The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - Playing the Hierarchical Game - Part one

Episode Date: February 2, 2020

Part one of Jordan Peterson's 2019 lecture from Melbourne, AU Thanks to our sponsors: https://www.capterra.com/jbp https://www.ancestry.com/jordan

Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson, Dad's daughter and collaborator. Today's episode is a 12 rules for life lecture called Playing the Hierarchical Game Part 1 recorded in Melbourne, Australia on February 13, 2019. Enjoy the podcast. Playing the Higher Argoable Game Part 1, a Jordan B. Peterson 12 rules for life lecture. Man, that's a lot of Australians. Well, thank you very much for coming out. It's really quite something to see all of you here. As Dave said, this is the largest venue that we've spoken at. I had a couple of debates with Sam Harris,

one in Dublin and one in London, that were in larger venues, but as far as speaking specifically about 12 rules, this is, oh, damn near twice as big as the next biggest auditorium. I think we were at the Apollo in London and it held 30, it held 3,000 people. And so that was good, but this is really something. There must be quite a dearth of things to do in Melbourne tonight.

No, seriously though it's remarkable to see all of you come out to engage in what I believe to be fundamentally a serious conversation about psychological and philosophical and perhaps certainly ethical, perhaps even religious issues. And, you know, who would have ever guessed that there was a mass market for that? And apparently there is. And maybe we're smarter than we think we are. And I have a suspicion that that might be the case. One of the things that I've noticed about the intellectual dark web types,

that's a name that Eric Weinstein, you might be familiar with him came up with and it wasn't like we all got together and built a little fort out in our backyard and you know, called it the Intellectual Dark Web. He just happened to coin the term and the number of people were included for one reason or another and I've spent a fair bit of time trying to understand why that coinage stock and what it might be that united this very strangely diverse range of people. And I think it's really three things. One is that each of them from Jill Rogan to Shapiro, the same with Sam Harris, are all people on Dave, are all people have their independent

media platforms, right? They're not part of a corporate structure, they're not beholden to anyone, they're financially independent and they've built that themselves and so they can say what they want. And so that's kind of cool to see that happening, to see the technology that enables online video, which is really a complex form of broadcasting, and also online podcasts, which is a complex form of radio, enable that sort of independent journalism, and to see people able to not precisely exploit

that but make use of it. That's a very good thing. And I'm thinking that that might be a real positive outcome of the social media revolution. I mean, there's lots of downsides. I think Twitter is a downside. It's a pretty rough platform. And the commentary on social media platforms can be pretty brutal. We really haven't figured out how to regulate it well yet so that it's civilized, not so that it's censored, right? Because that's a mistake.

Sensored and civilized aren't the same thing. Properly regulated is civilized. And we don't know how to do that. But YouTube and podcasts have opened up a huge market for intellectual material in a manner that's never really happened before. And you're also seeing this happen with audiobooks. The audiobook market has absolutely exploded in the last five years, about a third of books sold now are audiobooks.

And that seems to be because people having become accustomed to podcasts are downloading audio books and listening to them in their cars or when they're exercising or when they're doing housework. And it's one of the advantages of this new media type is that you have it on demand and you can play it at your leisure. Or when you're working for that matter, and so I have all sorts of working class guys come up

and talk to me after the show, long haul truck drivers and those sorts of people who have a lot of time, obviously they're concentrating on what they're doing, but they have spare time to listen and they're listening to three hour Jill Rogan podcasts on all sorts of abstract subjects and and my lectures as well and it's really something to see that happening and so that's one element of the intellectual dark web that's that's interesting and

tied in with the new media revolution because it really is a revolution to have video on demand like that and to have it so easy to produce and to have it permanent and to have it distributed everywhere in the that and to have it so easy to produce and to have it permanent and to have it distributed everywhere in the world and to have it subtitled in all sorts of different languages and to have it essentially free of charge and able to be produced in a day or two. I mean, it's, and, and, and, and it's permanent like a book. It's really something new and, and then the same with the audio version. And I do believe it may be the case that more people can, like a lot of people are intimidated by books

for all sorts of reasons. I mean, highly literate reading is a relatively rare skill. Like it's not overwhelmingly rare, but it's relatively rare. But listening, man, people can listen, you know? And so all of a sudden this complicated information is available to people who can listen, and maybe that's 10 times as many people who are likely to read, or maybe it's 50 times as many people who are likely to read. So God only knows what the consequence of that is going to be.

That could be a real education revolution. And hopefully we'll be smart enough to take advantage of that carefully over the next 10 years and find out if that is the case. I'm optimistic about it because one of the things that really is cool about the internet is that, you know, if you want to learn something, you can pretty much type in your question whatever it is and somebody will have put up a YouTube video that tells you how to do it. And you know, you might have to sort through two or three of them before you find someone

who's done a very high level job of the explanation, but they've done it and often, you know, they run an ad maybe and monetize a little bit, but mostly I would say it's an altruistic gesture and so that's really something. And the other thing the intellectual dark web people have in common is that, well, they're opinionated and fairly tough-minded, but more importantly, they don't think their audience is stupid. And that's really something, and I think they're right. I'm not going to assume instantaneously that that's a consequence of something particularly moral

about the people who make up that group. I think it is a testament to their faith in the essential nature and in the essential quality of human nature. But I also do think it's a reflection of the medium itself because it's funny when I step into a television studio now like a classic television studio which happens from time to time and which is apparently going to happen with Australia's Q&A on the 25th, which should be quite interesting. Yes, strangely enough, I'm actually looking forward to that because I've been feeling a lot

better recently. And so it'd be actually nice to have a conversation with a journalist when I wasn't feeling half dead and to see how that goes. So it'd be nice to have a conversation at one point when I was at the top of my game. And so I don't know if I'm at the top of my game right now, but I am definitely feeling a lot better than I have for a long time. So yeah, yeah, I'm really. Thank God for that. And it's hopefully that will be reflected in some reasonable quality of discourse tonight, and perhaps a tiny bit of wit, but we'll see how that goes.

