The Wasteland of Jordan Peterson | Big Joel 

Thanks for watching the video everyone! If you really liked it, consider checking out my patreon www.patreon.com/posts/32853294. The version I have uploaded there has a slightly different ending than this one (for copyright reasons), so check that out,, if you want to. Anyhow, onto the footnotes! Footnote 1: While I understand that Jordan Peterson does not call himself a conservative, I’ve chosen to include discussion of him in this video for two reasons. First, the guy’s a conservative. While he offhandedly entertains the ideas of progressives, to me it seems that he constantly favors conservative talking points and makes it his mission to undermine any form of progressivism. Second, even if he doesn’t lump perfectly into the ideologies of conservatism, those are the positions I care about here. That is to say, when I respond to Peterson, I am responding to a conservative Footnote 2: At another point in the series, Peterson talks about the Harvard Unconscious Bias test, how it doesn’t come to the conclusions the researchers originally thought it did and how the researchers refuse to acknowledge this fact. This is the same as throwing out the idea of white privilege based on one personal examination of it. To invalidate a theory, you can’t just laugh at a few articles and call it a day, you have to actually prove something. What’s more, while other forms of analysis are of course useful, the core of any sociological examination of oppression is a material analysis of how that oppression works in the real world. A topic he simply does not touch. Also, the researchers behind the study have said that the study does not allow us to come to the conclusions we might think it does, so, take that, I guess. www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism Footnote 3: I have a lot of responses to this idea from Orwell. While I don’t see it as immoral or bad to criticize billionaires for living in impossible decadence while many others live in poverty, I do hope that these criticisms don’t mask the real purpose of social reforms and systemic changes: to make the world better for people who need the world to be better. And wherever people do not seem concerned with this central position, I think they should be.One possible solution to this problem is fairly simple. If academic leftists aren’t showing enough compassion for the marginalized, let’s give the marginalized more of a voice, not simply reject ideas that might help people. It’s relevant here that that Peterson would probably hate this solution, since he explicitly believes less educated people (like, for instance, the working class) should no more tamper with the inner functioning of society than I should mess with the electrical functioning of a car. Footnote 4 (just another random thing): In this video, I use the word “white privilege” interchangeably with “systemic racism.” This is for two reasons. First, these ideas are the logical consequence of each other. If systemic racism exists and it impacts non white people more than white people, then it follows that white people are privileged in the sense that they do not live under systemic racism. Personally, I prefer the phrase “systemic racism” to “white privilege” since I find that it better captures the fact that fixing racism is about solving injustice, not taking away people’s privileges, but it’s fairly unimportant to this conversation since this is obviously not the problem Jordan Peterson has with the phrase. Second, Peterson rightly lumps these phrases together and also dislikes the idea of systemic racism, as you can see from this moment ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ofmuCXRMoSA.html, where he says "systemic racism" is another term he despises.

I would agree with you Joel, but I'm just too convinced by Jordan Peterson and how incredibly in order his house is. If he were a drug addicted hysteric who thought that the Chinese were milking men for their sperm, maybe I wouldn't be so convinced by him.

It's a special kind of ignorance when you tell people drawing attention to the short comings of capitalism that they can't draw attention to the short comings of capitalism until they have excelled under capitalism.

"Up yours woke moralists. We'll see who cancels who." (Statement from a man who is absolutely not salty about getting banned off Twitter.)

"Because to Jordan Peterson relinquishing brownie points from some hypothetical activist protesting poverty will always, always be more important than the poverty they protest." Man what an amazing quote I'm saving this.

Nobody likes poverty? Nobody likes THEIR poverty. When it comes to other people's poverty, they may or may not care to varying degrees.

I loved where he said “it’s like being against torture,” as though that’s so obvious. As though we haven’t spent years arguing whether torture is justified.

Oppressed minority: “the unjust setup of the system makes it incredibly difficult for us to be successful, maybe we can level the playing field.” Peterson: “you’re not allowed to suggest changes to the system until you’re successful.” Amazing

“No one is for poverty” Jordan pick up a history book

As everyone knows, no politician, philosopher, artist, or activist who's changed the world in all of human history has ever had any personal or interpersonal problems whatsoever

Real talk: the first three minutes explained T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" better than any college English course I've taken.

How the hell is individual responsibility going to fix climate change.A small number of companies are emitting 70% of emissions.What the hell are we supposed to do?

