Twelve Rules for Life | Jordan Peterson | RSA Replay

[@garywood97]

He's so right about activists. Most are not trying to solve problems. Most are trying to get credit for being the people who want to solve problems. Scientists and engineeers are the people who solve problems.

[@fraukatze3856]

Gordon Freemason Climate change is a bad example re:activists. It’s a highly technical problem. Many people are working on it. There’s a serious limit to what young uneducated people can do. (Of course, they may not be able to solve any other of society’s problems either. When I was that age my studying at university took up most of my time. I wasn’t a rebel at all.)

[@PinataOblongata]

While I like your shout-out to scientists and engineers, it sounds to me like you've never known any real activists or been a part of a particular action to save something (and it's always about saving something). Sure, there are posers and clicktivists and virtue signallers, but there are also people who just end up having something they care about, usually in their back yard, put under threat for no defensible reason, and who meet that threat and stare it down, even if they are an 85yo woman potentially facing police violence or criminal legal proceedings. It often brings a community together over a shared value and is a fantastic example of people bringing light and good to the world through the maximised potential and acceptance of personal responsibility that JP constantly speaks of. A righteous civil disobedience action is rather inspiring. You've used the word "most", but I'd say it's a minority few who are only in it for personal back-patting, rather than any actual concern for their issue(s).

[@myheartspits]

Um, anyone can solve a problem. You just need to be an honest actor.

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

Well tell the scientists and engineers to stop being careerists and start making change instead of being cogs in the wheel of destruction. So many are surely doing that.

[@eldtritch_eel]

" but those weren't REAL activists" lol. But seriously, I think what mostly what Jordan Peterson is talking about are the young - still in school - haven't experienced real life type - living in the first world - type of activists who are screaming the usual "down with the system" rhetoric. It takes competent and capable people to make actual change. There are cases where circumstances can force a person to be more competent/better and act in a way that can influence change, but I see that the vast majority of college activists are not that (but they CAN be if they sort themselves out first).

[@pacurarudaniel]

legends say the interviewer is still repeating "right"

[@derf65746]

LOL

[@joshualyons4121]

Hahahaha

[@MrDataWolf]

HEY! He said ok sometimes, right?

[@PrincipledUncertainty]

KEK

[@SlavicSale]

Soooo irritating!!! Like a f***** mosqito! Why did he feel a need to to that ?!.... Good fortune to you all.

[@RandomCarrot2806]

"Don't patronize me when I have a climate to save" For fucks sake, that's the exact thing Jordan was telling young people not to think. If your house isn't in order how the hell can you reverse global warning and save the planet? Have some bloody humility. This guy is the embodiment of what Jordan is arguing against with that chapter. No wonder he fights back so hard here, his own ego and self worth is on the line if he loses the argument.

[@RandomCarrot2806]

The thing is you won't even know what you are protesting against or for if your house, or more generally your life, isn't in order. Someone who can't hold down a steady job isn't the right person to ask how the economy should be run and someone who can't maintain a steady relationship isn't the right person to ask how to improve your marriage. He is saying that if your life is in chaos you aren't the right person to ask how society should be structured. And not only are you not the right person to ask, it's bad for you personally to try to answer the question because you getting your own life in order is more important than you trying to fix society.

[@insperatus]

>Is it when they become pure automatons of reason and have full control over every aspect of their lives? JBP would say that is too much order and not enough chaos. Listen to his talks, you'd like them.

[@infofourtyseven6214]

How about the situations where some very stable long term marriages are terrible relationships?

[@ArthurKaletzky]

He may indeed be the embodiment of what Peterson opposes. And that is what makes for a good debate. I repeat, this is not supposed to be a sermon or a motivational talk.

[@JaysFanToronto]

I think you perhaps misunderstand what Peterson means about having your house in order (i.e., the clean your room trope). To my understanding it is not that you have to have control of every aspect of your life, or that your life has to be in perfect order, because such a thing is literally impossible. Rather I think it's more about what having a clean room is usually (but not always obviously) a signifier of. Let's say there are two types of people: ones with the competence to effect actual, real-world change without making things worse; and people who lack this level of competence (whether that's know-how or intelligence or what have you) and consequently are likely to make things worse by trying to tackle things (social problems for instance) in a clumsy and poorly thought out way, because it is beyond their limited capacity. I think most people would agree, we want people who know what they're doing working to solve problems for us rather than people who don't. To use an overly simplified analogy, do you want a surgeon operating on you that knows what they're doing, or a family member or friend who just really really cares about you, but doesn't have a clue how to perform surgery? On the one hand the first group's heart is in the right place, but they're likely to make whatever problem you have worse rather than fix it, because they lack the capacity or aptitude. This is the takeaway I get from the clean your room metaphor. Cleaning your room is the sign of a very basic level of competence and conscientiousness (two things that are highly predictive of success in many studies, where competence can be further reduced to intelligence). It's not that you have to clean your room before you go try to fix the world, rather it's that many of the people who are likely to be able to help "fix the world" are also likely to be the same people to have clean rooms already, because those types of people tend to be conscientious, efficient, detail and goal-oriented, self-motivated. Having a clean room is an epiphenomenon of this type of individual. Obviously, there will be exceptions to the rule. There are brilliant and successful people who are slobs. But as rules of thumb go I think there's some substance to it. It would be funny study to compare the cleanliness of the rooms of highly effective or even successful people's rooms to people who are less so. I wouldn't be surprised if a larger percentage of the former had their rooms/worlds in order than the latter (granted you would have to define the variables of competence/success and clean room/messy room in a way that was measurable haha).

[@MikkoHere]

I breathed a sigh of relief when it was opened up for Q&A, so I could enjoy the interaction between JP and audience questioners. But no, the interviewer decided that he need to rephrase people's question and keep himself in the focus.

[@Joshualbatross]

People sure have swallowed a lot of malarkey about Peterson. I see comments here about people unsubscribing and calling him alt right, and I really just feel bad for them. Peterson has really really helped me improve my life and there's no way that anyone couldn't benefit from taking some of his advice. It's a serious pity that some people won't listen to the symphonic words in this talk simply because of a perceived disagreement.

[@blakedenton8247]

Joshualbatross Completely agree mate. Fellow 'life changed by JP in such a short time' member. And it's not because ive heard exactly what i "wanted" to hear....

[@CocoXLarge]

Joshualbatross after Peterson, I went from homeless to having a good job and on pace to making 1 million this year. Sent him a gift a while back, hopefully he got it

[@frazzleface753]

A word of warning, however - Don't rely on Peterson as if he's a guru a la cult leader Stefan Molyneux

[@Joshualbatross]

Frazzle Face In what way is Stefan Molyneux a cult leader?

[@ArthurKaletzky]

As I read Peterson (and I do respect his intelligence), one aspect of his advice is to be more bullying. That will hardly improve the world. Another is to build your "character", which I believe is an illusion. Another is blind acceptance of capitalism and markets. And freeing up markets and ceding social authority to them has created far more homelessness than in the past. Thus IMO you are very wrong.

[@GH-lq9fg]

Jordan Peterson has some excellent points, most activists don't really help to solve problems they actually do the opposite. The lack of understanding makes poor decisions the desirable action. Better than activists are volunteers, they get involved in the problems and solve them directly. As a scout boy we took one weekend a month to help people in need around us and after a couple of years, the impact was immense. No need to ask for government funds or political leverage.

[@SeiryuNanago]

Like the Greenpeace activists who made an action on the Nazca lines and broke my heart in the process :(

[@medarby3066]

Every activist (right and left) believes they are the solution, not the problem. The similarities map 1 to 1. Jews, straight people, gay people, white males, black people, Cops, patriarchy, Christians, athiests, Muslims, Jews again... apply this formula to every group of protesters. You will see the matrix code.

[@JaysFanToronto]

Exactly. Fixing one's room can be literal or a metaphor for demonstrating a basic level of competence and commitment before one attempts to solve large-scale existential problems. It's not about either or, as the moderator tries to frame it, but for people with the competence level and knowledge to actually effect meaningful social change they can usually do both. The problem with many activists is that they don't even have a handle on their own lives. In fact, many are on social assistance from the very same institutions they're trying to dismantle. For these types of people, their activism is about ego, because they want to feel validated, like they're doing something really important to compensate for their lack of real-world efficacy in their own lives. These are the kind of people who will likely NEVER affect any real change because they lack even the most basic level of competence. Fixing their room is beneath them because they lack the self-awareness of what fixing one's room is a reflection of.

