Читать книгу Dr. Jordan Peterson - Man of Meaning. Complete Edition (Volumes 1-5) - Hermos Avaca - Страница 6

Newman:

Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, “grow the hell up!” Tell me why.

Peterson:

Well, because there’s nothing uglier than an old infant. There’s nothing good about it. People who don’t grow up, don’t find the sort of meaning in their life that sustains them through difficult times. And they are certain to encounter difficult times. And they’re left bitter and resentful, and without purpose, and adrift, and hostile, and resentful, and vengeful, and arrogant, and deceitful - and of no use to themselves, and of no use to anyone else, and no partner for a woman. There’s nothing in it that’s good!

Newman:

So you’re saying, I mean, that sounds pretty bad.

Peterson:

It’s bad!

Newman:

You’re saying there’s a crisis of masculinity. I mean, what do you do about it?

Peterson:

You tell... you help people understand, why it’s necessary and important for them to grow up and adopt responsibility. Why that is not a shake your finger and get your act together! sort of thing. It's more like a delineation of the kind of destiny that makes life worth living. I’ve been telling young men... I wasn’t specifically aiming this message at young men, to begin with. It just kind of turned out that way.

Newman:

And it’s mostly, you admit, it’s mostly men listening.

Peterson:

It is!

Newman:

I mean, about 90 percent your audience is men, right?

Peterson:

Well, it’s about 80 percent on YouTube. Which is a… YouTube is primarily a male domain. So it’s hard to tell, how much of it is because YouTube is male and how much of it is because of what I’m saying.

What I’ve been telling young men is that there’s an actual reason why they need to grow up, which is that: they have something to offer, this thing people have within them, this capacity to set the world straight! And I told them, that it is necessary to manifest that in the world - and that doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you in life.

Newman:

So what’s gone wrong, then?

Peterson:

Oh god! All sorts of things have gone wrong! I don’t think that young men hear words of encouragement. Some of them never in their entire lives, as far as I can tell - that’s what they tell me. The fact that the words that I’ve been speaking - for example the YouTube lectures that I’ve done and put online - have had such a dramatic impact is an indication that young men are starving for this sort of message! Why in the world would they have to derive it from a lecture on YouTube? They’re not being taught that it’s important to develop yourself.Newman:

But does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Does that... isn’t that a bit divisive?

Peterson:

No, I don’t think so. I mean, it’s no more divisive than the fact, that YouTube is primarily male and Tumblr is primarily female.

Newman:

Well, that is pretty divisive. Isn’t it?

Peterson:

Tumblr is primarily female.

Newman:

Right. You’re just saying "that’s the way it is."

Peterson:

I’m not saying anything. It’s just an observation, that that’s the way it is. There’s plenty of women that are watching my lectures, coming to my talks and buying my books. It’s just that the majority of them happen to be men.

Newman:

What’s in it for the women, though?

Peterson:

Well, what sort of partner do you want? Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with, that’s going to help you, that you can rely on?

Newman:

So you’re saying that women have some sort of duty, to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?

Peterson:

It depends on what they want. I mean, it’s exactly how I laid it out: Women want, deeply want, men who are competent and powerful! And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others - that’s not power, that’s just corruption!

Power is competence! And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually: You can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination, …

Newman:

So you are saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?

Peterson:

No, I’d say women who have had their relationships with men impaired, and who are afraid of such relationships, will settle for a weak partner because they can dominate them. But it’s a sub-optimal solution. It does no one any good.

Newman:

Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?

Peterson:

I think there’s a substantial minority of women who do that and I think it’s very bad for them, they are very unhappy. It’s also very bad for their partners, although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility.

Newman:

But what gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that’s how women want their relationships, those women. I mean, you’re making these vast generalizations.

Peterson:

I’m a clinical psychologist!

Newman:

Right. So you’re saying you’ve done your research and women are unhappy dominating men?

Peterson:

I didn’t say they were unhappy dominating men, I said it was a bad long-term solution. That's not the same thing.