I like how his measure of credibility is HIMSELF. He got degrees, he has a wife, he has kids, his own business, etc...

Peterson _really_ does not understand what postmodernism is. It's almost as if he's a psychology professor trying to argue about philosophy.

Man, I just realised his greatest rhetorical trick: p1) you can't argue unless you're an expert p2) everything is rooted in personal psychology p3) I am an expert in personal psychology c) nobody is ever allowed to disagree with me

it was so cool when this came out seeing u just say "i like attention and feeling smart and correct about things" out loud, you're so cool for that. the self awareness & humility rubbed off on me that day i think

I was asleep and this video worked its way into my dream. My dad was in it, and he was discussing politics. Thank you for that. I haven't seen him in a long time, and I miss him.

Great video man, I'm a 24 year old white dude who's a fairly big Peterson fan. I'm not very academic and working class so I guess I probably fit exactly into standard Peterson fan demographic. This has been great for helping me take what he says with a little more nuance. He helped me massively with my own life and I think there is a load of value to what he says. But I'm starting to see that those words that helped me so much as an individual don't necessarily translate into helping society the same way. Keep on questioning things folks, 99% of us are way more fucking stupid than we think 😂.

"only the people who aren't already suffering and oppressed should be allowed to decide who gets to suffer and be oppressed" - Jombly Pombly

Peterson reminds me of when i was arguing something in an essay in school - I'd realize i was wrong, but couldn't be bothered or didn't have time to change it. So i went with it, and tried to argue it, even though I knew it was wrong

I remember seeing this "lecture" ages ago and being really annoyed by this bit: "I can't quite figure out why the post-modernists have made the canonical distinctions they've made: race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity, gender identity ... Those are four dimensions along which people vary, but there's a very large number of dimensions along which people vary. Here's some ways people differ: Intelligence, Temperament, Geography, Historical Time -- you live now, and not 100 years ago -- attractiveness (that's a big one)." I mean, come on. Race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity and gender identity are the key things that those of a highly conservative (usually religious) background tend to discriminate on the basis of. Especially if you take gender identity to mean female identity, regardless of what was assigned at birth. Seriously, the only way you could fail to figure this out is if you're trying really hard to obscure the fact of bigotry in conservatism, especially among Fundamentalists. Additionally, to fail to recognise that the distinctions of race and ethnicity are also distinctions of historical geography -- two things which he claimed weren't in the "canon" -- is just absurd. If he's claiming that race and intelligence are never bedfellows, he's also ignoring his own conversation with Douglas Murray on his website (and whilst I don't know when that conversation was, with respect to when the featured video was made, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that he was well aware that the "post-modernists" are pretty anti-"race-realism"). In addition, you don't have to look far to see instances of attractiveness being tied back to race by those who are "totally not racist", like the claims that Michelle Obama or Venus Williams look like men. So, In the space of three sentences (if you take my transcription as in any way canonical) JBP has managed to fail to understand that the dimensions along which people vary that the leftists have paid attention to are the ones that too many on the right discriminate on the basis of, feigned surprise that the leftists haven't used other dimensions that aren't the basis of the discrimination that he's ignoring, and then given five counter-examples, four of which fail because they are frequently included in the first four (and it wouldn't take much work to include the fifth -- [trait] temperament -- under race, in the same way that [trait] intelligence is). The only reason anyone takes this guy seriously is that he spouts vaguely useful platitudes (that any number of self-help gurus could -- and have -- put forth), the only difference is that he rests on his academic background which, on the strength of this analysis, is looking pretty shaky. Maybe he should stick to counselling psychology which, if he's to be believed, he was pretty good at, and stay out of clinical psychology, let alone philosophy, politics or economics.

If we were to eliminate all people who considered themselves broken and inadequate from public discussion, we would only have the genuinely unqualified remaining.

"to Jordan Peterson relinquishing brownie points from a hypothetical activist protesting poverty will always be more important than the poverty they protest" One of the best and most accurate criticisms of JBP

peterson really dived into the abyss when he tried to extrapolate his ideas of self help to a societal context. I think that‘s why many are „on the fence“ about him. He wrote helpful things for individuals and went completely off the scale when he started politicizing and using very narrowly defined vernacular to denounce ideas who‘s fallacies he derives from his ideas meant for individuals. In the end this is why I think he is not a relevant thinker of our time. Certainly not for „society“. I don‘t really know his academic work and don‘t know if his books were based on such, but his public carrer is really completely void of any theory.

