and justification for
this studies long before they're even
undertaken and then also to do a fair
bit of paperwork to keep up with the
documentation and I don't find out the
least bit useful I know that in the
United States the institutional review
board's domains of power being cut back
now because of complaints primarily if I
remember correctly primary from
primarily from the granting agencies
because they're adding to the
unnecessary expense that's associated
with research so in the university
should the university administration
fundamentally exists to serve the
faculty and students and probably the
students first in the faculty second but
increasingly I see that the
administration is is multiplying out of
control and and that's quite well
documented in terms of overall cost and
some of that's driven by legislation and
it's so it's not it's not something
that's necessarily intrinsic to the
administration itself but that's one of
the things that's driving the spiraling
up ever ever upward spiral of Titian
costs yep so aside from research ethics
boards institutional review boards
ethics committees do you think that
there are other ways that the
administration has interfered with your
work particularly you've recently come
under fire by some administration
at the University of Toronto for certain
controversial views you hold you
mentioned that you think the
administration's primary obligation
should be to its students and then it
should also serve its faculty do you see
the administration using that mission
properly when they try to talk to
faculty about certain statements that
they have made or do you think that's
also an overreach of their power well I
think it reflects a more general
societal confusion about just exactly
what our priorities are I made a video
back in September stating my objections
to the mandated use of a certain
category of pronoun that I object to
mostly on the grounds that I felt that
the government had no right compelling
people's speech and also because
personally I didn't want to use the
pronouns that were being put forward by
people I regard as holding up
philosophical and political ethos that I
find really really quite detestable and
I made a video about that and mentioned
during the video that the act of making
the video had probably become had
arguably become illegal in Ontario in
the province I'm from and was about to
become illegal federally with some new
legislation and that it likely violated
the the code of conduct that that that
characterized the university with
regards to its inclusiveness policies
and the university promptly validated my
concerns by sending me two letters
telling me to stop making such
statements because they violated the
university's code of conduct and also
the relevant human rights legislation in
Ontario and and in the federal
government and one of the I felt that
the reason that the university did that
was because they had faced a certain
amount of public pressure from people at
the University of Toronto and that would
be mostly most of that pressure came
from people I would regard as the
professional activist types and the
university said that they had received
many letters accusing me of making the
University of Toronto an unsafe space
which is the sort of language that
immediately makes you know that you're
dealing with people who are
ideologically possessed but they also
but they failed to note at the same time
that they had received hundreds perhaps
thousands of letters as well as a 10,000
signature petition supporting my stance
and so
I think when the administration when the
administration regards its duty its
fundamental duty to promote some
illusory notion of safety and then also
is willing to falsify the facts on the
ground by omission that they have
definitely overstepped their boundaries
and I would say that they were they were
put back they were set back on their
heels let's put it that way
by a very strident outpouring strident
powerful outpouring of public opinion in
Canada and that was although that was
good for me because I got two letters
and generally if you're dealing with
human resources professionals then three
letters is the warning and then the next
step is something more serious I'm
curious you mentioned the term safe
space in particular for university and I
wanted to link this back to this idea
that university administration should be
serving students first and faculty
second so do you think that the
administration has some sort of
compelling mandate to make sure that
students feel safe no they haven't they
have exactly the reverse mandate there's
nothing safe about being educated if you
want to be safe stay home the things
that you need to be educated about our
terrible things almost always if you
study history properly it's terrible if
you study literature properly it's
terrible if you study psychology
properly all of these fields of endeavor
teach you the painful things that you
need to know to understand what human
beings and society are like and so the
idea first of all the idea that
university should be a safe space is
absolutely preposterous but it's also
preposterous for more more I would say
immediate reason so one of the one of
the there's a few things that we know as
as clinical psychologists as a field and
also as practitioners with regards to
how to treat people who suffer let's say
from an excess of anxiety and what you
do with people who suffer from an excess
of anxiety is exposed them to the very
things that they're afraid of or
sometimes disgusted by and you have you
help them voluntarily expose themselves
to such things and that doesn't make the
world safer it makes them braver and
more competent and so the notion that
you serve students safety concerns even
by shielding them from things that they
don't wish to encounter there's
absolutely I can't think of a single
possible
the reason why you would ever undertake
such an endeavor I think it's really
neat to talk about it in the abstract
but the particular concern that perhaps
a lot of students and a lot of members
of the community have with your case is
the particular pronoun usage issue so in
that instance I'm wondering if you think
there's a real harm so if someone comes
to you one of your students let's say
and would really feel more comfortable
engaging with the deep troubling
historical or psychological or whatever
field truths if you refer to the student
with certain pronouns do you really
think that's a necessary place where
they need that you know severe exposure
or do you think there is some sort of
you know harm by calling them the
pronoun that they well I think I think
it was fundamentally a fabricated issue
it's been fabricated for political
reasons I know the history of the
relevant legislation in Ontario and
initially the legislation was basically
predicated on the idea that that gender
identity was a social construct and that
there were going to be protections put
in place for people whose gender
identity had switched so that they
weren't subject to harassment or
discrimination and there's no utility in
subjecting people to counterproductive
discrimination and I would consider
discrimination counterproductive when
the discrimination occurs for reasons
that aren't relevant to the task at hand
if we discriminate all the time but the
the government ran the policies by a
relatively select group of activists and
transformed it into a piece of policy
legislation that no one in the right
mind would abide by or could abide by
for that matter and reduced for example
the idea of human identity to something
that basically transforms on a
subjective whim and so I don't buy any
of that I don't think that that's what
identity is I don't think it's
fundamentally self-generated it it might
be socio-culturally constructive to some
degree and then it most certainly is but
the idea that your identity is solely
your choice and that you have the right
to inflict that on other people is
absolutely preposterous most people grow
out of that idea when they're 2 years of
age and I mean that technically because
we know that
when children hit about three years of
age they're able to start playing social
games and that's when they start
learning that that identity is a is at
minimum a socially negotiated phenomena
no okay
so apart from that there's no agreement
whatsoever on the set of pronouns that
will be used and they've multiplied
beyond anybody's anybody's imagination I
would say including the people who
formulated the legislation and then
there's the fact that you don't refer to
people by their pronouns anyways their
third-person pronouns and so I don't
call you he when we're talking I might
refer you as he if I was talking about
you with someone else so most of the
time it's a moot point
anyways sure but dr. Peterson in the
cases where it does matter right
certainly you could envision let's not
talk so much about federal policy but
perhaps like in an actual like personal
day-to-day setting do you think there's
a harm to props you can disagree with
like the philosophical principle the
theoretical truth of whether or not
identity can change subjectively when to
win but if someone comes up to me and
says you know I want to be referred to
as this even if I adopt some sort of
view that I don't really think
fundamentally on a pure theoretical
level they have an understanding of
identity do does that do I then choose
to harm them or potentially upset them
by sticking to my belief about what
their identity is well the first thing
you'd have to establish is whether or
not that would actually constitute harm
that's the claim and the person might
say well you're harming me but that
doesn't provide evidence that you are
other people people presume very often
that they're harmed by things that
they're not harmed by at all so I don't
think that the mere claim that someone
thinks that the way I would address them
might harm them gives them the right to
enforce by legislation the content of my
speech that just doesn't rot that
doesn't that doesn't work and you know
here's something else that's worth
noting from a more practical perspective
I mean I received letters from about 30
trans people and that's actually a lot
because there aren't that many people
and these are people who by and large
we're very serious about their
transformations and all but one of them
agreed with what I was doing saying
first of all that they never asked to be
represented by the activists who claimed
to be representing them no so here's a
proposition right so imagine that
there's a group of people and that
somebody is a member of that group of
people and
that person stands forth as a member of
that group and says because I'm a member
of that group I speak for all those
people it's like actually no you don't
the mere fact that you're the member of
a group doesn't give you any right
whatsoever to speak on behalf of that
group you need to have legitimacy as a
representative and I don't I think that
that you can hardly imagine a more
pernicious example say of racism than to
presume that if someone is black they
speak on behalf of all black people all
black people are homogeneous they all
believe exactly the same thing therefore
if you talk to or met one of them you've
talked to or met them all respect dr.
