Will Cain Country - Jordan Peterson On Trump, Taylor Swift, & Educating Young Men

Episode Date: January 16, 2024

Story #1: Dr. Jordan Peterson gives the real reason America is so divided. Story #2: A political panel on President Donald Trump’s astounding victory in Iowa featuring former Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Tudor Dixon and Comedian Lou Perez. Story #3: 8 playoff participants and 8 quarterbacks. What lesson can we take away from the most important position in the NFL?   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash-brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One. Dr. Jordan Peterson on Faith. Free speech, young men, and what divides this country? What divides society? Two, our political panel on Donald Trump's dominating victory in Iowa.

Three, eight playoff participants left, eight quarterbacks. What lessons can we take from the most important position in sports, the quarterback in the NFL? It is the Will Kane show live at Fox News. and on YouTube at Fox News. It is also on demand at YouTube slash Will Cain Show and on podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News Podcasts. I find myself this morning thinking about Taylor Swift.

Taylor Swift has been force-fed to us by the NFL. It's not Taylor Swift's fault. It's broadcast media. It is the NFL who's looking to be everything for everyone, who's looking to join the monoculture. And as I watch the Kansas City Chiefs versus the Dallas Cowboys, it seems like there's more shots of Taylor Swift and there is of Jerry Jones watching his season fall apart. And as we all presume, debating whether or not to fire his head coach. Now, which shot is more interesting? to the fan of football, to the fan of the NFL.

Look, this isn't about politics. This isn't about MAGA or the right disliking Taylor Swift or the left or the monoculture adopting Taylor Swift. This is about, honestly, what I think is the essence of sports. Anyone who's ever listens to this show knows that I reject and have talked about the idea of the monoculture. I don't appreciate that America and perhaps even Western civilization has kind of a adopted this one style, one taste, one culture. I like the idea that there's a different accent in Boston than there is in Georgia. I like the idea that there's a different way of life in Texas than there is in Washington.

Frequent guest here on the Will Kane show, Tim Brando, Fox Sports, game announcer, one said, that's what's great about college football. That's what honestly makes it better than the NFL. It's my way of life is better than your way. way of life. I think we need regionalism. We need strong flavors. I want to drive through a town and understand why that town is aesthetically

and culturally different than the town I just passed through. I don't want the 30,000 person town of Sherman, Texas to exactly resemble the same 30,000 person town in Wisconsin. It makes life less interesting.

It also makes, by the way, the laboratory of not just democracy, but of culture much more fragile. We need different ways of life. We don't want to all be the same. We don't want a monoculture. And by the way, sports is also the perfect place for innocuous communal tribalism. Look, we all know that the problem with politics is, yes, tribalism in that we might unthinkingly join groups,

that we might all become one small microculture gathered around. of our most superficial characteristics, but that'd be geography or race. And that's unhealthy. We don't want a society based upon tribalism. That's what we spent thousands of years as humans overcoming inherent tribalism. But sports is the great exception. It's innocuous. You can literally put on the colors, the jersey of your team, and hate.

And I would argue a somewhat healthy hate of a different color of jersey from a different part of the country. It's good that Cowboys fans and Eagles fans hate each other. And I have to tell you, Eagles fans, I did wake up feeling a little bit better on Tuesday than when I woke up on Monday. I can take some joy in your pain. There is a healthy tribalism to sports that becomes a cathartic outlet. It's good for us so that it doesn't metastasize into other parts of our life, into our politics, into our personal identity, into our greater culture. And I guess this is what I love about sports, that it's regional, that it's not part of the monoculture. And as I watch shot after shot of Taylor Swift, I don't want to see this.

I don't want to see the NFL become just another Oscars, Grammys, soft drink. I don't want to see it just become another cog in the machine that is our monoculture. Story number one. our next guest needs no introduction he is a clinical psychologist he is a best-selling author most notably of the 12 rules for life he has launched the peterson academy which is a revolution in education he's soon going on tour with we who wrestle with god it is dr jordan peterson jordan it's great to have you on the will cane show hey thanks very much for the invitation Yeah, I've been a big fan.

I hope I can call you, Jordan. I don't have to say Dr. Peterson throughout the entire program, not to minimize your esteem, but it's fewer words. I wonder, you know, Dr. Peterson, as you look last night, to the extent that you pay attention to American politics, at the results of the Iowa caucus, one of the things that stood out to me was that 36% of Republican caucus goers in Iowa wanted, they said, a total upheaval in American government.

Something like over 50% wanted substantial change. Now, set aside what that means about Donald Trump versus Nikki Haley. What it says is something, although in a slice of America, Republican Party, Iowa, but it's something there's an undercurrent clearly that is dissatisfied with the American governance and maybe the American society at large. And it made me think of you and something you've talked about when it comes to young men. that if you can't win at the game of life, marriage, career, success, young men have a tendency to flip over the game board. I'm not sure that's an exact quote of yours, but it's of essence.

And I think about the American people flipping over the game board, and they want upheaval. What do you think about this result from Iowa? Well, we do build a certain degree of upheaval, necessary upheaval, into the political system with elections. Now, election is a tamed revolution. And then you've could imagine that there were elections of different depths. You know, you were just speaking about the monoculture and there's a hierarchy of cultures. You were talking about the fact that you wanted sports kept in its proper place, right? So it allows people to be tribal under control and to have the excitement of group identification and the excitement of groups driving towards a goal

without that being associated with too much destruction and mayhem. Capitalism, by the way, does the same thing very, very effectively. And this is one of the things that the leftists don't give it credit for. You know, capitalism allows warlike men to establish domains of competence and influence that are of general productive utility to the rest of society instead of tyrannies that dominate and hurt. Now, you know, one can shade into the other, and it's useful to keep that in mind. but it's necessary to have those sorts of impulses.

It's necessary to find a place where they can be allowed proper expression. And sports certainly does that. Now, with regards to the revolutionary requirement that's part and parcel of this current election, and also I think part of what brought Trump to prominence to begin with is there's a sense that's deeply rooted in America and in the West more broadly that something fundamental has gone wrong. And I think the culture war is a closer approximation of that which has gone wrong. And I think that in turn is associated with this insistence that our future is going to be a, let's say, an environmental catastrophe, that it's a kind of hell that we need to avoid. And that the way we need to avoid that clear and present danger is by essentially ceasing our forward striving, quelling our ambition, eradicating the patriarchy, returning to a simpler way of life, et cetera, et cetera.