So when I step into an old school television studio, it feels like 1975, in some sense, the person I'm talking to isn't really there. They're really a speaking device for the corporation. And they have to be because the corporation, which is running high expense, low bandwidth television where every minute or every second is extraordinarily expensive. They can't really take risks. They can't have free flowing conversations. On the off-chance that something goes dreadfully wrong, and it might, right? And so everything is scripted and then you have 30 seconds to make your point. And like there's just some things you can't say in 30 seconds, you know. You have to compress them down to the point where they actually, they're actually foolish.

It's actually foolish to try to do it. But what else do you have? Whereas with these long form conversations, man, you can actually have a discussion about something and you can try to get to the bottom of it. And so that's pretty cool. And then it turns out that people will actually follow along. Like I was actually absolutely stunned by, I had four debates with Sam Harris earlier this year, two in Vancouver, and one in Dublin, and one in London.

And each of them lasted about three hours. And we were going to do a Q&A for each of them. But as it turned out, while we were going to do a Q&A for each of them but as it turned out well we were talking we got into the conversation and then we asked the audience to vote by clapping whether we should continue the conversation or move to the Q&A and it was overwhelming majority of people wanted the conversation to continue and so basically what happened was something approximating at 12 to 15 hour continuous conversation about the relationship between facts and values

or science and religion. And that's a fairly solid philosophical discussion. And that isn't necessarily the case that Sam and I are the two people in the world who would be most qualified to undertake such a discussion. But we did our best and it was a pretty high level conversation. I mean, for me, it was approximately the level I

think that would characterize a pretty decent PhD dissertation defense. And that's fairly high level intellectual conversation. And the audience was just with us the entire time. And so that's cool, man. It could easily be that our relatively primitive, initial mass communication technologies, like television, made us look a lot stupider even to ourselves than we actually were, because everything

had to be compressed to a very short period of time. Everything had to be scripted, so it couldn't be spontaneous discussion. You couldn't assume that your audience knew anything, because maybe it was the first time they watched the show. You couldn't assume that they remembered anything, because you didn't know, like if it was a series, whether they had participated in the entire series, you had to aim at the lowest common denominator, and you couldn't assume much of an attention span. But it turns out that people have an incredible attention span.

You know, like I was just rewatching Breaking Bad and I don't know how many hours Breaking Bad is, it's like, what's the six seasons must be, 60 hours, I think, something like that. And it's so really, it's a continuous 60-hour movie. And that's a long movie. And it's really engrossing. And there's all sorts of other shows that are perhaps of equal complexity. And man, people have no problem with them at all, right?

They just eat them up. So it turns out that, well, it turns out maybe we're not so stupid. And so that'd be nice if a, if it weren't so stupid. And I'm kind of tired of everyone assuming that we are, just like I'm tired of everyone assuming that we're some sort of cancer on the planet. I don't like that attitude about human beings. I think it's, I think there's something deeply,

deeply wrong about it. You know, this is something that's just kind of an interesting historical tidbit back in the late 1800s. There was a biologist named Thomas Huxley and he was the famous novelist, eldest Huxley's I think great grandfather, perhaps grandfather and very intelligent man, that a very gifted family, and Huxley was a great defender of Darwin, by the way, too. And he was commissioned by the English government to do a study of oceanic resources.

This was back in the 1890s. And because the English at that point were concerned to some degree that maybe it would be possible that we would overfish and cause trouble because of that. And Huxley didn't exhaustive study, and he concluded that there were so much ocean, and there's so much resource in the ocean that there wasn't a possibility that human beings

with their rather puny technologies could ever do anything but put a small dent in the absolute overwhelming plenitude of the water that covers more than half the planet. And so that's only 130 years ago that theyabouts. That's not that long. You know, that's two relatively old men ago. It's not that long. And, you know, yeah, I've put them back to back sort of. And so that's yesterday in some sense. And it really wasn't at all until the 1960s that we had some sense that we had developed technologically to the point where some of what we could do mechanically might start to have planetary repercussions. Say, you know, we saw that with air quality in cities, for example, and the denuding

of the countryside. And then perhaps the overfishing in relationship to the oceans, which started to happen after World War II. But nobody had any sense really until 1960 that, well, maybe we had to take care of things a little bit better than we were, because there was more of us. We were starting to become a force that was to some degree a match for nature. And bloody well, thank God for that, because nature was more than a match for us for a very long period of time. Our species has come up through epochs, eons of absolute brutal privation and difficulty and starvation and freezing temperatures and burning in the desert sun and lack of water and lack of hygienic facilities and just hand-to-mouth

suffering. We've managed to organize ourselves to the point where that's still the lot of a substantial number of people on the planet but that's decreasing very rapidly. You know the UN now projects that by the year 2030, abject poverty which is defined as living on less than a dollar or a 90 dollar, 90 a day and in today's US money will be eradicated. There won't be anybody in the world that poor. And the cynics say, well, that's a pretty damn low barrier, let's say.