Peterson I think I'm referring to cases
where the actual people in front of you
are telling you though that they want to
they want to represent themselves a
certain way right so we can talk about
whether or not the activist community is
accurately representing actual
communities but I'm wondering you
mentioned you don't think like a
self-report of like oh this is harming
me or I would not be comfortable
interacting with you unless you know X
happened would not be an accurate way of
describing real harm are there better
metrics we have for real harm if someone
comes up to me and they say oh you know
when they're feeling too warm in this
room we should leave you know do I say
ah no like you don't know how warm you
are that's not something you can know
for yourself that's just a self-report
well it would depend on what they were
asking other people to do and I don't I
don't believe that people have the right
to to impose restrictions on what not so
much restrictions on what I'm allowed to
say but to determine the content of my
speech that's an entirely different
thing and so if it's a matter of the
legal principle of whether or not I'm
free to determine the content of my
speech or the hypothetical discomfort of
a hypothetical person because no one's
actually asked me this yet okay and I'm
going to go with the freedom from
compelled speech partly again because I
think that the idea that the government
or any other institution should regulate
the content of your speech is absolutely
and it's intolerable I think you have a
strong legal argument right so the
government probably should mandate this
that I'm sure a lot of people might
agree with that I'm still curious though
in this hypothetical scenario that a
student did or a person did approach you
and they told you they would be harmed
or they would be uncomfortable unless
you refer to them with a certain pronoun
what would you do
well I really have a hard time answering
questions like that because they're
asked in the hypothetical Pinkerton and
they could yeah but my sense because I'm
a clinician is that I generally handle
those sorts of things at the level of
actual detail and so I would say it
would depend on the person it would
depend on the situation it would depend
on why they asked me it would depend on
how they asked me it would depend on
what I thought they were trying to
accomplish by the request it would it
would depend on whether or not they were
filming me well they were asking me it
would depend on whether they asked me in
my office or in the hallway you know I
can tell the difference between a
genuine plea for understanding and a bit
of political theater or political
manipulation now what I've dealt with
people who've made all sorts of requests
of me believe me because I've had a
clinical practice for about twenty years
and my experience with with the range of
human behavior is I would say
extraordinarily extensive and so I've
made all sorts of adjustments to the way
I interact with people so I can't say
exactly what I would do in a given
situation because I firmly believe that
the devil is in the details
and I haven't been making a case about a
specific interaction that I had actually
experienced or or or or or yeah
experienced I've been making a case a
philosophical fundamentally a
philosophical case and and secondarily a
political case and I think that I've
made the case properly but you would say
that you recognize a difference between
a like legal responsibility to do
something versus a sort of individual
personal choice I should do something
right sometimes I recognize that I mean
sometimes the legal and the
philosophical and the personal issue are
all the same it's simpler when that's
the case but I also think that the issue
is essentially a red herring
I mean look since I made that video for
one reason or another things that I've
been saying have become quite popular
and and not as controversial as you
might think most of what I've accrued so
far has been support and the reason for
that has very little to do with the
issue of pronouns the pronoun issue and
the pronoun controversy is a pointer to
something that's a lot larger and that's
why this issue has had legs are not here
because people are interested in my
views on pronouns now I happen to put my
foot down so to speak at a particular
place because it's very
frequently the case that if you're
engaged in a complex philosophical
dispute which is the case for our
society in general that in order to make
a to make a statement about it you have
to make a statement in relationship to
an actual cause so you have to draw the
line somewhere and people have asked me
well why did you pick the pronoun Hill
to die on and my answer to that
generally is a I didn't die and B you
have it and B you have to you have to
pick something real yeah to to enter
into the debate so for example if I
would have just made another video
decrying political correctness it would
have gone nowhere at all but I said that
there was something I wouldn't do and
one of the things I won't do is use the
made-up words of postmodern neo-marxists
who are playing a particular game with
gender identity that's an extension of
their particular reprehensible
philosophy and if that happens to mean
that I have to engage in discussions
about whether or not if I you know if a
suffering and Confused person who's had
a who's had a very like troubled pathway
through life came and asked me politely
if I would go out of my way to
accommodate them I I think that I don't
think that those issues actually belong
on the same in the same they're not the
same category of issue I mean so so I
don't see that there's well I guess
that's enough said about that all right
let's transition a little bit so you
mentioned sort of post-modernism and new
Marxism in fact in a statement at
McMaster University you claim that an
expression that the protest that you see
at your events are an expression of a
philosophy that's grounded partly in
post-modernism and partly in Marxism
yeah what does that mean first and
secondly how would you say that these
movements are characterized in those
ways
well if McMaster it meant that some of
the protesters came with came and hid
behind a banner that had a hammer and
sickle on it mm-hmm
you know hey no
so you see the funny thing is the funny
thing is is that people laugh about that
and I understand perfectly well while
you're laughing but I can tell you you
wouldn't have laughed if it would have
been a swastika and it's no no it's no
funnier that it was a hammer and sickle
you know the the the the reprehensible
ideologies that are based in in
fundamental Marxism killed at least a
hundred million people in the 20th
century and there's still apologists one
in five social scientists identifies as
a Marxist it's like really really that's
really that's really where we're going
to take this is it after the bloody 20th
century we're going to say well that
wasn't real communism or something
foolish like that even though we had
multiple examples of exactly what
happens when those doctors are let loose
in the world and so what what happened
in the 1960s in the late 1960s as far as
I can tell and this happened mostly in
France which has probably produced the
most reprehensible coterie of public
intellectuals that any country has ever
managed is that in in the late 1960s
when all the student activists had
decided that the marxist revolution
wasn't going to occur in the Western
world and and had finally also realized
that apologizing for the Soviet for the
Soviet system was just not going to fly
anymore given given the tens of millions
of bodies that had stacked up that they
performed what I would call a
philosophical sleight of hand and
transformed the class war into a you
know into a identity politics politics
war and that became extraordinarily
popular mostly transmitted through
people like Jacques Derrida who became
an absolute darling of the Yale English
department and had his pernicious
doctrine spread throughout North America
partly as a consequence of his invasion
of Yale and what happened with the what
what happened with the postmodernist is
they kept on peddling their their their
their their murderous
breed of political doctrine under a new
guise and resentful people all over the
world fell for it and I don't I don't
consider that acceptable I you know one
of the things I've learned for example I
teach my students in my second year
personality class about what happened in
the Soviet Union in the Gulag
Archipelago and I use Solzhenitsyn as an
exemplar Alexander Solzhenitsyn as an
exemplar of existential psychology
because I think he's actually the wisest
of the existential psychologists even
though he was primary
a historian a literary figure well most
of the students don't even know what
happened in the Soviet Union why is that
exactly and the reason for that is that
radical leftist ideologue intellectuals
in the West have never properly
apologized for the role for the role
they played in that in the absolute
murderous nosov the 20th century so
students don't even know about it so
they can't emot-- to McMaster behind
their their damnable poster with a
hammer and sickle on it and act like
they're virtuous you think that rolling
getting that trend would only sort of
significant due to that specific
McMaster incident or do you see this
type of ideology influencing campus
protests beyond McMaster in general well
I think the I think that that part of
it's everywhere it's not just in campus
protests I mean the campuses are overrun
in large part with disciplines that have
in my estimation no valid reason to
exist
I think disciplines like women's study
should be defunded any of the activist
disciplines who act whose primarily
primary role is the overthrow of for
example of the patriarchy which is about
as ill-defined a concept as you could
possibly formulate that it's enough
we've done enough public funding of that
sort of thing we're providing we're
providing full-time destructive
employment for people who are doing
nothing but causing trouble and so
you're saying I think you would say that
because you think that these departments
are causing harm or could have the
potential to cause harm that University
administration's to defund them right oh
I don't have any funding Cubao Tim
that's why I think that they should be
defunded at all okay I think they should
be defunded because what they promote
has zero intellectual credibility their
research methods don't qualify as
research methods their publications 80%
of humanities publications now garner
zero citations that's not very many
citations and it's
so a little trick as far as I can tell
