The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 429. The Psychology of Social Status and Class | Rob Henderson

Episode Date: March 7, 2024

Dr. Jordan Peterson speaks with best-selling author, Air Force veteran, and psychologist Rob Henderson. They discuss his recent memoir “Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family and Social Class” and go through Rob’s tumultuous upbringing within the California foster care system, the lived and observed transformations of social status and class as he ascended to Yale and Cambridge, how his thoughts on family structure and “luxury beliefs” developed, and why bookstores won’t host him for his tour.Rob Henderson grew up in foster homes in Los Angeles and in the rural town of Red Bluff, California. He enlisted in the U.S. Air Force at the age of seventeen. Following his enlistment, he attended Yale on the G.I. Bill and was subsequently awarded the Gates Cambridge Scholarship to study at the University of Cambridge, where he obtained a PhD in psychology in 2022. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Quillette, among other outlets, and his Substack newsletter is sent each week to more than 50,000 subscribers. This episode was recorded on February 25th, 2024 - Links - 2024 tour details can be found here https://jordanbpeterson.com/events   Peterson Academy https://petersonacademy.com/    For Rob Henderson: “Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class” (Book) https://www.amazon.com/Troubled-Memoir-Foster-Family-Social/dp/1982168536 On X https://twitter.com/robkhenderson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Substack https://substack.com/@robkhenderson Newsletter https://www.robkhenderson.com/ 

Hello, everybody. I'm talking today to Dr. Rob Henderson, who's a novelist and public intellectual, a psychologist, and author of the recent book, Troubled, A Memoir of Foster Care Family in Social Class, which was released in February. And we really talk about not so much his book exactly, although also that, but Rob's experience growing up in the foster care system in the United States in California.

His sequential transformations of personality and status as he moved from the foster care system, very fragmented and chaotic childhood upbringing, into the military and then to Yale and to Cambridge. So quite an upward arc on the academic and to Cambridge. And so quite an upward arc on the academic and intellectual side. And we review his book, The Autobiography That's Layed Out in This Book, talking about his early experiences

and concentrating as well on his developing ideas of family fragmentation. And the manner in which that fragmentation has been aided and abetted by the same elites, essentially, that Rob studied with at Yale, and perhaps to a lesser degree at Cambridge. And so he's the originator of the notion of luxury beliefs, right? The idea that the elite classes who are yammering constantly about privilege have as one of the privileges

they're unwilling to discuss, the privilege of adopting ideas that are very, very harmful to dispossessed people, especially those who are economically dispossessed. They have these ideas of unstable family structure, for example, that when implemented in the real world are absolutely catastrophic. And so we talk about that too. And so join us for that. So I just reread your book, Troubled, A Memoir of Foster Care, Family and Social Class, last week.

And I found some topics that I'd really like to zero in on. But the first thing I'd like to know is, when exactly was your book published and how is it doing? It was published February 20th. So as of this conversation just a few days ago, I think it's doing well. It seems to be well received. A lot of my sub-stack subscribers are leaving

positive feedback on Goodreads and on Amazon and it's been reviewed in various outlets and so far I've been really pleased with how things have developed. I hit some strange obstacles on the way. Initially my publisher and I thought we'd do some kind of a mini book tour, maybe visit some bookstores, do some book signings, and that ended up not going through, which was really disappointing for me, but fortunately, others have stepped into the breach, and we've been able to do some events outside

of the bookstore promo circuit. But so far, I've been very pleased. Okay, so that was one of the things I wanted to ask you about, because I saw some allusion to that on probably on on X So why have you been unable to arrange a standard book tour? In book in bookshops. I mean you do you'd assume that you know bookshops would want to Sell books Since that's what they do And you know, I had I ran into trouble with booksellers

with my books because they would, well, they certainly didn't promote them and they often hid them. And that was particularly true in Canada. Now, what the fact that had is hard to say. It might have had a positive effect, all things considered, because it was publicized. But still, to call it appalling is to say almost nothing.

It's this kind of underground shadow banning that seems to be a characteristic of our age. Okay, so what exactly happened to you? And how do you explain it? Because you think that your book, if your book would have been published in the 60s, it would have been something like a clarion call to the left, right? Because you grew up under restricted circumstances

to say the least, and it's a tale of you prevailing despite that. It isn't the sort of book that you would think would attract censorship attention. Like you're not the guy to attract that attention fundamentally. So why don't you walk me through that? Tell me what you make of it. Yeah, it was a, it was a surprise to me.

I didn't think that my book was particularly controversial, but perhaps my sense of these things, uh, you know, I don't, I don't know how much it can be trusted, uh, because the line is always moving constantly as far as what's acceptable or is unacceptable and the the line around political correctness and so forth, but I think the message in my book was perhaps to some degree unfashionable. I write in the book about the importance of responsibility, taking control of your life. In the later chapters of the book, I discuss some of the phenomena around elite universities, the self-inflicted controversies at Yale and some of the other Ivy League schools. I describe luxury beliefs and point out some of the hypocrisy of the elites.

And I think a lot of people who run bookstores maybe didn't like that message very much. It's not a very trendy message to describe because I don't attribute a lot of the difficulties that my friends and I experienced growing up to systemic forces or to other fashionable sources. And so as a result of that- So it's your diagnosis of the problem. My diagnosis of the problem. Well, I focus a lot on family and the deterioration of family, and that is not a topic that a lot of educated elites want to talk about.

So that's one possibility for what was happening with the back of the book, I have endorsements from people like Nicholas Christakis and people like JD Vance. And there's a blurb from you as well, Dr. Peterson. Oh, that'll be. And it's funny. Well, a friend of mine actually showed me, he was at a bookstore recently

and he showed me that there's a sticker. You know, there's the book and then they have the sticker of the book, the bookstore price with their logo. And there were two copies of my book and it was your name carefully covered with these stickers of the bookstore just covering Jordan B. Peterson. And if it was one book, maybe a coincidence, both books, I thought. That was intentional. And so I think that as well. But the thing is, even that, I think those two possible reasons are intertwined because you deliver this message as well about responsibility, a family of, I think you and I, we discuss a lot of the same issues and a lot of the same social ills that are plaguing

society. And so the bookstore promo circuit was shocking to me because I thought that I would have been kind of the right person to do that. You know, there are sort of big name people, you know, there are certain people, certain authors, if they were to do a book signing at a bookstore, it wouldn't work because they're too famous and too well known and the store would just get overrun. And then on the other hand, there are authors who don't have a lot of traction online, not a lot of presence in social media and so on, and they wouldn't be able to attract very many people to come for a signing. Whereas for someone like me, I've done a few events now, I'm out here in New York, and I can attract a few dozen people. And that's roughly the right kind of crowd you would expect for

bookstore signing. And yet they had no interest, but I would look at other authors who are doing bookstore signings, and even if they don't have the same online presence as me, they have messages that the legacy media really like. There's that recent memoir in defense of polyamory, of open marriages, you know, and these bookstores love to host authors like that, because it's provocative and interesting and it promotes a certain dogma and my book is not like that.

And I think that's one possible reason they didn't want me. Well, the funny one of the things about your book is that it's, in many ways, it's not political. You know, I mean, my sense of your book was that you detailed out the consequence of having your family life fragmented. And the consequences you observed in the kids that you associated with of having their family lives fragmented, right?

And you weren't, most of what you said by doing so was implicit rather than explicit, right? You grounded the arguments in your lived experience, so to speak. I mean, that's not all you do because, well, you also make reference to the relevant research literature. But it's appalling indeed that you're not encouraged to tell your story, because it's a very interesting story and anyone with any sense would pay attention to it. I'll tell you part of the reason it struck me, but maybe what I'll let you do first, why don't you just tell everybody who's watching and listening, just give them an outline of the book structure and so they'll have a better sense if they haven't read the book of what we're talking about.

So it's an autobiography, but why don't you take it from the top and just walk people through it? Right. Well, I wrote this memoir describing my very unusual trajectory into higher education and some of the lessons and observations I picked up along the way. I was born in Los Angeles into poverty. My mother, she was from Seoul. She came to the US as a young woman to study. She became addicted to drugs and was unable to care for me. We were homeless for a time, then we lived in a car, and then eventually we settled in this slum apartment in LA. And I never knew my father. My mother didn't know who he was either, so she was...

So I was in this apartment with my mother. She would tie me to a chair with a bathrobe belt while she would get high. She would have visitors coming in and out of the apartment at all hours of the day and night. Trading favors for drugs. And by the way, I know all of this information because later I received this thick document full of information from social workers,

forensic psychologists, and others who were involved in my case when I was in the foster care system in LA. And so I read these as an adult as I was writing the book to prepare. And so my mother would... She was very neglectful. Eventually some neighbors called the police. They heard me crying and struggling to break free from this chair.