[@JaysFanToronto]

This moderator actually answers his own questions in a way when he brings up four points to critique Dr. Peterson: 1) He says that Jordan should stop focusing on Universities and what goes on on campuses. 2) That Dr. Peterson should focus on more important problems like climate change and wealth inequality, etc. 3) That Peterson lacks expertise in many of the non-psychological subjects he talks about (such as sociological phenomena) and therefore should give way to others who are more knowledgeable. 4) That people shouldn't have to get their own world in order (protestors and activists for example) before trying to set out and try to make social change. Taken together these statements actually contradict themselves or answer each other. -If Jordan Peterson should speak only on subjects that he has great expertise on and none other, then how or why would he try to tackle large scale social issues that you claim he has no expertise in which to comment on like climate change and wealth inequality, when as you say these are beyond his level of capability. And why should he stop talking about what happens campuses and universities, which fall into the realm of his expertise as an educator and psychologist. It's the very essence of the lean your room metaphor. The campus is his room. When he cleans it up, then perhaps he can move on to changing the world outside campus. -The moderator also says that protestors and activists don't have to get their lives in order before trying to create change in society, but the criticism he levied at Jordan about having expertise in subjects one engages with equally applies to them. Cleaning the room a the most basic level is about being able to show competence in a mundane endeavor. If someone can't even show the ability to fix simple problems in their own lives, what level of expertise do they have to try to go out and fix the lives of others and society. They are in essence wandering far outside they field of expertise and competence, which is precisely what you accuse Peterson of doing. If Peterson in your opinion is not qualified to speak on these subjects, what makes an activist or protestor?

[@cokefudge]

Allan Stinson nicely put. Lot of what he said seems to stem from the characteristic leftist "unease" when they are not actively signalling what good they are about to do. Peterson is basically saying its better to focus on the problem rather than spreading the "unease" that may very well lead to people jumping in when it is not their place to. Awareness may be important. But you know you have more than enough of it when the signallers are lambasting the doers for lacking a sense of urgency.

[@DryRaven]

It seems the core dissonance between Peterson and the interviewer is that Peterson intuitively feels the motivational corruption of the youth’s passion and their lack of self-awareness about their true motivations, where the interviewer seems to believe that the youth's passions are fundamentally oriented towards the good, whatever their competence. Thus, Peterson sees sorting yourself out as necessary to acting out the good rather than the bad, where the interviewer sees sorting yourself as simply intensifying the force with which you act the good.

[@philellis5595]

DryRaven You have nailed it! “They are 18! What the hell do they know?”

[@gantmj]

Even academics can royally screw up the world when they base their actions from an unsorted framework.

[@nevermindthemuskox]

Good analytical point. Could it be further developed by drawing a distinction between the definitions of good employed? That is, Peterson seems to hold to a Biblical and absolutist understanding (I've heard him use the quote 'by their fruits, ye shall know them' once or twice, I'm sure) whereas the interviewer seems to cleave to a more utilitarian or pragmatic conception of good/bad (climate change bad - conservation. I don't have an answer as to which of these perspectives is closer to the point (almost wrote 'most socially useful').

[@nevermindthemuskox]

Elsewhere (in a talk about identity politics) JBP makes the point that even rats have an inkling of 'ethics'. As DR points out though, the salience of ethics in young activists' motivation is certainly up for debate.

[@persephonel2117]

Exactly. Peterson recognizes that the structure of these activists belief is not rooted in an honest intention or a self aware one. This is basically a recipe for dogma and groupthink as well as perfect fuel for violent or destructive outcomes that we have seen in the past. I think his life long study of belief structures and totalitarianism has given him a unique ability to sense this particular kind of dishonesty. He's basically telling kids to confront their shadow. Unless they are capable of taking on their own darkness and mess they are not fit to point it out in others, because it will always be projection. The interviewer seems to think that just because some of the issues these kids point out are in fact real issues, it means they are oriented towards the good when they point them out. Which is just ignorant. We've seen plenty of social movements in the past that pointed out real issues and then ended in genocide. It's that refusal to do the real personal work of individuation and development that leads people down the path of mob injustice. Instead of confronting the issues they have with themselves or their own flaws, they project those things into the external world and attack it which becomes a form of escape. Every internal issue you have becomes manifest in the world around you and instead of improving those issues within it becomes an excuse to oppress or punish society.

[@thinksimon]

Kudos to the interviewer for playing an great iterative game with Dr. Peterson, who is a hell of an opponent to play a game with, and going with him toe to toe, and making him rise to an occasion!

[@fatbaldandhappy]

"try to keep it as succinct as you can please" "because as I've shown I'm completely unable to do that and have used all of your time so I can be heard instead of you."

[@jomgelborn]

Great comment, thank you. Laughed out loud.

[@johnmills9388]

fatbaldandhappy This! This exactly!

[@ConstantThrowing]

This guy is the perfect model for the explaination of the modern activist that Peterson provides. It's actually quite tragic to watch him conform to these behaviours he claims to oppose (or is seemingly just humoring Peterson by claiming to oppose, but would embrace given the opportunity).

[@jimmylemessurier332]

Top comment hahahaha!! dix points!

[@arthurkuper245]

Disagree, I thought the moderator did a great job of drawing out the underlying issues issues, presenting possible objections and getting JBP to clarify his thoughts. I didn't think that he was grandstanding at all.

[@RandomCarrot2806]

Man, seeing how far Jordans reach has become and how influential he is being on young people, especially men, it's incredible clear that the post modernists picked the worst possible person to go after in their ideological rage. Wouldn't surprise me if even in 50 years Jordan will still be remembered and maybe even idolized even more so than he already is. The half baked attacks on his character that happens from time to time just bounce off like a marshmallow being thrown at a window.

[@TheRuralpoet]

Anders Hansen absolutely man, we can only hope that more thinkers like Peterson will emerge and that this will become a movement which will make a discernable historical footprint. We will need more of him and others to fortify our position and uphold western civ...

[@lachlanbell8390]

I enjoyed the imagery of your marshmallow similie

[@losttango]

I don't think he's as smart as people suppose. There's some sound stuff in there, but criticism of post-modernism doesn't have to imply conservativism. Chomsky is merciless in his criticism of the postmodernists. And what Peterson puts forward as a "religious" narrative - being able to reconcile contradictions in your understanding of the world - would have come as no surprise to Marx - in fact it's the basis of the dialectic. (Also women's emancipation started well before the pill). Much of what he says is a banal reiteration of reactionary 'common sense' with some pseudoscientific underpinning. Other parts (how much hierarchies are hard wired and how we deal with that) are much more interesting.

[@losttango]

Also, he's a bit nutty. What was all that stuff about Jung? He's supposed to be a scientist isn't he? Better to steer clear of dodgy mysticism in that case.....

[@detrean]

losttango The classical left is dead. Post modernism is the end result of the leftward March. Much of what conservatives and reactionaries forecast has come to be. Your own people (leftist postmodernists) wish to end you and are winning in that struggle.

[@1077jeremy]

What is the point of inviting Jordan Peterson to be interviewed if your just going to argue, conflate and talk over him? Christ, the interviewer couldn’t stop grandstanding and was downright offensive at some points.

[@spracketskooch]

I get what you're saying, but at the same time if you can't defend your ideas at the drop of a hat then maybe they aren't good ideas. That's what JP does every time someone challenges him, he calmly defends his position in a way that makes it seem obviously right. It's kind of like getting mugged. Should you get mugged? No, you shouldn't, but it's possible you'll get mugged so you should have the means to defend yourself readily available.

[@BarefootSamuraiX]

Well, good interviews and discussions are not about talking over and interrupting. The interview is in some parts good and in some parts less. But being challenging is not about interupting and talking over, but providing point and then letting react.

[@spracketskooch]

Agreed, I'm just saying you need to be prepared for the worst, which JP clearly was.

[@einarabelc5]

You need to watch more of Jordan and his channel. That's the point. The guy's is trying to be difficult and that's a good thing. Remember that is the reason why free speech is crucial. Perhaps the interviewer will see your comments and get better across time. And most importantly Jordan is not God.

[@PhilosophyLines]

It's called challenging him on his ideas. People here probably think Dave Rubin is the ideal sharp critical interviewer.

[@MacSmithVideo]

I think he's saying that you SHOULD engage and try to solve problems, but the best way to do that is by studying, reading, learning, and becoming a better self, so that when you do become an activist on the issue, you have the ability to change it for the positive and not make things worse.

[@leomosia]

True, but the interviewer doesn’t get it

[@virtual_edition]

Interviewers response to rule 6 can basically be summed up as "but... if I have to be competent before fixing something then how can I virtue signal to my friends now?"

[@spracketskooch]

If the interviewer understands the concept of hypocrisy, then he should be able to understand the idea of working on your own problems before you work on the problems of others.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

That's not the definition of hypocrisy at all. Sorry, what you've done is exhibited the stupidity that seems very common among Peterson's fanboy's. Peterson, a very bright man, should disown the support of the likes of you. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypocrisy

[@MrNoxxta]

I see. So someone that liked Peterson but does a mistake is automatically a "fanboy" and of course most of those "fanboys" are stupid. Man, it must suck to be you, Arthur.

[@rebeccashields9626]

I wish I could like this comment twice.

[@HayabusaPaul]

You must be a blast at parties

[@downeybill]

34:47 you can see that it's just driving the interviewer nuts that he hans't been able to chip in with his own two cents for 20 or 30 seconds. but the worst of it is EVEN DURING THE QUESTIONS he doesn't let Peterson respond directly, but rather he collected the questions, reinterpreted them, and tried to rebut all three of Peterson's answers before he even finished giving them! he more or less sabotaged the whole event with his own ego.