is what happens is that people write
something that no one will read they
know perfectly well that no one will
read it they circulated around there
their tiny group of compatriots who
occupy the same little little what
little area on the intellectual spectrum
so that it's peer-reviewed that is
published by major journals who sell it
at inflated prices to libraries who
squirreled away to end and only increase
the noise to signal ratio in
relationship to the sum total of human
knowledge it's a scam from top to bottom
so and you know what one of the things I
mean well let me give you an example so
and here's one of the things that really
bothered me about what was going on in
Ontario and this is happening everywhere
and I made this claim when I made my
first video since we have to get into
this so the technical claim in the
Ontario legislature now and this is how
this has already happened in New York by
the way this is not only a Canadian
thing it's happening in Australia it's
happening in New Zealand it's happening
everywhere here's the claim there's
biological sex there's gender identity
there's gender expression and there's
sexual proclivity and they vary
independently that's the technical claim
it's built into the Canadian law that's
not true
no not a bit of that is true the
correlation between biological sex and
gender identity exceeds 0.99 it's
virtually perfect it's the very
definition of non independent so you
think almost everyone who's biologically
male identifies as biologically male
almost everyone who identifies as
biologically male dresses and acts male
that's the gender identity element and
almost everybody who is biologically
male who identifies as male who dresses
as male is in fact heterosexual those
things are incredibly tightly linked but
the technical claim in the legislation
is that they vary independently wrong
now I got in trouble for saying that
because what people claimed was that I
was denying the existence of people who
don't fit neatly into the gendered
category I thought yeah I'm moving at
all point zero one or whatever the
percentage may be that wouldn't fall
neatly under that quarter suit certainly
if there were a perfect correlation that
would work but if there's not
it would seem perhaps that you're
excluding certain people right so if if
most people tend to identify a certain
way but there is that point of
not I know I was never denying their
existence I was denying the validity of
the claim that those four levels of
analysis existed independently of one
another which they don't it's a false
claim and the reason that the radical
social constructionist who are pursuing
this line of reasoning which is
completely discredited as far as I'm
concerned I don't think it's any better
than claiming that the world is flat the
reason that they're pursuing it legally
is because they know perfectly well that
they lost the scientific discussion I
mean I debated someone on Canadian
public television glad the gall to say
that they know the scientific consensus
over the last four decades was that
there was no biological differences
between men and women I mean and that
was I could love one of the things that
was so absolutely absurd about that and
there were many things that were absurd
about it was that I was in trouble with
the University at that point and he
wasn't it's like first of all that is
what is not the scientific consensus of
the last four decades
and and the idea that there are no
biological differences between men and
women it's the sort of thing you hear
that it just makes your jaw drop
now what you could say is that if you
took all the dimensions along which men
and women vary and there's a substantial
number of them that there's substantial
overlap between men and women on almost
all of the dimensions now that's not
particularly true with chromosomal
identity although there are some
exceptions like with personality for
example and I happen to be somewhat of
an expert on personality there are
market differences between men and women
but the overlap exceeds the differences
so for example women are higher in
agreeableness and you might say well
that's socio-culturally constructive but
it turns out that it isn't because if
you look across cultures and you you
look at the cultures that have moved
most forward with with gender equality
provisions of the social and political
levels and that would be the
Scandinavian countries the differences
in personality between women men and
women maximized in those countries and
these are tiny studies these are studies
that involve tens of thousands of people
and that it be well replicated by a
series of independent researchers and so
with if you add the personality
differences between men and women across
all the personality traits you can
almost perfectly segregate men from
women and that has not that that doesn't
take into account the obvious things
like
arms
angle and hip width hip hip width
compared to waist width and shoulder
width and upper-body strength and height
and weight and the biochemical
differences and I mean it's so
preposterous that it's beyond conception
to me that we're actually even
discussing it but I was making a
specific claim which is the law says
these four levels of analysis vary
independently the only reason they're
associated with one another is for
cultural reasons no wrong and you don't
get to put fallacious scientific truths
into the law not or if you're going to
do that and I'm not going to abide by
that particular law I'm going to object
to it which is exactly what I should be
doing so do you think that a necessary
premise for us to accept to have a law
like that a law that extends protection
to these groups is that these identities
are independent from each other fully
independent no could we accept like if
they are just justified it as we know
that these aren't fully independent but
we think there are other good reasons to
provide these protections would you be
would your stance on the law change well
the law as it's currently formulated
doesn't in fact it undermines the
protection that these sorts of groups
have been pursuing and seeking for years
so let's say let's take them let's let's
accept the proposition that these vary
independently or or that they're only
socio-culturally constructed okay so
where does that leave your discussion of
homosexuality so if the fundamentalist
Christians say well if if homosexuality
is nothing but a socio-cultural
construct then why do we have to put up
with it it's a perfectly valid argument
they say well no you know people people
are born into their sexual proclivity
now I'm not saying that they are or not
because I'm not making either of those
classes what I am pointing out is that
the legislation and policies of that
sort have currently formulated actually
undermine the very arguments that many
of the activist groups have been using
to promote the fact that they they are
that they're deserving let's say that
they're deserving of their of their
non-standard identity that the
non-standard identity is justifiable if
your sexual proclivity is nothing but a
whim then why should I put up with it no
it's perfectly reasonable for
to say no well we'll just reshape it
because during your infinitely malleable
now you know it isn't exactly we don't
exactly know the degree to which such
things as let's say sexual identity and
sexual proclivity are biologically
predicated or socio-culturally
instantiated but when you when you put
forward legislation that insists on one
to the exclusion of the other you better
be careful because you're going to be
hooked hooked in your own noose and so
when I read through the legislation and
the policies that surrounded that I
thought this isn't going to protect the
people that it's supposed to protect but
it doesn't matter because the
legislation was never designed to
protect people it was designed to
advance a certain kind of political
agenda which is partly why I'm object
objecting to it so and I'm not willing
in the slightest to presume that just
because activist groups with this
postmodern Neel Marxist ethic stand up
and say well we're on the side of the
oppressed that that makes them a on the
side of the oppressed or be virtuous I
don't buy either of those arguments I
don't think they stand for what they say
they stand for I don't think they're
promoting a doctrine that's going to do
what they claim it will do I don't
believe that they're good in the rest of
the world bad I don't buy their
oppressor victim dichotomy I don't
admire their philosophical position I
think they don't know anything about
history or if they do know anything
about history then they're malevolent
for pursuing exactly the same policies
that led us into terrible situations
before so in what ways do you think the
policies that are being advocated maybe
you could talk a bit about the
particular harms you think that this
Canadian bill would have even if we
don't accept the theoretical or a
political or historical rationale for
the bill could it be that it still
produces good consequences or do you
think that there's even a
consequentialist argument against this
sort of bill and if so what do you think
matters I think I've received from the
transsexual people I described indicate
instantly that it's not producing
positive positive effects at all they
said after saying well our political
views aren't homogeneous we don't like
being treated as if they were and these
activists don't speak for us they say
look most of us would just like to be a
little bit more invisible if we could
and all this terrible concentration on
preferred pronouns and an identification
of transsexual people has made our lie
living hell well and no wonder because
it's art you imagine your imagine that
you are having real trouble with your
gender identity you know when you're a
six-foot one guy and you want to
transform yourself into a woman it's
going to be hard enough for you to be
you know quasi invisible in a socially
acceptable way without a bunch of people
who purport to be speaking on your
behalf
making this like issue du jour for their
political reasons and that's exactly
what the letter writers have been
telling me so so no I I don't I don't
see that I mean the legislation is was
incoherent as originally formulated
Bennett was made worse by its shopping
before activist groups there's no
evidence whatsoever that we'll have the
outcomes that that the people who
formulated it hypothetically desire
because I don't believe that they desire
the best possible outcome anyways the
people look the people who are
formulating these sorts of policies
stayed quite forthrightly so for example
if you go look at women's studies