The police arrived and she's questioned by the police. And then later by forensic psychologist asking who's Robert's father, what's going on in this kid's life. She didn't know who my father was either. She claimed that my father's name was Robert and that's who I was named after, but that was the extent of the information she could provide for them. So at age three, my mother was arrested. I was placed into the Los Angeles County foster care system

and spent the next just shy of five years living in seven different homes all across LA. And how old were you when that happened when you were taken away from her? I was three years old. I was three. Three, yeah. Okay. Yeah. And so- And then you spent the next seven years in a combination of homes. Yeah, in a variety of different homes. Later I did get some information about my birth father. So I actually took a 23and me genetic ancestry test last year.

Went my whole life not knowing this, but I'm half Hispanic on my father's side. And I made this joke, I posted this on X, that I wish I had known this when I was applying to colleges. But a friend of mine, I showed him the results. He was like, okay, so you were sort of Asian mixed race. He was like, you know, you went to bed white adjacent and you woke up as an underrepresented minority. But I didn't, I didn't know this. Uh, and so spent, you know, I lived in El Monte in St.

Gabriel Valley. These are kind of rundown areas in Los Angeles. Some of these foster homes had upwards of eight to ten kids living in them. LA is one of the most overburdened. I mean, the foster system in the US in general is extremely stressed as a system, but LA, it's especially bad. So I remember some of these homes, we'd have four kids to a room, it was two bunk beds, two kids on the top bunk, two kids on the bottom.

There are just so many children who need homes and not very many foster parents available. And so the TASAT agreement seems to be that, you know, as long as kids are being fed and aren't actively being abused, that it's better for them to be in one of these homes than to be sleeping on the street, which is true, but the system is extremely disorderly and it's just impossible to supply care for that many kids for a limited number of adults.

And so I document these experiences in these homes. It was difficult for me for a lot of reasons, but one reason was the level of uncertainty and instability because not only would I not know how long I would be in any particular home, but sometimes I'd enter a foster home and I'd befriend some of the other kids there and then they would be taken. Maybe someone from their family of origin would re-enter the picture, and so the kid would return to their aunt or mother or family member, or they'd go to another home. And so, you know, it was just a lot of, I don't know where I'm going to be. I don't know where these kids around me, how much

longer they're going to be around. And then eventually, after seven different homes in this cycle, I was adopted by this working class family. And we settled in this kind of dusty town in Northern California called Red Bluff, which is located in one of the poorest counties in the state. And this was the late 90s. And at the time I wasn't aware of this, I was just, you know, I was a little kid. But in hindsight, you know, having read a lot about class and family formation and what's occurring across the country,

I got this front row seat to witness firsthand the kind of family breakdown that scholars like Robert Putnam and Charles Murray and others have been documenting over the last few decades and so my adoptive parents divorced and there was a lot of chaos and financial catastrophe and drama not just in my life with this adoptive family, but the lives of my close friends and those around me in this blue-collar town and I described some of my friends' experiences and their outcomes as well in the book. And then you close the book.

I mean, so you end up in a family that's actually reasonably stable for some period of time, although it had its instabilities as well. It's confused instabilities, but you go from there to the military, and you actually, this is another reason maybe why your book is contentious, because you actually have pretty positive things

to say about your military experience, all things considered. I mean, I think you ran into its limitations for you after it had disciplined you to some degree, but you certainly do point out that for you, especially at that time in your life, the predictability and relative severity of discipline, predictable severity of discipline

was actually very good for you. And you found mentors and a pathway in the military that put you on a solid track. Yeah, that's right. And that got you funneled to higher education. Might as well fill that party too. Well, yeah, that's right. I mean, the enlisting in the first place was it was not the most well thought

through decision. By the time I was 17, going through all of these experiences, I just knew that the path I was on was not the right path. 17, going through all of these experiences. I just knew that the path I was on was not the right path. I saw, by this point, I was sort of self-aware and reflective enough, that I saw where my life was headed, where the lives of my friends were going. I had two jobs in high school.

I worked as a dishwasher at an Italian restaurant, and then I was a bag boy at a grocery store. And I had some older male coworkers in their early mid-20s and I would interact with them and hang out with them and you know on the one hand I was 17 and I kind of thought these guys were cool because they'd buy beer and weed for my friends and I and you know they were you know they were just older cool guys who had access to things that my friends and I couldn't access. But I did, even at that time, I did think it was strange that some, you know, 25-year-old guy would want to hang out with a bunch of high schoolers and drink beer with us.

And I thought to myself, is this what I want to be when I'm 25? And you know, that kind of carefree life, living weekend to weekend, is fun when you're 17 or 18, but when you're 25 it just seemed a little pathetic. And so I barely graduated high school. I had a C minus average, a 2.2 GPA. I didn't know what my options were as, I mean, well, I knew my options as far as university were concerned were basically non-existent, but one of my male high school teachers pulled me aside one day. And he, you know, initially

during the school year he would sort of prod me and berate me and say, why aren't you doing your homework? What's going on at home? And I would blow them off or I would back talk. And then eventually I think he kind of gave up that route and just started talking to me and asking me, you know, we talk about sports or we talk about whatever television, we just talked about whatever was interesting to me and one day he showed me a picture of himself in an Air Force uniform on his computer. He pulled up this photo and he basically said, this might be an option for you. He said, you know, I can tell that you're not

academically focused at the moment, but I can tell you're a smart kid and this might be a good option for you. And so that, you know, that was one of the things that planted the idea in my mind. There were others as well. I lived with my friend and his brother, my senior year of high school,

and their father had also been in the Air Force and he tossed that idea out to me. And so there were these kind of male figures in my life, not quite role models, but just older male figures that I trusted. And at that time, I probably wasn't aware of this, but I was longing for that kind of guidance from some older male mentor or figure, just someone who could give me some advice on what I should be doing with my life. I didn't have a father. I had no male presence at home. And so the military became this option.

I enlisted as soon as I graduated high school. I was still 17 years old. I had to have my adoptive mother sign up. I mean, what essentially was a permission slip because I was still legally underage. I was the youngest guy in my military unit in basic training and, you know, in hindsight, that was probably the best decision I ever made because it completely removed me from all of the bad influences of where I was growing up and all of my, all of the sort of, all of the freedom that my friends and I had. In the book I write about this experience, so a friend of mine had been sentenced to prison, and when he got out, I met him.

We met at a bar, had some beers, and I was talking to him. We kind of came to this same conclusion around the benefits of limitations and constraints, where we both talked about, I was telling him about my experiences in the military and basic training and all this stuff, and he was telling me about the routine and the mundane, everyday, structured life of prison.

And we both came to this conclusion that we both hated it at first, but then after a time we grew to appreciate it for what it did for us, for providing these boundaries. And my friend, I mean, it was funny, did for us, for providing these boundaries. And my friend, I mean, it was funny, he actually said, now that he was out, he actually sometimes missed it. He missed having that predictability and that routine and that structure.

And neither one of us had this when we were growing up. And so the military did sort of contain my impulses and give me some structure and channeled some of my aggressive and impulsive energy toward productive ends. In the book I write about the Young Male Syndrome and how the military finds ways to direct that towards something that is beneficial. Well, you know, the standard hypothesis for hard-headed criminologists with regards to incarceration is pretty,

it's pretty blunt and pretty straightforward. You can, there, you know, of course, about the age crime curve. So I think criminality among men peaks at 19, and then it precipitously drops off after And what prison does in many ways is segregate very badly socialized men until they mature. Now, you know, it doesn't do an optimal job of that, but the standard penological doctrine is it isn't rehabilitation even. It's housing, especially for the repeat offenders, it's housing until they say burnout, but that isn't really what happens. They don't burn out, they mature. And I think what happens if you grow up in a very, very chaotic environment where there's

very little attention paid to the future and everything's about the moment, that there is no structure that facilitates cortical maturation, essentially. You know, you can imagine that all those underlying competing motivational drives, sex, power, aggression, you know, the standard Freudian panoply, they have to be brought together under the rubric of some organizing structure. And that's essentially patriarchal. It's essentially masculine. And I don't think there's any difference. Freud talked about inhibition of aggression and inhibition of sexuality, but that's not a smart way of thinking about it. That was a major error on Freud's part, because it's not inhibition, it's integration, and it's maturation. And the cortex is an inhibitory organ, but

it's an integrating organ more than anything else. And part of the reason that you were crying out, I would say in the book for guidance, is because you were looking for a story that represented a mode of being that would be, that is in fact the pathway to maturity. So here's a definition of maturity. I'll try this out on you and you can tell me what you think about it. So the more immature you are, the more you're dominated by motivational and emotional drives, and they have a very short-term time horizon. The time horizon is basically now. So if you're anxious, you want to stop being anxious now. If you're in an incentive, reward state, excited and enthusiastic, you want gratification now. And now means what's pleasurable in the moment. What maturation means is what works for you in the

widest variety of situations over the longest possible span of time, but it also means something else. It means what's good for you and everyone around you in multiple situations for the longest period of time. Now you need a certain amount of stability in your environment for an attitude like that to even pay off. But I don't think there's any difference between that expansion of timeframe and the integration of lower order drives and emotions and maturation. I think those are all the same thing.