But if you double it, you also see that's decreasing very rapidly. And if you triple it, you see that's decreasing very rapidly. And you've got to draw the bloody line somewhere. An abject poverty is abject poverty, in the fact that it's decreased by 50 percent in the last 12 years, from 2000 to the year 2012, we've decreased the absolute level of abject poverty in the world by 50 percent. It was the fastest economic, it was the most spectacular economic miracle in the history of the humankind.

And you hardly ever hear about it. Hardly anyone knows about it. It's like, it's a bloody miracle. There's more middle-class people in the world now than non-middle-class people. And there are way more obese people than there are starving people. And so that's something to celebrate. You know, I mean, it so that's something to celebrate, you know? I mean, it's a funny thing to celebrate,

but it's quite the thing to celebrate. And the fastest growing economies in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. And they're growing at five to seven percent a year. So it looks like the economic miracle that took place in India and in China, most of Southeast Asia, is really starting to kick in in Africa, and it seems at least in part,

it's because of the collapse of the Soviet Union back in the 1989, and the lack of overt pressure to have African countries pursue the most pathological, possible economic doctrines that anybody could ever imagine. They just stop doing that, has freed people up to start to become, well, if not rich, at least richer, and at least with the possibility of a continual rise upward, you know, the child mortality rate in Africa now is the same as it was in Europe in 1952. I mean, that's really something, you know, and longevity rates have increased tremendously in Africa. And, you know, we're kicking the slats out of some major diseases. Polios

pretty much gone. It looks like we're putting a pretty good dent in malaria. That will do great things for Africa. I think there's a real possibility with some concerted effort that we could get rid of tuberculosis in the next 15 years or so if we made that a target. That would be something. You know, that's an ancient scourge of mankind. We could certainly do without that. So, and there are intelligent people who are working hard on trying to eradicate these problems, and they're doing it successfully. And so, you know, I'm not in favor of the whole, there's something wrong with humanity, and we're a scourge on the bloody planet,

and it would be better off if there were fewer of us, and the whole planet would be thriving if there were none of us at all. I think that there's something unbelievably dangerous about that attitude, and I think that there's something unbelievably dangerous about that attitude. And I think it's ungrateful and unfair and unsympathetic and ungrateful and non-empathetic, because I really do see that I don't know a lot about human history, because God, there's a lot of history to know about. The more you know about human history, the more you know that there's just endless details that you have no idea about.

But if you do a reasonable overview, you do see that it's a bloody mess, you know, that it's its privation and war and catastrophe and brutality and struggle and strife and difficulty all the entire way through. People striving against odds that are just absolutely astronomical and yet succeeding that overall the story, overall, is one of, I wouldn't say unbroken progress, but it's decent progress and it's better now than it's ever been by a huge margin. And there's every bit of evidence to suggest that it could continue to get better and better and better. You know, here's another thing that's really cool. Do you know

that we're adding four years of life expectancy every year now? So once we hit a year every year, then that's it. We don't die anymore, but those last eight months a year, they're going to be tough to manage, you know. But four months a year is really something. And so, you know, we're basically living longer and we're living healthier and we're smarter than we were because we're much more, our nutritional levels are higher than they were because we're much more our nutritional levels are higher than they were because we're not starving, especially the people at the bottom end. And we're educating people all over the world.

The Chinese graduate more engineers every year than the US have engineers. Now that's terrifying, because God, we've got all these engineers already, and they're making gadgets at such a rate that you can't even keep track of the gadgets, right? You go online and like there's all these technologies and all these subcultures using them,

and you don't even know what the technologies are. If you're fully informed, you can't keep up with the new stuff that you might buy and it's not like it's trivial technology, it's unbelievably powerful technology like I'm in awe of many of the young people that I work with because they're more come they're they're savvier about the technological infrastructure that constitutes the web that I am because I'm, and it's hard to keep up as you get old. And, you know, they come up with tools to make difficult things very simple, very rapidly.

And there's just subcultures everywhere that are doing this at an unbelievably rapid rate. You know, when you go to somewhere like Silicon Valley and I've spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley, and it has its problems, but Jesus, there's unbelievable collection of smart people there and they're working on things like they're working on things like mad and and

It's working, you know, you see someone like Elon Musk. I mean what the hell do you make of someone like that? You know, I mean what did he do? He made an electric car, which is basically impossible, and it works, which is basically impossible, and then he built an infrastructure so that you could charge the damn thing wherever you drove, and that was basically impossible. And then he made it cheap, because if you buy an electric car, and you factor in the price of gas, the electric car is actually about as expensive as the gasoline car, and so that was unbelievable. Then he built a bloody rocket, which was one tenth the price or less of a NASA rocket

that you could reuse, which was impossible, and then he put one of his cars on top of the rocket, and he shot it up into space. And then this happened, right? This all happened and he's still alive. And then he went and blew it all by smoking pot on Joe Rogan because it's so funny. We like our insane geniuses like predictable and safe safe and so we don't want them doing strange things like having a tiny puff of marijuana on a show famous for marijuana so So anyways, you know, that's all that's all good news

It's all good news man, and I learned a lot about this. I worked for the UN for a while like indirectly And I learned a lot about this. I worked for the UN for a while, like indirectly. And I wasn't paid for it, by the way. It was volunteer work. I worked on this document, which was the report to the Secretary General on Sustainable Economic Development. It's quite funny, because a lot of the right-wing conspiracy theorists are having a field day with that, man,

that I'm some sort of like closet globalist shill because I work momentarily for the UN. It's like, well, what the hell are you supposed to do when you're asked to do something like that? You know, there was a document that was being prepared that was supposed to lay out some halfway's intelligent vision of what things might be like if the international community cooperated for the next 30 years. It wasn't like there weren't brutal guidelines that were going to be enforced by Jack booted not-season. It was just a proposal paper.