Newman:

Okay, you said it was making them miserable.

Peterson:

Yes, it is, and it depends on the time frame. I mean, there can be... there’s intense pleasure in momentary domination. That’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for a successful long-term relationship. That’s reciprocal, right? Any longterm relationship is reciprocal, virtually by definition. So…

Newman:

Let me put a quote to you from the book, where you say:

“There are whole disciplines in universities, forthrightly hostile towards men. These are the areas of study dominated by the postmodern / neo-marxist claim, that western culture in particular, is an 'oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women.'”

But then, I want to put to you, ….

Peterson:

Minorities too! There's also domination of minorities...

Newman:

Okay, sure. But I want to put to you that here in the UK - let’s take that as an example - the gender pay gap stands at just over 9 Prozent. You’ve got women at the BBC, recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job.You’ve got only 7 women running the top FTSE 100 companies!

Peterson: Yeah.

Newman:

So it seems to a lot of women, that they are still being “dominated and excluded” - to quote your words back to you.

Peterson:

It does seem that way, but multivariate analyses of the pay gap indicate that it doesn’t exist.

Newman:

But that's just not true, is it?

Peterson:

It's absolutely true!

Newman:

I mean, that nine percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women, that exists!

Peterson:

Yes, but there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist, who is worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. Like you say, women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay, well, then we break it down by age, we break it down by occupation, we break it down by interest, we break it down by personality...

Newman:

But you’re saying, basically, that it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what’s skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying "well, that’s just a fact of life, they are not necessarily going to get to the top!"

Peterson:

No I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either.

Newman:

You’re saying it’s a fact of life.

Peterson:

I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it, and they’re not being taken into account.

Newman:

Yeah, but those reasons... why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content, not to get to the top?

Peterson:

Why should women put up with it? I’m not saying they should put up with it. I'm saying that the claim, that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex, is wrong! And it is wrong there’s no doubt about that! The multivariate analyses have been done. So I can give you an example. Wait a second. Let me give you an example!

Newman:

You keep on talking about "multivariate analyses", no no no no ! I'm saying, that 9 percent exists, that’s a gap between men and women. I’m not saying why it exists, but it exists! Now, if you’re a woman that seems pretty unfair!

Peterson:

You have to say why it exists!

Newman:

But do you agree that it’s unfair? If you’re a woman...

Peterson:

Not necessarily, ….

Newman:

...and on average you’re getting paid 9 percent less than a man - that’s not fair, is it?

Peterson:

It depends on why it’s happening! I can give you an example:

Okay, there’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than less agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman:

Again, a vast generalization.

Peterson:

It’s not a generalization.

Newman:

Some women are not more agreeable than men!

Peterson:

Yes, that’s true, that’s right - and some women get paid more than men!

Newman:

So you are saying that, by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay raises they deserve?

Peterson:

No, I’m saying that that’s one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance, something like that...

Newman:

Surely, the answer, ….

Peterson:

...but here are another 18 factors - one of which is gender! And there is prejudice, there’s no doubt about that, but it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman:

Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists - which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation - shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise: "Go and ask for a pay raise! Make yourself disagreeable with your boss!"

Peterson:

Oh definitely! There’s that, but I also didn’t deny it existed. I denied that it existed because of gender!

Newman:

Okay.

Peterson:

See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words...!

Newman:

So the pay gap exists, you accept that, but you’re saying… I mean, the pay gap between men and women exists, but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay rises.

Peterson:

That’s one of the reasons.

Newman:

Okay, one of the reasons. So why not get them to ask for a pay rise? Wouldn’t that be a fairer way of proceeding?

Peterson:

I’ve done that many, many times in my career.

Newman:

And they just don’t?

Peterson:

Oh, they do it all the time! So, one of the things that you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training: You might say, often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression - and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training.

I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice. We put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages - and we often tripled their wages within a 5-year period!

Teaching them how to negotiate...

Newman:

And you celebrate that?

Peterson:

Of course! Of course!