And if you're in a chaotic environment, see the other thing too, and this is something that's relevant about your memoirs, my sense has always been that a child that's neurologically intact needs one good model. That's enough. And like you can derive it various ways, you derived it partly from reading, but then you put it together piecemeal

from the fragments of people you met as well, right? Zero role models is a catastrophe. And part of the problem with fragmented families is that zero role models is frequently the case. And so there's just nothing for a young person to grab onto. The other thing that struck me about, there's many things that struck your book about your book. Another one of the things that struck me too is that,

and I learned this a while back, is that schools are absolutely appalling, appalling beyond comprehension at helping young children plan. There's, I built a program online called Future Authoring that helps people plan. And if you give that program to young men before they go to college,

this is especially one's true for ones that don't have a very good academic background. If they sit down and write a plan for 90 minutes, unsupervised with no feedback on the plan, they're 50% less likely to drop out. Wow. Yeah, no kidding, no kidding. 50%, like it's insane.

And what that points to is the fact that no one ever sat them down and said, okay, kid, where do you wanna be? You could be somewhere in five years. That's the first thing to announce. Like you could take control of your life and you could be somewhere in five years. If you could be there, where would it be?

Now I noticed in your book, when people did point that out to you, that was like a life raft for you. And you make that point clear with the story about seeing the older guy that you talked about in the uniform. Like it's something, isn't it? Some vision of at least a possible future. Right, yeah. Yeah, and it was, um, yeah, I didn't have a lot of

stable guidance, like you said. It was fragmentary. It was through books, through pop culture, through some of the people around me. But yeah, I mean on the point around schools, I remember, so in the book, I think it's quite clear that I'd always had some academic inclination. I was probably more oriented towards academics than my friends. But my academic performance was responsive to how stable my home life was when there was stability at home and predictability, and adults providing some oversight, my grades improved, and I started to become more focused on homework and tests. But then inevitably there were so many reversals and upheavals, and my grades responded to that as well. And by the time I reached high school,

my grades were in a toilet. So I did pretty well in middle school, and I got placed into these advanced courses in high school. And I was placed into chemistry, which was one of the advanced science courses. And once, you know, this was, this is kind of where my head was at when I was, I don't know, 14 or 15 years old,

was the class was difficult, and I didn't want to put in the effort. And I had no adults around me saying, you need to do this, you need to put in the effort. And, you know, so impulsive 15 year old kid, I went to my guidance counselor and said, oh, I want to be put into the lower-level science course. And he gave me this, you know, this spiel about how,

you know, it's going to throw off your academic trajectory, but, you know, here's this paper if you can have someone sign it, you know, that's fine. And so I forged my mom's signature and went into the lower-level science course, and that was the extent of it. And you know, when you're a kid without much in the way of guidance or mentorship or role models, it's very easy to make unwise decisions like that. And I did that repeatedly. Well, the issue in that situation is quite clear. Why wouldn't you take the easy route out? Yeah.

I mean, it's always, psychologists always have things backwards, always. They ask stupid questions like, why do people take drugs? That's a stupid question. The question is, why don't people take drugs all the time? Yeah. Because you can easily get lab animals under some circumstances to just self-administer cocaine non-stop. So the mystery of short-term motivation isn't a mystery. The mystery is, well, under what conditions

might a young man be motivated to do something difficult, like take a chemistry course, for example. And the answer to that, so this is a question I have for you too, because you could read your autobiography and your ups and downs academically two ways. You could say, and this is the way you lean, so that partly why I wanna ask you the question,

your grades varied with the stability of your environment. But I'm wondering to what degree your grades varied with the, what would you say, attractiveness of the vision that you saw. You know, because like when you got to the military and you saw a career in front of you, for example, you buckled down and worked like mad. Now, I know you also had the stability there,

but it's not easy to discriminate between the conditions that enable people to thrive because they can see that they're sacrifices, they're making sacrifices towards something, they have clearly come to value versus they're supported by people in a stable environment. So I'm wondering about your thoughts on that. Yeah, I like that distinction. I mean, perhaps sort of implicitly or unconsciously I was longing for that long-term vision, but

I would just say like in the moment it was, you know, I don't think very many 17 or 18 year olds are really thinking that far ahead into the future in a sort of a deliberate intentional sense. I really think it was about sort of responding to the incentives of the moment and one of the things the military did and what you know, good parenting and good sort of adults and mentors do is sort of contain that energy

so that once the young person reaches the point where they have the ability to reflect and consider the future, you know, you sort of shepherd them to that point, and now they can sort of think about their own futures and what they want for their lives. Whereas for me, it was more just about making bad decisions and containing that to reach that point. and containing that to reach that point. Right. Okay. Well, so we could say that in a stable environment, maybe this is a way of rectifying the two perspectives or reconciling them, you could say that in a stable, well-run household,

the value of the future is implicit in the rituals of the household, right? Like the household itself, the reason we would regard it as well run and stable is because it does take a long-term view. And so, and your point is, yeah, go ahead. Well, as you're saying this, and then even as I'm thinking about my own answer, I'm realizing it's,

I'm actually leaning more and more towards your point now. And a story just occurred to me that I tell in the book actually. So there's this, there was a period in my adolescence where there was some stability. My adoptive mother entered a relationship with this woman and they raised me from roughly age nine to 13 and with some hiccups along the way and after.

But I remember I was 13 years old and my mother and her partner Shelly, they, I had some chores and some responsibilities around the house, but they wanted me to build a fire in the mornings so that the house would be warm by the time they got up at seven o'clock to get ready for work. So they asked me to get up at 5.45, 5.30, and do this for them because, you know, heating a home with firewood was less expensive than central heating. And Northern California can get a bit frosty in the winters. And I remember I argued with them about this, and I was angry, this idea that I had to get up so much earlier than everyone else in the house.

And my mom and Shelly sat me down, and I'm 13 years old. And again, I probably wasn't thinking that much about the future. But they used this. They said, Shelly, she sat me down. She said, your mom and I work all day to pay the bills. And you're getting older, and you need to contribute to the house. And they said, you're the man of the house. And I remember when they used this term,

it sort of reframed that chore. It went from this burden being put on me that I wanted to battle against to, no, I'm a productive member of this household and I'm doing something for my moms, for my adoptive sister, I'm doing something to make their lives easier. And so perhaps what you're saying about this vision

of the future, if it's put in the right way, if the story is told in a right way, and that's what that was, the man of the house was this vision, this story, that it did unlock something for me in my mind, but it had to be presented to me in that way. I wouldn't have arrived there on my own. No, no, right.

But I mean, I would say that is the opportunity of responsibility, right? And it does, because it's very easy, and this is why conservatives, I think, have a hard time talking to young people. It's easy to make an obligation into a finger-wagging necessity, right? Like a moral obligation. But that isn't the right way to frame a genuine responsibility, because if it's a genuine

responsibility, it actually matters if you do it. And the reason it matters is because if you don't do it, things actually don't go well. Like there's a value to your sacrifice. That's a good way of thinking about it. And they did strike the right chord with you. And I remember that part of your book because what they indicated to you was that that was a way of signaling your mature worth. Not of signaling it.

I don't want to use that language of expanding yourself up into that role. And so how long did you light the fire and how did you feel about doing that? I mean, it was for that entire winter and actually even the winter after that. And I felt great about doing it after that. I mean, day to day it was obnoxious and burdensome.

And there were mornings I woke up and wished I didn't have to do it. But when I would see, you know, my mom and Chelly and everyone in the house wake up after me and, you know, the house was warm and I could see that and people were comfortable. And, you know, when I woke up, it was freezing. And then when they woke up, it was warm.

And I would go to school in the mornings with that knowledge. And yeah, I felt good about myself for doing that. Yeah. Yeah, that was one of the bright spots. You see, that's very, well, that's so interesting, right? Because that shows you too that the idea that you're inhibiting your impulsiveness is not right. Is the what you're doing is you're transforming

the idea of responsibility into an incentive reward, technically, by associating with an overarching goal, like a genuine goal. And you might say, well, goals are arbitrary, it's a moral relativism argument, but they're not arbitrary. Because, for example, if the house is cold, then people suffer.

Now, you could say, well, that's arbitrary too, but if you're the sort of person who thinks that suffering is arbitrary and you can make relative arguments about it, there's no sense talking to you anyways, because it's just not gonna go anywhere. But it's so interesting to see that the proper framing of that task,

I know I understand the fact that it was still difficult, you still had to get up in the morning when it was cold and light the fire, you know? So it didn't change the proximal discomfort, but they awakened you to a higher order way of apprehending your environment. And it's clearly the case, it's continually the case through your autobiography that when someone opens a door

like that for you in a way that you, that got to you, you know, that you found credible, that you were instantly motivated. You even did that to yourself to some degree with reading. So why don't you walk through that too? Because, you know, that was the first account I had read of someone who learned to read well at an old enough age so they remember the realization. So, you know, what happens to lots of kids?