This was really good. His videos will be studied for a long time as he is such of master of rhetorical construction and logical fallacy. It is amazing how he reduces everything to abstraction delivered with messianic fervor. As in your final example where he reads this amazing humanizing description by Orwell of that poor women and then obliterates her in a leap to Orwell's abstract generalization about hating rich people. He uses her to evoke emotion in the listener as a way of softening them up for the abstract generalization he really wants to imprint them with. I listen to him and can't help wondering how much of what he says his own inner struggle projected onto the rest of us.

I have never in my life seen a protest sign that says "I'm against poverty"

I don't think "no to poverty" is a classic protest sign, usually protests respond to something pretty specific and the demands tend to be also pretty specific, so instead of "end poverty" it would be "raise the minimum wage," for example. On the other hand, you know who does give ambiguous platitudes and no real specific policies? Most politicians running for an election.

I'm not as successful as Ronald Reagan or George W Bush, but I protested things they did, and I still think I was right to do that. I don't think I needed to wait until Jordan Peterson thinks I've earned having an opinion.

When you realize Peterson's point is that anyone who isn't powerful and influential should shut their mouths and let the powerful people rule, you'll see him for the waste of propaganda dollars he is.

Big Joel doesn't spend much time on Peterson's "protesting poverty" joke, probably because the arguments against it are obvious and only distractions from his overall point, but I just have to break it down: 1) it's an obvious strawman. Peterson calls it the "classic protest sign" but I've never seen a protest sign simply state "I'm against poverty." I have seen similarly simple statements on protest signs but only within the context of a larger gathering that is arguing something more tangible. A person holding a "I'm against poverty" sign at a rally arguing for a change in housing laws is probably just adding their voice to the more specific effort, and is using a simple statement because it fits on a sign and most observers can understand the context. 2) "Everyone is against poverty." That's not true. While almost everyone would probably say that, given a choice, they would rather remove poverty than keep it, there are many people that are neutral on poverty, they truly do not care one way or the other about the impoverished. The thinking is usually "Poverty sucks, but it usually happens to people that deserve it, so whatever." Basing their thinking on the myth of meritocracy. 3) "I'm against torture. Well so is everyone!" That's also not true. There are many people that agree with the use of "enhanced interrogation." Sometimes they think torture only happens to people that deserve it, others think its a necessary evil. It seems necessary to protest it. 4) Even if everyone was against torture and poverty, how is that an argument against protesting them? He seems to argue that people that protest are only seeking attention and "brownie points." His argument is that such moral statements are so obvious they don't even provide brownie points and so protesters should stop doing it since they will not receive their desired outcome. That is, assuming the desired outcome is receiving brownie points. But of course, it's not. The outcome these protesters desire, go figure, is the end of torture and poverty. But he cannot conceive that protesters' motivations are pure, or that there are impoverished people in the protest groups that are fighting for their own betterment. 5) Even if he conceded that protesters motivations are pure, he implies that everyone in society already agrees with the moral statement "torture/poverty is bad", therefore making signs that make these moral statements redundant and unhelpful. The protests he alludes to are not usually meant to change someone's mind on an issue, but instead to energize them on the issue. Most people are probably against torture, yes, but nobody is willing to do anything about it. Protesting motivates people into calling their representative or donating money to good causes. But he acts like these protests are no more than a reddit forum where people are simply shouting their beliefs into the void for egotistical purposes.

I stapled my family back together but now they're bleeding and they can't go to work, they're one immovable fleshy heap.

This was such a good take, I live in a third world country and Jordan Peterson helped me A LOT to improve myself, he has very compelling lectures on why we should step up. But lately I've been struggling and putting all my problems on my shoulders as personal responsibilities, but then I started to realize how much my country and economy is affecting my well being, my relationships, etc. I do think that no one is going to solve my problems for me, and that even if the context is really the cause of many of our personal suffering, we can't solve them in any other way than through what we can control (which usually is just ourselves). Your video made me feel better though, as having ownership of the solution shouldn't be confused with being the source of the problem. Thanks for sharing this video and your personal experiences.

The irony of the total human mess that is JP lecturing others about how life is to be lived while also saying that you should basically be a perfect person with no problems before you start "tinkering" with the world is absolutely hilarious to me

I dig this. Telling marginalized people that they can only be critical of a system that excludes them once they've been successful in it is the definition of privilege

“And that’s when Postmodernism was invented.” The single stupidest sentence in the English language.