So we had a chance to work on it. There was only one Canadian team and I got placed on that. That was kind of cool. And so it gave me an opportunity to spend two years reading about economics and about ecology at the same time. And so what was so weird about that was the more I read, the more optimistic I got. And I thought, well, that isn't what I expected. Like I thought we were going to hell in the handbasket at quite the rapid rate. And, you know, I thought, well, that isn't what I expected. Like I thought we were going to hail in the handbasket at quite the rapid rate. And, you know, I mean, there's no doubt that we're doing some stupid things.

And I would say the stupidest thing we're probably doing is overfishing the oceans. Because there's just no use. It's just no use in that. It's completely destructive. It doesn't do anybody any good, and it could be stopped. But I know that your country, for example, is starting to put aside marine park reserves that are fishery-free, essentially. And you don't need a lot of that before the ocean can regenerate itself because it's actually pretty good at that. One of the things that's kind of funny, remember when there was that big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? You know there were more fish there two years later than there were before the spill? You know why?

Because people stopped fishing. So it turned out that the pollution was really good for the fish. It's like... Yeah, well that's why you have to do your research carefully. Because you never know, you never know what's true and what isn't. And so that was pretty interesting. The same thing happened in World War II, by the way, in the North Sea because the North Sea had been fished out pretty badly.

And then during World War II, it wasn't all that safe to go out and fish in the North Sea because you know you would get sunk by a submarine and that wasn't not very bright. So people stopped fishing and the fish came back very rapidly, and fish do that because they breed quite quickly. And so if you just leave the damn things alone for a while, most of them come back. But apart from the fisheries, which is really quite an appalling and pessimistic story, although not hopeless, and people are waking up to it and building these marine reserve parks, for example. A lot of the ecological news was surprisingly good,

way better than I thought it would be. So, for example, there are more forests in the northern hemisphere than there were 100 years ago. So, who would have guessed that? I wouldn't have guessed that. Part of it is because marginal farmland has returned to forest. And because we've got more effective at agriculture by a huge margin. And there are more forests in China than there were 30 years ago. And so that's something. And it turns out when people burn coal, which is kind of polluting, they don't burn wood. So they're going to burn something because they don't like eating raw, inedible things and freezing to death. So they're going to burn something. And it turns out that

coal is actually preferable to wood. And so these things are complicated and the ecological story looked better than I would have ever guessed. Even the overpopulation issue, ever since the 1960s with Paul Ehrlich and the population bomb, there was this terrible pessimism that we were going to breed, you know, like uncontrolled rats until every square inch of the world was like covered with some starving skeleton, and that that was all going to happen by the year 2000 when there would be mass starvation, and the price of commodities would have blown through the roof, and we would run out of oil and all the commodities that we need to maintain a reasonably high standard of living. And, you know, that didn't happen.

And not only did it happen, is that rates of poverty went down and rates of hunger went down, even though the population went way up. And so there are more people who are hungry now than there were 50 years ago, but there are far fewer proportion of people who are hungry. And that's really something. And so the overpopulation doom and gloomers were absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And we're going to peak at 9 billion. That's what it looks like. All the projections indicate something around 9 billion. And that's only 2 billion more than we have. Like, it's not nothing.

It's still 2 billion people. But we're at the rate at which we're improving agricultural output, and with regards to efficiency of agricultural output, there's no evidence whatsoever that we're going to run out of food. And, you know, a country like Uganda, this is quite interesting, if Uganda, which is a very big country by the way if it was utilized

Properly it has a water table underneath it and plenty of water if Uganda was utilized properly it could feed all of Africa And so it's not like we're making full use even of the Agricultural capacity that we have available to us and so there no, we're not going to overpopulate the world and leave everybody like starving on like Easter Island with nothing but giant heads and no trees. That's not going to happen. And in fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that within 100 years, one of the biggest problems

that we'll be facing is a declining population and that that'll be worrisome. I mean, we won't be concerned about that at the moment, but that whole doom and gloom scenario just seems to be wrong. And, you know, there are fewer wars than the war by a large margin. The overall rates of homicidal behavior in the world have plummeted. The rates of death by terrorism over the last 50 years have plummeted.

There's a lot of good news. There's way more good news than there is bad news. And that's, there's no wars in the Western hemisphere. There's a piece of good news. That's a remarkable thing. So, and it's been 70 years since World War II, and we've had thermonuclear weapons since then, and of course everyone's terrified of those bloody things

and no wonder, and maybe that's for the best, because maybe we needed something to really terrify us, you know, it's certainly possible, but even though there's always the possibility of a mistake, and there's still the possibility of a nuclear outbreak, we haven't used them and we haven't had a third world war and almost all of us here have lived in what you got to think man, comparative peace and prosperity if you compare it to any other time and place anywhere else in the world at any point in history. Which is not perfect because you're still getting old

and you're still going to die. And we haven't, what, we haven't defeated all the diseases that be said us, but God, it could be a lot worse, and we seem to be making it a lot better. And so, and so, well, this is what happened to me, you know, when I wrote my first book, which was Maps of Meaning, I was looking at something that was really dark, it was really dark. I was interested in totalitarianism, and I'm still interested in totalitarianism. I don't care whether it's on the left or the right, it doesn't matter to me.