[@thesouluniversal]

Ive never seen a Q&A session handled quite like this before, hopefully I never will again.

[@Helvira1]

This man don't want the personal responsibility Mr Petersen is talking about, you can see he is freking out just from the idea

[@MagnumOpusYT]

He's trying to reconcile JPs thoughts without throwing out his leftist sensibilities. He probably calls himself a feminist, complete open bordens, unbridled immigration. Votes for Corbyn. He has cognitive dissonance and is trying to reconcile it. Yes and there is definately a problem in that people are asking JBP the question not the interviewer.

[@BenWeeks]

Engels reborn.

[@PhilosophyLines]

He didn't misinterpret the questions though. So what's the problem?

[@fatbaldandhappy]

The interviewer is maddening. He asks a question to make a point rather than to listen to the answer from the person he is interviewing.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Did you just wake up from a long sleep? That has been standard practice for ages (perhaps not in the military and similar disciplinarian environments like private-sector for-profit corporations, but certainly in universities and research labs).

[@jkmochamaster]

fatbaldandhappy Maddening seems...a touch hyperbolic. I saw a different interview than you, which is okay. I found the interviewer respectfull, intelligent and incisive. He allowed Peterson to answer, but did clarify when necessary. He may have been the best interviewer I’ve seen in a while. I generally found him helpful, witty yet unobtrusive. He added much more to the conversation than one may realize. I’ve never seen him before today, but I enjoyed this interview and thought it could have been a few hours longer.

[@Happypast]

I thought he was very intelligent and made some legitimately good criticisms, which then Peterson responded to adequately. I’m happy I got to hear both those criticisms and responses. I find it strange that such a burst of ideas would anger you. Do you often get angry when someone disagrees with you? If so, isn’t that a lack of humility?

[@kidluna]

yes whenever someone flusters peterson its the interviewers fault.

[@jameshanson401]

fatbaldandhappy I quite like him, he’s doing his job and is getting the talking points out of Jordan

[@SeiryuNanago]

I like the point he made about there not being a mythological construct for modern women. It is an interesting notion.

[@thomaschad18]

H.T.S. Tyler.Durden he was talking about modern women who have control of their reproductive function specifically, and he's right about that

[@quintessenceSL]

thomaschad18 Kinda. Women have had control of their reproduction inasmuch as the have no overt signs of ovulation and still generally pick the who, what, when, and where of their sexual partners. Technology makes aspects easier, but that's like saying there has never been a mythological construct for a man with a machine gun. A quick look at the number of abortions makes clear that even with technology, control isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

[@derf65746]

He said women after the pill. Said it several times. That's been 50 years not 500 or more years. No time for a mythical construct. He was right.

[@detrean]

H.T.S. Tyler.Durden the Amazon woman was the woman on the edge of what is known. In the upside down place. It is what happens when everything is the opposite of what civilization is. It isn't a mythology we should be promoting. Masculine women.....

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Agree in part: the Amazon is a great archetype, and so is Artemis (and Athena) who, as goddesses, could control their reproductive systems as well as everything else. But if we are to promote a mythology at all, we should certainly be promoting that, along with making Sappho a hero, as she deserves to be. Patriarchy's been around for far too long, we need to destroy it. Patriarchy is definitely NOT civilization and women need to be equal to men. Funny how the one archetype explicitly mentioned at the end, the "Kinder, Kueche, Kirche" of the Nazis almost stumped Peterson. Did he only read his beloved Jung and Nietzsche in English translation? LMAO.

[@9999rahul9999]

My immediate response to the interviewer was the same as most comments here, but I think him taking a more critical position (flawed or not) eventually ended up making it a better conversation. Most people who are not so on board with Peterson's points may have had similar objections and having them voiced and thereby responded by Peterson in the moment may have helped get the message across better to those people.

[@mannysmandatories5595]

Rahul Singh agreed

[@Galvaxatron]

right right right right right yeah right right yeah yeah yeap yup right right right right yup right right right yeah yeah right yeah right yeah yup right ok yup right right right right yup yeah yeap yeah right ok right right right right yeah ok yeah yup yeah right right right yeap right yeap right right right

[@jonahkim69]

Rahul Singh, that's a really excellent point.

[@spracketskooch]

I look at it like getting punched. Should someone else punch you? No, but it happens so you'd better be prepared to defend yourself at the drop of a hat. The interviewer should have done better, but bad interviewers exist, and you should know how to handle them.

[@PhilosophyLines]

How did he not let JP speak? That's fantasy.

[@lov3letter4u]

I was so glad to look down at the comments section and find out that everyone else also found this guy to be a quack. Thanks guys...

[@timfrost08]

This is fantastic. I know many people are criticizing the interviewer but I thought the was a great discussion between 2 very intelligent people who deeply challenged each other. Particularly Peterson of Rowson and his beliefs/ideas, which are very important to him as an academic. And in this regard I though he was very respectful and conciliatory despite being very forceful at times. What is not to like? Peterson is not infallible and needs to be challenged and also asked to fully elucidate what he is saying. Which is great.

[@_Information_]

Why is the interviewer saying "this is my last point..."? Why do you have points to make? I'm supposed to be watching a Jordan Peterson talk, I want to hear his points structured with your SHORT questions. Interviewer thinks it's a debate.

[@OldTome]

It was frustrating to hear the host making it about him and the problems he had with the book's message. The host seemed hung up on Jordan's message of self-responsibility and his criticism of some forms of activism. It felt like the host was trying to defend his own beliefs and protect his ego rather than engage the guest to elucidate more. The problem I see with the type of activism that Dr. Peterson rails against is that it is naive and an untenable game. You're going to yell at the people in power to "FIX IT!" Well, how about you fix it? Oh, that would be hard, like, really hard. What do you know? Exactly. Dr. Peterson is saying fix yourself, get yourself straight first, become competent in your world as it is right now. Then, and that's a big then, then start to look around your world, and look with caution and care. Then think about what you could do and how you could help you, your family, and your friends. Then play that game and play it well. Then the world will follow. But it all starts with you. Get yourself in order first.

[@HoleinMattswall]

I think that is an unreasonable claim about the host. Jordan's reasoning that you ought to only participate when you meet some (rather difficult to define) standard of orderliness is sound only if either A : activism has not demonstrably caused measurable positive change in the past, or B : activism up until this point has only been successful because each movement has been filled with individuals who had 'cleaned their damn rooms'. A is probably a bit of an untenable position. 'Activism' has a pretty broad scope but in general strikes, protests and the like all fall under that umbrella, and the legacy of those movements persists today. B seems to be more along the lines of what Jordan was arguing, evidenced by his comments on the suffragettes. I think this is also untrue. You can be a deeply deficient and flawed human being in almost all ways, and yet still have the potential to contribute to great change. It's actually rather telling really that if you look back at a wide variety of influential figures from history, they all possessed some sort of noteworthy ability but were simultaneously not 'in order'. I suppose you could make the argument for option 'C', that activists are qualitatively different today either in general patterns of ideology or as individuals from previous activists, making it a case of historical exceptionalism. I don't think anyone really has the data to prove it either way, but the standard to demonstrate it would be very high. You should sort your life out, not because it will somehow allow you to be an activist, but because it will likely increase the likelihood of achieving your goals. Get yourself in order in a way that allows you to flex your maximum potential, that might be tidying your room, or it might be ignoring your room and sleeping 5 hours a night whilst you try to start a business. There isn't an absolute standard, and I think that is where Jordan might miss a beat.

[@DryRaven]

Peterson's example of cleaning your room is almost certainly about building competence & motivational orientation, I think the point about orderliness is a strawman. Cleaning your room is used as an example because it's become popular as an internet meme- it's meant to communicate a deeper point. The core utility of facing chaos is not actually to increase your competence, but to better orient your motivations. Most people are so blinded by their personal demons/weakness that if they were magically given superhuman competence, they would swiftly put that competence to full use in acting out base motivations that make themselves and everyone around them miserable in the long run, without even realizing it. It seems to me that this is the core dissonance between Peterson and the interviewer- that Peterson intuitively feels the motivational corruption of the youth’s passion and their lack of self-awareness about their true motivations, where the interviewer seems to believe that the youth's passions are fundamentally oriented towards the good, whatever their competence. Thus, Peterson sees sorting yourself out as necessary to acting out the good rather than the bad, where the interviewer sees sorting yourself as simply intensifying the velocity with which you act the good.

[@carlwatts1230]

Would you not like for ideas to be tested? I actually liked to host exceedingly and if anything found Jordan's demeanour a little distasteful at times, not letting the counterargument be enunciated. I was glad the host had the tenacity and rhetorical skills to not let himself be verbally bullied out of articulating a well considered critique. The host was clearly coming from a place of genuine goodwill and a wish for frictions and apparent contradictions to be discussed and straightened out. Jordan was a little defensive. I will watch this again later and see if i get the same read of the situation but that is how it came across to me.