And this is so appalling because there's no excuse for it whatsoever. So reading is burdensome until you can read for meaning. Right? So if you're sounding out words or even if you're sounding out phrases or even if you're sounding out phrases or even if you're still trying to figure out sentences, you know, because you haven't automatized the perceptions, then it's effortful. But as soon as you cross that threshold and now you're

reading for meaning, it's instantly insanely rewarding. And so what you need to teach kids how to read is massed practice at automatization, right? So they need to see B's, P's, Q's and D's 10,000 times so that they build a neural circuit that just recognizes letters, recognizes two letter combinations, three letter combinations, common words, then common phrases. That's about when you get to be an expert reader. But you can remember actually working through that yourself. So why don't you tell the story about learning to read, why you decided to do that, and then

also what reading did for you? Right. Yeah. I didn't learn to read until I was seven, and most people have memories of age seven, and that was an important memory for me. So I was changing schools every three to six months, changing homes, and no one read to me. And so I had to teach myself.

I remember it being a really... I remember just being embarrassed initially. By that point, second grade, teachers would start to call on kids to read aloud in class. And I would make a joke or say I didn't bring the right book, or I would find ways to get out of it. But I remember at one point, my teacher said, she asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up, and I think I said I wanted to be a scientist. And this was because I'd caught some bit of Bill Nye,

the science guy on TV back in the 90s at this time. And, you know, she said, if you want to be a scientist, you have to learn to read. And I said, Bill Nye never reads. And she said, well, he doesn't read on TV, but, you know, every scientist has to learn to read. And so, you know, like, he doesn't read on TV, but every scientist has to learn to read. And so, okay, so if I want to be a scientist, I have to read.

It sounds like, and then by that point, I started to piece together that really, if you wanted to be anything, you have to read. And so the teacher let me borrow some kindergarten level books. I took them home and slowly worked my way through it. And I knew the alphabet and I knew how to sound out each letter.

But it took a lot of effort to get to that breakthrough point that you just mentioned of, okay, here are the individual letters and then here are the words and then you put the words together. And then after working through that repeatedly, again, with books meant for four and five year olds and I'm seven, finally it started to click and I could see the images in my mind of, okay, now things are clicking for me and there's a story being told here. But I didn't even understand that that's what I was supposed to be doing when I was reading. I would listen to stories that others would tell me when they would read. I wonder if that's the point where you,

where the auditory and the visual cortex are now, there's an overlap area between them. And the overlap areas between the higher orders, higher order areas of the cortex are the areas that Luria, Alexander Luria, the great Russian neuropsychologist identified with consciousness per se. I wonder if that breakthrough moment when you... Because that was quite striking in your book,

because you said you remember when you became proficient enough at reading, which is really an auditory phenomenon, right? You're using your eyes as ears when you're reading. And then all of a sudden it's hooked to your visual imagination, right? That connection emerges. It's got to be an overlapping system. So now the words can activate the images. And that's when true understanding begins. It was very interesting to me to see that you could actually remember when that happened.

You know, but it's a sad thing, you know, it's this is, this is an unforgivable failing of the education system because computerized tutors could teach every child to automatize letter and word recognition. Oh, it's like the smart kids, the higher IQ kids, are going to learn to automatize faster. But it would be a rare kid indeed who wouldn't get there with sufficient mass practice. And computers are so good at that, you know, so good at presenting, presenting rewarding, presenting rewarding, presenting rewarding, and that's all you need. You just need that immediate feedback.

Now, see, you said something very interesting in that story too, because you linked your motivation once again to something approximating a vision or a plan. You said you had nursed as a child, even though it was just more or less a casual encounter with Bill Nye, you thought, well, maybe a scientist is something I could be. Right.

Okay, so now that gleamed as a distal vision. And then the teacher informed you that you were going to have to learn to read because you got to ask yourself, you know, what in the world was it that actually compelled you to swallow your pride and admit that you could only read kindergarten books? That's a tough blow. And it's really easy for kids who should have learned something earlier to do everything they can not to admit that to themselves, because it's embarrassing.

So, but you did admit it to yourself and then you went and you actually studied, which is by yourself, which is actually quite a difficult thing to do when you're not extracting out meaning from the words. Do you remember at that time, like was it because you had, I don't wanna put hypotheses into your mind, but what do you think it was that actually motivated you

to do that work? Well, I think a part of it was maybe a sort of a baser motivation of just not wanting to be embarrassed in class anymore when the teachers would call on me to read, wanting to keep up with the other kids, being able to communicate with, you know, because kids would talk about books or, you know, be able to make friends and to not be, you know, this oddball kid who always had to find ways to skirt the coursework. And then, yes, seeing people on TV or people, movies and these images of people who seem

to be interesting and successful and so on. And that seemed like something I, yeah, I wanted to, I aspired to something like that. I mean, it's funny, like you mentioned, you know, high IQ kids can sort of find their way into teaching themselves to read and going down that path. And that's, that is what I did. But I mean, it's funny. So, so right around this time when I was teaching myself to read, I was doing so badly in school that the teacher and my social worker, they thought that I might have had a learning disability. And again, I was changing schools all the time and changing homes. And in hindsight, I thought it was a little bit, you know, it's ridiculous that, and

you have this young boy who's not doing well in school. And the, instead of sort of investigating this, you know, living in foster care and all of the instability and disorder, the response was to medicalize it or to put some kind of diagnostic label on it. And, you know, fortunately, so they sent this psychologist to the home and I took this test and I scored, I actually scored just below average. So I was like in the range of normal. And part of the reason I scored so low, I did okay on the other portions, the other subdomains of the test, but the verbal score was really low and that's because I didn't know how to read.

And some of the questions I gave this half-hearted effort, it was a very sort of messy, my responses to this. And again, I have the files and the reports from this period. And so, you know, it's just, you know, coincidence or, you know, very fortunate, I guess, that I scored just high enough to avoid being labeled and medicalized and so on. But one of the points I try to make in the book as well, you know, the question

around IQ and nature and nurture and so on is that having curiosity and academic aptitude is necessary but not sufficient to do well in school. And so I had the sort of raw ingredients, but that's, you know, that's just one portion of it. You also need it to be channeled. You need all of the other things you've not been discussing. And I didn't have any of that. And so it wasn't until I wasn't in an environment where in order for my habits to have been stable and predictable, I needed to be in an environment that was stable and predictable.

And once I reached that environment, then those good qualities started to shine through. They shined through on occasion when I was in school, but it wasn't the same. And so, yeah, the reading portion was important. Once I learned to read, that became a source of comfort, and it was soothing for me. Once I started to go to school libraries, check out books, I started to read biographies and memoirs and this was a way for me to, I was sort of drawn to people who also had undergone

and risen above difficult circumstances. And I didn't know at that time, I wasn't consciously aware that I was seeking out these stories for some specific reason, but wasn't consciously aware that I was seeking out these stories For some specific reason, but in hindsight, I think I was looking for some kind of inspiration or some a source of A path of guidance. Yeah. Yeah. Well, definitely definitely and and unsurprisingly, I mean That's what stories are for Fundamentally and it doesn't it's not surprising at all that you would gravitate

to the ones that bore most specifically on your circumstances. It's also interesting too, you know, that this is part of that interplay between environmental instability and planning. There isn't a lot of point in planning if your plans are always going astray for reasons

that you can't control. And it is also something that can undermine your faith in planning itself. And one of the things the military did for you clearly was set up a circumstance where the rules of the game were very clear. If you did the work, you were going to get the reward, and that actually worked. And so you say in your book, for example, that there was one, at one point,

you were promoted much earlier, much more quickly in the training regime than was typical. So you could also see a direct payoff there. It shouldn't say direct. It worked on both ends, Jordan. It was the both ends Jordan. It was it was the reward was immediate. You know, you you perform these tasks in Excel, you'll be rewarded. And then on the other side of that, if you commit these transgressions, if you violate these guidelines,

you'll immediately and swiftly be punished. I think both of those things were important. Right, right, right. You know, you sort of almost trapped the other militaries like this, I don't know, like a giant skinner box or something of like, do this, you know, positive reinforcement, negative, it's all there. And so even something as simple as failing a drug test, so they have these random drug tests, you never know when it's going to occur.

If you fail a drug test, you can be court-martialed and go to military prison. Whereas in the outside world, for my friends, for example, who didn't follow that same path, I mean, you can do a lot of drugs, you can have a lot of promiscuous sex, you can commit a lot of crimes and drink and drive, you can do all of these things. And that can carry on for years before finally the consequences arise from that. Whereas the military had this system in place that, you know, if you drink and drive once and you're caught, you know, that's, you know, then it's prison.

If you do this, you know, it's, the penalties are very explicit, clear and swift. And so it works on both ends, punishment and reward. And I think both of those pieces in place were important for me. I mean, it's funny, I did do well on the military exams and the promotion, and I was always promoted ahead of schedule. And it's strange because even in those moments, my

good and bad qualities kind of shined through. I was promoted early and I earned those promotions. But, you know, as I was writing the book and describing my experiences, it may not have been ideal for me to have achieved promotion so early, because in the military, at least in the Air Force at this time, once you reach a certain rank, they allow you to move off base and get a house or a place outside in the civilian world. You still go to the base for work when you're on duty,

but then you go home to your residence. And so I got promoted very quickly. And when I was 19 19 I got a house with some friends off base and we turned this into like this giant kind of party house and that allowed me to make bad decisions and drink a lot and get into trouble and so strangely you know it's almost sort of ironic that the fact that I was able to excel led to this point where I was able to be in a position of complete freedom again, and again, start to make self-defeating decisions. So anyway.