It's this totalizing view that's predicated on the assumption that you can take a set of a few simple axioms about the way the world is and always was, and then you can decide how society would be structured, and then you can force people into acting that way, and the utopia will come. I'm not fond of that sort of thinking. I don't think there's any evidence that it's viable, partly because the world's too complicated to manage that,

and you just can't get your axioms right. And besides, think shift around on you. And even if you're right today, something's going to turn on you tomorrow, and you're going to have to update your model a bit. And if you don't, well, then all hell's going to break loose. But I was interested in totalitarianism, partly because for psychological reasons, I was interested in why people were so committed to belief systems that they were willing to

put everything to the torch, essentially. So mostly I was concerned about the ideological struggle between the Western world and the communist world, particularly the Soviets, but not only the Soviets. And I was curious in a sort of postmodern way, because you might say, well, the Marxists, they have their viewpoint and inequality of income distribution is a problem, and maybe things should be fair fairer and maybe the fact that there are relatively poor

people in the West and relatively rich people in the West is a consequence of oppression and maybe something could be done about that and the Western way of looking at the world is just an arbitrary set of rules and the communist way of looking at the world is another arbitrary set of rules. Maybe you could even say that about the fascist way of looking at the world, although somehow people are much less likely to agree to that, which is quite interesting, because it means that by and large, we have come to a collective decision that there are some forms of arbitrary games, let's say, cellophon axiomatic structure that are wrong, and it's a very rare person who thinks that what the Nazis did

was justifiable, was right in any fundamental sense. And that's interesting, because it means that collectively, we have come to a decision, that there is a difference between good and evil, if you assume that what the Nazis did was evil, which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption. I don't know what you would do with the word evil if what happened in places like Auschwitz

didn't deserve that epithet. You need some other word that was just as dark to describe what happened. So you might as well just use evil because everybody knows what it means. So we have come to a conclusion that there are things that we shouldn't get up to, you know, and that also implies that we've come to some conclusion about what constitutes good, some general sense that whatever the opposite of what, let's say, the Nazis, I would say also the collectivist communists, whatever the opposite of that is, whatever that might

be, that's good and that we should be pursuing that. And so that's a good thing because it kind of pulls us out of the moral relativistic problem, not not exactly because it's not defined perfectly or anything, you know, to say, well, you shouldn't be a Nazi. It's like, what's kind of vague, you know, okay, no arm bands, no goose stepping, but then what? Well, that's a complicated question to figure out how to conduct yourself so that you would be unlikely to participate in the horrors of a totalitarian ideological system if the advantages of doing so were offered to you in a realistic way. That's really the moral issue. Because, you know, if you read about Nazi Germany and you read about communist Soviet Union and China, you understand that those systems were very attractive to people and there

were reasons for that attractiveness and that had you been there, there's a high probability that you would have been attracted by those ideas. And you can see that now because there's a big resurgence, for example, both on the left and on the right, but I would say primarily on the left, especially in the academic world, there's a big resurgence in the same kind of ideas that inspired generations of Soviet utopians, say back in the early 1900s, when they had not so much evidence that what they were doing was Absolutely bloody pointless and murderous, you know, and so that does separate the modern people who

Suggest that such things from those who believed it a hundred years ago, but nonetheless, you know The point is is that those ideas are so attractive that they still They still resonate with people and you have to take that seriously because it means they probably resonate with people. And you have to take that seriously, because it means they probably resonate with you. And some of it is, I deal with this to some degree in chapter one, stand up straight with your shoulders back. Because it really is a discussion of hierarchies. And I actually try to make a case.

I like to make a case for hierarchy. The radical leftist types, the postmodernist in particular, and I put this mostly at the feet of people like Foucault, he'd be villain number one, although he was influenced heavily by Marx and his own special sense of intellectual resentment and arrogance, which made him into a sort of perverted and malevolent and underhanded marks, which is really something to be because just the ordinary marks wasn't so great. And Foucault makes this fundamental case that human, that there's no real truth, and that what passes this truth is the dominant opinion of the dominant group

and by dominant he means those that hold the power. And so that's a hell of a pessimistic view of the world. And it's wrong. It's wrong. And it's like it's seriously wrong. And I'm going to lay out why it's wrong. I mean, first of all, it doesn't even work for kids. I know if you look at our kids organize themselves on the playground. There are bullies, and it's interesting if you study bullies, you find out that they're not necessarily the most unpopular kids. There are outcast kids who are more unpopular than the bullies. And the bullies are ambivalently popular. They have some friends and they have some

enemies. So, you know, so it's not entirely counterproductive to be a bully. But it starts working now. It starts working less and less well as you get older. And so it's not doing so well by the time you hit junior high. And by the time you're at high school, it's not a very effective strategy at all. And a bully is someone who uses power. It's like, bloody well do what I want. Or I'll hit you. Or I'll do something else that you won't like that will be physical. Or maybe it'll be psychological.

But if the psychology doesn't work, telling you names, meaning you, you know, talking behind your back, which is very common form of female bullying, because females have their own forms of bullying and they're very effective. You know, if that doesn't work, then I can just take you out of the school yard and pound you, and if I can't pound you myself, well, then I'll pound you with one of my friends, and that'll be just as effective. And you'll bloody well do what I want you to do.

And that's power. And it's like, really? That's the basis of our society. That's that sort of power. That's how we organize ourselves. I mean, it's patently ridiculous. First of all, most children who are popular, let's say, universally popular and who do well socially, aren't bullies. They're good at playing with others, and they learn that between the age of two and four, and they learn very straightforward rules like reciprocity.