[@HannesRadke]

On the other hand you can't demand perfection from yourself either. In the end of this talk they got to that point about Proust: There will always be a chaotic element. Don't demand 100% perfection, it's unreasonable and unachievable, might actually lead to neurosis and depression. No, but do your best and try to improve, challenge youself and become a better person. You can be an activist too, but be smart and humble about it.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

What you are saying is straightforward traditional conservatism, to be dismissed out of hand, IMO with great contempt. It's something you might hear from a private-sector middle manager or a military NCO, not an intellectual.

[@redcoresuperstar]

What is this trend of interviewers speaking more than interviewees and using the platform to expose their own views, instead of learning about the guests'.

[@Cas8228]

Because this tactic has worked for so long and no one has figured out a way to have a discussion with Left Wing ideologies that staraw man into putting you to what they THINK you are actually trying to say. So he basically say no that is not what i am saying at all, then he calmly and definitively explains his point and you realise that the interviewers are infact making ZERO sense and it is obvious that thy are just trying to find a crack in his armor and try to fit him in to the evil stereotype that the Left had been telling us for decades the RIght is like. JP is going to go down in history as the first person to side step the Left Wing nonsense about how the other side is evil, merely because they disagree. IF the RIght can use this as a lesson on how to deal with identity politics, the ONLY strategy the left hvave will be done. They will have literally NOTHING to argue about and their points will go down the drain. Then we have two options, the Left can get angry that they have been made looks like fools cans cause violence, or they can try to change by adapting the younger Generation G/I who is very fiscally conservative. Good time for a Bill Clinton type to come in. But if the left continues to push people like Obama and Clinton and even this inteviwer their party is doomed. Which would be horrible, a two patty system sucks, but one party being in power? Yikes...

[@dbuyandelger]

SO YOU'RE SAYING interviewers are actually interviewing themselves?

[@DevinAK49]

"Why is this other person talking, I came here to hear my god king speak"

[@Plastpackad]

Usuly the big fail in a police interrogation.

[@jl9285]

michiganradio.org/post/detroit-man-pleads-guilty-terrorism-charge-facebook-rant-against-police Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and other "advocates of free speech" will say nothing. "Free speech is about empowering white supremacy, not criticizing it." This would be a bigger deal to the media if it was a conservative speaker getting kicked out of a university

[@patrickogorman8879]

Gawdam this guy was a piece of work (interviewer): "isn't it true that you don't have any sociological imagination and that you don't have any vision for how the world out to be OR any sense of how we would get there - you just want people to clean their rooms?" "Look you are a very charming guy and people listen to you because your charismatic - but isn't it true that you just don't really understand the material very well ?" "Look I get all the stuff you are saying but the rage and anger that you feel and your attacks on people who are trying to make a difference (protestors) ... " ***Peterson tries to answer*** "let me just make one last point - its a big point - and hopefully you can Deal with it... Jesus ....

[@ConstantThrowing]

This should be pinned.

[@fatalconceit9713]

Best part was when he had absolutely nothing to backup these very serious accusations.

[@megalaxmax9979]

Wow I really enjoy listening to JP but I can't with these quotes being a thing.

[@Zinferbuddy]

so rude

[@PhilosophyLines]

The second at least is a straw man, he said on subjects where JP had less expertise he displayed more rage, not what you wrote. It's pretty clear that he knows less about politics and political theory than psychology, you really find that controversial?

[@Almace]

Despite criticism, I found the interviewer very on top of things, trying to challenge Dr. Peterson and making good points. The world is very complex & there isn't a simple solution to everyone's concerns. I think that both did a very good job here.

[@johnny5731]

Guy starts explaining the crux of his question, time preference, very succinctly. The host interrupts him and 10 seconds later is complaining that he doesn't understand the question.

[@MagnumOpusYT]

Johnny Clune "I don't understand the question" the questioner should've said "not asking you mate"

[@dr.ransom6243]

Maybe I'm misreading things but this interviewer comes across as an insufferable control freak.

[@TudorsTigers]

You got it right.

[@MartinDenStore]

Some of that, I'm pretty sure, was due to him trying to get as much out of the occasion as possible, within the time frame. And Peterson is not the best at delivering concise answers.

[@whirled_peas]

Eeeh, I don't know. I have respect for him for being able to remain civil, even though he was clearly uncomfortable. RSA remains a fairly stable institution for free speech.

[@emalinegayhart]

it seemed to me like he was just stressed out about time. but possibly

[@RSCa3218]

Nah thats precisely how I read him too. Just a quick guy with zero humility or wisdom. Most of these interviewers are animus possessed as Peterson pointed out about Cathy. The funny thing is I bet that once they're not in work mode they're probably fine among their peers as far as getting along. Once the camera starts rolling though it's time to become something they think the viewers want to see.. aka a virtue signaler untethered by first principles.

[@markfrank0924]

The interviewer is bright in his own right, but is so caught up in the activist mindset that he can think of little else. The idea that an 18 year old protestor knows anything about anything, yet alone capable of solving complex problems is mind blowing. The interviewer should be ashamed of himself thinking an 18 year old kid should not worry about their room because they have a planet to save, what an utterly stupid comment and how out of place that a smart person should have such a thought. When I think today of how little I know (today) and contrast that with all I thought I knew when I think of my 18 year old self it scares the hell out of me. How thankful I am, and most certainly the world should be, that I did not have the freedom make decisions all those many years ago.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Conventional but very wrong. Pre-normalisation (raw) IQ test scores peak at age around 17-18. And to your obvious rebut "Ah, but no life experience" I say more often than not, a fresh intelligent mind unpolluted by tradition, custom and sheer exhaustion of adult life is better for solving problems. Most top physicists and mathematicians do their best work before 30.

[@clearvisionoftruth2332]

He is NOT bright. He does not :get; the important message that JDP is delivering to him. He does however think he is bright, and therefore does not need to listen - That makes him dangerous

[@ArthurKaletzky]

In that case, I'm dangerous, too. Can you tell me what Peterson's "important message" is and why it shouldn't be contradicted? You're not allowed to use religion or tradition.

[@capnjan9835]

Yes. The interviewer (imminently forgettable) did not know how to be still and listen. He kept looking for places to jump in and 'take over'. Sort of like the irritating 3 year old that barges into an adult party, adding nothing and irritating everyone.

Mark Frank yeah...it's that weird fetish with virtue signalling: I cant wait for the grownups to fix the mess they caused (it's just too impending!!l), so I'll pretend to slacktivist my way to doing it myself...that way I can sort of disingenuously relieve myself of any guilt while living & taking part in the greatest time in human history. A twisted narcissism, and utterly blind to it. Bizarre.

[@GQBouncer]

Came here to learn about his new book, all i got was an inept interviewer. Interviewer: "We need to solve climate change!" Peterson: "How did you get to this interview this morning?" That pretty much summarized this whole shitty interview

[@alfonz1986]

If you want to learn about the actual content of the book, search for the rubin report interview with Peterson.

[@bourbonchicken]

Canadians taking public transportation this winter are worried about global warming.

[@JaysFanToronto]

So true haha. Interviewer: One of the criticisms against you is that you try to tackle issues outside your field of expertise. Peterson: Here is a problem I see with indoctrination and censorship on university campuses that is well within my expertise as a psychologist and educator. Interviewer: But what about climate change? Why don't you talk about climate change?

[@GQBouncer]

I appreciate your reply and I'm glad you found this interview to be great. I personally felt like he was asking improper questions and wouldn't get off them. Particularly at 25:00 to about 32:00 when the interviewer reverses his argument and then just starts spouting off in several different directions

[@Alistair]

also there's something to be said for people not acquainted with a field questioning why things are done the way they are. Often there are improvements made in one field that can be transferred to others, and that's where a lot of innovation and progress occurs. Just look at guys like Elon Musk getting out there and reasoning through problems from first principles. Elon didn't train as a rocket physicist or an automotive engineer. His first really big product was PayPal. But he's succeeded in these other realms because he didn't listen to all the assholes out there who say you need to have a degree in a subject to ask good questions.

[@ahoneymonster6066]

With stuff like this on YT, why would anyone buy a TV licence in the UK? RIP BBC. Superb discussion.

[@ahoneymonster6066]

in the UK, if you watch any 'live' TV, whether through cable, aerial or satellite you are required to have a TV licence. If you stream BBC Iplayer content you're also supposed to have one.

[@jiveturkey9993]

A Honey Monster the tech giants are working overtime with unlimited amounts of resources to covertly 'fundamentally transform' all social media into the BBC/CNN.

[@krenx]

Jordan Peterson: facts logic, facts Interview man: I agree with the facts. But feelings Jordan Peterson: Yes there are feelings, and there are facts and logic too. Interview man: But feelings though Jordan Peterson: No buts. Feelings don't change facts. Feelings has nothing to do with the facts. You want to deal with those feelings, make your bed and sort out your life. Interview man: But....but feelings though

[@BarefootSamuraiX]

I like Peterson, but Peterson is not purely facts and logic, in particular not logic as seem by the Sam Harris discussions.

[@vadz9733]

Did you watch the video? The Interviewer had valid and rational points. This isn't a debate on facts anyway.

