Welcome to the Jordan, be Petersen Podcast, you can support these parts ass by donating to Doktor Peterson's Patria, on the link which can be found in the description, doktor P, And self development programmes self authoring be found self authoring, dot com,

So I assume you are all here to talk about the early work of Karl again, this man's carnivorous diet and soviet art. He collects now in all seriousness, I'm I'm really excited to be here with you. We ve never met before your official title is that you are a clinical my just and professor at the University of Toronto, you ve written two books, one called naps

meaning and the best selling twelve rules for life which is currently being translated into forty languages. But this corruption does not capture what you become, which is a kind of phenomenon. When I was reading. Of rules for life in a cafe in the locker room of jam. It was sitting out on a bench. People were coming to me in saying this books if my life- and yet there are people in the country, including some of my fellow journalists who instead that you are actually gateway drug to the far right. So I to be here with you. The mists of you, but with the man and I'm hoping we can use them. Our so to talk about your views on meaning. Gender, on feminism guide, higher education. I'm sure we can solve all about an under an hour so to start with the book. Twelve rules for life, which I'm hoping some of you have read Here are some of the messages in that book. Gender isn't a social construct.

We should strive for meaning in their lives, not happiness. Life is suffering, but there are ways to transcend it. Stay upstream make your bed now all of this to me seems pretty insensible, and yet I know, that there is a Canadian in the world that I've read more think pieces about. It's a stretch to say that you are sort of the most loved and loathed public intellectual in the western world moment so I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about what that's like an your standing a bet, you just come from two days in Vancouver. Where with Annette Eventless Hand Harris talking for over two hours about the question of truth and five thousand people showed up those are that's, not exactly a sexy beyond, say, concert what's going on! How do you understand it in your place in it will

I think you don't want to underestimate the role that technological transformation is playing in this. You know I've been thinking about you tube and poured casts quite intensely for about two years, so I started putting my university lecturers on Youtube in two thousand, thirteen- and I did that for a variety of reasons- mostly curiosity, because an drive to learn- and I found it if I wanted to learn a technology- the best way to do it is to use it and I'm always learning new technologies, because well not that makes me particularly unique bottom and I had some success with mine measures on public innovation in Canada. So I did some lectures with serious called big ideas on canadian public television it about two hundred of those lectures, and I did five of them two hundred dim by two different people, but I

five of them. They were regularly in the top ten of the most viewed lectures and so. I knew that there was some broader market for let's ideas and I thought, this will put my lectures up on Youtube and see what happens. Then, by April two thousand and sixteen I had a million views and I thought. The only reason people are watching these is because they want to watch them because they are actually really hard. And a million of something is a lot of you, if you sell a million copies of your book, but first of all never happens right. It means very, very rare you're very You never have your paper scientific

recital a million times you rarely have a million dollars. It's a very large number and I thought well Westerham accepted Welcome fair enough fair enough. Of course, it's not as uncommon as it once was, but it's still a significant number and I didn't really have any way of calibrating. Not I thought well one way, To do now that I had a million views waste posted conceptualize that what is this you thing anyway. That was once repository for cute cap videos but what does it mean to have a million views on it? I thought, we started to think about it because- you know, another alot of people commenting is well and they were they were intended. Chosen and following them. Avidly and I thought okay. So what is this Youtube exactly? I thought well For the first time in human history, the spoken word has the same, reaches the written word and not only no leg. Publication and no barrier to entry. That's a major task

logical revolution. That's a Gutenberg revolution that a big deal is- and this is a game changer- It was soon after that that I discovered the podcast world, which is ten times as big as the EU to world and the part asked world is also a Gutenberg revolution, except it's even more extensive, because the problem with and videos is that you can't do anything else. Well, you're doing them right. We reading your reading. When you're watching a video. You know you can be distracted, but you have to pay attention to the video, But if you're listening to a podcast, you can be driving a forklift or a long haul truck or you can be exercising we're doing the dishes, and so what that means is that pod casts free up, say two hours a day for people to engage in educational activities. They wouldn't otherwise be able to engage in that about one eighth of people's lives so part hand

people, one eighth of their life back to engage in high level education. So then I thought well, people actually want to do this. There is a man of market for high level. Intellectual engagement, that's much deeper and and and more debt, Let's say than anyone suspected. We re saw that it how in Vancouver you know- I mean The discussion I had with sound Paris the two discussions we talked about, the relationship between facts and values was really the end and signs of religion, or peripherally, but the log was conducted, at the level I would say approximately at the level of a pretty rigorous phd defence- and We were only supposed to talk for an hour and then go to queue, enable crowded crowd didn't to stop, and so we talk the first night for two and a half hours, and the second night for two and a half hours in the crowd was one hundred percent on board the entire time and it wasn't because

Sam was winning or I was winning. Neither of us in fact we're trying to win. We were trying to learn something, actually trying to learn something. We weren't just pretending to do that, and you know the place it erupted at the end and I one of the things I ve realized in the last couple of days as I've been thinking this through is that the narrow bandwidth of tv has made us think we're stupider than we are, and so have a real hunger for deep intellectual dialogue and and that can be met with these new. The origins and that revolutionary significance and that starting to unfold, I wonder about you, love to quote this. This Nietzsche line that anyone here. Why to live for candour, almost anyhow What's your, why what is driving you? You are. The most busy man I mean to get you here. I think you're like important reverie were last night in Portland tomorrow, like you're alive, frankly right now, what is to rising?

What is this relentless DR? What are you pushing toward. I'm trying to well when I spent. Fifteen years running the first book I wrote, which is called maps of meaning, and it's it's it's a kin to twelve for those two life, although its much more difficult book. The audio version of that book is out now by the way it's been out since June twelfth- and I would, if you like, twelve rules or you are interested in it than you could try that. I think the audio version is much more ix simple, because it's a difficult book getting the kings of the of the sentences right is an eighty comprehension spent fifteen years running that book about three hours, a day, writing and a lot more time reading and I was interested in solving a problem which was I was interested in the grate. Our cities of the twentieth century, the ones that were committed on the right and the ones that were committed on the left. But I was interested in that

logically, and what TAT meant was. Had I been there. What could have I done to not participate, and so that's what I've been trying to figure out how so For me, what happened in Nazi Germany and what happened in the gulags Capella go in and mouse China many places with sufficient definite of help convincing as well, and I wanted to understand what the opposite- that was not sociologically or politically economically, because I think that, in the final analysis, those levels of explanation are insufficient but psychologically. How is it that you ma conduct herself in the world so that, if the opportunity to participate in such things arises, you want- and you know when the Holocaust museums went up there-

There was a motto that went along with them, which was never forget, and I thought yeah fair enough, but you can't amber what you don't understand, and so I want Understand it, but I wanted to understand you see when people read history, they neither read it detached observer, or they tend to read it as well. Maybe the heroic the heroic protagonist people like to imagine that they would be Schindler in Schindler's list, but that's wrong so because the probability that you the perpetrator is much higher, especially merely the perpetrator whose ensconced in Silence when silence is not the appropriate thing, so I want to having figured out what constituted hell in the pathway to that which would be, I suppose, the cowardice that produces the cowardice and resentment that produces either complicit in us in those. Events or failure to oppose them when they emerge

I wanted to understand what the opposite of that was, because I think that needs to be learned from what happened in the twentieth century. And so that's why road maps of meaning was to understand that and to lay out what the opposite was. And then that turned out extremely helpful to me and then to the people. I started to teach about that because it's useful to know what the opposite of hell is and I've been teaching those things to people. Since one thousand, nine hundred and ninety some twenty five years, and the response from the students has always been the same sort of response that I'm getting now absent, some of the negative characterisation, let's say which, which have emerged over there corporate for particular reasons, but the students have always said one of two things, and this is the vast majority of them. This isn't cherry pick responses, it's been the same everywhere They tell me- and this is the same response I get from my audiences now do- is they say you ve got?

me words to explain things to explain and understand things that I always knew to be true or I was in a very dark place for one of the seven reasons that people might be in a dark place: alcohol or drugs. Her failure of relationships or lack of vision or nihilism or or hopelessness, r D. Or anxiety at pitfalls that people can encounter and I've been. Developing a vision for my life and trying to adopt responsibility in trying to be careful with what I say and things are way better and that's what drives me. So you know what's so interesting, watching what's happening because. You know you said on the most lost in the most loved man. It's like I'm lost by a very small percentage of very noisy people and so and there are people who who either don't or haven't or won't or taken could take a look at what I'm doing, partly because it doesn't fit within their conceptual scheme.