That's the big one. There's a couple. Recirocity is one. Trust is another to abide by your word. But those are the same thing. Resiprocity and trust are very similar. It's like, well, you know, we'll take turns. You play my game now, and I'll play your game tomorrow. And you guys have had friends that were real friends, and you know, perfectly well. But if you have a good friend, you don't have to keep track

exactly of what you do for each other. You don't write it down on a piece of paper and you know, put a check mark beside it, unless you're a little bit on the paranoid side and that's only the beginnings of your problems. And what you do is you know, you kind of keep track of who does what for who and you kind of keep the balance equal. And you do that because well that, that's what you do. If you're awake and conscious and a decent person,

and if you have a relationship, if you're in a marriage, it's the same thing. It's like, you don't obsessively keep track of who owes what, when, and why. That's a sign of a degenerating relationship. What you do is, well, you do what you can for your partner and they do what they can for you. And you're both aware of that and you assume good will

and with any luck that it errates across time and it's a sustainable game. It's not bloody power. And you know, there's nothing more miserable than being in a relationship where the rule is, do what the hell I want or suffer the consequences. And what kind of relationship are you going to get out of that? Even if the person is cowed enough to do what you want them to do when you're there and enforcing it, they're not going to put their whole heart into it.

That's bloody well for sure. They're going to be, if they have any sense at all and they do, and if they have any spirit at all and they do, they're going to be undermining what you're forcing them to do all the time. There's an old Soviet joke. They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. Right? Great. That's a hell of a way to run a society. And that's exactly how that society runs. So all you do with force is engender bitterness and resentment. And if the person that you're exerting force on can't exert the same level of physical force back, it's not like they're not going

to take their revenge in other ways. They're not going to cook you wonderful meals. They're not going to be what would you call it? Enthusiastic sexual partners. You know, they're going to get their revenge when they can unless you've crushed their spirit completely. And then it serves you right because then you're dragging around behind you, someone whose spirit you've crushed completely. And that's a hell of a way to live. And so what is this idea that our society is fundamentally predicated on power? And then that's the post-modern claim.

We group ourselves into our groups, whatever the hell they happen to be, sex, gender, ethnicity, whatever the flavor of the month is, there's an infinite number of ways we could group ourselves, and then we organize ourselves into power hierarchies and we dominate each other. And then all of those groups go to war against one another, and the most dominant group that has the most power wins. It's like, I don't know what the hell planet Foucault grew up on. That might be the definition of the worst African dictatorship of the last 100 years.

But it's not a description of our society. And it's not a description of the way that people organize themselves into hierarchies, which was the point I was trying to make in rule one, when I talked about hierarchies. Now, it's very important where you are in your hierarchical position with regards to other people in relationship to your mental health. And this is a really important thing to understand, because you have an ancient counter in your brain, and that was the point of the biological

comparisons, that lobsters being one set of comparisons, but not only lobsters, we know perfectly well, animal behaviorists, people who know their neural cycle pharmacology know perfectly well, that the serotonergic system operates quite similarly across most animals with complex nervous systems. And one of the things that it does is track relative status position.

And in birds, Rens, which is another example I used, a lot of it is power. You know, Rens a little bird, it's quite a cute bird, it sings very nicely and you think it's harmless, but it's not, it's a vicious little character. And I used to sit in my backyard and record rend songs on my tape recorder and the rend that lived in our backyard would dive bomb it, you know, four inches away. And it was very brave of him. And he had a little nest that was up in Entry. And there was some nests that we had built bird houses in the neighborhoods nearby in the yards nearby. And he

would go like half his day spent stuffing those other bird houses with sticks, so full that no bird could get in them. This is my damn yard, which is what he was saying when he was singing so beautifully. You better look the hell out because if you build, I'm going to stuff your damn house with sticks, and if I see a sitting on a branch I'm going to dive bomb you and knock you off. And that's power and that's what Rens do despite the fact that they're cute and chickens do the same thing. There are pecking orders among chickens and virtually every animal wolf packs organize themselves into hierarchies and chimpanzees organize themselves into hierarchies and like

they're a rat hierarchies. A hierarchical organization is the rule among animals that live somewhat socially. And even those who don't that occupy the same geographical territory, there has to be some way of organizing access to relatively scarce resources that doesn't result in chronic combat.

Because chronic combat, well look, your REN A and your REN B and you decide to have it out so you peck yourselves half to death and your REN C and so you got a little bit more patience, you just wait until those two REN B'd each other to death and then you move in. It's like it's a stupid solution. It doesn't even work for Wrens, let alone people. And so, you know, the Wrens announce their prowess and they do that with the quality of their song

and their displays and they indicate to one another who shouldn't be messed with. And then there's a minimum of combat. And you could make a pretty good case that that's Power that that's power but like it's not like Rennes get together and build like a Rennes the apartment houses And then and then go out on collective warm Honda insects I guess collective insect hunting expeditions and bring them all back and distribute them and or Or or make insect farm so that there's more insects for all the

runs, they haven't got that far, you know. They're competing in a zero-sum game. And that isn't what human beings do. We figured out how to not have zero-sum games a very, very long time ago. And it turns out that if the game you're playing isn't zero sum, right, which means that there's only a finite number of resources and everybody has to fight to the death for them, and some are going to get the lion's share and others are going to starve. If you're not playing a zero sum game, then you can learn to cooperate and compete in an intelligent, civilized manner, and all of a sudden, there's more than enough for everyone. Now, still, some people are gonna have more than other,

others, you know, but there's nothing to do. How are you gonna stop that? And do you want to? Like, do you want to only know what, do you want to only be allowed to know what everyone else knows? You don't get to know anything that no one, than anyone else knows, because it's gotta be equal. You want everyone to be exactly the same amount of attractive, you know, which in if you average detractiveness overall and you only allowed each person to be