[@rjg4851]

Hi yay The interveiwer was stuck on an idea so simply dismissed, his ego pulled the discussion into a circular spin. He wouldn't accept it. There's nothing complicated or irrational with what Peterson said. Do you want a competent person or an incompetent person to put their weight behind solving a problem? A competent person. So, before engaing in planning restructuring the socioeconomic institutions of a nation, learn to articulate your thoughts, find truth and take responsibility. Ennoble yourself to reduce the risk of ruining whatever you interact with. That starts in the microcosm of your room and expands. Step by step improve your life, eventually others as the responsibilities you can bare grows. The interviewer wouldn't accept that basic principle. I don't see how you can be stuck on it either.

[@krenx]

Absolutely. Doesn't take a psychologist to sense the interviewer was going beyond making valid points in some cases, and introducing he's ego together with questions that is irrelevant to what JP was trying to explain. The interviewer I think is a good one. He actually brings up good points once in awhile. But he had a strange mix of personal ego and delusion between separating a person's feelings, and the process of success. Topic A: Specific actions leads to success Topic B: The feelings and urges to skip these steps/ stir up/ experience, dream the "intent" and dream of success. These are different topics. You can't agree with A, play devil's advocate against it and put B against A. Topic A and B don't contradict each other at all, they are just different categories on their own. Topic B demands a different type of discussion about irrelevant to A.

[@krenx]

Doesn't take a psychologist to sense the interviewer was going beyond making valid points in some cases, and introducing he's ego together with questions that is irrelevant to what JP was trying to explain. The interviewer I think is a good one. He actually brings up good points once in awhile. But he had a strange mix of personal ego and delusion between separating a person's feelings, and the process of success. Topic A: Specific actions leads to success Topic B: The feelings and urges to skip these steps/ stir up/ experience, dream the "intent" and dream of success. These are different topics. You can't agree with A, play devil's advocate against it and put B against A. Topic A and B don't contradict each other at all, they are just different categories on their own. Topic B demands a different type of discussion about irrelevant to A.

[@jefferym3366]

I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson stuff and I have to say this interviewer was the most respectful, the most agreeable of any who disagreed with him an any major way, props to the interviewer, he has integrity, even though you could tell he totally wanted to debate most everything Prof Peterson said. If you think this guy was bad, compare him to others on the left and you will come to understand his integrity.

[@TudorsTigers]

The interviewer seems to believe the audience came to listen to him.

[@renegadedalek5528]

See the Cathy Newman interview with Peterson on C4, she constantly interrupted, willfully misunderstood, used feminist scripture and then got roundly spanked for acting like the silly schoolgirl she is.

[@frankguan5044]

Greg Cowell shes doing her job.

[@MusixPro4u]

The interviewer did absolutely fine. He prevented Jordan from going into his usual stuff and pushed the conversation into unknown territory (in a constructive way). I'm a vivid JP fan and I wished this happened more often.

[@TudorsTigers]

The interviewer is hung up on JBP's critique of student activism 20:50 (ie. at their age what do they actually know?) & he won't let go of the topic for most of the conversation, practically up to Q&A. That's a long time for him to air his own preoccupations when I imagine the audience hoped for a wider ranging talk.

[@1979Weasel]

I think Petersons is wrong to say you can only protest after you got your act together. It is a weak argument and the interviewer hit the nail on its head.

[@DeuPKay]

Wow this interviewer is a mess.

[@unoriginalyoutubename8761]

DeuPKay Well... His job isn't easy to be fair

[@MusixPro4u]

I disagree. I think he's looking for real-world applications of JP's ideas.

[@PedroTricking]

I like Jordan Peterson and I liked the interviewer

[@serarthurdayne9490]

I thought he was very good actually. Really grilled JP on the actual substance of the book in a way you don’t often see from an interviewer these days

[@user-w8jhtre23]

yep bad one,and rly insecure.

[@Itachi52496]

Jesus if this interviewer mumbles "yeah" or "right" one more damn time...

[@ephphatha230]

Julian Rodriguez right

[@unoriginalyoutubename8761]

Julian Rodriguez "yeah"

[@Itachi52496]

lol

[@Frosty-oj6hw]

Yeah, right?

[@antichris78]

36:53 triple right

[@blueheron8692]

Jordan Peterson has not been talking to young men. Young men have been drawn to him. I am a 56 year old woman and have been listening to him for an entire year. (100s of hours). I would go to his lectures, but I live in the US. I have sent his KZbins to all my friends and children. I have retired from teaching; however, if I were still teaching, his lectures would be included in my classes. His lectures are about this thing we call life. And this life is an extremely complex thing I, too, have been trying to figure out my entire life. He addresses many of the topics I have contemplated in my life. Thank you, Jordan, for all the researching you have done the past 30 years. Your lectures make sense to me and have helped me tremendously this past year.

[@janitor1091]

Why are these things always so rushed? Just schedule more time. Everyone should know by now how long winded jbp can be.

[@renegadedalek5528]

A good reason to rush, However, he is aware that he has to state his case carefully as any thing that can be misinterpreted will be twisted into something faraway from his intention.

[@dangernoodle2868]

To add to these points, Peterson can talk for hours and not everyone has that kind of stamina or spare time to hear that kind of thing to the end. Also, having a shorter time-frame means you need to express your central ideas more quickly so that he spends less time wandering frivolously through his ideas. Obviously, there's a balance because if an interview is 5 minutes long like with the BBC then nobody really learns anything either.

[@TheArtofGuitar]

The production feels/looks like it was filmed in the 70’s.

[@WrathfulMetal]

Wow cool to see you here!

[@sadakonath1]

OMG! This interviewer is so annoying.

[@kbeetles]

Glad I am not the only one who got annoyed by the interviewer and his offensive style. Interesting how hostile and provocative the on stage or on screen interviewers are (Cathy Newman on Channel4) compared to the audience here, who are genuinely interested in JP's thoughts or to the remarks from the general public on the KZbin videos, who are wholeheartedly in support of JP. I wonder why...... Are they trying to influence the viewers/audience that they are listening to a discreditable nutcase? It is not working!

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Not at all. He's illuminating Peterson's views by questioning his principles and motivations. That's how science works and how everything else should work. He's not sucking up.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Cathy Newman did a pretty good job for a non-science person. She failed to catch him on a couple of small science mistakes though. But the only people who should expect a sympathetic, admiring audience are preachers - and I would never join an audience for a preacher. You need perceived hostility to the interviewee's views.

[@woobyca7709]

The impression I got was that he really wasn't listening, that's why there was a noise or a repeated word after every sentence (no, actually he even did it while he was talking). I think he read the book and made notes of how he was going to keep bringing the topic back to a place where he could attack (ever so subtly), or how and where he would get the opportunity to belittle (hoping to discredit) Dr Peterson's work. But Dr. Peterson did brilliantly in spite of his attempts to discredit him in the minds of his listeners.

[@Almace]

I disagree with the "criticism" about the interviewer. They've just had different issues on their mind & tried to fairly mix those into the conversation. Absolutely nothing wrong with that and Dr. Peterson had a fair chance to respond to those. That's how you keep people honest. Challenge them, let them talk & think about other perspectives & re-model or affirm your own views. Interviewer was prepared & respectful, in my estimation.

[@dabdab10]

I think the interviewer did a great job.

[@Hari-iw8ei]

"Compassion masking uselessness." That just about sums up everything that's wrong with the world today.

[@db.sarvestani6554]

Is it just me or the interviewer is just horrible?

[@losttango]

He's better than Cathy Newman on Channel 4, at least....

[@Blue-rx9sr]

It's not you, the interviewer is horrible.

[@MrPisster]

It's fun to watch people argue with JBP, you've got to admit.

[@carwashsoap]

He went on about climate change and activism way too long

[@Happypast]

He was putting forth thought out criticisms that Peterson were then allowed to respond to. Where is the problem with that? That’s what an interview is supposed to be?

[@mannysmandatories5595]

This is brilliant. The interviewer actually did a great job in challenging what JBP was saying. It may have not be well thought out, but he's raised the right concerns of being myopic about the trade-off between self transformation and social change, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that one doesnt directly impact the other.

[@siegfriedbraun5447]

It is wrong to conflate anger and excitement. To pretend that passion is the same as rage is completely ignorant and shows a remarkable lack of depth. Well played Dr. Peterson, well played! Stay passionate and keep the mental slugs working to keep up with real thought-processes.

[@Bigdg2011]

I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE THIS. I could write a 20 page paper on the problems this interviewer has or the bad arguments he posed and all that, but many of the other comments have that covered. What I love is the functional proof of concept this man has signed himself up to be. He is the definition of why people need to humbly focus on their own life before entering the larger spaces. This is precisely what it looks like when an over inflated leftist ego attempt to "tackle the worlds problems" despite an utter lack of competence in any aspect. The lack of humility seeps through his whole character.

[@CheapGodiva]

D G Excellent observation.

[@283518]

I actually respect Cathy more than this guy, even though she was annoying. But at least Cathy was honest, an honest fool so to speak. This guy, acts like everythings fine, and then calls JP incompetent and rageful? And im not saying u can't disagree with him, but don't just say things and not back them up and if you want to debate the guy, don't weasel around it, like this interviewer did.