Whenever I am interviewed by journalists with with that have descent of blood in their nose. Let's say there. There are very willing and to characterize the such way? I find myself in as political, but that's because they can see the world in any other manner than political and the political a tiny fraction of the world and what I'm doing isn't political its. Psychological or philosophical or theological. The political element is peripheral and if, if people come to life lectures. Let's say, that's absolutely self evident, that's not what they're about that is, people are there that isn't what they taught me about afterwards, its. Fundamentally irrelevant the only reason this ever became political is because in Canada are Michelin. Federal government had the unspeakable arrogance to prepare

was compelled speech legislation in a british common law system where that had never been done ever even once, and despite the fact that you're Supreme Court nineteen two made some such things and unconstitutional no, that was explained the people here. What what actually happened, which is that you uphold, this law, which was going to compel you say to use, preferred pronouns of people that are transgender. Is that accurate? It's it's but partial, so there was a there's provincial does that were already in place to compel the sort of thing but a federal had been generated I went and read the policy guidelines within the federal law was to be interpreted and those were produced by the voluntary Human Rights Commission, which is a nickel leftist inquisition fundamentally, and they had doc the doubt a very large number of policies that work that it would

anyone sensible hair stand on end if they read them which they didn't. But I did not only. I read them. I am stood them. And having read them and understood them. I made videos just one night. I got up it about the morning as it was really bothering me for a variety of complicated reasons, including the fact that a number of my clinical plans had been bullied into dates of ill mental health by radicals real justice warriors at their various workplaces. His was long before I was embroiled in any of this controversy by the way, so it wasn't a sampling bias and so and at the same and at the same time, the union see my university had the goal. The unmitigated gall to me, date unconscious, biased retraining for them Human resources staff, despite the fact that unconscious bias measurements, are not reliable or valid, even by the testimony of their formulated and the evidence that There is no theirs data whatsoever lending unkind?

biased retraining programmes, even the biggest shred of credible outcome. So I mean videos and because I was annoyed about this and I thought well what happen. If I make a video- and so this is this is one of the things that I feel, or maybe you can answer it for us I feel because of this incident you are often characterized at least in the mainstream press is being transferred back. If you had astute come to you and said, and they said to you, I was born fees I now identify as male I want to go. I want you to call me by male pronouns, which you say us for that, while it would depend on the student and the context and why. I thought they were asking me in what I believe their demand actually characterized in all of them, because that can be done in way that genuine and acceptable in a way that manipulative and unacceptable, and if it was genuine and acceptable, then I have no problem with it and if it was me

the lid of an unacceptable them, not a chance. So and you might think well who invited judge. Well. First of all, I am a clinical psychologist. I've talked to people for about twenty five thousand hours and so responsible for judging how I'm going to use my words, I judge it the same way that I judge all the interactions that I have with people, which is to the best of my ability and care rise by all the errors that I'm prone to so You know I'm not saying that my judgment would be unerring, but I have to live with the consequences, so I'm willing to accept the responsibility so, but, but also to be. There are about this. That never happened. I never refuse to call anyone by anything that they had asked me to call them by and so no that's been reported multiple times, it's a complete falsehood, and it did have nothing to do with the transgender issue. As far as I was concerned, and besides TAT, if it was,

if we had only to do with the transgender issue in Canada, the probability that this would have had impact that it had zero. So that wasn't that at all, it was about something far more far deeper. Far more insidious and everyone knew it, which is why it didn't go away? What should have happened is I have been a bit of controversy around it. Maybe even protest and every attention- should have gone away like a week later, and that didn't happen even a little bit. So there's more going on here. As I knew there is far more going on here than this little bill would have would have revealed one. The rules and twelve rules for life is, I hope, I'm getting this right

use your words carefully. Be ironic, if I'm not that one Robbie precise in your speech to be precise in your speech, which, as you know, you gotta run sourdough yeah. Well, you got the gist of it. That's the crucial thing. One of the things that happen to you in the past two years is that every utterance of yours, Caitlin alluded to this in her introduction is No ized maybe manipulated. How do you live with that reality? Well, how do you have the confidence to sort of continue to. From my perspective, rush to the breach on all sorts of what had become third real issues, knowing that so what you say is going to be Miss characterized and then have a follow up to that will mean a boat twenty five years ago thirty years ago- maybe nineteen, eighty five guess that's how far long ago- is that long time years yet

I decided that I was going to be very careful with what I said. I noticed at once when I was thinking through some of these ideas that already described trying to understand what tilted people towards, vengeful nurse and and and cruelty. I was contemplating that personally, but would tell me two words that are what did tell me towards that and at the same time I developed? What would you call an acute awareness of my speech was parted. I dare to question E. When you ask you, for question. If it's you really ask a question, is you start thinking up the answer, whether you want to think it up or not? In the end, the sir, that might you might generate, might bear a little resemblance to the answer that you would like to generate an idea, so the question which was well what's the path, way out of this hell, let's say, and how might I be tangled up and down in one of the things I

realized was that I wasn't very careful with what I said. That seemed in some way to be related to that, not surprising, because you know it's not right, obvious that the Nazis, for example, we're all that careful about what they said in terms of its relationship to the truth. Quite the contrary. In the same with EU dialogues in the Soviet Union and so the idea that there were some relationship between care, listen speech lies in this. In that sort of thing or self aggrandizement, or any of the things that you can indulgent? If your careless with speech and the weakening of you character to the point where you might get tangled up in great and terrible sociological movements. That seem to me to be a part of that seem to me to be reasonable and many people have commented on that, like social rights and, for example, So I started to experience discomfort with what I would say in what seemed to happen. Was that started to realise and could feel it. I was

Carl Rogers at the same time, and he actually suggested that psychotherapist pay attention to exactly the sort of thing. Like started to understand that many of the things I was saying, weren't true, I didn't really believe, they weren't really my thoughts they didn't make me they made me feel weak when I set them, can give an example kind. That's a good question. Can I give you an example, oh, maybe I would engage in an argument with someone at a bar on an inn, actual issue for the purpose of did too playing my intellectual superiority, or at least hypothetically displaying it. You know So you know sometimes people like to argue and they like to argue because hypothetically they would like to I dont mean, though, that you were mouthing play Oh sure, I was doing oh yes the time and sometimes they weren't even platitudes? You know they might have been things that I picked up in books were work, but they weren't mine. I didn't have any right to them.