Right, right. Well, one of the things, okay, so let's talk about the chaos a bit more. You know, because when I was reading your book, there's certain overlap in our experience because I came from a little town, way the hell out in the middle of nowhere, and it was only about 50 years old, and it was a working-class community. And most of my friends never went to college or university, a few did, but not many. But there were some differences between, some important differences between my time of upbringing in York's. Okay, so almost all my parents' friends had intact families. So my mom and dad had, let's say,

five sets of close family friends. And this was also true for my relatives, by the way, my mom and dad siblings, so my aunts and my uncles. Virtually no divorce. It was also true for my friends. Now, my relationship with my father was much better than the relationship most of my friends had with their fathers. That was often a consequence of alcoholism, not always, but often. But all my friends who had certainly the same kind of delinquent tendencies as the people that, as you and the people that you describe hanging around with, they all had intact families. Right. So the thing that really struck me about reading your biography was the additional

cataclysmic consequences of continually fragmented primary relationships. Yeah. Well, this is, I mean, it's, yeah, it's, that is an interesting point. I mean, I remember listening to you sort of describe your early life in other platforms and podcasts and mediums and thinking about how sort of working-class communities have changed over time. So I cite some statistics from Charles Murray's book Coming Apart where you know one of the most striking ones from that book is that in 1960, 95 percent of children born in the US, regardless of social class, socioeconomic status,

were raised by both of their birth parents. By 2005, for the upper class, for people with college educated parents with white-collar jobs, it dropped from 95 percent in 1960 to 85% in 2005. It's a slight dip, but it's still the norm, two-parent, intact families are the norm in kind of upper and upper middle class areas. Whereas for the working class, it dropped from 95% in 1960 to 30% in 2005. These are non-collegge educated blue collar working class and that when I read that statistic it perfectly reflected my own experiences. You know now post college the friends that I have

made since you know leaving the military and obtaining degrees and so on all of them without fail have been raised in intact families and then I think back to Red Bluff and my time there and I had five close friends growing up. I write about some of their experiences in the book and of the six of us, none of us were raised by both of our birth parents. There was me sort of raised in foster homes in varying states of disorder. I had friends raised by single moms, one friend raised by a single dad, one friend raised by his grandmother because his mom was addicted to drugs and his dad was in prison.

And that's like a very common picture now of what these communities look like. I remember seeing an interview with you, Jordan. I don't remember which it was, but you described how family deterioration has sort of hit people based on sort of their level of marginalization and vulnerability and predilections and so forth and how it sort of hit sort of poor black families first and then you know poor white

families working class families and now what I was seeing in Red Bluff by the late 90s even kind of lower middle class families were also kind of deteriorating more and more sort ofating more and more, sort of creeping more and more upward, but there's still that sort of rarefied upper segment of society. The top quintile, say the top 20%, that they are almost completely shielded from this

and have no exposure to what's happening in the rest of society. Yeah, well, let's go there. I wanna walk through your biography a bit more so that we can talk about your experiences with higher education. Maybe we can meld that into what we're gonna talk about next.

Okay, so I left my little town and got a college education first, and then I went to a fairly large university in Edmonton, and then I went to McGill. And so I was kind of climbing up the ladder of sophistication and educational sophistication and urban size, right? And so, and then I went from McGill to Harvard. And so I came from that little town

and hit the top of the academic pyramid. It's certainly that was the case in the 1990s, and that was really something. And so I got a chance to see. So in Alberta, in the province I grew up, and there wasn't much of a class structure at all. Alberta was too new to have a class structure. Montreal had a clear class structure,

and Boston, of course, much clearer than Montreal even. And so I got to see what it meant that a class structure existed. And one of the things I really came to understand as I progressed through the university system was this warped, elitist culture that increasingly came to characterize the universities. And so what I saw, look, a lot of the students I had

at Harvard were really top rate kids. And Harvard in the 90s was a very merit-based institution. Now, if you were a legacy student, if your parents had gone to Harvard, you had an edge at admissions. But even so, the probability that you were gonna be a legacy student who couldn't cut it was pretty damn low. So, and the typical student was extremely

academically gifted and then good at at least two other things, right? So these were stellar students. But the more radical types, they had this proclivity that really disturbed me, which was that having all the privileges of being privileged wasn't nearly enough. They needed to have all the privileges of being privileged and all the privileges of being underprivileged at the same time.

And so I wanna run a variant of the luxury beliefs idea past you. Cause I think luxury beliefs have, which is a lovely phrase by the way, they have two dimensions. The first is they provide you with a universal explanation for very complex phenomena, so you don't have to think about them ever again.

And the oppressor-oppress narrative fits that perfectly. Because you can analyze, it's like Marxism gone. It's like manic Marxism. It's Marx at least had the sense to note that the primary differentiator in terms of oppression was economic. And you can make a reasonable case that to those who have more accrues and you can also make a case that once you have, it's easily easy to engage in regulatory capture

to make the playing field unfair so you can sustain your advantage. Okay, and so if you're gonna throw the Marxists their bone, that would be the bone to throw them. Well, Marxism fell out of favor in the 1970s, even among intellectuals, although they were very annoyed about it. And then it morphed into this meta-Marxism

where every single possible comparison between people became an oppressor-opressed comparison. Now, the advantage to that is that you can learn that analytic process in 10 minutes. So, we did some research in 2016 that showed very clearly that the best predictor of politically correct authoritarianism, so you can imagine that that's this insistence upon an oppressor-oppress narrative. There's a cloud of ideas that surrounds that. The best predictor of that was low verbal intelligence. It was a walloping predictor. It was correlated, I think it was negative 0.48.

It was more correlated than grades and IQ. It was a walloping correlation. Okay, but there's another element too, and this is probably more germane specifically to the notion of luxury belief, is that imagine that people have beliefs because they explain the world, but also imagine that they have beliefs because they confer upon the holder unearned moral virtue.

And this oppressor-oppress narrative is a two for one because it provides you with a comprehensive explanation of every sociological, political, and economic interaction imaginable because they can all be viewed through the lens of power. Plus, it presents you with a one move solution to being moral. Sorry, there's three elements.

The one move solution is you identify with the oppressed, you're virtuous. But then there's the shadow of that, which is once you've identified the oppressor, you have a valid target for your darkest desires. So you've got three attractions to that dread doctrine, right? Stupid people can understand it quickly with no effort. That works out real well in departments of education, for example, or faculties of education or social work. Yes, absolutely. Well, we know perfectly well that the disciplines in universities that have the students with the lowest IQ are the most woke.

Like the data are not crystal clear. So they're crystal clear. Right. So it's very attractive if you're not very bright. And that's also attractive to your teachers if they're also not very bright, and that's also attractive to your teachers, if they're also not very bright, and I'm talking about you, faculties of education professors. And so, and then you are morally virtuous because you're standing for the oppressed, or for the, yeah, for the oppressed, or you can even claim oppression for yourself,

at least by proxy. And so there you get to have the advantage of being in the oppressor class, which you clearly are if you're in elite university, but because you're an ally, you don't have to... Exactly. You don't have to pay any attention to that. Plus, now you have a target for your... This is where I think the antisemitism is really instantly understandable, right? Because there's nothing more fun than being anti-semitic with a moral twist. But if you read the history of anti-Semitism, it's always been that way. Yeah, that's not new

That's not new. You identify the Jews as oppressors and then you're moral for persecuting them and that's perfect, right? If you're resentful and bitter and you need a target for your bile and spite. That oppressor-oppress narrative, it just gives you all of that at once and that seems to me. So you have worked a lot at fleshing out this idea of luxury beliefs and pop. Yeah, and I believe coined the term and popularized it, which is, you know, quite an achievement because it's hard to it's hard to hit a phrase so accurately that it becomes a

you know, it becomes well, it becomes a known phrase. It becomes part of the culture. You have to have a kind of poetic accuracy to do that. So tell me what you think about that conceptualization of luxury belief. And if there's anything that in your estimation it lacks. and if there's anything that in your estimation it lacks. Well, so I coined this term luxury beliefs defined as ideas and opinions that confer status on the elite while inflicting costs on the lower classes. And no, I think that all of those sort of ideas that you laid out there fall under that framework. A core feature of a luxury belief too is that the believer is sheltered from the consequences of his or her belief. And so as you're describing this, the oppressor oppressed, you don't have to think too deeply. I'm reminded of a quote from the cognitive scientist Pascal Boyer. He has this line, theory is information for free.

And it's kind of this tongue-in-cheek line that, you know, once you have the theory, you don't have to learn anything because you just enter this new environment and you learn a few facts, but you have this theory available to you to just sort of twist everything into this system. And you immediately know.