It's a vision that's predicated on a false apocalypse, and it's very much antithetical to the American spirit in particular, because it's an entrepreneurial and outward moving spirit, and it's certainly something antithetical to the spirit that made the West great as well. And I believe that people can feel that in their bones. We're replacing the primacy of the human spirit with something like a terrified worship of the natural order. It's something like that. And this is a very, very, very bad idea. And the working class people in particular who support Trump, the so-called Maga deplorable. So they feel this in their bones, just like the farmers do in Germany and in the Netherlands.

and with all these popular uprisings that you see in Europe, it's a desire of the populace to shrug off this appalling apocalyptic narrative that's allied with a tyrannical demand that's, you know, nipping, more than nipping at our heels. I was just talking to a Dutch commentator, Ava Vladingerbrook and a German farmer yesterday on my podcast. That'll be released soon.

And, you know, there were literally hundreds of thousands of working class people essentially revolting in Germany. They've been doing it for a number of years, but this all culminated in these massive demonstrations that engulfed Germany and virtually brought it to a halt in the last two weeks. Well, you're seeing a reflection of that in the United States. So that's where we're at, man. And Trump signifies, Trump's the proverbial bowl in the China shop, you know, although interestingly enough, his president. residency wasn't characterized by that kind of, you know, rampaging destruction that his most fervent and paranoid opponents feared might typify his leadership. I'm glad you brought up the Netherlands in Germany because I wanted to ask you how you

analyze what's happening. And I don't think it's simply, as you point out, something that's happening in America. It's happening perhaps across Western civilization. And it's It's not easily analyzed through the framework or not accurately analyzed through the framework of left-right. I mean, that's the polar dichotomy we've been taught for decades in the United States of America, that it's left versus right. It's clearly not left versus right, meaning I don't think you can put many of our modern-day issues into that, at least historical or traditional, definitional spectrum. since when has the left been so antithetical to free speech, for example. But I don't know. Does it fit into Marxist versus Western civilization viewpoint of the world?

Does it fit into an elitist versus populist framework view of the world? What is it that you can, the framework you look at to say, yes, this is why this is happening in Germany, in the Netherlands, in the United States of America? Well, I would say that the Marxist versus capitalist dichotomy and struggle was a reflection of an even deeper struggle that's playing itself out right now. So, for example, the fundamental narrative of the Marxist ideologues was victim, victimizer, analyzed along the economic dimension, right? There were proletariat and bourgeoisie. The essential Marxist insistence was that you could categorize all human social interaction. actions as fundamentally economic. And then you could cast people into two classes, the oppressed and the oppressor. And that was all economic. What's happened with the postmodernists, and that's the place of the new radical left, is that that victim-victimizer narrative, which is the core element of Marxism, but deeper than Marxism itself. It's a very, very old story. It goes all the way back to Kane and Abel. That's been transformed. sort of multi-dimensionally. So now we have victim and victimizer along virtually every

dimension that you can possibly conceptualize, sex, gender, ethnicity, ability, while the postmodernists just keep multiplying the dimensions of oppression. And so the basic idea there is that the fundamental human story is one whereby those who use power to clamber to the top on the corpses of those they are dominating, have stolen everything of value from the oppressed class, and that a revolution has to occur to redistribute those purloined resources. Now, you can see a parallel there with the Marxist revolutionary rhetoric, and that's fighting against another story, which really typifies the United States, which is something like hard work, honesty, merit, and productive generosity can produce more than enough wealth for everyone.

The best way to have that occur is to allow the free market to operate according to its dictates of distributed decision-making and let the cream rise to the top. And maybe as well doing that to produce a multitude of different games so that people can find their place. Now, I don't think there's ever been a society on the face of the planet that's actually put that into practice more successfully and continues to do so than the United States. You know, there are contenders and competitors on that front, particularly in Europe

and arguably in Canada, although increasingly less so. But that's the basic war. And so, you know, the Marxists and the postmodernists, they stumbled onto the realization that human beings are motivated by a story, that we see the world through a story, that we live in a story, that we live in a story, but the story they provided was essentially one of power and exploitation. Now, that's a powerful story because when our institutions become corrupt, they do become corrupt in the direction of power. But that doesn't mean that the fundamental human story, and certainly not the story of the United States, you know, as imperialist, colonizing, prejudiced oppressor. There, of course, the America, like every country, has deviated in that direction from time to time. But

deviance and central attribute are not the same thing. I think you have to be a damn fool to look at the United States, especially the United States, that eradicated slavery, right? One of the scourges of humanity since the dawn of time, and to describe the country itself as nothing but a cesspool of historical oppression and, you know, a nightmare of tyranny. I mean, compared to what here exactly? And so these are the forces that are moving underneath the surface right now.

And I think the reason they've got everyone in their grip is in part because our technological progress now is so rapid that these more archetypal processes are becoming more and more tangible. And everyone can feel that, that the tectonic plates are moving and shifting. And Trump is a manifestation of that as are the protests throughout Europe. and the trucker convoy in Canada so so here we are what did you you you got to hear a part of what I said at the outset and I look I don't want to over-psychologize everything in our culture sometimes people just like something and and that's okay but but I also think everything is worthy of some analysis as to why we like something you know and I have this and I don't even know I've rationalized it to myself I have this natural aversion to the idea of

the monoculture I like I like regionalism. I like distinct flavors. And so I think that's part of what I don't like about, you know, the force feeding of Taylor Swift. Now, from what, look, Taylor Swift may disagree with me to the extent that she understands our disagreements on politics. But that's not important to me. I'm used to celebrities who disagree with me. It's sort of this sense that I'm being force-fed part of the monoculture. And I'm curious what your thoughts are. And, you know, and Canada is not different, I imagine. You talk about the United States, we're not just in a successful experiment in governance. We're a successful experiment in a culture that is risk-tolerant, distinct, trial and error and entrepreneurialism and Protestant work ethic. And all of these things come together in many other complicating factors that have made this a successful experiment. And I just, I don't know, Dr. Peterson, I just have this aversion, not specifically to Taylor Swift, but to the idea that everything has to be the same, the monoculture. Yeah, well, you're, okay, you're pointing to a very,

important realization there, which is that tyrant and slave is a bad model for governance, and that's what happens when everything collapses into a monoculture. The monoculture that you're afraid of is essentially the tyranny of the homogenous state. And part of the reason that your country works is because it was set up with a series of bulwarks against that. So the division of powers, for example, is a bulwark against that overly unified tyranny,

as is the federal system itself. The states, you have your domain of autonomy as a citizen. You and your wife have your domain of autonomy and responsibility as a family or as a couple. The same applies to your family and then to your local community and then to your state and then to the federal government. And the principle is too that those at the top, at the federal top, let's say,