[@brendansheehan6180]

Laser Circus You are right. This interviewer ambushed him. It wasn't at all ok.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Rubbish. This is an interview, a kind of debate. It's not a sermon or even a lecture. Peterson shouldn't and doesn't have priority. But you won't agree, these comments are full of Peterson acolytes and fans. Get this into your heads: Peterson is NOT a motivational speaker (one of the lowest life forms you'll ever encounter) or salesman or private-sector boss or military. He's an academic psychologist, he must expect strong intellectual opposition. And you, as the audience, must expect and respect that too. This ain't no church or parade ground or private-sector motivational meeting.

[@283518]

Arthur Kaletzky You didn't read the rest of my comment did ya mate, i don't care, if you disagree with JP. But if you do, be honest about it and be upfront. Say why he's wrong...the guy said why he disagreed, but he didn't back up what he was saying. If you talk to the guy as if you're going to discuss something, flesh it out, so to speak (build upon an argument), I would say be up front if you disagree...not while he's (JP) talking about, just trying to find a point to interject your own take on things, is unprofessional. If you disagree, or want to have a discussion, ask the question *WAIT* for JP to finish the question, statement...then talk. I don't doubt I'm a fan of JP, doesn't mean i don't respect a good debate, honest, which as of late i have yet to see someone actually do with JP without the personal attacks. I don't say this for JP sake, i say this because the interviewers that do this make themselves look like utter fools, whether you like JP or not.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Laser Circus: I've just reviewed the whole vid, and Rowson was almost perfect IMO. Everything he said appeared to be reasonably grounded and, very importantly, he made Peterson back off on the "clean your room " thing, admitting it was a poor, misleading metaphor. He also exposed Peterson's religiousness, which will be a massive turnoff for millions of people like me. He did fail to catch Peterson on his ridiculous and very boring dream and on the lobster serotonin hierarchy stuff - there must have been several non-social, non-hierarchical species in the lineages of us and lobsters in the almost 400 million years since our common ancestor. Another uncaught mistake was Peterson's groundless assumption that women want to have children and thus have more severe constraints on their life planning. Plus I found the "why aren't chimpanzees like us after 7 million years" argument unconvincing.

[@283518]

Arthur Kaletzky I never saw that there was a need to 'expose' JP religiousness, he's pretty open about it and his view on the 'importance' of religion and archetypal stories and hero's. Yet, as far as i know, he hasn't answered the question to if he was a Christian or not, or if he believed in God. And I find, as a Christian myself, for that to be very professional, because people like yourself, as you said find that as a 'turn off'. To which I ask why? Why discredit someone because they believe in something irrational? I mean that's the whole point of belief, it doesn't mean that one is void of rationality. I find those who do that, seem to think rationality is everything life and irrationality is excluded from the human experience when it's just not the case. And the places/societies you do find have moved past irrationality entirely, usually have ended up being murderous societies, usually socialist. In fact its the outcome of irrationality and religion that is the core that developed the west, why do people think breaking those traditions will lead to anything good? When there's been no past evidence that it will lead to a good outcome? When in fact, there's evidence its lead to the opposite outcome, I think...'that' in it of itself is irrational. Is it impossible to move past irrationality and have a sustaining society? I don't think so, but if one were to, you would need to deal something empirical that all humans have and that is their morality, how will you control it? Because if you're being honest with yourself, humans aren't 100% rational, 100% of the time, we do things, that aren't 100% of the time being beneficial to society or advancing humanity and to force such things on people would make that person a tyrant. Before we cast away the past and its traditions that brought us this far, why not consider for a second how one would plan change the current system in a positive manner, instead of trying to change the world with out a plan to fix it after deconstructing its current state, this is what I find JP was trying to bring across that Rowson wasn't understanding. I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment, I'm just giving my opinion as well on what I understood and saw.

[@LAGisINtheAIR]

i genuinely think this interviewer was worse than Cathy Newman and that's saying A LOT. Interrupting the people in the audience when they were asking questions, because he didn't understand the question ? Really ? Then the whole tirade with the activists. And the way he was distracting and hurrying the Q & A . Really it doesn't take a genius to understand that it's MUCH better to have 3 coherent questions and answers rather than 6-7 utterances that nobody can even pay attention to because you're flailing your arms around. Since a lot of Peterson's message is around competence, I really hope this moronic interviewer doesn't do any more interviews unless he massively ups his game. Worst shenanigans I've seen since forever really.

[@adfaggsdagasdgadsgdag6016]

Agreed

[@michaelhakansson5045]

Cathy Newman was at least funny as hell

[@TudorsTigers]

The difference is I would have paid good money to see the Cathy Newman interview live. But not this one.

[@mariaa.9952]

By collecting the questions like that, the intent was totally to sabotage. Never seen a Q&A conducted like that. He simply didn't want any direct connection between Dr.Peterson and the audience, interjected himself even in there, cause the show was about him. No one was to leave saying they enjoyed Peterson. It's 2 now, totally hostile interviwers, tell me there isn't a totally leftist globalist agenda running the world at this time.

[@spracketskooch]

He should have just said, "I think that's a stupid question, next." At least I'd have a little more respect for him for saying what he means.

[@FlyingBlob88]

My dad would always say "how can I trust you to do "X" if you can't take out the trash properly".

[@paulet990]

He doesn’t even know about the Laurier issue?! How about doing a little research before interviewing someone. He should clean his room before insisting on fixing the world.

[@poljameson9705]

He was also very rude and condescending to Dr Peterson when it came to that issue. As if the fact it happened in Canada made it not important enough to be brought up

[@brendansheehan6180]

Paulette Daniels he definitely knows about it.

[@jaym2112]

Paulette Daniels I thought the same. He acts like no one knows about those "small" local things. I know about those things he's trying condescend towards Peterson about and other Canadian issues, while not a Canadian myself. It's that bearded goober that is so fond of hearing his own voice that I do not know, nor do I care to. Certainly not now.

[@rebeccashields9626]

Right! Maybe try Googling the person you're going to interview before you interview them!

[@markuskruber5544]

What is wrong with this "interviewer"? (bad technique, inaccurate, implying malice based on his feelings, etc.) He acts like a snake - and he probably is one. I won't trust this man.

[@dangernoodle2868]

Well I liked it because I got to hear JP say something different for once because he was challenged in a way that was more or less tried to contend and criticize his ideas. I think the interviewer is a bit of a man-child but he challenged his ideas and I respect that.

[@markuskruber5544]

I agree on challenging ideas and on your comment in general. This guy wasn't interested in that though. He didn't (want to) understand basic things Peterson was saying. Besides that, he took a lot of time away from the audience and Peterson - some people already mentioned it in the comments. For exemple: It would be more interesting to know how much you must be (and how you can know you are) in order to then go out and try to change something like politics. Instead, he was just whining that he couldn't get his way (why not tackling the environment NOW?) and lost control about himself - indeed very man-childish. This "interview" reminded me of one Peterson did at Harvard. The difference is that the Harvard boy let JBP enough free room to expand on asked questions and you'll get the feeling that JBP understood the shallow nature and got rather interested in talking to the audience. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6PHYXyBZbx4jbc

[@PhilosophyLines]

What do you mean to didn't want to understand basic things Peterson was saying. Did Peterson ever need to correct him or did he accuse the interviewer of strawmanning? No. You yourself are completely strawmanning the interviewer's argument on student activism and making personal attacks ('man child'). And you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty? Hypocrite.

[@waspishhen1]

The easiest and strongest rebuttal to the hosts’ claim that Peterson’s revisiting of the sjw/university activist scenario being futile: is that ideas are generally initiated and propagated by the university, thus making it actually a necessity to combat furiously (an example being post modernism itself).

[@ArthurKaletzky]

It is Peterson's ideas which need to be opposed "furiously" and defeated in universities. Attitudes like his would lead to a return to fatalistic feudalism and its institutionalised inequality and privileges, along with the absurd dominance of religious beliefs and traditions, when capitalism inevitably collapses as Marx predicted.

[@evangreen3080]

I love how many reactions the video got to the interviewer being an intellectual equal with another set of ideas, articulated well. The lemmings aren't here to consider and grow but to hear another sermon and comment,

[@fatalconceit9713]

Midway through the interview, the interviewer gets possessed by the ghost of Karl Marx. Very strange.

[@PhilosophyLines]

Oh, did Marx have a thing about student climate change activism being legitimate?

[@fatbaldandhappy]

Right right right right right right right right right right. Listen dude! Don't just try to find the slightest opportunity to interject. Listen and maybe learn something!

[@MusixPro4u]

I disagree. He has read his book and has obviously listened to his lectures. If you let JP go, he just repeats his talking points (however brilliant and valuable they are) and I'm actually grateful that the host pushed the conversation further.