Because you read something doesn't mean you have a right to it. You have to stand it and understanding something that's deep means a deep transformation. Since you have delivered just because you know what philosophical concept than you can say, it doesn't give you the right to utter it as if it's yours, you have to earn that, and I was a smart kitten. So I my head was full of ideas that I hadn't earned and I could lay them out, but that doesn't mean they were mine or me, and so there was a falsity in expressing them, and so I I couldn't tell for awhile, because I would say things in part of me would be all critic. About what I would say. You don't believe that that's not accurate. It's kind of a lie It was saying to almost everything I said, and I took a risk. I thought hey, I'm going to assume that the part of me that's critical about what I'm saying is right, even though that terrible because it really what is often met. I can hardly speak and

then I learned to only say things that didn't make me feel weak, and then I decided that that's what I was going to do so I've been. Awful with what I've been saying for a long time, but and I'm having a hard time with what you're saying right now, because shouldn't detail Be I'm only saying things that our true not I'm, only saying things that don't make me feel weak. What am I misunderstanding in that formulation? Well, you're what you're misunderstanding parties. How do you know the things that you are saying are true and I would say one of the ways you know is that they weaken you and you can learn that you can learn to feel that Karl Rogers talked about this a lot more work and psychotherapy. He said that one of the primary role of other psychotherapist was to be congruity bye bye. What and what he meant by that was that there was no discharge

between what you felt in this situation, let's say and what you said that it was all one peace and that was an embodied unity, not merely a conceptual unity. So I really do think that there's something to it almost means psychologically weak, not weak. In terms of power, I mean psychologically we the area I mean, I mean I mean morally weak, weaken character, that sort of thing yeah, that's what I mean yeah and so, and so I got very careful with what I said and at the same time I was spending a tremendous amount of time writing, and so I was very careful with what I wrote so in maps, meaning I think I rewrote every sentence in that book

least fifty times and so create and every sentence yeah yeah. That's for sure, and now you know, I'd, take the sentence out and then I'd read write a bunch of variants of it and then I would pick the variant that was best and then I would try to come up with all the arguments I could about why this ends with stupidly around telling you still day this year. I still do this when I'm writing a cake. Did you do that? fifteen fifteen versions of every sentence and twelve rules for life also, I said fifty Fifty excuse me, I was more than I had meant to be precise in my speech, so I missed. It was more like fifteen with twelve rules for life was less I'm a better writer than I was then so I didn't have to do it quite is often so I kept it until I couldn't make the senses any better, doesn't mean. We're good. It just meant that I got to the point where, if I was wrong

bidding them. It wasn't obvious that the rewrite was better than the original sentence. So then I had to stop so. My question a few minutes ago was how has knowing that you are going to be intentionally that your words going to be a sort of intentionally torques? How has that changed you it's made me even more careful. You know it's exaggerated the care, but you know I had been quite careful big and the evidence for that is quite clear. So in a win win all of this political controversy surrounded me and that's whirled around me, but still is maybe it's even exaggerated to some degree, but it was very intense in Canada a good six months and people were going over what I had put on you too, with a fine tooth comb nearest, hundred hours of videos there and you think well with some creative bidding and and with motives

in mind. You think, if you went over two hundred hours of someone's lectures you could find is a smoking pistol. Even if you had a job out a sentence, no one found anything and the reason for that was there wasn't anything there That's why they didn't find it, and so I would. It had already been very careful and I discussed all sorts of unbelievably contentious issues, because my classes were very intense. We went. We like the maps of meaning class in particular, is like it's. You know it it confirmed its basic presupposition, partly what I was trying to do with my students was to convince them that here they ve been in Nazi Germany in the nineteen thirties. They wouldn't have been on the site of the good. Hell of a thing to drag people through, but its statistically overwhelmingly likely

So it was a very serious class and certainly a place where you could step badly it at any. Given moment can I talked about gender differences and the biological substructure of consciousness, and all these things that could easily become politically contentious but, as I said there weren't any smoke, pistols, but now for the last two years, I've been even more careful- and I have people watching me. You know I mean my family watches me in what I'm doing they keep very careful track of it and if I Deviate a little bit from what they think I should have the from how I should have behaved in the Tell me, and I have friends who are doing the same thing and I listened to them. Do you feel that your deviated from hanging should behave when you said? I think it was a measure in the New York review? I know that, but let me just share what you said, which is entirely precise in my speech, but I believe you said your sink. Did you say

that you are you really going to Vilnius pregnant and if you were in the room, lock you yes. I regret that not a bit and I'll. Tell you why? Ok! Well, look it's really, forget it. You know I have this. I have this friend whose native Carver- and he he's he is. He comes from a very rough background like way rougher than you think, and maybe some of you have come from rough backgrounds or you know people who come from them, but he comes from a plenty rough background and I started working with him buying his art fifteen years ago, when he was a survivor of residential schools in Canada and we got pretty clothes and he helped me design the third floor of my house and and and anyways that the long and short of it was that I got inducted into his family to a year and a half ago

This big ceremony up in native reservation in Northern Vancouver, and yet we ve been through a lot together in a lot of its being pretty rough, and you know this: Whatever the hell S name was Miss rasher, whatever the hell. His name was had it to me to say that I was romancing. The noble savage slick watch, your step, buddy, you don't the hell you're talking about not even a bit and so had I been a left, leaning what personage and he had made a comment like that there were to be held to pay so, which is to say that I'm a right, leaning per by the way. So I don't regret it a bit. I think that what he said was absolutely reprehensible and that he should have been called out on it, and so I don't regret it at all. Now people said you know. Maybe it would have been better for me not to have made that comment and its past that the right? But I actually thought about it, and I thought there is no excuse for that. You don't know what you're talking about your man.

With things you don't understand and you're make a casual aspersion, not only on me but on my noble savage friend, like yeah, no speaking of things that people have said sort of to defame you, your car, These suing Wilfred Laureate University, because I got your correct me if I'm wrong, but I administrators there in their meeting Lindsey Shepard, who was a tier who showed a clip of eel, they sort of interrogated her accusing her of creating a hostile teaching environment for showing a clip of you and her classroom and during that interaction she recorded. They compare due to Hitler. No, they compared media. Hitler or Milo, you, Nautilus, cs right now. It's important- and the reason is important- is because look these people

to one of our aims and just interested just finished. I question: maybe your bread, the sin. You are one of the most outspoken champions. I would say of free speech right now. I would like for you, if you can to sort of grapple a bit with being, believing in free speech so strongly and yet also suing this university for slander, yeah. Well, so, first of all they compared me too. He said playing a clip of Jordan Peterson was like playing a clip of Hitler or Milo. You and I thought, Well, let's go a little easy on the Hitler comparisons, their guys. We might want to save that for when it's really necessary, because you don't you- don't use its sacrilegious to use and insult like that, except in situations where its justified its not appropriate. To use a catastrophe like

casually especially when you're doing it under the guise of moral virtue, there's no excuse for it and then the second thing is Europe, professor: both of you get your downward straight, which is it my Hitler Milo monopolise seriously. Those are not the same people case you, notice, one of them, the worst barbarian in the 20th century, with the possible exception of Stalin and MAO, and the other one is, is what a provocateur trickster who's quite quick on his feet and and and is what would you say, is stirring things up in a relatively non problematic way? the same creature. They resorted to compile combined them in a single careless insult during and it straight of what would you call investigate? which was entirely unwarranted by the way and was predicated on an absolute lie. There hasn't been a student complaint, as the university admitted

is no excuse for that and if they weren't professors than well, it wouldn't have been so bad, but they were, and the reason that I saw them there's a whole bunch of reasons mean that the Hitler comparison, the Milo Monopolise comparison really only two of about forty things that they tarred me with, and there are all listed in the deepest the only reason I brought the lawsuit forward, but seven months later, something like that was because of happened with Linsey Shepherd so What happened to her lips at Wilfred Lorry is absolutely inexcusable everything they did too was predicated on a lie. Then the university apologized and so did the professor, and then he lied during his his his apology, which was a forced apology, anyways and therefore a very Little utility. They were subject to no disciplinary action, even though the statutes of the university required it and they made Lindsey shepherds.