They only have the power and the responsibility that's being granted to them because it couldn't be delivered at any of those lower levels. And so the impetus for you opposing the tyranny of the monoculture is your implicit understanding of the necessity of a system of distributed responsibility. That's everything in its proper place, right? Yes. And so that's a crucially important. realization, and it's also the kind of thing that is making people en masse leery about our descent into a kind of gigantism, right? You see this, I suppose that's best exemplified by what's happening in China, and it's part of our fear of fascism. And so that would be for us right now, that would be a coalition between, let's say, gigantic media sources, artificial intelligence production companies,

the big social media corporations and government. We saw plenty of that during the COVID era, for example. And so I would say that that concern you have is the rebellion of your spirit as an independent American against this looming homogenous gigantism. And that's probably become more of a threat in the last 20 years because we're now so tied together. You know, and we even have models of brain function

that reflect this. every neuron in your brain is not communicating with every other neuron. It communicates in a hierarchy of dependency. Every aggregation of neurons has its independent responsibility, and then that aggregate communicates with other aggregates all the way up to the top. It's the system, a system like that technically is described as subsidiary. And this is a very ancient idea, too. So this goes all the way back to the book of Exodus.

when Moses is trying to figure out what structure of government is antithetical to tyranny and slavery, his father-in-law teaches him about a subsidiary system. And what Moses does is divide the Israelites into groups. Groups of 10, they elect a leader. The 10 leaders get together. They elect a leader. The leaders of the leaders get together. They elect a leader, all the way up to groups of 10,000. At the top of that is Moses, who now judges only those cases that get up to him. And on top of Moses is God. And that's a model for a structure of governance that's neither tyranny at the top and slaves, it's not tyranny at the top, nor slaves at the bottom. A system of distributed responsibility with every level taking on its appropriate burden and opportunity. Right. And

America is set up exactly like that. It's also what makes it so incredibly robust. And you can see this even playing out now, you know, like I would say, and this is a bit political, that California is wrapping itself up in foolish gigantism. And all that's happening is that people move. And they go to a state where the proclivity for top-down tyranny isn't raging as madly. And, you know, maybe, you know, there are people who think the California model is appropriate. But America is big enough, so that people can sort themselves out in a variety of ways. And we can see sort of experimentally what the best pathway is forward. That hierarchy of responsibility allows for structure and stability,

but also continued innovation at every level. You can't replace that with top-down state centralized governance because then you get, well, you get the Soviet Union or Maoist China or present-day China for that matter. matter. And no one in their right mind wants that. No, I love that analysis of my aversion to the monoculture. It's true. I should care more about what happens down the street or to my neighbor than I should care about what happens in Ukraine. And that's not a lack of empathy for something across the world. It's an

acknowledgement of the zero-sum capability or the finite resource of help and empathy I have to offer that I should distribute it to my family, to my friends, to my neighbors. before I distribute it half a world away. Right. Well, it might not be finite, but I would say you should practice your empathy and your responsibility on those who are local to you first. You know, it's like, and this is the sort of thing

I've been lecturing about as I go around the world. It's like, get your own house in order. That means you first, then you and your wife, then your family. Then maybe if you could manage that with some degree of grace and effectiveness, you might want to pour a foray out into the local, community. Now, that doesn't mean you ignore the world at large. It just means that you have some

look, man, like, do you really have the wherewithal and the ability to care about Ukraine? Like, what the hell do you know about Ukraine? And the same applies to virtually everyone else. It's hard enough to understand your local bloody environment without casting your prideful and arrogant psyche three quarters away around the world and pronouncing on something that you could do nothing, but caused trouble with if you got involved. You know, you brought up Exodus, and you've got this tour, which is, I think, very provocatively titled, We Who Russell with God.

A friend of mine, big fan of yours, is very fascinated in your Exodus series as well. I can't say that I'm well-versed in every chapter of your career to say this is something new, but it does seem of interest to you over the last several years, and that is God, that is Christian. that is faith. What is your relationship with faith? Well, I did a series of lectures on Genesis in 2017, and they proved very popular. Certainly the initial lecture in that series,

which is two hours on the first sentence of Genesis, is that's the most viewed lecture offering I ever produced on YouTube. And I've been analyzing religious themes. as a psychologist for, well, my whole career, partly because I've always been concerned with the issue of evil. And so, you know, I have faith in the reality of evil. And the reason for that is I spent a lot of time studying the disintegration into absolute hell of totalitarian states and trying to puzzle that through psychologically. You know, we tend to think of totalitarian states as top-down tyrannies, let's say, And in some sense, they are those terrible, homogenous, gigantic monsters.

But tyrannies occur when every single individual has sold their soul to the devil, so to speak, because in a tyranny, in a totalitarian tyranny, the God is the lie. Everyone in a totalitarian state lies about absolutely everything they say and do 100% of the time. and the way that typical individual contributes to that totalitarian proclivity is to be possessed by the spirit of the lie. And whatever is properly put in the transcendent place is the opposite of that. It's truth, for example, and it's probably truth in the spirit of productive generosity and love, something like that. And I'm trying to lay out these ideas in a manner that makes them entirely comprehensible. And I'm looking at the deepest stories that mankind has told, and certainly in the West, the deepest stories,

and that would be the stories upon which most depends are, for better or worse, the biblical stories. So the book I'm writing, which is just about finished, is there's going to be two books, actually. It's called We Who Wessel with God, and it's an analysis, a continuing analysis of the narratives upon which our values are predicated and an attempt to explain them so that they're not stories that you just hear or stories that you just have a kind of blind faith in. I don't think we have the luxury of blind faith anymore.