[@DecodingDoom]

You noticed how Peterson eventually calls him out on that near the end? He's like "NO not just 'CORRECT', it's a big deal"

[@tworivers3518]

@John Ny Same here, I really have found Peterson useful in my own life and in questions I had about the structure of reality, but this is the best interview I have seen him do. This interlocutor knew his stuff, didn't let Jordan dominate the conversation and really put him through his passes. I learned more from this interview, and I think Jordan acquitted himself well despite the very pointed questions. Wish it could have been longer, I could listen to these two go at it for hours

[@ArthurKaletzky]

Dumb stuff from you. See my reply to Libertas above.

[@leifleoden5464]

I like the point the Dr. Peterson is making which prompts the dismissive "Right right right from the narrator" around 23:32. "Part of the problem with Climate Change is irreducible complexity." Does the narrator really understand this, do the students does the audience.

[@tuxedostormtrooper]

Anyone chastising the interviewer is just wrong. Peterson himself would say he did a great interview here.

[@cryptocourier5273]

"ideologies are a parasitical meme on a religious substructure" -- did anyone else love that?

[@HungryTacoBoy]

Yeah, I loved that. By his facial expression it seems he was finally able to formulate those exact words in that moment. He may have been thinking about that for a while and it finally coalesced.

[@ImNotJoshPotter]

"Its not a mechanical problem; it's a socio cultural, political, economical problem." He's right that sounds way easier to solve. Much simpler than a helicopter.

[@Rock22809]

The interviewer IS the person Dr. Peterson is trying to fix. Like staring at the anti-Peterson.

[@chuggns]

This interviewer is indescribably disrespectful. The likes came from people appreciating Dr. Peterson, not the interviewer.

[@PhilosophyLines]

Wow, if you think that's 'indescribably disrespectful'...someone who repeatedly says how much he admires JP's work...you must be offended by almost every human interaction.

[@chuggns]

Philosophy Lines lol, reply after you watch the whole thing

[@PhilosophyLines]

I have, what did you consider indescribably disrespectful?

[@silverpyramid9251]

"Your bedroom is a microcosm of the planet". Exactly, clean up your own back yard before you try to solve the problems of the world.

[@karl2393]

It's a discussion, not an interview as such, and it's good to see Dr Peterson gently challenged for a change. There are enough JP lectures online, if that's what you want. Not sure why people seem upset by this.

[@davidr1431]

This seems to me to be the best exploration of the weakness of Peterson's views, especially because it comes from someone who is largely in agreement. Pity that Peterson doesn't apply the principle that the person he is speaking to might know more than him. Worth watching more than once.

[@jacksonofalltrades2665]

I will fully watch any interview with the great Dr. J.B. Peterson

[@imakamera798]

The interviewer is awful !

[@momotheelder7124]

well, there is something to be said for challenging the interviewee to see what they are made of, even if you don't agree with the interviewer's points.

[@ArchieAndBenny]

I think he did a great job. He asked very challenging questions and even some where Peterson couldn’t answer.

[@OnionKnight541]

The interviewer did a superb job. His work was much harder than Peterson's. Peterson kept interrupting and seemed perturbed by the complex, on-point questions. I like Peterson, but this round surely goes to the interviewer.

[@gebs123]

The worst part is taking 3 questions, and then re-wording them right after getting the 3rd one. What is the point? If he wanted to make sure the question was clear, then taking multiple at once is the wrong way about it.

[@stevenw2933]

Jordan peterson doesnt need any of his supporters to defend him or to attack his "critics". he can bloody well take care of himself. In fact these interviews, even if they get heated at times is exactly what will help Jordan Peterson spread his message to those who doubt him. In challenging his beliefs directly he can crystallize his message and show how bulletproof they are. He even said himself in a different interview that as long as he is being forthright and telling the truth and being consistent all these criticisms can do is help him.

[@dennisb1698]

It's so hard to listen to someone who SOOO misses the point. I get his argument that people worry about bigger issues, wordly issues, but cleaning a room is metaphor for your own life. How does he not get that you can't fix the world when your own life is a complete and utter mess?

[@TofeldianSage]

Dennis Bakker, or that a kid is so young that he/she is basically just uneducated and so the likelihood of contributing in a positive way is nil.

[@dennisb1698]

True, it's always a multitude of variables. And not only is the likelihood of contributing nil, it is much more likely you're doing harm to your 'so-called' cause.

[@insperatus]

Interviewer lives in a pigsty, doesn't want to make his bed, but he wants to fix climate change.

[@nevermindthemuskox]

I think he does get that point - one of the first things he says is that JBP is the reason why he made the effort to wear a suit to conduct the interview. My impression is that he's drawing attention to the flip side: that it's pretty difficult to fix your own life when the world is in a complete and utter mess. JBP, to the extent that I understand him, is big on embracing both sides of the truth and I think the interviewer's point is a fair one that JBP does not deal with. That's not to say that what JBP says is wrong or useless, just that it's probably not the whole story. I don't feel that this is a particularly controversial notion. Feels like there's a lot of cognitive dissonance kicking about on here..

[@dennisb1698]

I disagree. How are you supposed to fix the world if you can't fix your own life? The fact that it's difficult to fix your own life has very little to do with the complexity of larger, wordly problems. The current state of political affairs has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you've not cleaned your appartment for an entire week or that you have a bad and destructive relationship with your partner. It's logical to be worried about those larger issues, such as the economy, climate or other political issues. But to be worried about them is one thing, to seriously do something about them is a whole other thing. To use your 'worries' of wordly problems as an 'excuse' not to fix your own life, is a rather wrong stance to begin with. What JBP argues is that the individual stands at the centre of society, at the centre of civilization and only an individual who has his life properly sorted out can benefit the society as a whole. If not, you're probably making the things you're so worried about worse. Fixing wordly problems starts with you. You can't build a house from topdown, you've got to lay the groundwork first. And the groundwork starts with cleaning your room, establishing healthy relationships with the people around you and a strong and healthy mindset for when the flood comes, not the other way round. How can a 18-year old claim capatalism is the evil of the world, while you barely know how to put your own socks on. Figure yourself out first, then the world.

[@jefflosey1561]

Discussions are absolutely THE KEY! AND....

[@johnnybro13]

I loved the way this host gave real challenge to jordans ideas! this is how ideas get better

[@GH-lq9fg]

I didn't feel he really challenged the ideas, it felt he was just on the side or political correctness and was confronting without understanding the meaning. He even sounded quite arrogant with the insinuation that cleaning his house is beneath him.

[@chrish281]

Thomas Putt - funny you should say that, I came here from the Channel 4 interview and by comparison this interviewer seems excellent!

[@MusixPro4u]

This was an excellent stretching of JP's ideas.

[@mr.pipebeard3759]

He was an antagonist who did not come prepared.

[@MusixPro4u]

Highly agree Thomas.

[@mpcc2022]

Do not let this guy interview anyone else again.

[@gawkersdeathrattle1759]

This guy isn't getting what JBP is trying to say. He's going on and on about "These things need fixing! These people need to DO SOMETHING!" and Peterson is saying, concisely, that if you can't even manage to affect a state of order on a small scale and simple problem that the chance of doing so on a large scale complex problem is not only negligible, it's almost certainly going to be counterproductive. To extend the attack helicopter metaphor, this guy is basically saying that there's a bunch of kids who've never held a spanner in their lives are milling about the chopper saying "WE NEED TO FIX IT NOW" and pointing fingers at everyone else as to their failures to make it fly, whereas Peterson is saying "Well, at least take a small engine repair course before you attempt it... you'll still likely mess it up, but at least at that point you'll know which end of the wrench to hold." Honestly, he's repeated that simple idea multiple times and in multiple ways, his host appears to simply not WANT to understand what Peterson is saying.

[@nevermindthemuskox]

I don't see why it can't be true both that 'we need to fix it now' and that 'you can't fix it unless you have the appropriate expertise - and you don't'. Sometimes situations are simply tragic. My impression is not that the host doesn't understand what Peterson is saying, but rather that what Peterson is saying seems insufficient to the problem he's describing.

[@gawkersdeathrattle1759]

I'd say that any situation where whether or not someone has the expertise to fix a situation MUST be preceded by awareness of a need to fix. The problem is the hubris of kids running headlong into the situation and potentially making things worse while declaring "I'M HELPING", rather than taking a measured approach and getting at least some level of competency before the attempt.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

No, Peterson's not saying that. He's saying people need to conform to HIS [traditionalist] lifestyle (which would admittedly be easier than major problems HAD THEY FREELY CHOSEN TO CONFORM) before anything they say can be of use. That is completely fallacious. Had Peterson said "they need to learn basic arithmetic and high-school algebra before attempting to solve the world's problems", I would agree enthusiastically because that's a prerequisite for any intellectual activity. But he didn't, he used an aspect of traditional lifestyle and values. BTW, only the ignorant would class an attack heli engine as "small".

[@pedroivomoraes]

Best interviewer he's had so far.

[@anonone2175]

At 20m, there's a story from the strangest secret. A man's young son was pestering him one day and to keep him occupied he tore up a page from a magazine with a picture of the globe on it and asked him to tape it back together. Off the young lad went but returned in a surprisingly short space of time for someone so young. The father looked at it and indeed the globe was back in place; he asked his son how he'd managed to put it back together so quickly. The boy replied, "it was easy, there's a picture of a man on the back, I just put him back together." and so it goes when the man is all together so is his world.