Newman:

So, do you agree that you would be happy, if that pay gap was eliminated completely? Because that’s all the radical feminists are saying.

Peterson:

It would depend on

 how it was eradicated and

 how the disappearance of it was measured,

because you can't..

Newman:

You’re saying if it’s at the cost of men, that’s a problem?

Peterson:

Oh, there’s all sorts of things that it could be at the cost of. It could even be at the cost of women’s own interests. So…

Newman:

Because they might not be happy if they get equal pay?

Peterson:

No, because it might interfere with other things that are causing the pay gap that women are choosing to do.

Newman:

Like having children?

Peterson:

Well, or choosing careers that actually happen to be paid less - which women do a lot of.

Newman:

But why shouldn’t women have the right to choose not to have children or the right to choose those demanding careers?

Peterson:

They do! They can! Yeah, that’s fine.

Newman:

But you’re saying that makes them unhappy. By and large.

Peterson:

I’m saying that… No, I’m not saying that, and I actually haven’t said that so far in the program.

Newman:

You’re saying it makes them miserable.

Peterson:

No. I said, that what was making them miserable was having weak partners. That makes them miserable!

Newman:

Right.

Peterson:

I would say that many women, between the age of 28 and 32, have a career/family crisis that they have to deal with. And I think that’s partly because of the foreshortened timeframe that women have to contend with.

Women have to get the major pieces of their life put together faster than men. Which is also why men aren’t under so much pressure to grow up! Because the typical woman has to have her career and family in order pretty much by the time she’s 35 - otherwise the options start to run out. That puts a tremendous amount of stress on women, especially at the end of their 20s.

Newman: I’m going to take issue with the idea of the “typical woman”, because, you know, all women are different! I want to just put another quote to you from the book, you say...

Peterson:

Well, they’re different in some ways and the same in others!

Newman:

Okay. You say "women become more vulnerable when they have children."

Peterson:

Oh, yes.

Newman:

And you talked in one of your YouTube interviews about,“crazy harpy sisters”. So, a simple question: Is gender equality a myth in your view? Is that something that’s just never gonna happen?

Peterson:

It depends on what you mean by equality.

Newman:

Being treated fairly, getting the same opportunities.

Peterson:

Fairly? We could get to a point, where people were treated fairly, or more fairly. I mean, people are treated pretty fairly in western culture already. But we can do better...

Newman:

But they’re really not though, are they? I mean, otherwise why would there only be 7 women running FTSE 100 companies in the UK? Why would there still be a pay gap, which we’ve discussed of late?

Peterson:

Oh, that’s easy…

Newman:

Why are women at the BBC saying that they’re getting paid, illegally, less the men to do the same job? That’s not fair, is it!?

Peterson:

Well, let’s go to the first question. Those both are complicated questions. Seven women… Repeat that one please.

Newman:

Seven women are running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK. I mean, that's not fair.

Peterson:

Well, the first question might be: why would you want to do that?

Newman:

Why would a man want to do it? They earn a lot of money. It’s an interesting job.

Peterson:

There is a certain number of men, although not that many, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice virtually all of their life to the pursuit of a high-end career. These are men that are very intelligent, they’re usually very, very conscientious. They’re very driven. They’re very high-energy. They’re very healthy - and they’re willing to work 70, 80 hours a week, non-stop, specialised at one thing, to get to the top!

Newman:

So you think women are just more sensible? They don’t want that, because it’s not a nice life?

Peterson:

I’m saying that’s part of it, definitely! And I worked…

Newman:

So, you don’t think there are barriers in their way that prevent them getting to the top?

Peterson:

Oh, there’s some barriers. Yeah, like other men, for example. I mean, to get to the top of any organisation is an incredibly competitive enterprise! And the men that you’re competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, “Please take the position”! It’s absolutel all-out warfare!

Newman:

Let me come back to my question. Is gender equality a myth?

Peterson:

I don’t know what you mean by the question, men and women aren’t the same! And they won’t be the same! That doesn’t mean they can’t be treated fairly.