The living hell even after they apologize to her. I told her that she did nothing wrong and that they haven't follow their own procedures. So I read. Deposition, and I actually read it on Youtube. Works, got about five hundred thousand views by the way, and I thought you people haven't learned anything. You ve learned absolutely and so, if one lawsuit doesnt convince, you may be too will so and then, with regards to free speech, it's like free speech, you're still bounded inside a structure of law and the p these people broke the law, at least that's my claim. So I dont see that production there at all. You can't just slander, someone defamed them lie about them. You can't incite people to crime, has all sorts of reasonable restrictions on free speech that are already codifying, essentially in the british common laws. So! But Wilfred Laurie learned nothing, but this isn't over. Yet it isn't it creating a chilling effect, which is something that those of us care so much about free speech want to sort of stay away from you could say,

that these sort of defamation lawsuits are really really dangerous, slippery slope and sort of suppression and see it that way. Well, you know see it that way, which is why I spent seven months thinking about it before I decided to do it, but I thought that there's always risk in every decision. There is the risk of doing something, and there is the risk of not doing so and both of those risks are usually catastrophic in every decision you make it like so ice. I weighed up the the risks and I thought no, the risk here of not doing something is greater than risk of doing something I've had they shown any sign. Look one of the things that Wilfred Lorry did in the aftermath of this scandal, which, by the way, was the biggest scandal that ever hit a canadian university,

large margin and it was an international scandal. I rarely go places where people have heard about this, and so it was a big deal and they had plenty to learn and they learn nothing. They set up a panel, I pathetically to clarify their position on free speech and its relationship to include civilly, etc, and the only to people on the panel who were advocating for the free speech position resigned in frustration, and I know that because I know who they are and so and so well, that's just one of the pieces of evidence that they didn't learn anything in there. They continue to mistreat shepherd continually like her her deposition. It's like an it's like a novel of stupidity. You know it's like And my sense was: had there been any sign whatsoever of. Let's call it true apology and Procedural rectification that shit.

Would have left the bologna, and so what have I done desirable? In fact, if anything, what they did was double and go underground here is apology. Here's our procedures, that's what they showed the world. Here's. How nothing at all has changed. So I know not good enough since the subjective universities, recently that what universities have done is beyond forgiveness. I wonder if you could explain what you mean by that and a second followed connected question is: should we. I'll put it starkly, should we abolish universities or we'll do that themselves, ok here a little bit about what they ve done, that you think renders them beyond forgiveness, well overwhelmingly administratively top heavy and.

And they don't spend any more money on the family than they did thirty years ago, and the cost of that administrative top heaviness, which is well documented, not by me by other people, and it's been that way. It's been accelerating over the last twenty years has been a radical increase in tuition fees, especially compared to the radical decrease in price of most things over the last twenty years now, so they become administratively top heavy the way- and this is especially true in the United States- the way that's been managed is that unsuspecting students or giving given free access to student loans that will cripple them through their thirties in their forties in and the universities are enticing them to extend their care free adolescence for a four year period at the cost of mortgaging their future earnings in a deal that does not allow for escape through bankruptcy. So it's essentially a format.

Densher servitude, there's no excuse whatsoever, for that means the administrators learn how to pick the future pockets of their students and and because of because they so view them in some senses, sacred cow. Cows and fragile, it sake as you might wonder why the students are being treated like they're, so fragile. It's like what we don't want them to drop out now. Do we we can't say, drop out and we don't get our hands on their future earnings in a way that they can escape from and that cripples the economy. Because the students come out overladen with debt that they'll never pay off right at the time when they should be at the peak of their ability to take on Japan aerial risks. So they can't do that because there too crippled by debt that's absolutely appalling their gerrymandering, the accreditation processes, so that the degree no longer has its credible value there. Enabling the activists disciplines, which zero academic credibility whatsoever. In my estimation, and I'm perfectly willing to defend that claim there. There

and by enabling the activists disciplines there there allowing for the distribution of this absolute Lee. Nonsensical view Western society is fundamentally a patriarchal tyranny, which is absurd, ought at least five dimensions of analysis, but is becoming increasingly the you have to believe this you're allowed to speak in public. Well, that's what else! That's it start that's their here, nor teaching students to read critically. There's you want introducing into the great literature there's not teaching them to right. It's like This goes on and on and on. Do you think, in a way that you are a symbol of higher education? Failure meaning the reason, maybe that people are showing up five thousand. Listen to you, it's gonna, be twenty thousand in London in July is because there aren't that many people who on irony are talking about what it is to live a good life and asking quest

about how to live in meaningful one. If you would say that in most universities, I feel that you would be left out of the room we depend on how you set it into who. But if you say it, students than than theirs so happy to listen to you that they can hardly stand it because even the most cynical students come to university, hoping that there's something there with learning and the reason that their exposed to great literature, for example, because there is such a thing, it's not all power claims is because great literature contains the key to wisdom and you need wisdom in order to live without undue suffering. So yes, I mean so, but I do what I say, what's happened to me as a reflection of the failure of the universities, it is in part, although I didn t tell you the whole intellectual dark whet the fact that people listen SAM Harris Talk Hours and Michael, I mean all of these people.

Well, I think I think it well. I think you know you, you want to go for the simple solutions before you go for the complex ones, and you want to go for the solutions that are associated with ignorance rather than malevolence. First and. I would say that we don't want to underestimate the degree to which what's happening in Youtube and with podcast as the consequence of a technological revolution. Like I've known for years that the universities under serve the community, because for some reason we think that university education is for eighteen to twenty two year old, which is a proposition that so absurd that it's it's absolutely mindboggling that everyone anyone ever conceptualize it's like Why? Wouldn't you take university courses throughout your entire life, mean what you stop searching for. Women when you're twenty two. I don't think so you don't even start, usually until you're like in your mid twenties so I knew the universities were under serving the broader community a long time ago, but there wasn't. It

can ism whereby that could be rectified apart from say, books and, of course, at that was part of the directive. So I think you don't want underestimate the technological transformation, but then and then I would also say I mean I was teaching this in university. So it isn't like there isn't any body and university still teaching this sort of thing there. There are plenty of qualified professors who are still doing a good job, but. They are being pushed out very rapidly and terrified as well by the by the activists disciplines. So you speak and write a lot about how masculinity is in crisis, what are some of the main signs of it and then will open up to question soon and its Trump symbol of that crisis or a corrective too, and I don't really think the masculinity is in crisis. I think that, to a degree that now he'll entity per se.

Regarded as toxic that that will produce a crisis which isn't the same thing. I think there's a there's, a crisis of meaning, let's say in our culture, but that's not new. That's that's been the case for quite a long time, but I dont think its specific to masculinity. That's story, that's kind of aggregated around me in the way that happened was well the people who don't like what I'm saying. Look at my audience and they say: oh well, he speaking mostly demand. Therefore he must be speaking to man. It's like well know the baseline rates for you to be lazy, sure about eighty percent mail. So the fact Most of the people who were watching me on Youtube. We're mail is an artifact to some degree of the fact that most of the people who watch Youtube male now may also be that this some things that I'm saying our more pertinent to man, although I am not convinced that most of my students rub my university career been women. Can psychology is fun, you know, is, is dominated by women to a great degree and

Ever since I published my book, the proportion of people who are coming to my lectures that is free, is reliably increasing its probably up to about thirty five, thirty five percent. I would say now from about probably twenty, so I don't think it is a message that particularly germane to men. Although it is germane to men- and I don't think I dont think that there's independent crisis of masculinity. There might be a crisis of concepts of masculinity. And, I think, that's hard on young men in some ways, and the reason for that is, you know you you're you're you're supposed to be duty bound as a virtuous person to buy the doctrine of the tyrannical patriarchy. It's like well, look. First of all, every hierarchical system tends towards tyranny. That's a universal truism and our structures have the same problem. Obviously, and we have to be

turn vigilant so that they dont devolve into tyranny, but that doesn't mean that they are tyrannies and always have been, and, of course, also compared to what compared to your hypothetical ideological utopia. Ass compared to every other society. That's ever existed on the planet, including most of the ones that exist now d definitively, not but anyways. If you buy the that. Unit. Dimensional idea, which is a pathological error, And you see your dear you're you're cold whereas a tyrannical patriarchy, then see any attempt to move up that hierarchy as a manifestation of patriarchal tyranny. Now the problem Is that a lot of the ways that you move up a modern functional hierarchy is through competence and, if you take young men doesn't happen this much with young women for reasons we can go in but if you take young men- and you say every man