Beautiful video that captures the essence of JP in a (longish) nutshell. My favorite quote about Peterson "He is someone who confuses verbosity for profundity" Keep up the good work John

My dad passed away over a year ago and I'm still pretty fucked up about it, trying to be a better man, a better person, but the struggling is an everyday battle. Sorry for your lost, man. Great video, BTW.

"Just keep your head down and worry about yourself" is the worst of all takes. Standing up for something for "impure" reasons is better than not doing it at all.

I’d like to remind everyone that the musical Cats was based on poems by TS Eliot. TS Eliot is responsible for Cats(2019). That is all.

I'm watching this a day after Jordan Peterson accused the official Elmo Twitter account of being allied with Hamas.

I spent years in therapy but I came to the realization that unfortunately I like who I am and that what makes me depressed is the state of the world and the magnitude of dislike I have for it. And that I am stuck feeling this way until either the world or myself changes so completely as to be something or someone else.

the thing is protesting isent about "is x bad" its "should we do something about it" because yes if you ask someone if poverty is bad very few people will disagree, but if you ask them if we should do something you get a whole lot of "well thats not my problem"

That argument about who's qualified to "mess with the system" makes me wonder where Peterson stands on voting in democracies

It’s very easy to stand for nothing the way Jordan Peterson does. It makes you the smartest, most rational, agreeable person in the room. But pure logic has no soul and no meaning. I feel like he stands for nothing so that he never has to be wrong. You may stagger away from his lectures feeling like he won an argument, but you learn nothing meaningful about him or the world

As a retired Canadian university professor from Toronto I can say that Peterson has never been sane nor competent

Interesting how he doesn't have an issue with activism when done by anyone pushing traditionalism, Christianity, or white conservative identity politics.

I find it embarrassing that Peterson thinks his no need to protest about people being poor was such a zinger he's used it multiple times 🤦‍♂️

I think you did a great job demonstrating both why Peterson has connected to so many young people and his glaring faults. Back when I was in high school and Peterson was starting to get traction online I thought he was great. I thought a lot of his points were valid in a time where radical social justice warrior types were cool to argue against. I think it was only a year into watching his videos that I realized that outside of his videos criticizing others, his own personal beliefs were kind of strange and not at all in line with how I thought. For one, when I found out how incredibly religous he was I thought it was pretty contradictory to his statements about being evidence-based. Like on the one hand he criticizes 'cultural marxists' from pushing their failed beliefs on the population and on the other hand he pushes his very conservative views based on a modern interpretation of a book written 2000 years ago. Then I heard his stance on climate change and gay marriage. At that point everything he said sounded incredibly hypocritical and so I stopped watching his videos for years. Now after watching your video I have come to a conclusion about Peterson that you seemed to highlight. His content is trying to convince young people not to vote or be civically involved. That is why his argument is about 'working on yourself first'. The idea that one has to have a perfect life before trying to change their situation is so backwards. Does he think our leaders have their shit together? Trump cheated on his wife more times than my fingers can count. Now that may be an extreme example, but even the best leaders throughout history had some pretty glaring personal issues and yet they were still able to accomplish incredible things. I think activism bothers Peterson so much because he has never needed to protest anything. I mean the closest thing to a political issue he protested was that bill about gender pronouns. Do some people protest for issues they don't understand? Yes. Are some people 'showing support' out of a self centered desire to appear like a good person? Absolutely, I think a lot of us know someone like that. Are those two people enough to make the entire purpose of the protest invalid? I sure fucking hope not.

A defender of Western values asks you to focus on your personal life problems and leave the larger political and social issues to those who are supposedly sufficiently competent; that is, to be/become/remain what a big chunk of ancient Greeks called "an idiot". I always thought that the notion of public and political engagement, the way how Greeks phrased it, is one of the distinctive features of Western civilisation, reverberating later, coupled with individualism and respect for private life (e.g. Constant's liberty of ancients vs of the moderns), in the rise of protestantism, broadly-understood liberalism (in its 19th century meaning), and allowing for the concepts of free speech and open society. For me, it is one of those few things, for better or worse, that differenciate "the West" from other civilisations. That public engagement is something one needs to learn by actively participating in public life, as at least some folks claim that the participation in politics is primarily a matter of practice, not a learnt science, so discouraging most members of society from actively engaging in politics is puzzling, at the very least. We have had Plato's wise-authoritarian tradition in the West, sure, but that doesn't seem to be a predominant aspect of the West, the way it is a key feature for Marxism-Leninist, Confucian, Sunni, Maoist and Putinist approaches to society. Maybe the defender of the West, individualism and free speech is not only a closeted postmodernist, but also a collectivist authoritarian ... as long as there is no Marxist label visibly attached? But there is perhaps no dissonance here, as long as you spin the vague notion of Western values in such a way that fits your particular debating requirements, to win the discussion and own the libs.