We have to understand, just like you want to understand, for example, why you have this antipathy towards monoculture, and we're interested in the explanation. We have to understand why we predicated our culture, on the stories that are at its base. Now, that's partly because we have to decide if those stories still have any validity. The Marxists and the postmodern radicals will claim up and down that there isn't anything in our ancient stories, apart from oppressive patriarchy and exclusion, for example,

and that a revolution in conceptualization, in entertainment, in story, in politics, in governance, in business, is absolutely required. And, you know, I've watched how revolutions go wrong for a very long time. And you touch what's at the base of your culture at your great peril. And again, part of the reason that everyone, especially in the working class, is inclined now in a revolutionary manner, is because they can feel that we're, that the political is treading on the ground of the sacred. Right?

that's a very bad idea you don't want to make the political sacred that's almost the definition of a totalitarian state it's certainly the definition of a state where no one any any longer has any right to free speech i almost feel like that that barn door has been open that the voting booth has become the chapel it is your projection of virtue and politics is sacred it feels like we're there you know i'm curious you know i'll tell you dr peterson i'll tell the audience you know various times in my life i've gone through um You know, someone who would be, well, no, no, even now I would be someone who should have that title of your book and your soon-to-come tour series, We Who Wrestle with God, as applicable to my life. But there have been other times, there have been times in my life where I have allowed probably intellectualism to not serve, to not be accompanied by enough humility. and I have tried, and I think I've successfully tried, not that there's a finish line, but I've tried to humble myself, and I think I've gravitated much more towards faith. What I'm curious about is you have a very intellectual approach to the role of morality, the existence of evil, and the value of various religions, and specifically Christianity. I'm curious, though, after all of your studies and your intellectual analysis of it, are you a believer? people ask me that question all the time but see it's not people think that's a straightforward question but it's not because belief makes itself manifest in many ways what's the biblical injunction

by their fruits you will know them right well that's the hallmark of the evaluation of belief what does someone do and if you have any sense you let people answer that question themselves as a consequence of their observation of your behavior? You know, who are you to proclaim your fealty to God? You know, you said that you're working on your humility. Well, I'm not going to put myself forward as a standard bearer for a divinity that who's, what would you say, whose injunctions I'm woefully incapable of carrying out. I'll do my best as I move forward.

And that's sufficient. and I don't want to proclaim any moral virtue in faith. And I certainly don't want to do that publicly, and that's part of it too, isn't it? Because the other thing you're not supposed to do is pray in public or take God's name in vain, and those are the same things. And when we talk about sacred matters, we shouldn't do that casually. So it isn't even obvious to me, and I don't mean this in any manner that's disrespectful to you, is that you ask such questions at your peril, then you answer. them that way too.

What I'm trying to do is what I said. Well, you know, you said, and you're dead right about this, you know, that one of the temptations of someone with an intellectual bent is to become intellectually prideful, and pride is the cardinal sin, and there are reasons for that. And if you are intellectually gifted, the temptation that will present itself to you is that of pride, because intellect is a high order spirit, and it can go dreaded. wrong. That's the Miltonian Satan, right? And Lucifer, essentially, the Luciferian intellect. And the Luciferian intellect makes presumptuous claims and does that in order to drape itself in

the cloak of virtue, unearned virtue. You know, what I'm trying to do is understand. And I suppose that's an expression of faith. I believe that things can be understood. And if you commit yourself to their understanding, that they can not only be understood, but they can be understood, but they can be put in their proper place. And I've been obsessed by the issue of evil, especially at a psychological level, my whole life. And that's the problem I'm trying to solve. And the reason I'm trying to solve it is because I don't believe that evil is the force that has final victory, but that good does. And I'm trying to figure out how it is that we should conduct ourselves so that the victory of good over evil can be the least amount of pain that it has to be.

I want to ask you a practical question. You have your daughter, Michaela, who has been on our Fox and Friends weekend program. I've met Michaela in her 20s, I believe. And the practical question I'd love to ask you is you now have the Peterson Academy, which you're looking to reduce the cost of education by something like 90, 95 percent, an online course for education. I have teenage boys. I would hope as we air this live and on demand on YouTube,

this also reaches young men who are making choices in their life. The practical question I would ask you is, you've spent your life as a professor, you have ushered a daughter, at least, through the life choices of an education. What would you do now? Would you say, hey, yes, it's a worthwhile idea to pay for a higher education?

And we could do specifics. I mean, Harvard, Ivy League, or even state colleges, all of which, by the way, to some extent, have been co-opted by the framework we discussed at the beginning of this conversation. Would you send your kids to college? Well, I think Harvard, MIT, and UPenn showed their true colors in the last month.

So we can let people draw their own conclusion about that. I think they've raped their own brand, just like Disney. I think they were that those institutions have been invaded by the ideologues, who are capitalizing on a hundred years of virtuous brand development and that they're going to raise it to the ground if they haven't already. We wouldn't be building Peterson Academy if we didn't think that there was a need and a desperate need for alternatives to education.

I'm also working on an education app with my son called essay, which teaches people to think and to write, and those are the same thing, by the way, and we're also dead serious about that. And what I would say to young men is try to find out what you're interested in, try to find out what your conscience compels you to stop doing, try to attend to both of those, and then make your way forward. Now, are there courses at universities that are still worth taking? Yes, but you're going to have to seek them out with great care. Are there educational institutions that are still valid? Yes, but again, you have to pay attention. Hillsdale, for example, is an exemplar of an educational institution that hasn't lost its way.

Are the large-scale institutions of education infiltrated by this postmodernist victim-victimizer narrative? Absolutely. As has been, as I said, made dreadfully clear in the last month to anyone who's paying attention, I wouldn't counsel my children to put themselves a quarter million, quarter of a million dollars in debt and to waste four of the most promising years of their life pursuing the opportunity to become ideologically addled and intellectually prideful. Now, you might, if your feet were on the ground and your head was properly oriented towards the sky, be able to enter an institution like that and still derive some residual value.

But it's very difficult when the entire reigning ideology is something like when, when unholy mishmash of hedonistic whim and the desire for power. You could throw some resentment in there too just for good measure. Not good. We're hoping with Peterson Academy to bring professors who are staying in their bailiwick and concentrating on what they understand and who love it to the attention of as many people as we possibly can at the lowest possible price. And we have a very good stable of professors already at hand, let's say. You know, I'm sure that to be the case. You know, and I am rooting for you to revolutionize education as I am the University of

Austin or Hillsdale or any other to do so. But it seems to me there's two great challenges, Dr. Peterson, to overcome. I'm going to ask you about both of them separately. First is just inertia. You know, there's a reputational long tail to Harvard, to the University of Texas, to the University of South Carolina. it works. You know, you send your kid to college and it comes with the presumption of it puts him a step forward in life. And even though Harvard or somebody like that is destroying

that reputation to your point, I think it has a long tail. It's a melting glacier. So that's a level of inertia that's hard to overcome. And then the other thing, quite honestly, I know sometimes people kind of wave their hand at me, and maybe it's where I'm from. I'm from Texas. But culturally, the social presumption is this is where you go, this is where you find your life friends, this is maybe where you find your wife, this is where you find what you root for on Saturdays for the rest of your life in college football, which is a very powerful marketing mechanism, very powerful. And I think those are huge hurdles that as someone who would root for you would say, how do you overcome those hurdles? Although, you know, those are great questions and there are things we've wrestled with. I mean, first of all, this is a very tough nut to crack trying to produce an alternative to the higher edge.