Cessation of your desire to move up the hierarchy is nothing but proof of your participation in the tyrannical pipe patriarchy. Then you ten demoralized them, which is exactly what you're trying to do by the way? If you, if you take that stance to begin with, because I really think that at the bottom of the most of the most of the most pathological manifestations of the collectivist, dictum is an assault on the idea of competence itself and that's another unforgivable syn The university is committed like every look. There's no doubt that human hierarchies are error prone and they till towards tyranny. Obviously, but that doesn't mean that they are unit dimensional patriarchal tyrannies, not there, neither patriarchal nor tyrannies so, but that's received wisdom now and to question. It means that you're, a massage earnest fascist. So well. So I tell young man, it's like! No, no, no! No! No! It's like

than to competence, man speaking as a as a woman who has read your book and I'm with you for for so much of it, and then you start to lose me when you talk about archetypes the way you talk about archetypes Broken again, forgive me from being slightly and precise, but I'm trying to close it for an audience who might not have read it is that in sort of young and archetype of world chaos is feminine order, is masculine, and the subtitle of your book is an antidote

to chaos. So, as a woman reading that you knows I'd like for you to explain to me, maybe what I'm missing there, because that's when you started to lose me a little bit as a reader, why does there need to be an antidote to the feminine in that way? Well, there has to be an antidote to anything. That's manifesting itself in excess and its chaos. That's manifesting itself in excess of the moment in our culture and soul, and so that's what I decided to address in this book, and mostly that was because I suppose it was addressed, at least in part to younger people, and younger people have to contend with. Generally speaking is an excess of chaos, because they're not very disciplined, and so you need to know we're going to have this idea that why you're free as a child-

and then you see, if I can, if I can put this properly, that you have a certain delightful, wonderful, positive freedom as a child and then that's given up as you approach adulthood, but the truth of them, or is that you have a lot of potential as a child, but none of that is capable of manifesting itself as freedom before you become disciplined and discipline is a matter of the impasse no order and the order is necessary, especially for people who are hopeless and nihilistic and lots of people are hopeless and realistic way more people than you think and part of is because no one's ever really encourage them, and so the book is in part a matter of encouragement,

lay yourself lay a disciplinary structure on yourself get the chaos in in in check, and then you can move towards a state. That's freer discipline! First, like look if you're gonna become a concert, pianist, there's going to be several thousand hours of extraordinarily discipline practice. That's the imposition of order on your potential, let's say, but what comes out of that is a much grander freedom and so in virtually every freedom that you haven't life, that's true, freedom, purchased at the price of discipline, and so because I think that its its nihilism end and hopelessness that constitute the major existential threat, especially young people, at the moment than I was concentrating on the necessity of discipline in order so and the issue with regards to the metaphysical or symbolic representation of chaos it as feminine. Well, that's a very complex problem.

The first thing you have to understand is that there is no eight priory supposition. That order is preferable to chaos in any fundamental sense. There, both constituent elements of reality, you can't say ones, bad and the others good. You can say that they can become unbalanced and that's definitely not good too much. Chaos is not good. Obviously, too much order is not good. Equally, obviously, Those are the two extremes that you have to negotiate between and I'm not making a casual claim. With regards to the idea that reality is an amalgam of chaos in order, I dont think that there is any more accurate way of describing the nature of reality. That's the most fundamental, maybe not the most fundamental truth, but it certainly there's too These two fundamental truth reality is composed of chaos in order and your role is to-

mediate between them successfully. That's metaphysical and symbolic truth, but it's more than that because That's actually how your mind and your brain is organised not only conceptually but emotionally motivational and physiology. Really so- and I don't really understand how that can be, because it is an obvious to me how the most fundamental elements of reality can be chaos in order, but the evidence that that is the case is overwhelming. I can give you a quick example, which is quite interesting, so you have two hemispheres. There's a reason for that. There are fundamental reason, for that is that one of them is adapted for things. You don't understand, that's roughly speaking, the right hemisphere and the other is adapted for things that you do understand. That's the left hemisphere, and so that's a chaos order dichotomy. In fact.

You're adapted to that. That is the very structure of your brain reflects that by four indicates. As far as I can tell beyond a shadow of a doubt, because it's also characteristic of nonhuman animals, many of them, that that differentiation is fundamentally true in some sense now you might ask: why is that conceptualize as masculine persists feminine, because it's not male versus female by the way? Those are not the same thing, because ones conceptual that's extraordinary complicated. I think the reason is that, where social cognitive primates and that our fundamental cognitive categories, a prairie cognitive categories, are masculine masculine,

Feminine and child at something like that. That's the fundamental structure of reality, because were social creatures and we view reality as something. Its essentially social in its nature and then when we started sexual reality outside the social world which wasn't very long ago by the way and which is something that animals virtually dont, do it all. We use those a priory social categories as filters which we interpret the external world, and we are stuck with that in some deep sense. Might say: well, why do we have to be stuck with that? It's like well, because some things are very difficult to change. I give you, go watch a story and the characters in this story, slot themselves into those archetypal categories, then you'll understand the story and if they don't, you won't because your understanding is predicated on application of the arctic policy priorities to the story. You wouldn't understand otherwise three

get under that- there's no under that- not not and not to remain human. So I can give you a quick quick example. I like to use Disney movies for a variety of reasons, mostly because everybody knows them, but it's not accident, for that the evil queen the evil. Queen and sleeping beauty, is not an accidental character. She's, the she is because we understand her and the recently the standards, because we see the world through the categories that I just laid out. Can you can well. What do you think she has to be a queen and not a king. No. If she was an evil. King she'd be different, she'd, be like sky in the lion, King Justice, evil man, but not the same character, right yeah? I guess I'm struck that it seems like a lot of your intellectual project is reasserting difference in Age, where we are told that everything is the same

But then it's almost inducement to say. Ok, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but look at the problem. The problem with some of this, the problem with some of this some of its willful blindness, some of its just ignorance. So let me just let me just lay Oda, the thing so, for example, I've been taken to task long, let's say with James to who had we ve been highly influenced by my videos before he and my classes before he did what he did it. Google, no I've, studied personality differences between men and women for twenty five years in papers on the topic. It's actually an area of expertise of mine and substantial expertise to and not pseudoscience expertise. Thank you very much, I'm not a single scientist so my publication record, puts me in the top point, five percent of since psychologists. So? I'm not a pseudo scientist by any stretch of the imagination, and I have ten thousand citations and that's not million. But it's a lot

publishing papers. So so let me one of the personality differences between men and women, because it's worth understanding, you might say whether can't be personality differences between men and women because that's anti feminist, it's like no its, not we may have to actually understand that there are differences between men and women so that we can live. And women make the choices they're going to make without without subjecting them to undo manipulation. Ok, one of the reliable differences between men and women cross culturally, is that men are more aggressive than women. Now, what's the evidence for that? Here's one piece of evidence: there are ten times as many people men in and what's that a socio cultural construct, psych no socio cultural construct. Ok, here's another piece of data we Try to commit suicide more than men by a lot, and that's because women are more prone to depression and anxiety than men are in. There is reason for that, and that's cross cultural, true as well there more likely to try to

It's suicide, but men are way more likely to actually commit suicide. Why? Because their more aggressive, so they usually means okay, so The question is how much more aggressive or men than women and the ants, is not very much. So the claim that men and women are more the same than different is actually true, but this is where you have to know something about statistics to actually understand the way the world works instead of just applying year, eight, I worry ideological presupposition, two things that are too complex to fitted rubric. So if you If you drew to people out of two people out of a crowd, one man and one woman, You had to lay a bet on who was more aggressive and you bet on the woman you'd wind, forty percent of the time. Ok, so that quite a lot- it's not fifty percent of the time, which would be no differences whatsoever, but it's quite a lot. So there's lots of whim who are more aggressive, then lots of men. So so