Sorry to hear about your dad. I'm about a year too late, but I recently lost my own father, who shared a lot of the characteristics you've described in your own. Best wishes.

Don’t call your intro long and annoying ): I’m sorry for your loss. I hope in the next life he will find his answer

I was lucky to have grown up under Christopher Hitchens to be wary of people who rationalize being mean and cruel to others with 'facts', so Jordan Peterson didn't take long for me to decipher what he is all about. Even Dawkins had me going there for a while until, well you know, *FACTS DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS*. I can't abide to that. Empathy rules.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND WHY HE BOTHERS ME SO MUCH

I actually have a lot of admiration for activists with broken lives. The strength they deploy to go beyond their personal tragedies and fight for the group is truly admirable.

Sorry to hear about your dad man. My mom passed May 2010. The month I graduated high school. It gets better man. Stay strong.

I really appreciate that Joel takes time from his career as a fisherman to speak to us in these video essays

I've been really intrigued by JBP's point in his "Fix Yourself" PragerU video (referenced in this video around 12:45). In summary, a patient says she hopes that her suffering is her own fault, the psychiatrist asks why, and she responds that then she can do something about it. Obviously Dr P is using this as a contrast to the libs who blame all of their problems on society. But there is a very important hidden assumption in this: that suffering being her own fault means she necessarily can fix it. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where this is not the case. If I drunkenly drive my car into a tree and can no longer walk, then my suffering is my fault but I can't do much about it. (I can quit drinking to prevent future suffering, but it does not help me with being in pain and impaired. I cannot fix myself.) Likewise, it's not hard to imagine suffering that one can remediate or at least mitigate, even when someone else is at fault. If my neighbor is listening to music too loudly at night and keeping me from sleeping, there are still things I can do to address this problem: ask them to not, wear earplugs, passive aggressively blast my own music, adjust my sleep schedule, organize with my neighbors to establish a noise ordinance, and so on.* We can basically imagine two binary dimensions by which to evaluate a problem: the source (me/not me) and the solution (me/not me), yielding a graph with four quadrants. Dr P's hidden assumption ignores the two odd quadrants (source not me+solution me and source me+solution not me), which allows an interesting sleight of hand. Let me demonstrate: If you ask people whether they'd rather be responsible for their own misfortune or not, most people would like to not be responsible. But, if you ask them whether they'd rather have their problems be solvable by them or not, most people would prefer that their problems be solvable. By implicitly linking the less preferable choice in one dimension and more preferable choice on the other, Dr P creates the illusion that the clearly preferable outcome (their problems being solvable, even if their own fault) seem like a hard truth rather than just plainly obvious. It also leaves only one other option: "my problems are not my fault and therefore I don't need to do anything about them". Giving us only these two options not only makes self-help seems noble (there's a point to be made here about a guy who sells self-help also peddling an ideology where self-help is the best/only solution to your problems), but also makes activism seem disingenuous or even insidious. The irony is if we consider all the quadrants we can see that activists are not "doing nothing" but are trying to solve a problem even though the problem is not their fault. It's hard to not see activism (source not me+solution me), then, as the far more noble than self-help: spending one's effort to solve problems that are not one's fault. Dr P is correct that most people have problems in their lives that they could more easily and directly solve than large social problems which might not change in their lifetimes. Dealing with personal problems would bring more immediate happiness than activism; the point is actually so obvious as to be utterly banal ("hot take: it's easier to change yourself than the world"). The only surprising thing then, is that Dr P is able to paint activism as an act of laziness or cowardice instead of a conscious sacrifice to help others instead of oneself. * Some might say that if a person is able to solve a problem, then they are at fault because their inaction is allowing the problem to continue. This idea is pretty common in self-help and is difficult to argue against because it is tautological. But I ignore it here because, at least in this case, Dr P rejects it as well. Without the recognition that a problems source and solution are separate, the patient would have simply said: "I hope that my problems are within my capacity to solve", a pretty uninteresting point that can't be used to moralize anyone else's arguments. So the possibility of suffering from problems not one's own fault must be presented, but just as quickly Dr P reduces a problem's source and solution to a single dimension.