It's a compression algorithm. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. It's a compression algorithm. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Often a bias compression algorithm. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a compression algorithm. Yeah, definitely. Often a biased compression algorithm. Yeah, yeah, and it allows you to bypass the difficult work of learning. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. Well, and then if you're removed from the consequences, which you are, if you're protected by your wealth, then you also are never in a situation where your idiot theories can be disproven. Yeah, yes, yeah. And then by the time your ideas are implemented into policy or into culture, you move on to the next thing, and you can just sort of outrun the consequences of your own

beliefs. It doesn't always work that way, but often it does. but often it does. And then, yeah, the oppressor oppressed the ability to claim the mantle of virtue. I mean, I saw that so often. I see it still at elite universities that, you know, these inhabitants, these graduates, students and graduates of elite universities, it's not enough for them to be members of the socioeconomic 1%, but they also want to be seen as good people. And I think they wrestle with some of this guilt, I think, for being so privileged and so fortunate. And so they attempt to compensate by exploiting, I mean, I saw this a lot at Yale.

They're exploiting whatever commonality they have with historically mistreated groups. And some of it honestly seemed strategic and duplicitous because, you know, these are very competitive institutions and every edge helps. And so if you can claim to be non-binary or you can claim to be a member of this or that or the other group, then you can get an edge in a prestigious internship or into the law school of your choice or whatever student organization. Well, you can also see how that can produce. So a lot of psychopathology is positive feedback loop gone mad.

So you can see a positive feedback loop there because the ideology tilts in the direction of privileging marginalization. Well, then all you have to do is claim marginalization to become privileged. Well, then the thing is just like you're just done, especially as you pointed out when they're really competitive types, and there's nothing, I mean, one of the real advantages to the US elite,

let's say, is there insanely driven competitiveness? But look the hell out if that's taken a bent turn, because now it's gonna be, well, it's so interesting too, because as you point out, it's competition for marginalization without bearing any of the costs of marginalization. So that's a pretty good deal. And there are probably more nefarious things going on under the surface too, like what reproduction, interference

with reproduction of other people is a mating strategy, so reproductive strategy. And so God only knows how deep that goes. So I did read this study, his name escapes me, but he's a professor, I believe at the Columbia Business School. And it's really interesting. So he did this study of students at elite universities, and their willingness to disclose marginalized identities. And what he found was that for the identity categories that the elite care a lot about, that they claim are beleaguered and disadvantaged and oppressed and so on sexuality, ethnicity, orientation, those things, that students at elite universities

are not concealing those identities, that typically in public settings they are willing to discuss these aspects of their identity. There was only one marginalized identity that students were very reluctant to discuss publicly at elite universities in those settings. And to me, unsurprisingly, that identity was low socioeconomic status, that students were embarrassed about being very poor if they came from those backgrounds. Well, it's so interesting because... That's the one thing that these places don't talk about is class. Well, it's so interesting because you can think of this postmodern pathology as a variant

of Marxism, but it's actually a rebellion against Marxism at the same time, right? Because it isn't that the axes of oppression, it's not only that they've multiplied, it's that the axes of oppression have multiplied and supplanted the economic. Right, so the one axis where the oppressor, oppressed narrative can probably obtain the most purchase is the one that has the least cash.

So if you're poor and white, it's irrelevant. The fact that you're poor is irrelevant. Yeah, I mean, even if you're poor and non-white, honestly, I mean, it's really interesting, these institutions where there's a lot of embarrassment about being very rich. So students aren't going to brag about coming from very wealthy families.

They'll conceal that identity. But they are also, you know, the poor students will also conceal that identity as well. It's like everyone wants, you know, the myth in America, everyone's middle class. And I think there's something about universities too that no student wants to be known as poor, no student wants to be known as rich. But being poor is a, like that is, like you're describing, that is actually something that Marx got right, that actually being very poor is very difficult,

especially in the modern West, that these other identities, we've gone a long way to becoming more tolerant and welcoming and so on. But being poor, regardless of time and place, it's always difficult. And that's the one thing that these universities and the students within them don't want to discuss or concentrate on. Well, I also think that the overwhelming emphasis on sexual identity has an unbelievably dark

shadow too, because, I mean, sexuality, like any primal drive, is very, in its full manifestation, it's very focused on the immediate. Now, everyone knows that sexuality-like aggression can be exploitative. In fact, the woke types squeak about that all the time because they view most heterosexual normativity as exploitative sexuality. They're perfectly aware that sexuality can be exploitative.

But if you're out for a hedonistic time, then valorizing your sexual identity is the best way of transforming a vice into a moral virtue. It's unbelievably dark. Now, one of the things I've been quite struck by recently too, there's a lot of research on the dark tetrad now, right? Psychopathy, Machiavellianism,

narcissism and sadism, because they had to add sadism, because it looks like those other three culminate in sadism. Okay, so here's a question. What predicts short-term mating proclivity? The answer is, well, it's dark tetrad proclivity. And that's related to something even more deep, even more deep biologically,

because there's two types of reproductive strategy. There's K and R. And K means carrying capacity in R, just think means just reproduction. Like a mosquito is an R reproducer. So there's like a million offspring and like one lives. Human beings are the ultimate exemplar of K strategizers. Very few offspring, extremely high investment.

But then within human beings, there are K and R reproducers. And the R reproducers are the dark tetrad types. And so you can't have sexual licentiousness on the basis of identity without inviting in the sadistic psychopaths. So that's another fun little twist on the luxury belief phenomenon. On this idea of defining,

I mean, what I find interesting about people who want to speak and proclaim about their identities around sexual orientation is there many people are happy to identify with this sexual orientation or that, but very few people seem to be willing or eager to be identified with their actual sexual history in terms of their actual behavior. And I'm speaking I'm speaking here around this idea around slut-shaming or around how many partners you've had or what young people now call body count.

There's a lot of concern around, you know, don't speak about that, don't shame people for their... But it's interesting because people will identify with the label but then disavow the action around the label or any label really. Yeah, the sexual history. Well, I would say as a clinician, I would say the rationale for that's quite clear because, look, one of the best predictors, one of the most reliable correlates and predictors of later criminality is early promiscuity. That's been known for like 40 years.

And it's partly because the psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian sadists exploit other people and themselves for sexual gratification. Well, the reason that there's a bruja-ha about slut-shaming is because the hedonistic narcissists don't want to be called out for their behavior. about slut-shaming is because the hedonistic narcissists don't want to be called out for their behavior. And so what they do is they make being held responsible

for their own deviant and exploitative behavior. They make being called out on that a moral failing of the person they're accusing. Yeah, which is a really interesting maneuver. And it reminds me of, there was a big study in, I want to say it was 2020, which found that the, so this was on the dark triad. Sadism wasn't studied in this particular paper,

but they found that the dark triad traits correlated with victim signaling. Yeah, well that's a typical cluster B, it's typical cluster B psychopathology. It's like the way that you you cover up your predation with the claim of being a victim. Right. Absolutely. Absolutely. And it was really interesting. I mean, the researchers of this paper, you know, they described how, you know, billions of dollars are lost in insurance fraud cases and hundreds of millions, rather, in insurance fraud cases and stuff like people will lie to advantage themselves and people who score highly in the dark triad are especially likely to do so.

And they note that in modern Western societies, we have this attitude towards people who are victimized that they should be compensated and treated well and sympathized with. And people who are high on the dark triad are very good at sort of monitoring their environment and looking at what strategies they can execute to extract some kind of social or professional or sexual reward. And now more and more it's, you know,

claiming the mantle of victimhood, which is, I mean, I guess it's important to be clear that it's not that people who are actually victimized are likely to score high on the dark triad. It's that people high on the dark triad are very manipulative and aware that now pretending that wearing the camouflage of victimhood can be advantageous. And, you know, it's tricky as a society because we want to sympathize with victims, but also we want to be aware of the dark triad types. Okay, so that's been well-modeled by the game theorists. So if you have a group of cooperators,

so let's say they're agreeable, and they are sympathetic to the... I don't want to say victimized. I want to say to the to the hurt and the sick, the hurt and the infantile. Right? The agreeable cooperators will attend to the sick, the elderly and the infantile. Right? Then you could think they're the ones who are genuinely in need. They're also the ones They're the ones who are genuinely in need. They're also the ones for whom provision of help

is advantageous. So now imagine you have a group of those people together and they're all cooperating. They do just fine. But if you throw one psychopath into the equation, he takes everything, right? And so this has been modeled out very well, is that the pathology of agreeableness is that it's indefinitely open to subversion. Right. And so you need, that's why you need,

and of course the psychopathic types, the narcissists, they know this perfectly well, especially the cluster B types, because they're absolutely willing to proclaim victim status as loudly as it can possibly be proclaimed on any dimension whatsoever to gain an advantage, to gain the upper hand practically. But see, the moral upper hand, I think the right way to think about this is that there isn't anything more valuable than reputation. Right, because there's no difference between reputation. There's no difference between reputation and wealth fundamentally. I mean, even monetary wealth

is a form of abstracted reputation. So, you know, it's just being tokenized essentially, like money's tokenization of reputation. Well, the problem is reputation can be gamed. And we know too that young women are much more likely to fall for the dark tetrad types because they mimic reputation. Yeah, that's their key.