The curves overlap. A lot so there's way more similarities than differences, and this is along the dimension, where there's the most difference by the way right, but here's the problem, you can take small differences at the average of a distribution, patients move off to the side, then all the actions at the tail. So here's the situation, you don't care about. However, how aggressive the average person is? It's not that relevant. What you care about is who is the most aggressive person out of a hundred, take a hundred people and you take the most aggressive person, because that's the person you better watch out for and what's the gender man, because if you go three standard deviations out from the mean on two curves that overlap, but are slightly disk just jointed. Then you derive an overwhelming preponderance of the overrepresented group and that's why

about ten times more likely to be imprisoned, has now to do with socialization so and then and then there are other differences to sew. It turns out the differences in aggression and agreeableness also predict differences in interest. And so it turns out that men are more interested on average than things than women are, and women are more interested in people on average and that's actually the biggest difference. That's been measured between men and women. Nothing to do with ability has to do with interest. And so the way that manifests itself is that women are more likely to go into disciplines that are characterized by the care of others, and you can tell that by the way occupations are segregating. All you have to do is look at the data for like fifteen minutes, women overwhelmingly dominate healthcare and that's that's accelerated by the way, and men dominate engineering, let's say and so

You say what that Socio cultural, like no its, not and here's the proof so So now what you do, because you want to test this hypothesis right, it's like and bleed, and the other thing that you want understand is that left, leaning, psychologists generated this data and you think we're you know that that's easy there are no right, leaning cycle except for you. Well, that's what people say and saw only one, that's been well documented, and so people have published this doubted despite the radiological proclivities and despite the fact that this is not what they expected to find or what they wanted to find. So what you do now as you, you stack countries by how egalitarian their social policies are right from the least developed into the most, and you say, while the scandinavian countries are the most egalitarian and by the way, if we don't agree on that day, no sense having this discussion at all, because we do

agree on what he galloped means. If you don't think that what the Scandinavians have done, how has been a move in the direct? The big deleterious ism, then I have no idea what you mean by egalitarianism. Now you say what they haven't done it perfectly. It's like yeah yeah, that's true, but relevant to this argument?. So what you do is you start countries by how we get it? in their social policies are and then you Look at occupational and personality differences between men and women as a function of the country and what you find is, as the country becomes more egalitarian. The difference between men and women, increase, they don't decrease, and so what that means is that the radical social construction, honest are wrong It's not a few studies with a couple of people done by some half witted psychologist and some tiny little university, its population level studies that have been published,

major journals that have been cited by thousands of people pseudoscience. It's not it's not question. It's not questioned by mainstream psycho Metricians and personality theorist. We figure this out back and like ninety ninety five, everyone, it was settled, and so what's the big problem. Well, who knows what the problem is. The outcome is not exactly the same between the genders, psych. Well, who says it has to be, and more importantly- and this is something to ask yourself constantly just who the hell's going in for that just exactly how are they going to enforce that and believe me, it's not good in some manner that you like, because there are differences between men and women and, if you leave them alone, those differences manifest themselves in different occupational choice. It that's the Their finding this is a newer one The societies become more egalitarian, the occupational choices between men and women maximize and what that is that fewer and fewer women go into the stem fields.

Now, no one wanted that. No one predicted it was hoping for it. It actually flu, the face of, I would say that most established psychological theories, because, pre certainly was twenty years ago that what would have happened as we made societies more egalitarian would be that men and women would converge. That's not what happened. The biological differences maximized as we eliminated the Socio cultural differences, and so maybe don't like that. Like that's fine with me, I didn't say I liked it, but whether or not I like a piece of data has very little bearing on whether or not I'm liable to accept it. Now I'm trying to look at the damn scientific literature and to draw the conclusion better necessitated by the doubt and you can say well. The whole thing is suspect, because it's the it's the construction of the patriarchal tired who generated the eurocentric scientific viewpoints like you want to have that conversation then go to an activist discipline and have it because

not the sort of conversation that anyone sensible would engage you so I'd love to open up the room to questions please Sensible questions and please keep them, orders civil, but genuine questions. Someone with a microphone will find you to raise your hand. Yes, good evening, my name is Frederick. I wanted to understand a little bit of your view more on the fact that not fight but observation that what generations and generation so that at least what I've heard and seen from my family. I can take up that women being told about their position in the home. Men being told that position to work and Milk more aggressive. You know the social

initially. So how does that play a role? Because I didn't hear that being it being a dimension of reaching these conclusions. I've never claimed that the differences between men and women are one hundred percent, biologically determined there logically influenced the radical construction is to make the opposite claim. There are biological differences between men and women, secular, first of all that so preposterous that barely even we an answer, but you might, you might specified a bit say: no, there are no biological differences manifest themselves psychologically. That's not quite as people Strasbourg is also incorrect. It's obvious the case that all sorts of things about sex sex rules and engender rules, let's say, are condemned- by socio cultural mechanisms, because human beings are very, very plastic. And so the manner in which those biological differences manifest themselves in a culture is radically info.

By the nature of the culture. But that doesn't mean that the biological influences don't exist so that you think, should we be countering that sort of traditional the traditional cultural mores. What I still don't understand, at one time. I just think that it's not necessarily biological or inherent. If I had to paraphrase it, Some of it is yet but its very here? In the way at least, maybe one out is very short and maybe it needs. A larger discussion it seems that it's easy to deduce that these are inherent differences which exist and social conditioning wasn't taken as a parameter, do. I have control for by the comparison between societies that have different levels of egalitarianism built into their social structure.

That's all taken care of in the analysis. If the biological difference manifest themselves maximally where the socio cultural influences to equal, gender or maximal then obvious the biological differences are powerful in profound its conclusive, so taken into account in the in the in the doubted else's. So that's why? dark up the countries by by the EC they get egalitarian nature of their social policies is to control for the Socio cultural influence. And so you know, you gotta admit because just think it through for a minute. It isn't even that what you would have expected theoretically that the societies that are the least together tearing, would have the biggest differences between men and women and that, as the societies got more more egalitarian, those differences would get smaller and maybe- and maybe disappear even, but that isn't what happened? It's with the opposite is what happened: they maximized in the most egalitarian society. Therefore,

The social construction is position, the rat call social construction. This position is wrong. It's wrong it's been refuted, which is partly why the radical social construction must have taken that legislative route to impose their viewpoint. They lost the scientific war, but then well, then we can just attacks lions like what science itself that suspect psych. Well, then quit using your rifled. You always you're going to have your convictions. Man lay about your life. If you think the scientific processes is is suspect and tyrannical and repressive, and all that then quit you the products that it produces. You don't get to have taken needed to. Let's, let's go to this young woman right here yet and then we'll go to you hi my name's Julia and I recently read in the New York Times.