websites they state quite forthrightly
that their aim is the destruction of the
patriarchy whatever the hell that is you
know I mean that that's a good
indication of the level of intellectual
sophistication that goes into this sort
of thinking what is this patriarchy
exactly well what is it exactly I mean
if we're going to talk about it it's
it's male domination of everything and
nothing but oppression it's like really
that's how we're going to define our
society is it we bare to what society
exactly where our people be more free
than they are for example in this
country I doesn't mean they're perfectly
free but you know forget that that's
never going to happen it's like well
this is an oppressive place compared to
my hypothetical utopia that I would
produce if I happen to be you know
Stalin for a week and I've I've I've
I've already pointed out if you were the
the hypothetical altruistic utopian of
your imagination then the people right
behind you in your bloody revolution
would stab you to death in your bed and
you wouldn't get to make your your
decisions for the benefit of anyone ever
anyways so how do you think progress
should be made in a world where we are
freer than we have ever been
do you think we like when are there
changes that are desirable to be made
and how would you want to see them
implemented if not
through policy or through activism the
way that certain groups currently are
pretty well back you know this happened
in the 60s as far as I can tell that
we've got this misbegotten idea that the
way to conduct yourself as a as a
responsible human being was to hold
placards up to protest to change the
viewpoints of other people and thereby
usher in the utopia it's like I think I
think that's all appalling I think it's
appalling and I think it's absolutely
it's absolutely absurd that students are
taught that that's the way to conduct
themselves in the world first of all if
you're 19 or 20 or 21 you don't buddy
well know anything you haven't done
anything you don't know anything about
history you haven't read anything you
haven't supported yourself for any
length of time you've been entirely
dependent on your state and on your
family for the for the brief few years
of your existence and the idea that you
have enough wisdom to determine how
society should be reconstructed when
you're sitting in the absolute lap of
luxury protected by by processes that
you don't understand is absolutely I
mean it okay so that's a bad let's call
that a bad idea sure shall we and then
we and then the idea that what you
should do to change the world is to find
people who you disagree with in shape
paper on sticks at them and call them
names and also and it says and that you
do that before you grow forbearance oh
I'll tell you how serious the activists
are this is something that's just
unbelievably comical as far as I'm
concerned so some of you may know that I
participated in a debate on free speech
so-called debate at free speech that the
University of Toronto hosted it turned
into a forum and and and whatever that
is but it's certainly not a debate but
one of the things I did when I was
talking to the university administration
was to suggest how they might deal with
the possibility of protesters and so I
said well that's easy I know how you can
have absolutely zero protesters um have
it in the morning they won't get out of
bed in the team so we had it at nine
o'clock in the morning and there was one
MPP meant Member of Parliament who
showed up to hand out some pamphlets not
a single protester oh it's like if you
want a controversial speaker on campus
just have it at 7:00 in the morning you
won't get a protester within 50 yards of
it because they'll still be
leaping off last night's part and
alcohol-induced hangover so so Latino
ended question was how do I think people
should do and I'll tell you something
that's been very interesting to me and I
can see it reflected here the first
thing I've noticed is that when I
started putting my videos on YouTube
which was about three years ago I
noticed that about 85% of the people
that were watching them were men and I
thought that's pretty weird because
about 80% of my students are women you
know because men are bailing out of
universities like mad and there won't be
one in the social sciences and
humanities left in ten years but you
know nobody seems particularly worried
about that you can go look that up
online if you want and look at the
enrollment curves and just project them
ten years old into the future and I had
been following that for about twenty
years
but one of the things but online it was
so is 85% men I thought wow that's
really weird and strange and then I made
these political videos and then it's
popped up to 91% men and then I've
noticed in the audience's that I've gone
to talk to that it's almost all men now
just look around here and it's like what
it's got to be 90% guys in this audience
and I thought what the hell is going on
it's weird and I noticed that at the
first Free Speech debate at the
University of Toronto I made a point of
it I walked into the room and I thought
wow these are all men so I had the men
stand up and the women stand up and I
used that as an example of the fact that
maybe men and women have different
interests it was you know just an ad-hoc
demonstration but it's really been borne
out by the demographic analysis of my
viewers and I have you know several both
not eight million views or something
like that now so it's a pretty big
population I've been talking nonstop
about personal responsibility and about
the fact that if you want to change the
world you should bloody well get your
act together and quit whining and
sniveling about how horrible everything
is and about how people are we'd more
rights more privileges and for some
reason that seems to be a message that's
really resonating among young men and I
think the reason for that first of all I
think young women have enough to do and
so that's perhaps part of the reason why
the message isn't is necessary for them
they're trying to juggle career they're
trying to figure out how to have a
family and they don't really have any
question about whether or not that's
useful and proper so they're off doing
that and and whatever else they're doing
but young men seem to have more of a
choice about that and many of them are
essentially bailing out
and it's partly because I think they've
been well punished for their virtues and
so I talked to young guys in particular
about you know adopting some
responsibilities and trying to
straighten out their lives and to bear
the load of being properly and to
forthrightly move through existence and
to become a credit to themselves in
their community and that's what you
should do instead of waving cards at
someone telling them to behave more
property because you're morally superior
to them so and for some reason that
message which is it's a really it's not
the sort of message that you would
expect to sell right the exactly the
opposite of something that you would
consider saleable but my experiences
being that the young men in particular
are so bloody desperate for that message
that they can hardly stand themselves
and and it's no wonder because it's a
call - it's a call to proper being it's
a call to heroic being and it's a call
for people to adopt their individual
responsibilities and to straighten
themselves out and to find out what they
could be like if they took on the
burdens of existence like like
respectable well-educated articulate
powerful people and that's just to the
benefit of everyone yeah and so well so
that's where the responsibility lies and
I'm not interested in look I've thought
for many many years decades really about
having a political career I mean I was
interested in a political career when I
was 13
and so every five years or so I've
probably revisited that but every time I
revisited I came to the same conclusion
which was that the the work that I was
doing that was focused on a philosophy
of individual responsibility and trying
to identify how that philosophy had
emerged in the West over thousands of
years was more important than any
possible political action could be and I
still don't regard what I'm doing as
political in any sense of the word I
think it's I think it's philosophical
most accurately and there's an element
of its theological so so so I think it's
individual responsibility the meaning of
life is to be found in the adoption of
individual responsibility and that's
what the university should be teaching
people so dr. Peterson you mentioned
these ideas of responsibility of virtue
of respect you've I think detailed what
you think students shouldn't do in these
examples of like protests and these
examples of certain types of activist
tactics what advice would you have for
students how can students make the
changes that they want to make
particularly do you have any advice for
students here yeah read great books
mm-hmm really then you've got this four
year period that has been carved out of
your lives by society they it's given
you an identity like a high quality
identity and freedom at the same time
and you're not going to get that again
in your life you've got a you've got a
respectable identity University student
and complete freedom associated with
that or as near as you're ever going to
get and you've got these unbelievable
libraries that are full of the writings
of people who are intelligent and
articulate beyond comprehension and you
know and and you can go there and you
can learn all this and you might think
well why should you learn it well you
learn it to get a job or you learn it to
get good grades or you learn it to get a
degree and that's all nonsense it's
nonsense
the reason that you come to university
to be educated is because there's
nothing more powerful than someone who
is articulate and who can think and
speak its power and I mean power of the
best sort its authority and influence
and respectability and competence and so
you come to university to craft your
highest skill and your highest skill is
to be found in articulated speech and if
you're if you're if you're a master at
formulating your arguments you win
everything and better than that when you
win everything everyone around you wins
too because to transform yourself into
let's consider consider your
transformation to something
approximating the logos
it means you shine a light on the whole
world well there's nothing more exciting
to do than that there's nothing better
you can possibly do and to think that
you're coming to university to be you
know trained to have a job it's like
great that's a hell of a lot better than
being unemployed and covered with cheeto