as attractive as the average person, there'd be not much attractiveness left in the world. And it seems to me that that would be quite the loss, you know, and strength, you're not allowed to have any additional strength or ambition or talent or, or, or act or, or let's say, athletic ability. It's like, or artistic ability. I mean, aren't we kind of happy that there's massive inequality in the distribution of talent? I know it's, I know it's harsh and hard, but you can't expect everybody to have every talent that there is, and it would be a hell of a sacrifice if no one got to have any talent because it wouldn't be fair, and so I don't get the whole equality of outcome thing. It isn't going to work. There aren't that many geniuses, you know? We want to exploit the geniuses and get them to work for us. And if the price is, is that somebody has more than you do of something,

well, suck it up for Christ's sake. Well, Jesus, seriously, man, it's like, look, how much more do you have than most people have? You need to make $30,000 a year to be in the top 1% of the socio-economic distribution worldwide. You know, you always hear about the 1% at the evil 1%, and they churn by the way, because it's not the same people all the time. It's like all of you here are in the evil 1% and you think well that's not very fair because I was really only talking about within my country Well, that's convenient for you You know, or it makes it really really convenient argument for you. It's like well all those other people those foreigners They don't count if they're poor who the hell cares., who the hell cares. It's the Australians that matter.

And so, no, that's a non-starter. And by historical standards, you're doing a hell of a lot better than the top 1%. I can tell you that. I read a nice article by a coalition called Human Progress the other day. And they were comparing the typical middle class person who lives now with Rockefellers in the 1919s and say, well, would you rather be a middle class person now or Nelson Rockefeller in 1919? And that's a pretty damn clear that, well, you know, if you were Nelson Rockefeller, then you would have been richer than anyone else. And there's something to be said for that status, right?

Because people do like to have more than others. It's a, I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but it is one of the things that we like. And so you'd have that. You'd be richer than everyone else. But there'd be all sorts of things that you have that, now, that Nelson Rockefeller wouldn't have had a hope of purchasing, like the antibiotics that he would have needed to stop.

His son from dying, for example, you know, just as a start. And so I think this complaint about inequality, look, no one likes inequality exactly. Walk down the street, this is why I was get a kick out of people who protest. I'm against poverty. It's like, really?

You're against poverty. And you think that's a unique enough attribute so that it was worth your time to make a sign that said that you are against poverty and show other people. It's like I've never met anyone that was for poverty. You know, you walk down the street with someone who's pretty well off. You know, and they've got 1920s spats on in the bull or and they're feeling pretty damn rich in the stalkster's certificate sticking out of their back pocket. And you know there's a homeless person there and they give them a good kick and they say the more poverty, the better. It's like no.

You know when people walk down the street and you see homeless people and they're often homelessness is a complex problem like you think well, but homeless people are poor. It's like yeah, yeah man. That's like one problem, yeah, man. That's like one problem they have out of 50. And like I've worked with poor people, in my clinical practice, and poor in multiple dimensions. And many of them, you gave them money, they were just done.

Especially if they were like alcoholics and cocaine addicts. As long as they were broke, they had some hope of living through the next month. But as soon as their unemployment check showed up, man, they were faced down in the ditch three days later, right? Nothing but cocaine and alcohol with all their idiot friends for three days. And then they'd show up back in my practice saying, you know, God, I relapseed again. This is what happened. Well, my money came in. It's like, yeah, money's really going to do you a hell of a lot of good it just kill you faster than

poverty now not that there's anything good about poverty but it's not like these are simple problems you know walk down the street you see someone who's being in alcoholic for 20 years and maybe they're addicted to methamphetamines as well or maybe their schizophrenia it's, it isn't unequal distribution of monetary resources that are, is the primary cause for that problem and it isn't going to be some sort of straightforward redistribution that's going to fix it because it's way more complicated than that. And so, and then the whole power thing too, it's like, look, I get it, I get the left wing,

I get the left wing issue and I really do and I think I get it better than the damn left wingers get it. Because, you know, most of the radical types, they follow marks and they say, well, one of Marx's dictums was that capital tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And that's right, that's true. Wealth and capital, income for that matter, but not only that. Whatever it is that you might like to have, accumulates in the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of people.

It's a principle that was discovered by an economist named Pereto, Velfredo Pereto, and he pointed out something that had been pointed out in the gospels by the way, thousands of years earlier, which was, to those who have everything more will be given, and from those who have nothing, everything will be taken away. The rule being, once you start to succeed at something, the probability that you will continue to succeed ever more rapidly increases. So there's an exponential function with regards to success. But there's also an exponential function with regards to failure. So failure and success aren't like this. They're like this. Fail, fail, die. Seceed, succeed, succeed ridiculously. Like it's this weird curve. and it's funny because it doesn't just

characterize economics it's it's a really fun it looks like a really fundamental economic law was actually quite shocked when I first learned about this which was only about 15 years ago because I thought most things were normally distributed and it turns out that that's not true what people produce creatively isn't normally distributed. A small proportion of people produce most of what's of value. It doesn't matter what it is. And you know this, it's like, how many books does Stephen King sell?

It's like half the books, right? And then there's the next guy after Stephen King, and no one even knows who he is, and he sells like one tenth as many books as Stephen King, and then there's author number fifty and out of thousands and thousands of offers, and he's barely scraping by, and then there's the bottom 99.9 percent, and they can't make a living writing. And that's how it is, and it's the same with musicians. And it's the same with athletes.