This logic Jordan Peterson uses is very common in Christian churches: "don't sin or else". You WILL "sin", whatever religion you use as a lense to analyze your life... If you feel guilty enough, you will think every bad thing that happens to you is because of your "personal choices". People stop thinking about themselves as part of the world when their priest say that "you should be above the world and be the best you can individually". His logic is familiar to us because most religions use it to read the world.

"No. Within the story of this lecture, the woman's plot is left dangling. In essence, she's still standing there, in that coal mining town in northern England. And you can almost picture Jordan Peterson, reading by a lamp that her work helped to fuel. You can imagine him reading the words: _'Datta, dayadhvam, damyata._ Give, sympathize, control.' And maybe, Peterson is comforted by those words but... I don't know if I can be anymore." Me too, Big Joel. Me too. :(

It’s interesting coming back to this video, because here Joel argues against Peterson in an incredibly sensitive and sympathetic fashion, because most saw him as a genuine good faith intellectual back then. Now Peterson’s completely lost any semblance of nuance, moral code, and even sanity. But then one asks, was he different before, or just better at hiding it?

Hi Joel! I watched this video when it came out two years ago, and it stayed in my mind for a long time. now I am much wiser and feel I can intellectually engage with Peterson himself and the arguments you raised with much more nuance. I felt compelled to write this goddamn essay in the comment section, which you should take as a compliment of my high regard for your persuasive capabilities and engaging style. seriously, I cannot overstate your impact on my college studies thus far! anyways, I hope you get the chance to read this. you rock one can only assume, after hearing Peterson's stance, that he himself has overcome his own moral and behavioral failings and therefore situated himself in a position where he is qualified to diagnose societies problems. we have lost sight of tradition, of religion, that we no longer place appropriate emphasis on the sphere of the private life. "be the change you want to see in the world", clean your room, don't fight with your girlfriend. (these determinations, in my mind, bear no real difference from the determinations he criticizes, i.e. "capitalism creates a toxic power imbalance", "the patriarchy creates an unfair power imbalance", because the ends his ideology and these ideologies seek is the same. change your behavior, encourage other people to change their behavior, and end up in a better, more just world. the ideologies that Peterson despises has room for Petersons own ideologies--ive never met a leftist unconcerned with improving their mental well-being or strengthening their personal relationships. in fact, I'd argue that such personal adjustments are imperative to creating a healthier society. his ideology, however, does not have room for these seemingly converse, more material and organized movements. I think this shows a real lack of empathy on his part--a refusal and inability to look beyond his own material conditions and take up another point of view.) the thing is, he totally had not overcome his own moral and behavioral failings. he got addicted to benzos after he force-fed himself meat and greens for too long, a cause-and-effect that points to some deeeeeeeep issues with control, emotional regulation and management, etc. and yet, he continued to make appearances and write articles that continued to comment on what people ought to do, how the world ought to be. working within his own ideology, his control of his diet and subsequent addiction made him unqualified to make such determinations, and the ethical and morally just thing would have been for him to completely stop his media appearances, lectures, etc. until he had fully worked through the mental conditions that altered his life in such a way. his house was not in order. at some level, he knows that his insistence on perfecting your life before trying to fix the world is unsustainable. he knows that had he ground to a halt, his career would have suffered and therefore his material conditions would have changed, along with his mental condition. philosophy and self help is his passion--he would have had to stop doing what he found important, what made him happy, what inspired him. this is why his refusal to accept that collective action to change the material conditions of others is so frustrating. as you said, his framing of his argument leaves you with no leg to stand on. Whether or not material conditions affect your life, and if it is a good thing or a responsibility to change those conditions (for yourself or others), aren't even a part of the argument. instead, he baits the viewer with platitudes about how your problems are your own and you can fix them on your own without acknowledging the material conditions that might bring these problems about. in his ideology, collective action and self betterment are two separate and competing forces with no room for overlap, and the importance of the latter is used to invalidate the former. which makes no sense. but why??? like, what is with his refusal to even consider that the private and the public life might work together in tandem?? this part is guesswork, but I have a suspicion that Petey is projecting his own moral failings onto the sjw cultural Neo marxist woke mob. he perceives them as trying to make him feel some guilt for being comfortable with the status quo. so, with no real understanding of the ethics and philosophy that make up communism (anticapitalism, anti colonialism, etc), he automatically assumes that those who believe in these ideologies have some sort of moral failing that they are compensating for. and yet, his moral failings (which he has been admirably open about) have no effect on his ideologies. ok, so he diagnoses the sjw commies with bad person syndrome and insinuates that once they "make a life for themselves", or whatever, (a life that, as you mentioned, is very narrow and confining [and I would go further by saying that really just falls into the metrics of success dictated by capitalism]) that they might have a different view of it all. like... yeah? probably! here he literally admits that our material conditions influence the way we think, and then refuses to follow that to its logical conclusion: that his point of view might be influenced by his relative success within the dominant economic and social structure. he knows that collective action against such a structure would put his success as a professional grifter in serious jeopardy, and so anyone that this system doesn't work for must be not disadvantaged but morally decayed. such a distinction is the only way that he can hold up his frankly beneficial focus on the fixing of your private life against his classist, racist, misogynistic worldview and his obsession with the status quo.