dust while you're snacking away in front
of your video game in the basement but
it's not it's not up and I don't have
anything against video games by the way
but it but it's hardly a triumphant call
to to being in the world and that's what
university should be calling forth it's
like God you people you you know I know
what Harvard students are like I taught
here for five years you people are
spectacular
you're spectacular you're you're all
capable of being world
beaders you transform yourself into
something that's articulated and
sensible and grounded in history and
knowledgeable and wise men you can do
anything you want and hopefully anything
you want for good because if you have
any sense
everything you want to do would be for
the good because there's nothing more
compelling or meaningful or or useful in
combating the tragedy of life than to
than to struggle with all your soul on
behalf of the Dead and the universities
have forgotten that it's why everyone's
bailing out of the humanities and they
should the humanities are corrupt and
they're correct because they're not
telling students this it's a bloody
obvious like learn to think learn to
speak learn to read it makes you a
superpower an individual superpower you
have it and I don't understand why that
isn't just cold to students it's not
that hard to understand it everyone
wants to hear it like really like to do
that hey I can do that like yeah really
you could do that and the whole society
around you is labored for really
thousands of years to provide every
single one of you with this spectacular
opportunity that you have while you're
undergraduates and graduate students
here man
they're just everyone's just praying
that you would come here and manifest
everything that you could manifest and
that's what you should be doing instead
of waving placards and complaining about
how you're oppressed for God's sake you
see these Yale students complaining
about their oppression it's just it just
leaves me a gasp it's like well we're
against the ruling class it's like no no
no your baby ruling class members you're
young the only reason you're not rich is
because you're young you know that's the
best really that's if you look at the 1%
even the dreaded 1% you know most of
those people are old why well when you
progress your life if you're reasonably
successful you trade in your promising
youth for your wealthy old age but
you're still bloody old could you would
you trade it would you trade your youth
for that like if you factor Ange out of
the economic equation things look a lot
different well of course
older people have more money they have
any sense they've been collecting it for
their whole life is that somehow unfair
it's not unfair unless you want to want
to be poverty-stricken when you're 70
and you don't want to be poorer strict
poverty-stricken when you're 70 so I
just don't understand what's happened to
the universities I can't believe that
you're not told when you come the first
day look man you are out you're here on
a heroic mission you're going to take
your capacity to articulate yourself to
levels that are undrained of you're
going to come out of here unstoppable
you're going to be able to do anything
you want that's what you're here for
instead you're taught that well you know
the world is a pretty oppressive place
and you're probably the bottom of the
victim pile and and and there's and
there's there's virtually nothing you
could do about it except you'll
deconstruct the patriarchy and it's so
rude and so pathetic that that
university should be embarrassed that
that's what they're peddling to students
I'm embarrassed by it you know I've gone
on public record telling parents bloody
well send your boys to trade school
because at least they'll learn something
useful and that's a terrible thing for
someone like me to say because I do
believe that the arts being articulated
and educated in the highest possible
manner is there's nothing that's better
for you and for society and why are the
why have the universities forgotten this
well that's postmodern Neel Marxism for
you you know now then the philosophy of
intense resentment and oppression and
group identity and God it's just
pathetic
dr. Pearson I think a lot of students
here would agree with you that one of
the main purposes of the education at
college particularly at Harvard is to
develop their sense of articulation
their ability to read their ability to
Creek critically think but then what
comes after particularly at Harvard
there's a big discussion on what is a
good life what does it mean to use those
skills that we get here and then we
graduate what do we do from there I
don't stop unnecessary suffering mm-hmm
that's what you do you know that that's
your calling it's like you say well what
do you do after you graduate well if you
graduate articulated and powerful there
will be people giving you so many
opportunities you won't even be able to
me up with them you know and I've worked
with caught very very competent people
in many different domains in my life
hyper competent people and I can tell
you some very interesting things about
hyper competent people the first thing
is they are not selfish and they're not
greedy and one of the great pleasures in
their lives is to find people who have
the capacity to also be hyper competent
and to open doors for them as rapidly as
they can possibly be open they delight
in that because there is there's nothing
with very few things that are more
intrinsically meaningful if you're an
accomplished person then to find young
people who have the possibility of being
accomplished and say hey look here's an
opportunity for you it's like go out
there man kill it
then they go out there and kill it you
think right on man here's another
opportunity I go there near that to you
think no no they're holding their wealth
and you're not going to share it with
anyone it's like that's absolute
complete rubbish and so you don't even
have to worry about what you're going to
do after you graduate from here if you
if you turn yourself into half of what
you could be because people will be
dying to offer you every opportunity
that you can possibly make use of so
it's a moot point that the world is
always desperately short of people who
can think and speak and and you think
well I won't be made use of you first of
all you can't say that if you're if
you're at Harvard for God's sake I mean
people already figured out who you are
they've already figured it out and
they're offering you the world on a on a
gold platter
they take it it's yours take it it's
like great man put yourself together and
deserve it that would be great
and that's what everyone wants it's what
your parents want it's also what you
want you know it it's what you want it's
what men it's what women want from men
it's what men want from women it's like
for you to be who you could be and then
the highest Faculty of the human being
is articulated speech it's it's the
divine faculty and there is nothing more
powerful than that there's nothing that
is even in the same league and so if you
if you don't have faith in that
then your then your priorities are
misplaced and I can't even understand
why you wouldn't have faith in that
being say Harvard students because look
where it's got you already you know why
you're already sitting on top of the
world so may deserve it make use of it
right go
out there and fix things up that's what
you need to do there's lots of things
that need to be fixed up and what you
want to do is burden yourself with so
much responsibility that you can barely
stand and then you'll get stronger
trying to lift it up and you'll be won't
be asking what should I be doing with my
life or what's the meaning of life or
any of that it will be self-evident it's
self-evident at minimum you could say
there's more suffering in the world than
there should be
and I can probably do something about
that and you can do something about that
so go do something about it and then
they'll be less suffering in the world
and then when you're 80 you can look
back on your life and say well you know
there's less suffering in the world than
there and there would have been had I
not existed and and you don't have to
even have a sense of ultimate destiny or
even any sort of theistic belief in to
regard that as a positive good like I
think it goes beyond the mere pragmatic
utility of addressing the world bill
because I think we do live in a you know
in a world that has a transcendent
reality as well as the reality that we
can be TechEd but even independently of
that it doesn't matter like I mean this
is part of the reason I like people like
Bill Gates is a great example man that
guy is he's after five major diseases at
the same time right he's trying to wipe
out polio he's trying to wipe out um
malaria yeah exactly he's trying to wipe
out malaria it's like well what should
you do with your life well you know take
a look at Bill Gates and see if you
could do something like that that would
be good so so dr. Peterson you talked
about this idea of ending unnecessary
suffering and this idea of committing
one's life to that at a minimum I mean
that's kind of an odd yeah thing that
you could do 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 are
using to end unnecessary suffering or do
you think that their motives or their
intentions are not even the same as
yours
it's too public you know there's this
old there's this old saying from them
from the New Testament about not praying
in public hmm right and the idea is that
if you're going to commune for the
higher good you should do it private
because otherwise you're warping your
ethic in some sense by demonstrating how
virtuous you virtuous you are to the
world it's like you know I 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 is for
poverty no one called poverty so it's
it's it's an abdication of
responsibility with the mask of social
virtue you want to solve difficult
problems 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
old life that are private and humble
that would that would constitute genuine
accomplishments and those are the things
that you should attend to and no one's
going to come along and say hey you know
good job your your change in the world
because it's it's private but it's real
and then people don't do that and so no
I don't I don't trust the activists I
don't trust the activists ethos at all I
think it I think everything about it is
is superficial and and trendy and and
too easy and 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 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 so 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
elements which you know I'm always often