Newman:

Is gender equality desirable?

Peterson:

If it means equality of outcome, then it’s almost certainly undesirable! That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Because in Scandinavia…

Newman:

What do you mean by that, "equality of outcome is undesirable?"

Peterson:

Well, men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories, if you leave them alone to do it off their own accord. We’ve already seen that in Scandinavia: It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that - it might not be quite that extreme - and approximately the same ratio of male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law!

Those are in ineradicable differences! You can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure

and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices, you will not get equal outcome!

Newman:

Right, so you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists, call them whatever you want to call them, should basically give up, because it ain’t gonna happen!

Peterson:

Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.

Newman:

So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine?

Peterson:

Not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals and for society.

Newman:

"But still women aren’t gonna make it!" That’s what you’re really saying.

Peterson:

It depends on your measurement techniques, women are doing just fine in medicine! In fact, there are far more female physicians than there are male physicians. There are lots of disciplines that are absolutely dominated by women, many, many disciplines! And they’re doing great!

Newman:

Let me put something else to you from the book. You say:

“The introduction of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality, for one simple reason. Who decides what work is equal? It’s not possible.”

So the simple question is: do you believe in equal pay?

Peterson:

Well, I made the argument there. It depends on how you define it...

Newman:

So you don’t believe in equal pay!?

Peterson:

Haha, no! I’m not saying that at all!

Newman:

Because a lot of people listening to you will just say "Are we going back to the Dark Ages?"

Peterson:

That's because you’re actually not listening! You’re just projecting what you think!

Newman:

I’m listening very carefully and I’m hearing you basically saying, that women need to just accept that they’re never gonna make it on equal terms, equal outcomes, how you defined it…

Peterson:

No I didn’t do that! I said that equal outcome...

Newman:

If I was a young women watching that, I would go: "Well, I might as well just go and play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying at school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want - because there’s someone sitting there saying it’s not possible, and that it’s not desirable and it will make me miserable!”

Peterson:

I said equal outcome is not desirable. That is what I said, it’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that, because I don’t believe that for a second!

Newman:

Striving for the top? But you’re gonna put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries! And that’s fine! You’re saying "that’s fine!"

Peterson:

No! No No! No I think... I really think that's…

Newman:

"The patriarchal system is just fine!"

Peterson:

That is silly! I think that’s silly, I really do! I mean, look at your situation, you’re hardly unsuccessful!

Newman:

Yeah. And I’ve worked quite hard to get where I’ve got to!

Peterson:

Exactly! Good for you!

Newman:

That’s okay! Battling is good! This is all about the fight!

Peterson:

This is inevitable! Why…

Newman:

But you talk about men and fighting. Let me just put another thing to you from the book. You say...

Peterson:

Why would you not have to battle for a high-quality position?

Newman:

Well, I noticed in your book, you talk about real conversations between men containing, quote, “an underlying threat of physicality”.

Peterson:

Oh, there’s no doubt about that.

Newman:

What about real conversations between women? Is that something... are we.. sort of too amenable and reasonable?

Peterson:

No, it’s just that the domain of physical conflict is sort of off-limits for you.

Newman:

Well, you just said that I fought to get where I’ve got.

Peterson:

Yeah.

Newman:

What does that make me? A proxy man or something?

Peterson:

I don’t imagine. I don’t imagine that you…

(makes boxing gestures)

Yeah to some degree. I suspect you’re not very agreeable!

Newman:

So that’s the thing! Successful women… I’m not very agreeable.

Peterson:

Right! I’ve noticed that actually, in this conversation! And I’m sure it served your career well!

Newman:

Successful women though, basically have to wear the trousers, in your view? They have to sort of become men to succeed, is what you’re saying?

Peterson:

Well if they are going to...

Newman:

“I had to fight to succeed, therefore I’m an honorary man!"

Peterson:

If they are going to compete against men, certainly, masculine traits are going to be helpful. For example, one of the things I do in my counseling practice, when I’m consulting with women who are trying to advance their careers, is, to teach them:

 how to negotiate,

 how to be able to say no

 how to not be easily pushed around and

 how to be formidable!