education system and the probability that we'll get at 100% right is very low, although I think our initial offerings will be very good. The universe, it's not obvious what a university does. It's easy to reduce it to courses, professors, lectures, and exams. But that's probably, as you point out, at least implicitly, only about 10 or 15% of what a university does. It also brings together, in principle, highly qualified and academically oriented students to meet one another, in their domains of interest to foster friendships and to find potential mates. And that might be the 90% of the offering. It truly could be, especially if you add to that the opportunity to apprentice with someone who's truly skilled. Now, the question is, can we duplicate

that in a virtual environment? I would say we're very cognizant of the social, of the problem of that additional complex social surround. And we're doing everything we can to build apps into the Peterson Academy infrastructure that will enable people to make those valid and necessary social connections all the way from the romantic to those that are oriented in friendship and collaboration. It's possible that we'll be able to do that as effectively or more effectively than the universities because they do group people together and they bring them together at a crucial time in their life, but they're getting increasingly bad at doing that with regard to selection and they don't foster social interactions very well. So it isn't obvious to me that

that can't be competed with as well as well. We're also going to make sure that those to whom we grant accreditation will be genuinely qualified. And I think that that will enable us to work in concert with interesting business people to offer the possibility that our accreditation will be taken seriously by potential employers so the other the other part of the the nut that i think is difficult to crack as you described now i have a son um who's a sophomore in high school and it's you know we he and i have talked about i said you know and you've talked about this i've seen you trades are very valuable parts of society and not just that you can make a great living in a trade and i'm not just talking about from a salaried perspective you could be an entrepreneur in a trade

You could own a welding company and not just be a welder. And so, you know, I would love for my son to think outside the box with a broader array of options in front of him about what his life could be. But the tough nut to crack is if your son doesn't do what inertia pushes him to do, which is follow the cultural course to college, you need him to know something about himself, like you just said. And that's, I think, a hard thing to accomplish by 18. Like, who am I going to be and how am I going to blaze this own trail at the age of 18 as opposed to what everyone else is doing? Okay, so two things there. The first thing is, I don't want to make this into an advertisement, but we have a program at self-authoring.com that helps people identify their pathway forward in the future. It's called future authoring.

And when we used that on college students, new college students, especially the boys, they were 50% less likely to draw. out and the grade point average overall went up 35 percent and that's because people need a vision they need a guiding vision especially young men because they're harder to tell what to do and so if they don't have their own vision they'll just go do whatever the hell they want to do you know or what their whims compel them to do now you asked me what i would recommend to my son you know and i would recommend to my son essentially in some ways what he did although i would vary it slightly now My son is now 30. He got a general arts degree from a good university when they still weren't too woke.

And he did a boot camp for computer programming. So this is what I would say as a generic plan for any young man who's listening. Pursue a trade. Then you know something. You're down there in the dirt with your hands on the ground, trying to figure out how to make yourself to develop a set of practical skills. there'll be no loss whatsoever in taking the time to do that. There'll be nothing but gain because you won't merely be an abstract intelligence. You'll be someone who can do something with their hands, and that's extremely useful, plus lucrative, plus increasingly lucrative, especially if you're also reliable.

Then I would add to that the kind of education in the general humanities and sciences, let's say, that a place like Peterson Academy might offer, because you don't only want to be the man who's highly skilled with his hands. You also want to be the sort of person who is at home in any environment, no matter how challenging and intellectually complex. You want to be someone who's situated in history. You want to be someone who understands the political situation and the ethical situation and who can discuss it and understand it intelligently. And you want to do that not least because even if you practice your trade

as your primary source of revenue, if you're a sophisticated communicator and well situated in your community in general with regard to your general understanding, you're going to be disproportionately more successful. And then I would say in addition to that, anything you can do to develop your skills in the world of computer technology is also highly worthwhile. The boot camp that my son attended and his wife as well, was only 10 weeks long, very, very intensive. It allowed him to ally the skills he had developed, both intellectually and practically, with the ability to utilize advanced technology. And man, that's an unstoppable three-part combination. It isn't obvious to me at all that that's most effectively pursued at the moment by full involvement and enrollment

in a, you know, in a traditional academy of higher education. I think there are more efficient ways to do it. I mean, man, you can learn damn near anything online now, you know, and with increasing efficiency. And so it's not 1970 anymore. A trade, humanities, and computer science. There was a specific answer, which I think will be very valuable. It is to me, to many listening.

The last place I wanted to go with you, Dr. Peterson, was I didn't want to end on disagreement, but I want to explore one of the few areas I've come across in following your work where I've felt some level of disagreement. You obviously have expressed, and by the way, have suffered the slings and arrow of championing free speech throughout your career. It's what originally put you in the public's mind, free speech. But I've been a little surprised at times in, I think basically where I've seen you on your account on X, you seem to have a real aversion to anonymous speech. And look, we all do from an individual and cultural perspective. There's a style of manhood that's like put your name on it. If you have something to say, say it with your chest and put your name on it. But as a practical matter, and certainly as a political matter, anonymous speech has been invaluable to our democracy, to our, I hate to use that term, to our republic, invaluable to society building. Where are you on anonymous speech? Well, first of all, I've never claimed that anonymous speech in any sense should be forbidden.

If people want to speak anonymously, they have the right to do that. What I've observed is that for every one person who uses anonymous speech to be the heroic whistleblower, there are literally 999 who use it to further a narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian orientation. and it pollutes the social discourse in a terrible way, and it exaggerates the degree of polarization. And so, as I said, if you're using your anonymity to allow yourself to speak the responsible truth while shielding the people you love

from the potentially cataclysmic immediate consequences, that's one thing. But if you're the typical troll who's doing nothing but doing that to cause trouble, and that's the LOL culture, right? The lulls culture, which is essentially a sadistic culture. And I mean explicitly so, then your behavior is utterly inexcusable,

and it is definitely polluting the social environment. And not in a trivial way. Look, in face-to-face communication, everyone is held responsible for their utterances. Now, if you eradicate that level of responsibility, you do provide people with the shield of anonymity, but you also provide them the opportunity for the grossest of irresponsibilities.

And we know from the psychological literature, like this is already well documented, that the typical anonymous troll has dark tetrad personality characteristics, narcissistic, which means wanting attention without doing anything to deserve it. Machiavellian, which means willing to manipulate people for their own selfish ends, psychopathic, which means predatory and parasitical. And this was added later out of necessity, sadistic. Well, anonymity allows for the expression of all those traits as well. And if enough people are expressing that element of themselves,

we're going to shake the culture to its foundations. You know, part of the reason we feel so polarized is because people, especially the anonymous troll types, are radically careless with the expression of their opinions. Now, that doesn't mean, like I'm perfectly old. aware that anonymity is necessary. I'm certainly no standard bearer, let's say, for universal digital identification. I believe we should be able to have some privacy from the reach of the authorities, whether they happen to be digital or governmental.