inclined to mention so certainly I think
you've identified certain causes where
the public element or the
self-congratulatory time to do good
could be harmful but do you think there
are cases for instance
I'm thinking of policy influencing
policy being a policymaker 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 look
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 your for self
forward as an avatar of an idiot of an
ideology then there's nothing to you
accept I think of it as the chattering
of various forms of demons it's like
you're not helpful and if you if you
look you want to think okay are you fit
to lead let's 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 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
or 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 five or six
dimensions well then maybe you know
enough about the world to dare to mess
with its internal mechanisms and if you
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's
utility and policy formulation and in
government service and all of those
certain things but you have to 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 have
read some marks and now I know how to
change the world it's like that's a very
bad idea
yes the probability that you're going to
take something complex that doesn't work
badly and fix it with your idiotic
intervention is zero so well put you
fall so a little bit about this idea of
signaling virtru and one thing that i
thought about a lot of activists causes
ones you might characterize a
self-congratulatory
seem to emphasize concepts like
validation and affirmation in your
experience either as a professor as a
psychologist do you think that this is
an example of virtual signalling and
perhaps provide like a definition of
virtual virtual signalling first or do
you think there is some value in these
types of principles or these types of
interactions I don't think there's any
value in those principles at all I mean
I can say well I think you're a really
good guy you know ya said I named it
well at most that's uh well first of all
it's cheap and easy that was and now I'm
in D I'm a good guy because I'm
perfectly willing to affirm you looks
like me everyone has a problem let's say
with self affirmation this is why I hate
that word but I'll use it temporarily um
this is part of the reason why I'm an
admirer a part in part of the
existential philosophers and
psychologists because one of the points
they made is that well human beings are
flawed creatures we have tragic lives
we're very very vulnerable and so it's
very easy for us to despise ourselves
and to and to and to and to be and to
despise and have contempt for humanity
itself and there are reasons for that
we're we're weak were flawed were
malevolent we don't last very long we're
not very attractive we have we have an
endless litany of false both as a
species and as individuals well so so
you're stuck with that that's just part
of being itself it's built into the
fabric of being so what do you do about
that well you don't go around waiting
for someone to tell you what a you know
good person you are that's not first of
all it's not believable it's not helpful
that doesn't mean you should be
commenting people into a sense of even
more phal ability than they already
have that's not clearly that's not
helpful but the way that you develop a
sense of respect for yourself which is a
better way of thinking about it or
respect for Humanity for that matter
which is much better than thinking about
it as an affirmation is to they are up
under the damn load and then you can
recognize yourself as something that's
flawed but that can tolerate the flaw
and that can work towards alleviating it
and that's that's the pathway to the
transcendence of tragedy which is a much
like compared just affirmation it's like
it's you're giving us starving you're
giving a thirsty person dust to drink
there's nothing to it you know people it
people have to commit to being in order
to withstand their own vulnerability and
fragility and an essentially flawed
nature the way that you tolerate that is
to the way you stand up underneath that
is to adopt responsibility for it and
then your pathway is clear then you can
tolerate who you are and then you won't
hate humanity because people hate
humanity you hear the environmentalists
the radical environmentalists say such
things I've heard people say this the
planet would be better off without
people on it it's like well let's keep
you away from the hydrogen bomb shall we
you know when people think that's a
virtuous statement the planet would be
better off without people on it's like
really that's that's what you're saying
it's like I see you don't think it's
okay to be racially Jenna Seidel but
it's perfectly fine to just wipe out all
of them that's okay as long as you're
not selective about it so we're we're
we're nourishing people
we're nourishing young people on nothing
it's nothing it's like they're suffering
and no wonder because life is suffering
right that's the first thing you learned
if you're on the road to wisdom life is
suffering and right and is it someone's
fault yeah sure it's society's fault
it's your fault it's nature's fault it's
God's fault it's like yeah the faults
everywhere man so what are going to do
about that bear up under it and do
something useful and then you can
respect yourself at least to some degree
at least you're not contributing to the
problem yeah you know and then
maybe you can start to see the beauty in
life and the possibility in life and the
majesty in life and Mackenna and the
incredible capacity of human beings for
self transformation here here's an
example we've learned this relatively
recently in at a neurobiological level
you know so there's been an idea a
psychological idea that's floated around
for quite a long time a clinical idea
that you expand your character by
aggregating diverse experiences right
it's sort of a journey everywhere to
become who you are and you can think
about that from from a patient
perspective constructivist perspective
and say well the more places you journey
to in the world the more information you
expose yourself to and then you take in
that information and inform yourself
with it and you you develop yourself
because you're more differentiated and
you have a more differentiated view of
the world it's like the basic idea is
the world is a pool of information that
you can use to construct yourself out of
them to construct the world and that's a
lovely doctrine and I believe it to be
the case but there's more to it than
that you know we know now that if you
take someone and you put them in a
radically new situation that new jeans
turn on in their in their brain at the
micro at the micro level new new genetic
structures code for new proteins and
build new structures it's like you're
actually a pool of biological
possibility and the only way that you
can determine the full extent of that of
that pool of the possibility of that
pool is by pushing yourself out against
the world and that will physiologically
transform you we have no idea what the
limits to that are we know in clinical
psychology that you know what you do
with people is expose them to the things
that they're afraid of enter avoiding it
you don't make them less afraid by doing
that you make them braver that's why it
generalizes right they don't come out
saying oh the world safe it's like once
you've learned that the world is safe
not safe there is no going back
that's the post-traumatic stress
disorder conundrum there's no going back
but what you can learn is yes the world
is terribly dangerous far more dangerous
than you think and people are far more
malevolent than you likely have the
imagination to to conceptualize but
there is really more to you than you
know and if you wouldn't look for safe
spaces and retreat if you would push out
in
world and accept your responsibility and
and confront your limitations then you
would discover all sorts of things about
you that you have no idea about and then
you would transform it to something
that's far more than what you are and
then and it's in that process of
continual transformation that you'll
actually find the essential meaning of
life so and again this is it's not like
it's not like we don't know this
everyone knows this so and the
universities in some sense are supposed
to remind you of this but they've
abdicated their responsibility as far as
I'm concerned and in many cases are
working counter productively they're
trying to teach young people that
they're that they're helpless victims
who need to restructure society in order
I know I can't even say it anymore it's
so it's so empty and dead it's it's it's
it's you know I read this in Elias
Canetti and a book called crowds and
power it was one of the things that
really stuck in my imagination he did an
etymological analysis of the word slogan
and he said that it was derived from the
well two words slew AG s Lu agh and
garam G H AI R M and it meant battle cry
of the dead and that really struck me
because I I've always had this sense
that people mouthing ideologies are the
puppets of corpses it's something like
that puppets of corpses of malevolent
philosophers you know when they speak in
dead tones and they're not interesting
like if you're listening to an ideologue
errata law and you can hardly
concentrate and what they're saying
because it's bad it's death itself
speaking and and it compelled zero
interest and so even discussing this
sort of thing I find difficult to even
formulate the the words because I'm so
tired of that kind of that realm of that
realm of discourse it's like there's so
many tremendous things that are
remaining in the world for people to do
but they start being dead puppets of
sick ideas and and and it's appalling to
me that it even had that opposition to
that even has to be justified our
civilization is opposition to that and
so I mean we can let it go if we want
but the alternatives are far gloomier
than what we have now
I can tell you that so we can let it all
go and we're being taught to let it all
go it's corrupt it's rotten late to the
roots it needs to be retooled right to
the very concepts that we use it's like
yeah what's going to replace it what
have we got this better you've got
nothing that's better what we have is
something that could be far more than it
is if people would just take it to the
level that it could be taken to and
anyone wants to hear that and then it
well and that's has been a very long
answer this is why 91 percent of the
people that are watching my lectures are
men as far as I can tell so dr. Pearson
I think the time for one or two more
questions and we might open it up to Q&A