You need to…If you’re going to be successful, you need to be smart, conscientious, and tough!

Newman:

Well, here’s a radical idea! Why don’t the bosses adopt some - the male bosses, shall we say - adopt some female traits, so that the women don’t have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises? It’s just accepted: if they’re doing the same job, they get the same pay!

Peterson:

Well, I would say partly, because it’s not so easy to determine what constitutes the same job!

Newman:

That is because, arguably, there are still men dominating our industries, our society, and therefore they’ve dictated the terms for so long, that women have to battle to be like the men!

Peterson:

No, that's not true. It’s not true.

Newman:

Where’s the evidence?

Peterson:

Well, I can give you an example very quickly: I worked with women who worked in high-powered law firms in Canada for about 15 years. These women were as competent and put together as anybody you would ever meet and we were trying to figure out how to further their careers.

And there was a huge debate in Canadian society at that point, that basically ran along the same lines as your argument, that was "if the law firms didn’t use these masculine criteria then women would do better." But the market sets the damn game!

Newman:

And the market is dominated by men! What Im asking...

Peterson:

No! It’s not! It’s not! The market is dominated by women! They make 80 percent of the consumer decisions. That’s not the case at all, 80 percent!

Newman:

If you’re talking about people who stay at home and looking after children - by and large, they are still women, so they’re going out doing the shopping. But that is changing, …

Peterson:

They make all the consumer decisions!

Newman:

Okay, so what I wanna ask you...

Peterson:

The market is driven by women, not men!

Newman:

Right.

Peterson:

Okay, and if you’re a lawyer in Canada…

Newman:

And they still pay more for the same sort of goods. That’s been proven, that men… You buy a blue bicycle helmet, it’s gonna cost less than a pink one. Anyway, we’ll come on to that.

Peterson:

It’s partly because men are less agreeable. Right? So they won’t put up with it.

Newman:

I want to ask you: Is it not desirable to have some of those "female traits" you’re talking about... I’d say that’s a generalization, but you’ve used the words female traits - is it not desirable to have some of them at the top of businesses? I mean, maybe there wouldn’t have been a banking crisis, if that had happened?

Peterson:

They don’t predict success! They don’t predict success in the workplace. The things that predict success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness. Agreeableness predicts success in the workplace negatively - as does high negative emotion.*

(*Big Five/ biometrics scientific terms)

Newman:

You’re saying that women aren’t intelligent enough to run these top companies!?

Peterson:

No! I didn’t say that at all!

Newman:

You said that female traits don’t predict success. But you were saying that intelligence and conscientiousness...

Peterson:

But I didn’t say that intelligence wasn’t… I didn’t say that intelligence and conscientiousness weren’t female traits.

Newman:

...by implication, are not female traits.

Peterson:

No! No! I’m not saying that at all!

Newman:

I mean, that’s really dangerous territory!

Peterson:

I’m not saying that at all!

Newman:

Are women less intelligent than men, by and large?

Peterson:

No! No they’re not. No, the data on that’s pretty clear: The average IQ for a woman and the average IQ for a man is identical. There is some debate about the flatness of the distribution, which is something that James Damore pointed out in his memo.

But there’s no difference in general cognitive ability at all! There’s no difference to speak of in conscientiousness. Women are a bit more orderly than men, and men are a little bit more industrious than women, but the difference isn’t big. But that averages in aspects avergae out in the higher dimension conscientiousness.*

(*Personality trait conscientiousness is subdivided into the aspects orderliness and industriousness)

Newman:

There are plenty of men who aren’t necessarily as industrious!

Peterson:

Well, of course!

Newman:

We’ll… female traits though, why are they not desirable at the top...

Peterson:

Feminine traits!

Newman:

…feminine traits, why are they not desirable at the top?

Peterson:

It’s hard to say. I’m just laying out the empirical evidence. Like we know the traits that predict success.