But I can tell you what I've observed online. And it is exactly this, that for every anonymous hero, there are 99 narcissistic psychopaths. So... No doubt. So we're stuck with that problem, right? That's an accurate analysis. Yeah, that's an accurate analysis of our culture. Unfortunately, I think it is, and you're not advocating for prohibition,

but it's a price we have to pay for now, I think, in order for the exchange of free expression. Dr. Peterson, first, everyone can check out your tour, We Who Wrestle with God. They should check out the Peterson Academy. It is online. I really appreciate this conversation. It's been invaluable to me, and I hope to many people listening as well. Thank you so much, Dr. Peterson.

Thank you very much for the invitation, and for your thoughts, yep. All right, take care. There you goes. That's Dr. Jordan Peterson here on the Will Cain show. Coming up in just a moment, the Iowa caucus was last night. It was a dominating victory for Donald Trump. So let's bring in a political panel that can help us analyze why people voted the way they did in Iowa.

Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go. Fox forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at foxtruecrime.com.

Donald Trump dominates in Iowa. Let's dig in to the Iowa caucus with Lou Perez. He is the author of That Joke isn't funny anymore. And Tudor Dixon, former GOP nominee for governor in Michigan and the host of the Tudor Dixon podcast. Lou, Tudor, thanks for being on the Will Cain Show. Thank you for having me. Let's start. Tudor, I'll start with you.

You've been involved in the political process. This was a resounding victory, a historical victory, 30 points, more than 30 points for Donald Trump. The previous record was 13 in Iowa, Bob Dole in the 90s. And not only did they vote for Donald Trump, Tudor, they said things like, we need a total upheaval in the American government, and that they rejected the idea that Donald Trump had broken the law, that most of these cases against him were political in nature. Something like, I believe 80% of Donald Trump voters said they believe that to be the case. What was your takeaway from Iowa? Well, my takeaway from Iowa is the Trump supporters are strong. The people who say that the Trump supporters are not strong are wrong.

I mean, you remember Chris Christie coming out and saying there's no such thing as a Trump voter. There absolutely is. And I'd been saying this from the beginning of him coming out. I'm like, look, look at my race. He came in and endorsed. The Trump supporters, we know they didn't all show up when it came to Election Day. Look at Kentucky. He came and endorsed.

We know those Trump supporters didn't all come in on Election Day. They come in for Donald Trump. And that is what scares the Democrats more than anything. So they were trying to say, we're going to convince these people that if he comes in as a candidate, he will be wiped out in one way or another that you have to go someplace else. We're going to stop this obsession with Donald Trump. That is how the Democrats think they think they can control people's minds. They were wrong. They have to be more scared than they've ever been today.

Lou, it doesn't look like there's anything. I mean, this isn't cheerleading. This is what I hope to be. I'm trying to accomplish accurate analysis. There doesn't seem to be anything that's going to stop Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination. And with the polling of Trump versus Biden right now, and who knows what happens over the next seven months, I think the Democrats are going to have to ask themselves, what is going to stop Donald Trump? Yeah. I mean, I, unfortunately, I wasn't paying much attention to Iowa. Right now I'm, I have like six inches of snow in New Jersey. And when that happens, my whole world gets thrown into just mayhem. So I don't know what's going on. I do think that there's a, you know, a lot of interesting prospects down the road for Donald Trump. Because I think that there's a scenario where Donald Trump wins the election and then is also convicted of something. So then for the first time, we have our first time. We have our first. President ruling from prison, which I think might be a really interesting way to go in the country. Yeah, well, I would have to say, I don't know that any of those cases, I don't know which one would be going swimmingly right now to fulfill that prediction, though, Lou. I mean, Georgia seems to be falling apart under its own corruption. Jack Smith's investigations, I really, I don't think those are going well either in terms

of trying to win a case on the basis of insurrection, which, again, would be unprecedented. in a change in definitional terms of anything we've applied in the United States. I'm not here to debate, like, whether or not he will or won't, but I don't think that, I don't think that looks, look, I don't think that looks likely the way it stands today. And with Joe Biden's polling, when I think about this, I'll go back to you on this, Lou, look, I think there will be, there is no scenario under which the Democrat Party, and maybe the greater American culture is go, well, I guess it's Donald Trump again. They've already had lawfare, they've had misinformation, censorship, everything used to try to subvert that potentiality.

And I don't think the bag is empty. I don't know what's left in the bag, but I think they'll reach in for more extreme measures to stop Donald Trump. It's going to be... And that could include, by the way, distance themselves from Joe Biden, finding a new nominee. Yeah, I mean, if that's the case, I do wonder who they would go with. Because on the one hand, I can totally see it making total sense to distance yourself from Joe Biden. But then if you give up on Joe Biden, then suddenly you're kind of turning your back on this man that you put everything on.

And you might end up being called, what, an agist? That might be a thing. So, yeah, it's going to be like, it's going to be really interesting the next seven months. And as a comedian, I'm just, you know, sitting back and. just waiting to see what what happens i think they're going to offer you have some good material lou i think you're going to be good to go uh it's going to be an insane year hey tutor what do you think about so desantis gets 20 or 21 percent and haley gets 19 percent i was looking at the the um the analysis and desantis didn't win any demographic he just um outright he lost

i mean meaning trump won most demographic so um i think he won as compared to haley and I head-to-head with her on the issue of abortion, which, quite honestly, doesn't do well in a general election. So I don't know, as you look at this and go, well, where is the rate, I know everybody's going to say he got second and he got north of 20, but do you see a ray of hope, a real ray of hope here for Ron DeSantis? No, I don't. I think that he was probably shocked going into it. When they started to see these polls closer and closer to Iowa, I think that was when he started to become really kind of disson. disgusted with the process. You could see it. You could see it in the way he was answering questions. He was getting very frustrated toward the end because Donald Trump's numbers just

kept soaring. And think about this, he spent millions, tens of millions of dollars in Iowa. Iowa was where he put all of his eggs in that basket. And he really felt like he was going to give Donald Trump a run for his money. And I think that to the country is such a shock. And I think even to the other side, but also to a lot of Republicans who are out there supporting DeSantis and saying there's going to be someone new. You know, there were a lot of Republicans that said, nope, it's not Trump's time. He had it. He's done. And they got a real slap in the face on Monday night. And so now people are going, well, what is the future for Ron DeSantis? I have to tell you, I think if Ron DeSantis continues at this point, if he continues to push back on Trump, those people who loved him as governor and