one more question according to Conor and
I want to end with it because you were
talking about your experience as a
clinical psychologist and I'm wondering
if you have any advice for students on
general topics of like mental health
wellness at college in a lot of ways I
think you have claimed that by finding
more purpose by finding more meaning by
contributing one can develop more
tolerance for oneself one can develop
more self affirmation I'm wondering
though if you think there are cases
where there are people with a lot of
potential especially at Harvard who may
doubt their abilities who may get quite
anxious I'm sure you've interacted with
students with clients as a clinician how
do you what advice you give them or what
you think college students should know
about enhancing their psychological
well-being at college we've done we've
done some research on that topic I mean
one of the things that really seems to
help is to write out your plans for the
future we have a program an online
program called future authoring that
we've used with about 10,000 University
students now and raised their grade
point average 25 percent throughout
their drop out rate by about the same it
particularly works well for men who are
generally underperforming women now and
so that I think it's raising them up and
it also works spectacularly well for non
Western ethnic minority men which was
also extraordinarily positive because
you know that's that's well that was a
great unexpected outcome but in some of
it is to aim at something that's worth
aiming at yeah and
and how do you determine what's worth
aiming at you think well okay
here I have my miserable wretched life
under what conditions would it justify
itself as far as I'm concerned
personally like under what conditions
would my life justify itself and so you
think well what sort of future would I
have to have so that I could say this is
worth it and then that's what you aim
for and that and technically that works
in part because we know that most of the
systems that mediate positive emotion in
human beings and so those would be the
dopaminergic systems that have their
roots and I polemic exploratory centres
are activated in relationship to the
pursuit of a goal not as a consequence
of attaining something that's a consumer
Tory reward system but human beings
mostly run on incentive reward and so it
appears that the higher the goal the
more kick you get from from noting your
progress towards that goal now you have
to be careful because you don't want to
pick a goal that's so impossible that
all you ever do is fail in relationship
to it that's an issue of self management
right you want to you want to pick a
goal that moves you to the next plateau
that you have a reasonable probable but
not certain probability of attaining so
that's that's part of it is to is to
formulate a plan to decide who who it is
what it is that you want to be who it is
that you want to be from a character
logical perspective and if you're having
other problems well you know some of
that is when you're talking more on the
clinical end of things is that again the
Devils in the details but it's useful to
talk to people it's useful to write
about what it is that you're up to it
but it's it's most worthwhile to
organize your life I would say and to
and to pick a goal and to aim at it
that's that's a very nice way of
starting to straighten things out for
yourself so I mean I would also say like
I've had many clients I often advocate
the use of antidepressants I mean people
for example people have all sorts of
physiological problems that compromise
their movement forward and those have to
be addressed I'm not saying that you can
lift yourself up by your bootstraps in
every possible situation I know that not
be true you take whatever interventions
you need in order to allow yourself to
continue moving forward in the world but
you know and what do you do to try to
set yourself up well have some friends
that's helpful have an in
relationship try to make one that's
reasonably permanent that's helpful
aim at having a family and children aim
it being useful to the community and
turning yourself into something that's
Noble and respectable and powerful and
and that'll that'll help you orient
yourself when you're young and because
you'll start to see that you could have
a life that was worth living that you
could be not proud of that's the wrong
way of thinking about it but that you
could live in the right way of phrasing
it is that you could live in a manner
that justifies the fragility of being
that's the right way to think about it
that's the right way to think about
because the fragility of being is a very
powerful argument against its existence
and that that's been recognized by that
was that that's the fundamental ethical
dilemma investigated by Goethe for
example it is in his play Faust because
mephistopheles is the mouthpiece of
everyone who says being is so fragile
that it should be eradicated because it
produces too much suffering it's Ivan
kurama's AUB's argument and in The
Brothers Karamazov it's a very powerful
argument why should any of this be an
answer is you justify it by how it is
that by how you exude justify being by
how you choose to exist and you can
choose to exist in a manner that
produces absolutely no justification
whatsoever for being quite the contrary
but that's that's not a pathway that I
would recommend you my pleasure
[Applause]
all right so we have some questions isin
from the audience
um and I'm just going to read them in
order and you're gonna have to come
pretty simple so our first question we
have here reads I am a postdoc in the
psychology department and I'm very
interested in conducting research
examining the extent to which highly
politically correct individuals are
analytical in parentheses or not I am
however very concerned that this pursuit
will potentially flip to the back proved
to be quite damaging to my reputation
and that it will likely hinder my
chances of obtaining a faculty position
do you have any advice for me yeah I
talked to faculty members all the time
and they say the same thing I'll say
what I think when I get my first job and
then they get their first job and they
say well I'll say what I think when I
when I when I'm when I when I have
tenure and then they get tenure and it's
like 15 years later ten years later and
they don't have anything left to say
because they haven't said anything for
the last 10 years it's like that's no
way to live man that's no way to live
it's do your damn research pick the
hardest topic you can possibly imagine
and pursue it and state what you believe
to be the truth and let see there's a
rule there's a rule this is an
existential rule and it's really one
we're really worth thinking about
because it's it's a pointer to a
fundamental mode of being so one mode of
being involves using your speech
strategically and that's exactly what
these questions most this person is
basically asking should I use my ability
to communicate strategically and
strategically is should I aim at getting
the job I want with my actions well the
answer to that is it's better than not
aiming at anything that's that's one
answer and and and it's a reasonable
answer but here's a here's a different
answer this is the fundamental dilemma
of faith I would say the fundamental
glim of faith is whether or not you
should live by the truth
and you determined to live by the truth
when you make the decision that if you
tell the truth the outcome is the best
possible outcome you see that's an
existential decision right and it's
predicated on it's predicated on
something like faith in the fundamental
nature of being because if you allow
yourself to the degree that you can with
the truth then what you're doing is
acting out the proposition that being is
structured in the best possible manner
because otherwise you wouldn't Li
yourself is the truth and if you decide
to ally yourself with the truth and you
act in a manner commensurate with that
then your life will unfold in a
particular way and you have to take your
chances if you're going to live like
that but the advantage to that is that
well one advantage is you don't
compromise yourself and maybe you don't
want to compromise yourself because
yourself is what you have to save off
the catastrophe of being and if you
compromise that then you have nothing
except perhaps what other people will
give you it's a pathway to weakness now
I have a graduate student as it happens
who's doing exactly that we started
doing empirical analysis of politically
correct beliefs and it's been absolutely
fascinating first of all they do Co here
so the way we did it was we collected
about 400 statements that were deemed by
people in the press and so forth as
indicative of politically correct
beliefs we did that agnostically and
this is a standard standard construct
validation process in psychology is that
if you want to find out if something
exists you want to find out if the
elements of that that entity say a
domain of belief co-vary such that if
you hold one belief you're more likely
to hold another belief and so then you
can pile up the beliefs that are likely
to occur if one occurs and the essential
way to do that is to over sample the
domain of beliefs subject them to a
factor analysis and see how they cohere
and we found that there were two factors
that were associated with lytic ly
correct belief and that they were very
powerfully predicted by personality most
particularly by trait agreeableness
which was not a predictor of
conservatism or liberalism particularly
but but more to the point the student
who's doing that her name is her name is
christine Brophy she's very brave girl
very very tough girl
and she's she's pursued this
forthrightly and it led to nothing but
opportunity crazy amounts of opportunity
now it's a tough road to hoe
she knows perfectly well she's not going
to be very popular in certain domains
but but but that's no reason not to
pursue something the issue is are you
interested in it do you want to find out
the truth are you willing to pursue it
and are you willing to stake yourself on
that and if the answer is no then you're
not willing to stake yourself on
yourself and then God help you because
you'll have to be given something by
someone else to stake yourself on and
they can always take it away so it's
like don't be thinking don't be thinking
politically about your career it's
foolish it doesn't work it really
doesn't work you'll be second-rate at
best you'll be second-rate and
frightened at best you'll never hit the
top Rank's if you perform like that and
having said that I would also say don't
be an idiot don't make unnecessary