[@robertdanilotecson9111]

"its compassion masking uselessness"..LEGENDARY!

[@ingmar89]

Actually a very good conversation and discussion between 2 intelligent people.

[@Chiefkid20]

A few faults in his comportment, mainly his overt eagerness to interject during the parts that he had strong feelings about, which did end up being a little distracting at times, but overall I'd say this interviewer was perhaps the best J.P. has had so far. He was respectful, didn't try to twist Jordan's words (the "so you say" was used within reason and with no real ill will behind it imo) and just openly contested his views where he felt they had a disagreement or needed further clarification, which allowed Jordan to lay them out all the better for the viewer. This whole interview went through famously because of this interviewer's approach, and I appreciate that. I don't agree with all the people in the comments ragging on him at all. I think we might be so used to Peterson facing biased ideologues that we've come to expect it by default, but that's not good; we should be able to appreciate seeing him argue and explain himself properly. That's when he shines the most, and also when one might find some points he disagrees with him on, despite being a fan. I personally haven't found any yet, but I'll keep an eye out, and so should everyone else.

[@zagyex]

actually finally an interviewer that has made some points and engaged in a real debate.

[@ryfree]

I love hearing Jordan Peterson's message again and again but I do enjoy when an interviewer gives him a bit of a challenge. I find that the conflict draws out some extra flame of Peterson's brilliance.

[@nobchucknorris]

i really enjoyed the exchange, the interviewer challenged without being snarky and listened to the answers

[@adrianbean3734]

I agree. I think it's important to notice and appreciate when people actually ARE having civil discussions despite how rare such talk seems to be these days.

[@nobchucknorris]

there seems to be a real appetite for this more nuanced and in depth discussion, a healthy dialogue with a determination to get at the truth.

[@zeppelin1qaz]

I like the self-confidence of the host. He is respectful but doesn't just fold in the face of Peterson's strong arguments. This is a good debate, with Peterson being outside his comfort zone at times.

[@polar1428]

This was a pretty interesting talk, the interviewer didnt do too bad

[@MusixPro4u]

The interviewer raises points that go through most people's minds when encountering Peterson. He is articulate and pushes forward in a constructive way. I really enjoy this so far.

[@davechase3838]

The interviewer (Dr. Rowson) is a climate change activist which is why he is a bit defensive about Dr. Petersons discouragement of activist amoungst the self illiterate youths. Dr. Rowson needs those vocal activist to keep his pet project in the forefront, so it was in his own self interest that he denegrate Peterson for his critisism of those lost youth. It's too bad Dr. Rowson barely touched on the book that was being promoted and instead, pestered Dr. Peterson about his claims of an activist culture. If you want to watch a confrontational interview with Dr. Peterson, .. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l37Gm6uJic13a5Y it has all the confrontation without the pandering.

[@PhilosophyLines]

Don't question the guy's motives, that's quite unsorted. He wasn't being obtuse he just disagrees, is that allowed?

[@dylanlundgren]

Anyone have a time stamp for the climate discussion? I learned a fantastic little truth from JP during that section. Much appreciated, cheers.

[@davechase3838]

disagreement is fine for the sake of debate. But Rowson was going back to the same well several times without adressing Peterson's claim about the importance of an activist having sorted himself out before he tries to sort out the world. If your going to disagree, have a basis for your challenge and move on with the discussion. Standing on one point for an excessive amount of time only diludes the conversation and takes time away from discribing the book he was supposed to be discussing.

[@PhilosophyLines]

I did think he had quite a strong basis for his challenge, like the example of MLK which Peterson didn't answer sufficiently. There are plenty of places you can find him explaining the book freely, to see him challenged on specific points was more interesting I thought. And you clearly couldn't cover areas of disagreement throughout the whole book in that time in any depth.

[@TequilaPunk74]

Man of our time? I would be willing to bet that the comments below are more civil, polite, and reasonable replies than most KZbin comments sections these days- as Jordan has an immediate effect on the viewer. He has a way of explaining things that cuts through all the BS in the world today. A man of integrity who isn't afraid to say the things that ought to be said. I believe this man will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers of our time. Bravo Sir!

[@Panzerdood]

Props to the interviewer. he was consistent and impassioned. Yes, many of what he said was disagreeable, but he was pressing for real answers. this is the kind of thing we want to see MORE of. Jordan should absolutely be challenged on his ideas, thats how they get better.

[@karl6525]

I thought this was (one of) the best Peterson interviews yet. The interviewer was almost as provocative as, but still the polar opposite of, the Vice guy; actually educated, intellectual and a genuinely curious admirer of Peterson with well founded criticism. And the feeling I got from Petersons' expression when he was confronted and asked why is he still hung up on campus activists when he knows he now has a global audience, was that he really took it to heart. And then when he was challenged to express himself on issues and subjects in which he's 'not an expert', such as climate change and sociology, he replied brilliantly and thoughtfully. I wish there were 2 hours more of their conversation.

[@wonderboy4471]

Haha, the interviewer thinks he’s at jbp’s level. Horrible.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

The comment of an idiot. What makes you think he's not at Peterson's level. In any case, any debate must, by default, start with an assumption of equality.

[@owenashton2386]

Have a look at his experience & qualifications. You may be a little surprised. The interviewer was skillful on exposing JPs mypopia and prejudices.

[@Derna1804]

+Arthur Kaletzky Because we saw the interview, Arty. Granted, he's not a dull man, but his ideas haven't spent much time on the whetstone.

[@anom3778]

He was humble. And to dig into some of these points is fine.

[@ArthurKaletzky]

The "whetstone" of conventional wisdom, social tradition and Judeo-Christian belief, perhaps. I see no value in any of the 3.

[@jaimebula2061]

Please note that the Thumbs up are for Jordan Peterson, not for the interviewer.

[@ChrisMartin-tk4dh]

It seems the host disagreed with the problems Peterson has decided to focus on and his offered solutions. This is completely valid, although it did not come across that well (e.g. he exaggerated Peterson's claims). Part of this was Peterson adding things and making it more difficult for him to make a point. I also would like to point out that he made his largest dig against Peterson right before changing the topic which prevented Peterson from responding.

[@MusixPro4u]

I didn't notice any 'ill intention' by the interviewer, if you want to call it that, at all. He pushed Jordan's arguments further to squeeze more insight out of him. I'm almost sure JP enjoyed it as well.

[@PhilosophyLines]

How did he exaggerate JP's claims, on the activism point he actually stated them less forcefully than JP does leading to a correction.

[@elrikard7909]

I love hearing JP speak.

[@Misherman]

OK ok.... ok ok ok.... ok ok.. ok ok...

[@McKinleyMorann]

Right.... Yes. Right... Yep.

[@konberner170]

Among my favorite discussions with Jordan. The difficulty of sorting yourself out is critically important, and not something he talks about very often.

[@ronpaulrevered]

Shout out to the woman who was questioning the problems of democracy.

[@nathancarey4514]

I came here after reading the interviewer's (Rowson) paper on Peterson called "12 Perspectives on Jordan Peterson." He asked really good questions and clearly appreciated Peterson's work and did show humility as well as a combative spirit. If you think he did a bad job I'm afraid you may have your own ideological blinders to examine. He asked tough questions in a clear way that I have not heard others put to Jordan so well.

[@Supermarxbro8]

"i'm gonna listen to 3 questions at a time and have you answer just ones i want"

[@zz77z7z7]

Oh yeah? Which questions did he skip?

[@andresbucio3000]

This interview has the merit of offering something that is valuable and different from all those interviews that have taken place already or will in the future about Petersons book

[@commonersthoughts8403]

The interview could have been much better. The interviewer did not seek to understand, he had an opinion and his opinion mattered more than trying to understand. I would have been okay with him methodically trying to understand but ego seemed to take over and the interview lost direction.

[@PhilosophyLines]

Didn't he just disagree with JP? He didn't change his mind in the course of the interview, no, but neither did JP, does that make JP similarly closed minded?

[@Happypast]

Commoner's Thoughts but the interviewer did seek to understand? Why are you saying he didn’t?

[@commonersthoughts8403]

Happypast It would have been better to probe with precise questions to get the core of the issue. He ended up getting a bit personal with JP and the interview lost direction. An interviewer should seek to understand and let the viewers make up their minds once he has asked all the good and insightful questions.

[@commonersthoughts8403]

Philosophy Lines this is a good question. JP was rigid but this happened because of ego taking over.

[@viggosmiles9496]

When people push Peterson, his brilliance truly shows!!

[@Lidrien]

People are being too hard on the interviewer. I was curious to hear Peterson's answers to the questions he was asking. He was asking good questions.

[@exhainca]

The interviewer did his job incredibly well.

[@thewouldyouratherguy]

I like the interviewer. It’s important to confront people’s ideas.

[@deroconnor4621]

No society falls unless it's ideas are first corrupted, this is why this matters so much