_" _*_'I'm against poverty!'_*_ you know, that's like classic protest sign. It's like, really... It's like: _*_'I'm against torture!'_*_ it's like, it's so obvious..."_ Well, considering the president of the United States actually _isn't_ against torture, maybe it's something that bears repeating nonetheless. Same with poverty.

I relate to that.. “finding the words that will heal” me

I really enjoyed your perspective on JB. It's interesting, initially I really enjoyed his work and I thought there was some valid points in 12 rules for life and lots of his lectures but is time is gone I found more and more trouble with those ideas. For example, many of the great artists, scientists and engineers made incredible work in their youth, specifically because - one could argue - of their naivete. To tell kids to get their own house in order while they watch the corruption and cronies destroy their future is a tough call.

love going back and seeing how calm he is in the older videos compared to now. glad you've unleashed your inner goblin, king.

One of my favorite aspects of Big Joel's videos is that his cadence and mellow tone perfectly appeals to my autism.

Something that I think is pretty interesting and annoying is that Peterson has this very sympathetic perspective of millennials and Gen Z that is entirely based on how pathetic they appear to him. He seems to think that we’re all bad at personal responsibilities and care way too much about what others think about us. But his solutions to these personal problems are image based. We need to make our bed before we talk about how low our self esteem is, if we talk about it at all. And our self esteem issues are our fault because we should have spoken up when our parents berated us for having B instead of an A in high school algebra. He seems to think that if we made our bed we’d feel a sense of worth and in some cases, that’s true. But for some of us it couldn’t matter less because making the bed doesn’t erase the bruises or cuts on our arms. He’s very, fake it til you make it, but doesn’t consider the fact that for some faking it is what is breaking us. And even if we have a successful job, good hygiene and a healthy love life, personal problems don’t stop appearing because if you’re an emotionally mature person you don’t stop growing as a person once you have your finances and family in order. Then there’s the fact that for minority groups, politics are personal. Gay marriage or whatever effects gay people’s well being and it is extremely intimate. For POC people, being shot by police causes a fuck ton of emotional distress and social anxiety. The only solution for these problems are in activism and it’s not about impressing friends, it’s about survival. Me going to police violence protest is personal because my friends being at risk on city streets causes me emotional distress and I get depressed knowing they’re unsafe. So like, his philosophy is very biased because it doesn’t work for people that aren’t like him. Also he’s pretentious as fuck using special lingo to explain shallow solutions that don’t work for the vast majority of the human population

I agree with most of what you say. I've got a masters degree, and worked in a University, realizing that titles and education really mean very little in terms of understanding and being able to articulate constructive ideas to alter society. I'd like to see a video with you interviewing Vlad Vexler about these topics.

Absolutely brilliant! Thank you for saying so eloquently and well what so many of us have been struggling to put into words.

"No ones for poverty" Me, a early industrialist making a fortune by employing people on poverty wages to work in potentially lethal conditions while also owning slave on a plantation in southern United States making them produce a fortune and resiving none of it. "Y-Yeah definitely..."