Go about your comments, unforced monogamy. What are your comments on how that is perceived by the public and specifically the left great question? Well,. I think it was in force it so the enforced monogamy enforced. Nor, let me first of all that's a technical term. By the way that's been used in the some literature for a hundred years and the journalist who was not stupid knew that perfectly well and reported this story, the way she reported despite that, but what even more surreal than that about that story is that if you can to try to undermine someone's credibility. I can do it effectively. You should a tribute to them an extreme view that, Sir, person somewhere actually holds. Ok and saw the view that was attributed to me with something like. I want to the road. Do I want to find useless man and destroy

women to them at the point of a gun so that they don't become violent. It's like no one. Ever believed that ever anywhere in certainly is alarming and outward while right, usually that's right. She wrote a book about that, but so just absolutely preposterous and and its preposterous in a bunch of ways, because she interview for two days, and we talked about that for about two minutes. It was approved we'll conversation and it's an answer. Logical truism generated primarily by scholars on the left, just so everyone's clear about it that society that use monogamy as a social norms which, by the way is virtually every human society. That's ever existed. Do that in an attempt to conceal all the aggression that goes along with polygamy, like oh, my how content can you get it's like well, how many of you are and monogamous relationships while

majority. How is that in four? I think this is a very polly amorous written. So so you know it was just it was. It was desperate, that's what it looks like to me, but the problem is, it was also desperate and amateurish. It's like she could have done Better job without much less extreme characterisation, it's like! Oh, yes, I wanna take women at the point of a gun and distribute them to use this man. It's so stupid, partly because, like if she, if she would have been reasonable and she HU this to one of the thing I told men specifically over and over and over and over is, if you're being rejected, by all the women that you approach. It's not the women right. So

begins, and so that's because you know these characters who, like the guy, that more down those people in Toronto, he ends up. Women and he's blaming more than women in some senses, blaming the structure of being for producing women that reject him. It's like, and so that's part of what makes a violent. It's like Well, what the hell is wrong with you know, he's gotta come ITALY backwards. If everyone, if If everyone you talk to is boring, it's not them right? And so, if you rejected by the opposite, sex, assuming that you're heterosexual, then you're wrong there wrong and you ve got some work to do man. You got some difficult work to do and there isn't anything but I've been telling, let's say, young men, that's clearer. Then that you know what the

It's actually something I've been criticized by by people on the left, because they think I don't take structural inequality for example, and so forth. It into account sufficiently what I've been telling people is, take the risk instability for your failure on to yourself- and that certainly applies to, while, especially when you're trying to formulate relationship and you're getting rejected, left right and centre, it's like that's it and that you have some work to do now, it also be hit that you're just young useless, and why do what the hell with any absolute Why the hell? Would anybody have anything to do with you, because you don't have anything to offer. You know so, but that's viable in part. Partly even maturity rectifies that, but so so not only was that what would you call it accusation? surreal and absurd

by a journalist who know perfectly knew perfectly well what I was suggesting into chose to mess misrepresented anyways. It's actually the opposite that the conclusion that people derived from that is exactly the opposite of what I been suggesting, in particular two young men. So it's absolutely preposterous. Yes, the microfinance! Yes,. Professor Petersen, I have very good to see you here. I teach students I teach trans students Often the call people singularly they. It started probably about four years ago, It struck me as very odd, I'm fifty two and some of them You can tell that it's coming from a very deep plays, and that's how feel on the deeply need to be called day some of them.

A horse sense says that there and of enjoying, giving me, shock and there's a certainty. Ethical aspect. It's my horse sense that there's a certain aid by tale. Where's. Why aspect to it? I can feel it and probably right, but I can't I'm a linguist, I'm a person, And my general feeling his ban whatever they ask, just go with it and let's check Geraghty usage of the pronouns, because we have a lot to do What you said was interesting. You said that the way that you make the difference Deciding these cases is based on the fact that have psychological training and you can tell I want to know, is, for my own elucidation and also because I think many of us wondered but then a kind of went by. How do you know now? I want to specify I'd rather you didn't recount.

Oh episode of how ridiculously you were treated amidst that whole controversy the quarters of the Rome knows. I sympathise with you. I thought it was ridiculous I want to know specifically because I'm a linguist, you have psychological training. Would you know when you hear the almost an oil? If you hear a tiny bit of scepticism in my voice, your correct, however, I am open to being can based on your training, which is immense, How would you know which students discount, as opposed to which ones to go along with Kate. Well, first of all, I wouldn't know right, which is part partly why you're scepticism is just but I have to be responsible for what I say based on my willingness to take responsibility for my judgment. So I would be willing to do that despite the fact that I might be wrong. But having said that in any

reasonable situation. I would err on the side of addressing the person in the manner that they requested to be addressed and address, but that not the issue. For me, the issue is now I'm compelled by law to do so. It's like no, not doing it not now because its compelled by law. So that's the end of the game. As far as I'm concerned, so because there is no excuse for compelling it by law? That's my my position and I think there's all sorts of reasons for that. I dont think it was an isolated legislative move. I think its part and parcel of a whole sequence of legislative moves that have been made in that continue to be made in Canada. I think it's an attempt by radical ideological. Say certain radical ideology to gain the linguistic upper hand, which I think is a tear the thing to do to allow

So I have lots of reasons for rejecting legislation, but I have nothing to do with that's very interesting. We're talking. Expertise here and my ears pricked up when you talked about how There is a way of thinking it would allow us to decide. I know there's a way of thinking that would allow me to decide for me no us to decide for us. Surely you have a larger mission, then just what's going on in your own head, and I mean that no, I had a perfectly straightforward mission, which was there was no damn way. I was going to say those words when I was compelled to by law. But I was my mission. You weren't. A model for the rest ass, a way of thinking. Really only about you know. Well, but me and the law, I thought the law. The law makers had gone too far. They stepped out of their appropriate territory into the domain of linguistic freedom. As far as I was concerned, I was going to put up with that and so of people were.

How about that wanted? To follow the example that was fine with them, but for me it was something and that that was the statement. I'm not doing this and that people can draw their own conclusions from that? Maybe they want to do it. I mean I've spoke, with no shortage of trans people and in all my proclivity has been Without exception so far to address them in the manner that seems most socially appropriate under the circumstances now you. I mean you know, you asked a specific question which was I have special expertise that I might share with the other people, you're doing Martin Luther, and I think that these issues are a little subtler than those and so What what is it with you? What makes you think that you're doing the kids their grandstanding any favours by going along with their ministers? I can't decide which ones those well, my god in all things, and they look fair enough, but you have a type one in type to air problem. So one error is that you don't call students what they deserve to be called. That's one here.

And the other errors that you you call students what they want to be even though they don't deserve it, and so you're trying to do optimally is to minimize both those errors and to do that, you have to take a middle route. Now what you ve done To do- and I am not criticising it- is you ve just To allow for the possibility one hundred percent of one of those areas, because you think it's a less significant error and you know you might be right, but it's like you're, acting in an narrow, free manner. You ve just decided to minimize one form of error at the expense of the other because I would say your allowing what would you attention seeking in somewhat narcissistic undergraduates to gain the upper hand over you in your class, now that's but believe me, it's not a criticism. It's not a criticism. I understand why you are paid a giant airing on the side of gender city. I have one more thing to say, but I'm not gonna take up any more space. Ok, are you saying that cycle

The call has nothing to teach us about this because you're talking around my question, your gorgeously articulate smarter than me. Does psychology have anything to teach us or not. I don't like this question, I dont think that it has anything to teach Think it has anything to offer that I can teach you without. Let me think so: it's just too complicated. No, no, it's not! No! No! It's not that what is that in part, because it's not easy to articulate out the principles, the unerring principles by which you makes such a categorical judgment right because those very situation specific problems in our needs. Its part of the of how of how to make a generic moral truth apply. To a very individualistic situation and the problem. In the sorts of situations that you're describing is generally the devils and the details right. You have all these students, the ones you just laid out

They vary in their attitude towards their their self, professed gender from them, who are grandstanding to some degree, let's say to the ones that are very serious, and you have to make a judgment in the moment that is dependent on the variables that present themselves in a very complex way. In that situation and I understand why you, you took the pathway that you talk and it's it's perfectly reasonable to do so. My point: was you? U dont, minimize all the errors? By doing so, it's fine still find way of approaching it isn't. My point was that because of my psychological acumen. I would say that the experience that I've derived is that I would be comfortable in making the judgment and taking the consequential risk I'm not saying I'd, be correct. Something anything at all. I'm linked to suffer the consequences of my error. That's not! The same thing is being right, So if I feel that a student, these manipulating me that I'm not gonna go along with it now be wrong about that and actually heard someone who's genuinely asking for some

that they need I am also what would you say sense, to the error. Allowing manipulation to go unchecked. So how are you back at no time? and then there could be a two hour pod cats about this on your wonderful block out, since everyone listen to. Invite him ok hands here in the orange and pink scar. Thank you bury I'll, take you both for this really interesting conversation, which is not like most of the conversations we had here at the ideas what is my

one. So I know why you're so database in their million questions that I'd like to ask him only get asked one obviously- and I must say colleges and the social causes of the clinical background and the thing that I think like two most here about right now at this moment is. The very noisy, small percentage of people who oppose you. Have you thought about something they might be right about that They may actually have a point about that. You hadn't thought of that. You ve started to think they might actually have appoint Gregg where some I dont know. If I started to think about the point, could they have that? I didn't think about before I mean people have been characterizing me as right wing like