And confidence and competence and... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They have the confidence of the competent without the competence. Yes, I mean, it's, yeah, people value, especially more and more now. I mean, this is a, the discussion around cancel culture and mobbing and all of these things. I mean, people treated it like it's unserious, but people care deeply about how they're viewed in the eyes of others and social esteem.

And I remember there was a study a few years ago that I read about, this came out in 2017. Roy Balmeister was an author on this paper. I don't recall everyone on here, but they basically found that, they looked at the World Value Survey and pulled out certain items and found that right next to physical safety reputation was the second priority for people.

And they found, I mean it was interesting, some of the studies that they did where they gave forced choice questions to participants in a separate study in this paper where they asked people essentially, you know, would you rather have a body part amputated or be known as a Nazi or be known as a pedophile? And most of the participants said they would rather lose an arm or a leg or be known as a pedophile. And most of the participants said they would rather lose an arm or a leg than be known as something so vile as a pedophile or a Nazi. I mean, people care deeply about these things.

And so dark triad types are aware of this. They know how to target people's reputations and form mobs. And I mean, I'm really interested, just all of the sort of the correlates of the dark tetrad, dark triad, these traits, one of them is age. You're probably aware of this, Dr. Peterson, that there's an inverse correlation between age and scores on the dark tetrad, such that younger adults score higher on these traits than older adults.

And yet we have this situation more and more in society and on college campuses and elsewhere where older adults are abdicating their responsibility and letting young adults who just proportionate number of them would actually qualify for clinical levels of psychopathy and narcissism. But generally speaking, they score higher than average on those scales anyway. And just a large share of them are eager for power, for influence, for wealth, and they're willing to do whatever they can and take whatever maneuvers possible. Well, I think there's something also that's even more ominous going on, Rob wrong because so the typical psychopath historically speaking was a wanderer, right, an itinerant, you know, and that's that's a trope from every

bloody horrible movie you can possibly imagine, you know, the itinerant serial killer, for example. Well, why do you have to be itinerant? Well, it's because if you live in a closed community and you screw people over, then your reputation gets around like instantly and people are unbelievably good at tracking cheating. Like there's some evidence, we have an evolved module for remembering cheaters.

Like it's a major deal. Cheater detection module. So you have to go and, exactly, exactly, you have to go find new victims. Okay, so you, and you do that, you essentially do that by hiding, you camouflage yourself, right, as a new person. Okay, so now you might say,

well, we've invented a whole new world, it's a virtual world. Well, the thing that I think virtualization enables the psychopaths because you can't do reputation tracking. Yeah. And God only knows how dangerous that is. It's happening online, of course.

It's happening even in the real world. You know, I know we touched on this in the last time you and I spoke on your show about dating apps, but one of the things that those things allow for, and it's an online platform, but it allows people to meet in real life, is that now dark triad types, dark tetrad types are able to essentially have multiple partners in non-overlapping social circles. So in the past, if you wanted to sleep around,

Word would get out and you'd develop a reputation as a scoundrel or a philanderer or so on. Whereas now you can have multiple different partners who don't know one another, who aren't a member of your social circle. They are not members of one another's social circles. And none of them are aware of what's going on. And this allows psychopathic types to indulge their appetites with no penalties, no reputational penalties. It probably also generates it, even worse, right? Because, well, because you could imagine the borderline cases, and those would even be

young men to some degree, because they're tilted more in the narcissistic and psychopathic direction. And that would also be a consequence of incomplete cortical maturation. Now, the problem with the, what would you say, consequence-free dating is that there's no price to be paid for your flandering. And now, so then the question is, what do you become if you practice predatory sexuality?

And the answer is, well, clearly you become, you tilt yourself in the psychopathic direction because what you're doing technically is deriving immediate gratification with no reputational or practical responsibility. And the people who are advertising for hedonism, see, I just watched Cabaret. Have you watched the movie Cabaret? I haven't seen it.

Okay. I would highly recommend it. It's about the Weimar Republic in Germany, and it's about a cabaret, it's about a young woman who's a cluster B type, who wants to be an unmovie actress, who's running down the hedonistic road at a cabaret, and she's quite promiscuous and deluded and clueless. And she has her little coterie of followers, and she performs at a cabaret. And like many cluster B people, especially the histrionic types, she's got a certain degree of artistic talent, and that goes along with that fluidity of identity,

because artists are shape changers, obviously. And so anyways, the movie tracks her descent, along with people she more or less pulls along with her. But what's very interesting about it is that the director does a brilliant job of this, is that the Nazis are in the background constantly. So there's this immense tension between this hedonism, this unbridled hedonistic short-term lifestyle that's hypothetically free and enlightened, like the luxury belief types, and the Nazis who are waiting in the wing. And I've been trying to puzzle this out conceptually.

So imagine that a large proportion of the population devolves towards impulsive sensuality. Okay, it's a responsibility-less mode of being. Okay, but as your book indicates, things fall apart because of that. Well, when things fall apart, there's an unconscious clamor for the tyrant. Right, so you get this, you get this hedonism tyrani dynamic. Now you see the same thing in the movie Pinocchio. You remember in Pinocchio,

the delinquent boys go to Pleasure Island, right? But underneath are the slavers who turn them into braing jackasses. It's the same, and that movie was put out by the boy just before the Second World War, right? So they had their finger on the pulse. But so there's this insistence in classic stories that hedonism and tyranny go hand in hand, right? insistence in classic stories that

hedonism and tyranny go hand in hand. It's bread and circuses to some degree in the Roman emperors, right? But it's deeper than that. It's that if the entire population insists upon maintaining immaturity and the hedonistic gratification that goes along with that,

there will inevitably be a corresponding demand from the unconscious to elevate the figure of the missing authority figure. I think there's something to maintain order. I read this study, I think he's a Danish psychologist, Michael Bang Peterson and some of his co-authors. The study was on populism. And what he found was that it was a study on populism on status. They had a variety of different measures, but one of the things he, the study concluded,

they had measures of the need for social status, the desire for dominance, the proclivity to be interested in populism. And he found this inverse correlation between the driver status and be interested in populism, and he found this inverse correlation between the driver status and the interest in populism. And what he basically concluded, him and his co-authors, was that people who support populism, they themselves aren't actually that interested in status. What they want is a strong leader.

They are not interested in ascending to those high positions in society. They would rather just elect a strong man to implement their preferences while they can go about their business and live their lives. And they're not that interested in getting involved in influential political and cultural roles. Whereas people who are very opposed to populism have a strong desire for status and they don't like the idea of a strong man, they themselves want to be the influential leader or the person who gets to call the shots,

and they don't like the idea of the strong man. And I'm thinking about what you're describing, that the kinds of people who are tilting more and more towards populism, they're looking at their lives and they're not seeing their preferences and values reflected in the communities around them of families deteriorating and communities suffering and people out of work and jobless and addicted to drugs and so on. And maybe they themselves aren't interested in a political career, but if they hear someone say how they're going to fix things and clean things up, they'll vote for that person. Meanwhile, the upper segment of society who, when they look around, they see an environment of

relative order and cleanliness and people who are doing well for themselves and highly educated and well off. They don't see the need for a strongman leader. And many of the people who are in those sort of gated and safe areas, they themselves are interested in influential positions in society. Right. Well, okay, ones who want to run things. OK, so you'd have to differentiate that further, because then you could differentiate the populist admirers into two camps. There'd be those that are looking to,

those who are generally concerned with the emergence of disorder and who don't know what to do about it. And then there'd be those who want to abdicate all responsibility for self-governance to a centralized authority. Right, exactly. Now on the wealthy side, you'd have the same kind of division. You'd have the people who genuinely want to take responsibility for the political and those who are opposed to populists because that's competition for their psychopathic power-seeking. Yes, yes. That sounds right. Yeah, so there's a sort of a benevolent and malevolent side of both of those. A boat, yes, exactly. Well, you know, and I haven't seen any psychological research Exactly. Well, you know, and I haven't seen any psychological research pertaining to the relationship between impulsive hedonism and admiration for more authoritarian beliefs.

Hmm. I haven't seen anything like that. It'd be very interesting to see that tested. No, I've seen nothing. I've seen nothing like that, right? Because, and that's, well, there's lots of things that psychologists do a very bad job of studying and certainly left-wing authoritarianism is like very high up there on the list. And so the other thing I was curious about, something you said earlier, you know, that I've really been struck in recent years by the willingness of the left in particular. And these are the leftists who I think are part of the camp that you described as the elitists who want it all, right? They're very willing to sacrifice the poor

to their hypothetical ideals, right? And so I've also seen no research at all. Like I'm very curious to know if the, what the cloud of meaning around these so-called luxury beliefs might be. Because one of the things I've really seen happen in Europe, it's really an appalling thing to watch, is that the very people who once,

so these people on the left, who once were hypothetically on the side of the economically oppressed, are absolutely 100 percent willing to implement policies that will demolish the poor in the service of their utopian and self aggrandizing beliefs. You know, and you pointed out some mechanisms there. It's like, well, what does it cost an elite young woman who's at Yale and who's highly likely,

let's say she's above average in attractiveness, you know, she's bright, she comes from a family that's doing well, she's intelligent, she's going to get married. It costs her nothing to claim that her compassion is so overwhelming that she's willing to accept anyone's disgraceful behavior in principle. It costs her absolutely nothing. The price is definitely paid by the truly poor and it does happen from the bottom up, right? And you know why?