enemies right I mean there's no point in
making unnecessary enemies that's not
wise but don't sell yourself short you
know you might be on the cutting edge of
an entire new domain of psychology if
you actually get it right and so maybe
you won't be popular among your
superiors for the time being you can't
talk to the people who are above you in
a dominant arc anyways it's virtually
impossible
you can barely talk laterally you pretty
much have to broadcast your message down
and so the fact that well nothing bad
about that no it's a bad idea pursue
your damn research you can tell the
truth about it and let the chips fall
where they will will you're much better
protected that way than by doing
anything else second question hobb
University has been ruined by Marxism or
rather by the massive growth of students
life bureaucracies that seek to train
rather than educate they haven't been
completely ruined
but the humanities and the social
sciences are both in trouble oh all
right could you please speak to the
legitimacy of Harvard's decision to
penalize students for being part of
single gender organizations that are not
officially recognized by the university
for example fraternities sororities and
final clubs it's cowardly
it's
Howard it's politically correct it
interferes with freedom of association
so I would think they would have more
important things to do all right do you
think do you think that victimhood
narratives and critiques of oppression
which make up much of the political
discussion on college campuses are a
symptom of a psychological need to
deflect guilt because of because of a
lack of another better method of
redemption yeah I think that is part of
it I mean because I don't I do it's not
I'm speaking more strongly in some sense
than perhaps would be optimal partly
because time is short I know that young
people have a messianic urge Piaget
actually identified that as as part of
the developmental process that it was
identified late adolescence and it's
admirable in many ways it needs to be
directed in the most powerful possible
powerful pro-social manner possible
and that's what the university should be
doing and by training students to be
noisy ill-informed historically ignorant
agitators narcissistic agitators let's
add that they're doing them a tremendous
disservice like when I was at McMaster
for example where the last very vocal
protest occurred mostly what I felt
about the protesters was sorrow you know
you know I looked out there I saw well
there's these they're young people
they're university students they went to
university at least in principle to
learn something about themselves and
about the world and instead they've been
transformed into these like they were
chanting they were chanting like
profanities at me and really that's the
best you can do if you come out your
dopey little group you hide behind the
hammer and sickle because of one of your
fashionable professor
is convinced you that was a good idea
and the best you can do is organize
yourself and chant profanities at me you
know
it's so sad either Caesar could be doing
something better than that
I mean God come on they have a useful
protest of some sort at least if you're
going to come out protest make it a high
quality protest instead of like cursing
at me and repetitively it's so dull and
unimaginative and pathetic and so no I
forgot what question was
eight more okay five minutes in cases
where people have sworn chastity
throughout life under voluntary and
non-coercive circumstances is it
possible to still develop fully and not
suffer from the consequences of having
never undergone sexual maturation if so
how is it possible Wow I didn't I didn't
expect that one I can tell you sometimes
people have to make it sacrifice right
and everyone always has to make
sacrifices that's actually something
that I learned from reading with ology
because the ancient myths always talk
about sacrifice and people claim not to
understand that that means you always
have to let go of something in order to
progress into the future in fact that's
the most fundamental discovery human
beings ever made as far as I can tell
because it's it's exactly the same thing
that's discovering the future and we've
discovered the future were the only
creatures that we know of who really can
conceive of the future and the future is
something that's made better by letting
go of things in the presence right
that's impulse control you can look at
it that way if you want the person who
wrote this is obviously wrestling with
something you know and maybe they're
wrestling with a hyper dominant sexual
impulse that threatens to be master
instead of servants and so who knows
what they have to do in order to bring
themselves under control I would say
that less radical solutions might first
be advised but I
right because you don't have to you
don't want to whip yourself with a
bigger whip than you need to use right I
think that's that's minimal necessary
force dr. essentially but so yeah so
that's how I would answer that question
yeah pretty good for when you're
unexpected dr. Peterson you say that the
meaning of life is to take an individual
responsibility for the burdens of
existence if each person can justifiably
choose his own way of taking on these
burdens then how can we prevent
individuals from committing actions that
are clearly moral in Justices but we
can't hmm I mean that happens all the
time I think the best we there's all
sorts of mechanisms for regulating it
right we have all sorts of mechanisms
for regulating it civil society and
policing regulated expectations between
family members and friends regulated
your conscience regulates it but I don't
believe that people do as a general rule
commit illegalities or or worse because
they've taken on responsibilities like
that didn't know it works pathway to
criminality is not to be found in the
adoption of responsibility you don't say
that about criminals well if he would
have just taken on a little less
responsibility then he wouldn't be in
jail no that is now it works so what the
question is more something like well if
people are allowed to direct themselves
how do you stop them from picking a path
that's improper and I would say that
that and I do believe that that's the
essential question and I would say part
of that is that if you're going to be
self-directed let's say at least to some
degree then you have to tell the truth
because otherwise you pathologize
yourself and you can't rely on your own
judgment then and that's part of the
reason why the truth is so necessary is
that if you're going to use yourself as
the mechanism by which you orient
yourself in the world and you better
make sure that you're not transforming
yourself into something that's
predicated on error and so so it that
the attempt to speak the truth is a
form the psychophysiological hygiene
that's one way of thinking about it and
if you're oriented as well as you can
towards the articulated truth then you
can increasingly rely on your own
judgment and that's and that's the
that's the best if aunts say against
against the dark side you've attached a
number of useful ideas ooh this is a fun
one you number of useful ideas for
instance overcoming personal
responsibility to a viral meme social
justice conflict how can we attach
useful ideas to the social justice side
of this controversy and convert it into
a growth full movement for all involved
well I do think that is what's happening
to some degree I think that the
political dialogue that's emerging is
precisely that I don't know how we can
do it I know what I know how I've been
doing it to some degree I've been doing
it by saying what I think and carefully
you know and knowing that I'm prone to
error and listening to feedback because
I would like to know where I'm making
errors
I had advisors my friends while I was
undertaking this who were telling me
constantly everything I was doing that
was second-rate and and egotistical and
careless and all of those things and so
I would say I would say to some degree
maybe that question is specified at the
wrong level of analysis is that you
should you should learn to articulate
what you think and that's what you have
at your disposal and with you people in
the audience man you've got power at
your disposal you're all super bright
and super conscientious and like you
know your powerhouses you might not know
it and maybe some of you forgotten that
because you come to Harvard and of
course so 50% of you are below average
at Harvard but that doesn't mean that
you're not like hyper capable because
you're hyper capable so get your act
together and say what you think and
that'll do the trick man that'll that'll
no that'll work just fine dr. Peterson
we're running out of time so I'm gonna
ask you
last question I think it's an important
one especially for some of the people
who don't think you should be speaking
here today whether some of them are in
this room or some of them were outside
earlier the question reads given
extremely elevated violence and murder
rates against trans people why have you
chosen to threaten a population that is
already facing job discrimination murder
etc
oh I'm not threatening them I don't
think there's any evidence the fact that
a handful of noisy activists consider me
a threat is no criteria of proof of any
sort of anything and I mean so so I just
reject that entire all every single word
in that question is meaningless as far
as I'm concerned so people think someone
said just because someone said that what
I said is a threat to trans people does
not make it true and I have the
testimony of a fair number of trans
people that that's actually not only not
true it's probably false so sorry not
guilty
very stating of you to apologize that
yeah yeah but not so much to say that
I'm not guilty I suppose after how do
you take no responsibility for that
first of all I want I don't consider
threats violence so we have to be very
careful when we use our words so so
someone saying something and with
incredibly brief are not the same thing
and second there's no possible way I can
answer that question because I know
nothing about the threats I know nothing
about who uttered them I know nothing
about who reported them it's so it's
your question is basically some people
said some bad things after I talk it's
like could be but I have no idea what to
do about that and I don't take
responsibility for it it's not specific
enough to take responsibility for okay
sorry we do we have the officers I have
to go home I appreciate that you have an
opinion but at some point at some point
we do need to call today Thank You Akash
and professor Peterson so much
[Applause]