Are not right wing, so the characterisation isn't very helpful and one of the things I do all the time in my public lectures is make a case for the utility of the left, so in the case can be made quite rapidly. If you're going to pursue things of value in the social environment, you're going to produce a hierarchy its unavoidable, because some people are At whatever it is that you value, and so not least itself out socially, will produce a hierarchy. The hierarchy has its nest the hierarchy as a necessity. If you're going to pursue the things of value, but it has a risk, the risk is we'll ossify and become corrupt. That's risk number one in risk. Number two is that when you produce the hierarchy, you're going to dispossess a number of people because they'll be lots of people in the hierarchy warrant good at it and they'll dispossessed, so you need political voice for them. That's the left.

So I make that case over and over now with the what right does it say yeah, but we still need the hierarchy psych. Yes, you still need the heart. The reason we need them medical dialogue is because we need the hierarchy and we can't let it get out of control, so we and in the way balance. Those two competing necessities isn't by only having hierarchy or dissolving the hired. You have to live with the tension and the way because because the situation keep shifting, so the way you live with the tension is by talking say what here, current state. The hierarchy needs to be tweak this much because it's getting too tyrannical and its dispossessed too many people, so we need to tweak it so that it not as corrupt and so that it's a little bit more open and we have to well that all the time and that's what the right left- it's not the only thing they do, because they also talk about the necessity of borders. That's the other fundamental thing that they do The dialogue has to continue so that we can have the hierarchies and utilised

as tools without allowing them to descend into tyranny,. Ok, so I made a case a murder case and on the web. I didn't talk of the universe, Of British Columbia left wing case for free speech, as if that so difficult to make me, that's that of case that was made until like two thousand and fourteen, or something like that. So the left, leaning types have all sorts of things that are correct to say now. The problem is one of the problems. Laugh, but this is- and this is another thing that I talk about all the time and my public lectures by the way. As we have a problem, we know how to put box around the extremists on the right, equally, we say all you're making claims of ethnic or racial superiority. You're, not part of the conversation anymore. What do we do on the left? Nothing! That's not good, because there's an issue pan the left go too far, yes, win,

We don't know or that's not a very good answer. Now could say. Well then, it's up to the moderate leftists to figure that out, so they dissociate themselves from the radicals, and it is up to them but that's actually not a very good answer either, because it's all of our problem is not. So just don't know how to reliably identified the radical too too radical left. Wingers, don't know how and its partly because I think it's actually conceptually more complex, like with the radical right. You can kind of lay it down to one dimension, o Rachel, very already know sorry you're the conversation, but that's my love, but we do you mentioned before. Why didn't you? was a fan of Milo nobody's. You call him a prank stir in user pranks through yeah, but he's also racist. Well, possibly I haven't Milo, that terrorists have also and its possible that he has a means hard to tell what Milo is exactly he's very complicated and contradictory person destined to implode, which is exactly what,

well there's just no way you can be that contradictory, a person and manage it is just not possible. He was just too many things happening at the same time for anyone ever manage so but but on the left, I dont know what it is. I think I think the left becomes toxic. One of the things that makes the left unacceptable is demands for equality. Both come it's like. No, you cross the line man not an acceptable demand and that's increasingly a moderate left. This demand is well now, but I No, it might be more complex. It might be that there's four things that you to demand on the left that all of a sudden makes what you're doing unacceptable and we don't know what those four things are and so on We think it's a conceptual problem as well as an ethical problem. We don't know how to bind the the necessary left, so that we do so that the radicals don't dominant counterproductive.

And if you don't think that the radical left us can dominate counter productively, then well, Heaven help you I know that I agree with the idea that its clear on the right is not clear to me. We look look at the Trump administration, I dont think that its necessarily applied very clearly, but these conditions have? Twenty that work? Well, we can pointed out better so and it it out because of What ordeal yes here, that help coordinate actually yeah, but but the thing is that the communist catastrophes does don't see. I made it clear on the left. Yes, so now. That's another thing that the universities have done. That's unacceptable by the way. The intellectual class, I would say, is that never come to terms properly with the fact that the intellectual as a whole, was, was supportive of the car. Just experiment, and it was an absolutely catastrophic failure on every what Mary

Or of analysis, people say well that wasn't real communism, it's like in relation to ever say that, because what it means, is. This is what it means so most arrogant statement that a person can make. It means that, had I been in the position of stolen with my proper conceptualisation conceptualisation of the marxist Utopia, I would if I should, in the utopia, that's what it meets and like no first of all, if you actually were that good, spirited and you're, not by the way, if you work you would have been eliminated so fast. The revolution occurred, that it would have well would have killed, because that's what happened? What happened like well meaning people after the Russian Revolution, the small minority people that were generally well meaning they were dead within two or three years. So. I don't guess: ruling was zero as in zero questions, zero times, zero, something one more question really. Ok,.

I know that several people there can we take a few, and I will answer them shortly, like maybe two more ok. Let's go here and the front row right here, yes but make it very, very short, great mentor. Great help to me in a lot of people that I've been sharing your work with. I have to sure, and I would like you to sign a former ok, you could do about it got civil. Do that after I'm sure. Yes, Professor Petersen, on this issue, can to the question that the young woman over there asked, but over it. If you could get in the self inflicted mode over the course of your life and career today, well, could you say honestly to us about where you felt you ve been most?

wrong. And what provoked that's not think about the sun, not thinking about how I've been wronged. You have today we have wrongly incorrect online like all why wrong in your thinking when sore was wrong about the big five personalities hearing for about five years, so I know that suffer. Trust, but, but I didn't like it at all. It was brute force, statistically derived theoretically interesting, I didn't like it. But I was wrong about that so so, because these signs was well done what else? If I've been wrong about? Well, you asked for profound examples of being wrong in my field. That's actually profound example, because that's that's one of the major theories in the field. You're thinking about more interesting examples.

What am I changed radically all? Well, you know when I was a kid I was adapted. Socialist was wrong about that. But it but more. But more specifically. I was wrong about that because I thought that in the dark that there were questions that I won't answer, that that doctrine could answer, and it wasn't that it was socialism that didn't make it making make. The answers emergent was that it was the wrong of analysis, so that was major source of air. It was also the source of error that that the journal we're going after me or making they think everything's political. It's like no, its, not there's lots of levels of analysis and the political is one I learned eventually that the political wasn't the right level of analysis for the questions that I was interested in addressing and

That was a major that was a major error, took me years to sort that out into and to figure out what the consequence was. I was wrong about the significance of religious ideas, because when I was a kid I in over thirteen or so smart enough at that point to see the contradiction between the NFL, evolutionary account of the origin of human beings and say a scriptural account, and so I just dispensed with that in the sort of new atheist move, and you know I threw the baby out with the bathwater, and I was really wrong about like profoundly wrong about that and I'm sure I'm wrong about a bunch of other things, but I'll figure out what some of those are. As we go ahead, so that's three things. Those are big thing. So, if I thought more, I could come up with other examples, but those are pretty big things that I was wrong Thank you all so much clearly an hour and a half is not enough with you, but think

Much of your time.