Newman:

But we also know, because companies, by and large, have not been dominated by women, over the centuries, we have nothing to compare it to! It’s an experiment!

Peterson:

True! And it could be the case that if companies modified their behavior and became more feminine, they would be successful - but there’s no evidence for it!

Newman:

You seem doubtful about that.

Peterson:

I’m not neither doubtful, nor non doubtful! There’s no evidence for it, the evidence suggests...

Newman:

Why not give it a go, as the radical feminists would say?

Peterson:

Well it’s fine! If someone wants to start a company and make it more feminine and compassionate and carin in its overall orientation towards its workers and towards the marketplace... that’s a perfectly reasonable experiment to run. My point is, that there is no evidence that those traits predict success in the workplace! And this evidence is...

Newman:

Because it’s never been tried!

Peterson:

Well, that’s not really the case. Women have been in the workplace for at least since I’ve been around. The representation of women in the workplace has been about 50 percent. So we’ve run the experiment for a fairly reasonable period of time. But certainly not for centuries.

Newman:

Let me move on to another debate that’s been very controversial for you: You got in trouble for refusing to call trans- men and women by their preferred personal pronouns.

Peterson:

No, that's not actually true. I got in trouble, because I said I would not follow the compelled speech dictates of the federal and provincial government - I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything!

Newman:

Right.

Peterson:

That didn’t happen.

Newman:

You wouldn’t follow the change of law...

Peterson:

Not once it was law. No!

Newman:

...which was designed to outlaw discrimination?

Peterson:

That’s what they said it was designed to do.

Newman:

Okay. You cited“freedom of speech in that. Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans-person’s right, not to be offended?

Peterson:

Because, in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive! I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You know, you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable!

Newman:

Well, I’me very glad I’ve put you on the spot! But you were citing freedom of speech...

Peterson:

Hah! But you get my point! You get my point: you are doing what you should do, which is, digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on. And that is what you should do - but you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me. And that’s fine! I think more power to you, as far as I’m concerned!

Newman:

You haven’t sat there and... I’m just... sorry, I’m just trying to work that out. I mean…

(pauses for a very long time)

Peterson:

Ha! Gotcha!

Newman:

You have got me! You have got me, I’m trying to work that through my head. Yeah, … It took a while, it took a while, …

Peterson:

It did! It did! Yeah.

Newman:

You have voluntarily... you have voluntarily come into the studio and agreed to be questioned.

A trans-person in your class has come to your class and said they want to be called she.

Peterson:

That’s never happened. And I would call them she.

Newman:

So you would? So you’ve kind of changed your tune a little bit…

Peterson:

No, no. I said that right from the beginning. What I said at the beginning, was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists. Regardless of whether or not it was put in law. That’s what I said and then the people who came after me said:

“Oh, you must be transphobic! And you’d mistreat a student in your class.” It’s like, I never mistreated a student in my class. I’m not transphobic - and that isn’t what I said!

Newman:

Well, you’ve also called trans-campaigners “authoritarian”, haven’t you? I mean, isn’t that grossly insensitive?

Peterson:

Only in the broader context of my claims, that radical leftist ideologues are “authoritarian” - which they are!

Newman:

Yes, but you are saying, someone who’s trying to work out their gender identity, who may well have struggled with that, had quite a tough time over the years...

Peterson:

No doubt they struggled with it, yeah.

Newman:

You’re comparing them with, you know, Chairman Mao, who...

Peterson:

No. Just the activists.

Newman:

…who caused the deaths of millions of people. Well, even if they are activists, they’re trans-people too. They have a right to say these things.

Peterson:

Yeah, but they don’t have a right to speak for their whole community.

Newman:

Isn’t it grossly insensitive to compare them to Chairman Mao! Or Pinochet, Augusta Pinochet, you know, this is grossly insensitive!

Peterson:

I didn’t compare them to Pinochet. I did compare them to Mao

Newman:

Well, he was an authoritarian.

Peterson:

He was a right-winger, though. I was comparing them to the left-wing totalitarians. And I do believe that they are left-wing totalitarians!