still love him will say his chances in 28 are over because he continued to push when we gave him the message that your time is not now. If he decides to step out of the race and he endorses Donald Trump and he comes around him and we start to marry this party back together, Republicans will like that on both sides, whether they were DeSanta supporters or Trump supporters, they realized what the future is and they want him to have a future. So he's at this crossroads right now. Do you, you stop and you say my future is more important, or is your ego more important? Because either way, if you do that, you're not going anywhere as Ron DeSantis. Nikki Haley's way ahead of them in New Hampshire, so it doesn't look like he'd get a boost

there. He'd be waiting on, well, South Carolina, Nikki Haley's State. It's just hard to find a real positive path in 24 for Ron DeSantis. So, Lou, I'm going to give you both of these thoughts, and you pick up on which one you're most interested in. But I talked about this with Jordan Peterson. I thought the stat was fascinating that a huge percentage of voters wanted either a substantial change in the way the United States has run or upheaval.

Now, it's Iowa, okay? And we could say, well, that's Iowa, and it won't be that way in New Hampshire. But that's pretty interesting that so many people feel that disenchanted with where we are in America. And then what I was going to marry this with for you, Lou, is Vivek Ramaswamy. He's now dropped out.

But he represented an interesting. interesting voice. And so, like, whether or not it's his future or his motivations for running, what were your thoughts on Vivek Ramaswami? I got very excited about Vivek running, in particular after Javier Millet won in Argentina. Because shortly after that, Vivek said, I'm going to make Javier Milet look like a moderate. And, you know, as a libertarian, like that's a pretty exciting thing. So to see him, you know, drop out, you know, the day after or maybe the day of the Iowa caucus, you know, it's a little, you know, a little upsetting because I think that, you know, he's he's a guy who was able to draw crowds, get people excited. And then, you know, when it comes to the whole idea of upheaval, you know, I really, I'm really concerned about what that means for a lot of people. I mean, over the past few years, we've seen things thrown around like civil war.

And I don't want us to go down that way. I don't want us to see, you know, more violence in the streets or, or anything like that. So anything that we could do to, you know, mollify that. I'd like to go that way, for sure. Well, that's a really good point. I mean, that is, that word is not just open to interpretation, but necessitates definition. What do you mean by? upheaval because there's some people that could mean

I want you know to for us to address the size, scoped and depth of the federal bureaucracy, what many people refer to as permanent Washington or the deep state. There could be others that talk about you know all of these divisions that have been sowed within society

so who knows what that means but it just generally does represent a pretty deep well of disenchantment again which we talked about with Jordan Peterson. Finally tutor the Iowa voters were clear, clear, that these were their top two issues. Immigration and economy.

Like foreign policy, which we talk a lot about, and if we're being real, is the number one job of the American president. We need to always remember that. Like, George W. Bush wanted to be the education president, 9-11. Like, the presidency by its very nature is a job to respond to exigent circumstances, to emergencies. And usually that comes with the powers that are vested in the executive dealing with outside threats. So we should probably value what's going on in foreign policy more. But Iowa voters said school issues and foreign issues, less important than immigration and economy tutor. Right.

But that goes to exactly what you were just talking about. When you're talking about foreign policy, you are taking a massive risk of these people coming across our border and being terrorists. and we know that terrorists have crossed the border so people are afraid of that when they see what happened in israel when they see russia invading ukraine but also as they see this unrest in the middle east and they say man all of a sudden germany is getting nervous about the immigration situation in their country the uk is nervous about the immigration situation in their country and americans are going whoa okay america does have a culture a lot of people say America doesn't have a culture because we're this melting pot. No, we do have a culture. We want

if you come here, you to want to be an American. That's what you should want to be if you come here. If you come here and you have the mindset of you are going to create your own country in America and take us over, that's a problem. People are starting to see that in their countries that they're like, oh, that's where I'm from. Those are my ancestors, right? That's my home base. I'm now here. I'm an American. Wait a minute. Home base. That doesn't have. have the culture anymore. That's being taken over. And so there's that panic. But also you see all this fentanyl. You see it affecting everybody's family. I mean, so few families have not had some interaction with drugs that have come across the border. They're concerned about that. You see the

rise of China. No, people are not naive to this anymore. They see it because they see Russia connecting with China, connecting with Iran, connecting with North Korea. All of a sudden, they're saying immigration is actually connected to all of those things. At the same time, you can't afford anything. You talk about the economy. Right before Christmas, I had a mom say to me, well, I can tell it's election time. I said, what do you mean?

She said, I can't afford Christmas gifts this year. I was like, man, that's when you lose moms in Michigan, you're really losing as Joe Biden. Hey, Lou, as a libertarian, who's probably, again, as most libertarians, pretty interested in Americans' foreign policy posture. I imagine your nightmare has to be Nikki Haley. I don't know.

I have different nightmares than other libertarians. I think I don't have the same scorn for Nikki Haley. I think she looked lovely in that white suit, that white power suit, that Hillary Clinton once rocked. So, yeah, I'm not sure. I don't believe any polling, though, that says that she's winning anything. If there's one conspiracy that I believe, it's that, you know, somebody's conspiring with those numbers. I just don't see that happening. Somehow, she came in third in Iowa and said it's a two-person race now.

I don't know how she just erased Ron DeSantis. You know, I presume she's talking about herself and Donald Trump. But bravo for speaking it into existence, I guess, the famous LeVar Ball effect in sports, if anybody remembers Lamello's father, LeVar Ball. Speak it into existence. Lou Perez, comedian, I appreciate you being here on The Will Cane Show and Tudor Dixon, host of the Tudor Dixon podcast. Thank you both for being with us this week here for the first panel on the Will Cain Show.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Coming up, there's eight quarterbacks left in the NFL playoffs. What lessons can we learn in team building? How much money should you spend on an NFL quarterback? How high should you draft them? Lessons from these eight teams about what you do with the most important position in sports.

Quarterback. We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz.com.

Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. What lesson is there to take from the eight quarterbacks left in the NFL playoffs about how you build a team for success in the NFL? Story number three. Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield, Jared Gough, C.J. Stroud, Jordan Love, and Brock Purdy. What commonality between these eight quarterbacks gives us some insight, sort of cracks the code, on how you should build your franchise in the NFL.