Because the farther down you go in a hierarchy of status and reputation, the more stressed there is. Yes. And so if you increase the amount of chaos, you knock off the bottom people. And that does account for that cascade that you described earlier,

is that fatherlessness emerged first in the black community and then spread very, very widely and then exactly the same thing started to happen in the Hispanic community from the bottom of the economic hierarchy upward, then it started to happen in the Hispanic community from the bottom of the economic hierarchy upward then it started to happen in the Caucasian population. But the endpoint appears, if you just map out the trends, the endpoint appears that there will be fewer and fewer people in stable relationships.

I mean, it's happening at an incredibly, but the people that are in those relationships, they pay no price whatsoever for expanding their tolerance to include all forms of behavior that actually work to undermine that necessary stability. And they won't even admit that this, it's like they just call that, that's just called, well, that's your arbitrary moral judgment.

All families are equal. And that's another place, well, that's your arbitrary moral judgment. All families are equal. And that's another place where you undoubtedly got in trouble with your book. So maybe we could close with this, because one of the things you do that's quite striking in your book is, and I think this is where we'll take the conversation for everyone watching and listening.

I think this is where we'll continue the conversation on the daily wire side. You are a poster boy, so to speak, for the utility of pursuing higher education. You've had quite market success, partly because you had skills and abilities that weren't exhausted by the situations that you found yourself in,

even within the military. You got access to higher education, and you have likely, you have a pretty decent academic future ahead of you by the looks of things. But you make the case very clearly that as far as you're concerned and from what you've observed that education is no substitute for stability of family.

So why don't you talk about that for a bit and then we'll bring this to a close. Well we have this preoccupation with, so there's this question of how to achieve more upward social mobility for kids in deprived and dysfunctional circumstances. And for the last few decades, we've been focusing on education and college as the end all and be all that if we could just get more kids to get more degrees and earn higher incomes and join the middle class, that's the mark of a successful

society. And I make the claim as someone who has done pretty well educationally, but had, you know, the very tumultuous experiences with different families, that actually I think the family piece is more important than the education piece. And even if we wanted more kids to go to college and to obtain degrees, we would be more effective in achieving that goal if we looked at what happens before the age of 18 than what happens after.

If we looked at what's happening in children's home lives and their family lives. So that's one part of it. I mean, if you look at the predictors of going to college, one of them is having two parents at home. That's one of the strongest predictors of going on to obtain a bachelor's degree. And so even if the goal was bachelor's degree, it's fine. But let's look at how to promote stable two-parent homes. The other pieces, you know, when I think back to the guys I grew up with and the community

I lived in, and I had five close friends growing up, two of them went to prison, I had one friend who was shot. And college may not have been the right path for those guys. College isn't the right path for everyone. But I do think, so maybe regardless of environment, wherever you put these guys, I'm not entirely convinced that they would have gone on to achieve astounding educational success. But I do think that if they had been in an environment where there was more family stability, good role models,

adults putting the needs of children before their own desires, they wouldn't have been incarcerated. They wouldn't have gone to, you know, they wouldn't have been incarcerated, they wouldn't have gone to, they wouldn't have been shot to death. So we may not be able to do much to raise the ceiling for a lot of kids, but I think we could do more to raise the floor as far as how catastrophically down they could become versus, we've been focusing on the other side of it,

which is how much more can we lift them up. You're probably well aware, I've heard you, I know you're aware of the research on the limitations of increasing intelligence and academic ability and those kinds of things. There are hard limits to that. But I don't think we've done enough to look at the other side of, we can actually prevent young boys, especially from incarceration, from being locked up, one of the statistics I cite in the book

is that only 3% of children in foster care graduate from college, whereas 60% of boys in foster care are later incarcerated. And I mean, I don't know if we can do, I mean, we could probably do more to get more kids from those backgrounds into universities, but we should also be focusing on how to prevent those kids from living in such dysfunctional and deprived circumstances in the first place that lead them to jail and to prison.

And ultimately, the book is a kind of implicit defensive family from an author who really didn't have one, and that we could be expanding our area of concern beyond just the educational. I'm grateful to have achieved the success that I have, and it's better than not having those things. But towards the end of the book, I do say that, you know, when I think back to the good memories I had from my upbringing, yeah, I would trade all of it. I would trade all of the educational credentials

and accolades and so on to have just had a more sort of stable, normal, conventional upbringing. Yep, yep, yep. And I think that's something to think about. Well, I think we'll delve into that a bit more. Okay, well, thank you very much. And for all of you watching and listening, that Trouble is a very interesting book. And I think it gets the meta story right.

We've wrestled with this issue, for example, at this Alliance for Responsible Citizenship that I've been building with some other people. And one of the more contentious streams of discussion we've had was with regard to family policy. And we settled on the agreement, hard fought, that the nuclear family is the minimal ideal that can sustain society. It might not be sufficient even. There's a lot of stress on nuclear families. It might not be enough,

but once you fragment below nuclear family, you're playing with fire. You're playing with serious fire. And there's a dark side too to that, another dark side to that luxury belief thing. It's like you might think that people want wealth for comfort and opportunity, but they also want wealth for comparative status. And it's, it's very much advantageous for the psychopathic wealthy to ensure that the fragmented masses are so chaotic that they don't get to have what the rich have, right? Cause a lot of status is having something that someone else doesn't have. That's not the same as wealth, right? Cause a lot of status is having something that someone else

doesn't have. That's not the same as wealth, right? And so it's sort of a relative. Real psychopath types. Well, you know, there is literature showing the relationship between the dark tetrad. And so imagine this, you can imagine a situation where you, here's the deal, you can have your salary doubled

but your friends have their salaries tripled, right? Here's the deal, you can have your salary doubled, but your friends have their salaries tripled, right? Or you can contrast that against relative deprivation conditions where your relative status is elevated at the cost of other people's wellbeing. Well, the psychopathic narcissist types will pick the elevation of relative status at the cost of other people. And I think that's why they spend so much time looking upward, right?

Like I think that there's a... It's very interesting that Eat the rich is a more popular slogan than feed the poor. Right. Yeah. Yes. Because it is about that relative. And the people who say eat the rich tend to be people who...

Maybe they're not in the 1%, but they're in the top 10%. And the people who are the most frightened about oppressor, oppressed, iconomies and so on, they're not the people at the bottom, they are people who are just below the top. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, and they, and it's eat the riches a lie, it's eat the competent.

That's really what they mean. Yeah, yeah, that, and it's eat the riches a lie, it's eat the competent. That's really what they mean. Yeah, yeah, that's the real real rally cry of the real narcissistic psychopath. It's like devour the competent. And when you say, if I say to someone who's competent, you just got everything you have by stealing it. That means it's perfectly, not only is legitimate for me to steal it, if I'm oppressed,

it's actually morally obligatory for me to steal it. That's a very dangerous situation. That's exactly what was set up in the early Soviet Union, exactly that. And the psychopaths came out of the woodwork, man, and they just turned that whole society into hell. Yeah. Same thing in Maoist China and Cambodia and genocide. I mean, this kind of you're off topic, the Cambodia and genocide is fascinating because they basically speed ran communism and compressed all the horrors of the Soviet Union into about three years and they killed a third of the country's population.

Horrifying. It's absurd that we don't have more education around what happened in communist societies, but that's, yeah, an aside. It is quite the stunning miracle of stupidity, that's for sure. All right, sir, well, thank you to everyone watching and listening at this discussion today. I'm going to continue to talk to Rob on the Daily Wire side.

I think we'll delve into slightly more personal matters on that side because I'm curious to find out... Well, I'm curious to talk a little bit more about research hypotheses, since I don't have the opportunity to do that much now that I'm no longer working for a university. But I'm also curious about finding out a little bit more about what you think the lasting effects for you have been as a consequence of being raised in an environment where relationships, long-term relationships, were tenuous to say the least. So that's what we're going to do on the daily wear side.

So you guys are welcome to join us for that. And thank you very much, Rob. It's a pleasure talking to you. I'm glad to hear that despite the fact that you don't get to do a book tour, that at least not to bookstores, that your book is doing well. And I think it'll continue to do well. So, and hopefully this podcast will help to some degree for that. And everybody watching listening, thank you very much for your time and attention and to the Daily Wire Plus people for making this possible.

That's also much appreciated. Good to talk to you. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. making this possible, that's also much appreciated. Good to talk to you. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.

It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.

It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.

It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.