Newman:

Mao! Mao! Under Mao, millions of people died!

Peterson:

Right!

Newman:

I mean, there’s no comparison between Mao and a transactivist, is there?

Peterson:

Why not?

Newman:

Because transactivists aren’t killing millions of people!?

Peterson:

The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.

Newman:

The consequences are…

Peterson:

Not yet!

Newman:

You’re saying that trans-activists could lead to the deaths of millions of people?

Peterson:

No, I’m saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.

Newman:

Okay, tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.

Peterson:

Sure, that’s no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China - and that is the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists, identity politics:

It doesn’t matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity. It's a murderous...

Newman:

You just saying things to provoke, aren’t you? I mean, you are a provocateur…

Peterson:

I never said anything…

Newman:

You’re like the Alt-Right, that you hate to be compared to! You want to stir things up!

Peterson:

I’m only a provocateur, insofar as, when I say what I believe to be true, it’s provocative. I don’t provoke. Maybe for humor, now and then.

Newman:

You don’t set out to provoke…

Peterson:

I’m not interested in provoking. Not in the least.

Newman:

What about the thing... you know, fighting and... the lobster? Tell us about the lobster!

Peterson:

Ha! Well that’s quite a segue! Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called, “Stand up straight with your shoulders back”: It’s an injunction to be combative! Not least to further your career, let’s say. But also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world, and to reflect that in your posture.

The reason that I write about lobsters is that there’s this idea, that hierarchical structures are a “sociological construct of the Western patriarchy” - and that is so untrue, that it’s almost unbelievable! And I use the lobster as an example, because the lobster...

In evolutionary history, we devolved from lobsters about 350 million years ago - common ancestor.

And lobsters exist in hierarchies and they have a nervous system thas is attuned to the hierarchy. Their nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous systems do, and the nervous system of the lobster and of us human beings is so similar, that antidepressants work on lobsters!

It’s part of my attempt to demonstrate, that the idea of “hierarchy” has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction - which it doesn’t!

Newman:

Let me just get it straight: You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?!

Peterson:

I’m saying that it’s inevitable, that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It's absolutely inevitable and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that! That’s so long, a third of a billion years ago, there weren’t even trees! It’s a long time!

You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin, similar to the lobster mechanism: That mechanism tracks your status. The higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So, as your serotonin levels increase, you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

Newman:

So you’re saying, like the lobsters, we’re hardwired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines - and there’s nothing we can do about it?

Peterson:

No, I’m not saying there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s like in a chess game, there’s lots of things that you can do, although you can’t break the rules of the chess game and continue to play chess. Your biological nature is somewhat like that, as it sets the rules of the game, but within those rules you have a lot of leeway.

But the idea that... one thing we can’t do, is, to say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy, that’s patently absurd! It’s wrong! It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s seriously wrong!

Newman:

Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger and…

Peterson:

Not of all!

Newman:

Divisions between men and women, you’re stirring people up! You know, any critics of you, online, get absolutely lambasted by your followers! You haven't called them off, have you...?

Peterson:

And by me, generally.

Newman:

Sorry, your critics get lambasted by you?

Peterson:

If they are academics.

Newman:

Isn’t that irresponsible?

Peterson:

Not at all. If an academic is going to come after me and tell me that I’m not qualified and that I don’t know what I’m talking about? Seriously?

Newman:

So you are not going to say to your followers “Now quit the abuse, quit the anger!” ?Peterson:

Well, we’d need some substantial examples of the abuse and the anger, before I could detail that question.

Newman:

There’s a lot of it out there!

Peterson:

Well, let’s take a more general perspective on that. So, I have had 25,000 letters since June, something like that, from people who told me that I’ve brought them back from the brink of destruction! So I’m perfectly willing to put that up against the rather vague accusations that my followers are making the lives of people that I’ve targeted, miserable.

Newman:

Jordan Peterson, thank you!

Peterson:

My pleasure! Nice talking with you!