Everyone's looking for the formula, every NFL GM, every fan, every talk, radio host. How is it we know how to build a team for success? And it all comes back to the most important position in sports. The quarterback. How much money should I spend? How high should I draft him? There have been theories throughout the last decade about teams should spend about 13 to 15% of their cap. And no more on the quarterback.

Why? Because in a salary cap sports, you robbed from Peter to give to Paul. Whatever you give with the quarterback, you can't spend on other positions. So if you have a team like the team that spent the highest amount on their quarterback in 2024, Dak Prescott and the Dallas Cowboys, devoting 26% of their cap to one position, you better, A, be sure he is the guy to commandeer a quarter of your cap capital. and B, be really good at finding players across the rest of the roster that are undervalued or on rookie deals. But most suggest the sweet spot to land, or have suggested, the sweet spot to land is 13 to 15% of your cap. Is that what we learn from these eight teams?

No, these teams have spent all over the board on their cap. Let me share with you where some of these teams have devoted their resources. Kansas City is second behind Dallas in the percentage of their cap spent on quarterback. They give 23% of their cap the chiefs to Patrick Mahomes. Now, if Patrick Mahomes wants 35% of your cap, you give it to Patrick Mahomes. I mean, he's a two-time, I believe at this point, is he a two-time NFL MVP, Super Bowl champion? He is the best quarterback in football, and he is well established on his way to being in the debate of one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

He's not number one. I said he's well on his way to getting his name in that debate. I think he's a long road to catch up to Tom Brady. The Buffalo Bills devote 19% of their cap to Josh Allen. The Detroit Lions, 13% to Jared Goff and the Baltimore Ravens, 13% to Lamar Jackson, both landing right there in that sweet spot. Now, a lot of this, because Lamar Jackson just signed a new deal, has to do with how it's structured and winning.

it hits your cap. Green Bay, 5% to Jordan Love. The Houston Texans, 5% to C.J. Stroud. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, just 1.65% to Baker Mayfield. And the San Francisco 49ers, 0.36% to Brock Purdy. All over the map. These teams are spending anywhere from a quarter of their cap to less than 1% of their cap on their quarterback position. So there's no real model here. There's no real model except if you end up with a great quarterback who can win it all, has proven he can win it all. Pay him whatever you need to pay him to keep him.

But you can find success, clearly, getting to the second round of the playoffs, with quarterbacks all over the board in terms of salary. What types of quarterbacks? Well, it's interesting. There's like four categories left for these eight quarterbacks. Think about this. There are two who are redemption projects, Jared Goff and Baker Mayfield. Former first round picks traded or released by their original team.

In Baker Mayfield's case, gone through a couple of teams. In Jared Goff's case, on his second team, and going from the Rams and Goff's case to the Lions and Mayfields originally from the Browns, now to the Buccaneers. Those guys are both great, great reclamation projects, but they're distinctly different from the MVP-level quarterback, year-in, year-out, MVP-level quarterbacks of Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, and Josh Allen. Now, Mahomes and Jackson have won MVP's Allen has not yet, but there is a sense that he will, that he is inevitable. He was in the debate this year. He probably won't win it this year. But he's maybe not on the same exact tier as Mahom.

and Jackson, which they're really not on the same tier. Mahomes is a tier above. But Jackson and Allen, all in that MVP conversation level of quarterback. There's a third category. Young quarterbacks. Basically first year. CJ Stroud's a rookie, so it is his first year.

Jordan Love sat behind Aaron Rogers his first time in the playoffs, and he looks incredible. He's now up to 21 touchdowns and three interceptions. So young quarterbacks, the third category. So still, we're all over the map. And then there's a fourth, just Mr. Irrelevant, Brock Purdy.

He doesn't fit any of these. He's been in the playoffs before. He's not a reclamation project. He's not an MVP level quarterback. And by the way, Cam Newton, former NFL quarterback, got a lot of grief because he said there are some quarterbacks who are just bus drivers, right? And he called him out by name. And he said Dak Prescott. And he said Jared Gough.

And he said Brock Purdy. He'd been kind of accurate, but we'll see. see, I don't know what he thinks of Baker Mayfield, we'll see if the Grim Reaper comes for Jared Gough or Brock Purdy and if Cam Newton is Nostradamus. But the point is, looking at these different types of quarterbacks, like looking at the cap info, doesn't really help us. It doesn't give us a lot of insight into how do you build a team? Like, how should I go about getting a quarterback?

But this final analysis does. I think this is the one thing we can take away. Seven of the quarterbacks in the playoffs, seven of eight, our first round quarterbacks. Mahomes, Jackson, Allen, Gough, Mayfield, Stroud, Love, all drafted in the first round. The only exception is Mr. Irrelevant. Brock Purdy, drafted in the seventh round. That's it. Now, that doesn't mean you draft a first round quarterback, you get to the playoffs. That doesn't mean you draft a first round quarterback. You get to the Super Bowl. It's still a 50-50 proposition. He busts. He's a success.

the ability to get to the table. It's the casino. It's the chip you have to buy. I've got to draft them high. Look, there's plenty of top ten. There's plenty of number one overall quarterbacks who bust. But drafting a first-round quarterback seems to be a necessary, but not guaranteed way to find success. And in my estimation, you should buy as many lottery tickets as possible. Knowing that's not a requirement, but a higher probability, of success, you buy as many lottery tickets as you can until one cash is in, and you buy those lottery tickets in the first round of the NFL draft. I think it could be changing as we speak because more speculative prospects seem to be making their way into the first round. I have

trouble, you know, had the University of Texas Longhorns quarterback Quinn Ewers come out for the draft, there was talk, would he be a first round quarterback? And as a big fan, I think it was really good, not just for the Longhorns, but for Ewers, that he came back for another year of college. because he's not ready. So I think we're getting more speculative. People know how important it is. So it's like a bubbly economy, more speculative investments. You know, a dot-com bubbly economy, more speculative investments in quarterback.

But that just requires you to have a better analysis of who is and who is not worthy. And if you find it, buy as many lottery tickets as you can. Draft them in the first round. The lesson from this playoffs is draft them, draft them, and draft them again. in the first round until you hit on your lottery ticket and then you pay him whatever it takes to keep him once he's a proven winner. That's going to do it for me today here on The Will Cain Show. I hope you enjoyed this program with Dr. Jordan Peterson and our political panel on Iowa.

Tell your friends about it. You can watch this entire interview or share it with your friends on demand on video at YouTube slash Will Cain Show or on podcast at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Leave a comment. We'll read it. maybe on air, leave us a five-star review, and join us again live tomorrow right here on YouTube at Fox News and at Fox News.com for The Will Kane Show. I'll see you again next time. Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show ad-free on the Amazon music app.

I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.