If you look at a number of goals scored, for example, in hockey, I'm a Canadian, so I'll use that, it's a small percentage of absolutely phenomenal hockey players, even in something as amazing as the National Hockey League or any professional sports league. You have to be one hell of an athlete to make it in our professional sports league and still you get this tiny Group of superstars who are way better at it than anyone else You know and and so there's this weird rule that as you get more

Getting even more gets easier and who knows why it is exactly partly its practice but and it characterizes all sorts of situations like I'd characterize as the size of planets a Small number of planets have almost all the mass it characterizes stars the same way it characterizes bio mass in the in the in the Amazon jungle. It characterizes city size. A small percentage of cities have almost all the people. It's like, what, what was that? And then you go back 10,000 years. You look at a paleolithic gravesite. And you see what people

are buried with. And like, there's one guy, there's two guys, there is this covered with gold, right? The gravesite is insanely rich, and everyone else has a bone, and it's theirs, and that's it, you know? And so you analyze paleolithic gravesites, you see exactly the same pre-dostribution. A small number of people are buried with all the wealth, and almost everyone else has none. And so it's this unbelievably deep proclivity of resources to distribute themselves unequally. And you know this, too, because you play games like monopoly. You all play monopoly. What happens when you play monopoly?

You all start out equal, right? Exactly 100% equal. And you all have an equal chance of winning because it's basically a game of chance, not entirely, because you can play stupidly. But, you know, but you can only play so intelligently because you're at the mercy of the dice. And what happens inevitably is that some evil capitalist

ends up with all the money and all the hotels and all the houses and just like picks you out and yet you play and you don't think oh my god you know there's something fundamentally unfair about that or maybe you play non-competitive monopoly where after every round you redistribute the money so everyone... Right, so there's no fun in that, and so the problem with Karl Marx as far as I'm concerned is that he was nowhere pessimistic enough. It's like, no, you can't blame inequality on capitalism. In fact, capitalism is pretty good at emeliorating inequality. Like there's still plenty of inequality in capitalist societies make no mistake about that, and you can make some claim, although it's a tricky one, that some indices of inequality have increased

over the last 20 years. It depends on how you measure it, because it's complicated, because even poorer people now have access to, well, let's say iPhones, which have more computational power than the entire system that put the Apollo 11 on the moon, which is for $600, which isn't a bad bargain. So it's not that easy to do those economic calculations. But one of the things you can say about capitalism and about private property and about the idea that people have a right to what they earn and a right to what they own is that it's pretty damn good at generating wealth. And the wealth isn't equally distributed by any stretch of the imagination, but a fair bit of it goes to the bottom, and that's why we're seeing, well, a relative, dearth of tremendous deprivation.

And you might say, well, we want to squeeze out that last bit of inequality and it's like, well, maybe we do and maybe we don't. It's not so obvious. First of all, because even if we did want to, we don't know how. And we certainly do know that if there are some ways that if we go about it, then things

really go to hell and a hand basket really fast. And everyone's ends up equal because they're all starving and dead. You end up in a situation like Venezuela, not that they're all starving and dead, but the average Venezuelan lost 17 pounds in the last year. And that wasn't from voluntary diet, right? And that's a very rich country. And so we do know that there are ways of emeliorating inequality that just don't work. And so it's a dangerous thing to mess with because we don't understand it. Now, you know, that doesn't mean we shouldn't

try to understand it. And that also doesn't mean that the left doesn't have a point, you know, if your society becomes too unequal and too many people stack up at the bottom and they don't have an opportunity to move forward, that seems like it's bad for everyone. And so we could agree on that and we could try to set up our hierarchies so that they're not too brutal for the people who end up at the bottom, right? That would be nice if we could be sensible and figure out how to do that. But I think we're not doing that bad job of figuring out how to do it. We build infrastructure that

everybody can use, we have the universal education systems and so on, and they're not perfect, but they're far from catastrophic, and they're a hell of a lot better than they were 100 years ago. So we are making some progress on that. I think the problem with the radical leftists is that they don't take the problem of inequality seriously enough. They blame it on capitalism. It's like, sorry, that's wrong. It's a way deeper problem. It wasn't capitalism that produced inequality of grave site wealth distribution in Paleolithic Europe 10,000 years ago. And it's not capitalism that makes some stars have all the mass. Right? It's a different order of problem.

And so we have to be more sophisticated than economists were 150 years ago when we talk about inequality. If you found this conversation meaningful, you might think about picking up dad's books, maps of meaning the architecture of belief, or as newer bestseller, 12 rules for life, and antidote to chaos. Both of these works delve much deeper into the topics covered in the Jordan B Peterson podcast. See JordanB Peterson.com for audio ebook and text links, or pick up the books at your favorite bookseller. Remember to check out JordanB Peterson.com slash personality for information on his new e-course. Tag Jordan or I on Instagram to share your results from the Discovering Personality

course. I really hope you enjoyed this podcast. Stay tuned for the second half plus the Q&A next week. If you did enjoy this lecture, please leave a rating at Apple Podcasts, a comment or review, or share this episode with a friend. Thanks for tuning in and talk to you next week. Follow me on my YouTube channel Jordan B. Peterson on Twitter at Jordan B. Peterson. On Facebook at Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and at Instagram at Jordan.b. Peterson.

Details on this show access to my blog, information about my tour dates and other events, and my list of recommended books can be found on my website, JordanB Peterson.com. My online writing programs designed to help people straighten out their paths, understand themselves in the present, and develop a sophisticated vision and strategy for the future can be found at selfauthoring.com. That's selfauthoring.com. From the Westwood One Podcast Network.