I think Jordan Peterson's entire point of view is founded on the assumption that everyone feels the same way about things as he does, whether they know or say it or not.

fixing societal issues would help people solve their personal problems. with less of a burden of being overworked and underpayed, everyone would have more time and energy, not only to fix themselves, but to think about how society could further be improved. Jordan Peterson an others like him know this, and are being purposefully disingenuous by saying "dont worry about all those issues that could easily be fixed, just fix yourself". They know that personal problems are much more difficult to fix personal problems while societal problems continue, these asshats dont WANT either the personal or the societal problem to be fixed. He said "EVERYONE is against poverty!" but this is a lie. the 1% profit quite a lot from poverty, and it insures that they can continue to do so. The more stressed your people are, the less likely they are to get rid of you. So keep them stressed out with next month's rent, with societal issues, and, if possible, with domestic and personal issues.

As someone who is on the fence about Peterson, I found this video interesting. You're right that we cannot in practice separate the problems people have from the society in which they live. The idea that you should put yourself in order before criticizing society assumes that your problems are not due in any way to society. To the extent they are then putting yourself in order includes criticism of society. It's certainly true that many activists are poorly educated, lack understanding, and may end up making things worse. It's true that many would benefit from working on themselves. But Peterson seems to assume that their problem can't be due to society. And that's the assumption he's making, which is probably just wrong.

just rewatched this and finally figured out what upsets me so much about JP: everytime i hear him talk he just seems so devoid of kindness and compassion. he seems like he can't ( or doesn't want to) entertain the possibility that some (if not most) people partake in activism because they genuinely want to build a better world for themselves and others, because they are afraid of the future or because they want to help those in need. instead of acknowledling that activism can come from fear, compassion, hope, etc (all natural human emotions that need to be dealt with) he tries to discredit it by assuming that people protest, demand change, etc out of selfishness. coupled with him opposing gay marriage purely out of spite and not even considering the humanity of gay people and their desire to be treated equally just makes it incredibly bleak and depressing to listen to him speak.

The only qualification needed to “mess with the system” is to be a part of said system. Did the citizens of France need degrees in politics to overthrow their tyrannical government?

Makes me wonder, that remark about mending your broken family, how much Jordan Peterson is projecting.

Lovely heartfelt presentation. I named my cat Shanti after the last 3 words of this poem. My own life in fragments when my friend rescued her as a kitten from an evil man on the way to the dumpster, she remained with me as a continuous symbol of hope (and playful exasperation). Much appreciated. I try very hard to achieve a level of dispassionate fairness but in JP's case I have failed. I had a prof who was wonderful; I committed time and again the error of confusing the dancer with the dancer, e.g. Baudelaire was manifestly a shit so I didn't need to assess his poetry in Fleurs du Mal. My prof arbitrarily stuck a pin in the collection and simply said, report next week. Love to read your paper. There was a hidden trap there. The 19th century romantics did indeed cultivate the image of Byronic defiance and visions (Kubla Khan seen in dreams). The prosaic reality was 2 percent inspiration and the rest ... hard work and being immersed in the writing of others who had gone before. But immersed is the operative word. I fail to see any true thought processes in JP's sudden adoption of simultaneously, Nietzche (sp) and some garbled account of the bible delivered as if they were Moses' tablets in the holy land. It's a nonsense. He has failed to grasp the essentials of what poetry, or art in general can offer; a window into a wider world. To me his world was ever smaller and made a mockery of what i valued in my career in academe and everything my father instilled in me regarding personal and civic life, very simple, rights and responsibilities. He was a brave man, morally and physically, shot in the back while rescuing someone during WW2. It never occurred to him that my existence as a female of the species depended on my ability or indeed, obligation to breed ... it was an abomination and my relationship with this wonderful human being who ultimately succumbed to late onset Alzheimer's and to whom I was able to pay a huge debt of love and gratitude in no way resembles JP's rhetoric. Once again, tx for your presentation and insights.

Hearing you talking about your dad is... uncanny. My father wasn’t exactly like yours, but was scarily similar. He loved poetry, specifically I remember him liking Edgar Allan Poe, and indeed thought the world was pitted against him. He was brilliant, and tried to impart that brilliance on me. I vaguely remember him explaining communism to me when I was young, although I don’t remember if he was pro or against it. He only ever wanted me to be educated, and to think critically about things. He was not a particularly happy man, either. At least not in the last five years of his life. His divorce from my mom was difficult for them both in very different ways. He died about a year ago now.

Big Joel is incredibly smart & i aspire to reach his level of astute commentary one day. he is also afflicted with 'must read comments' disease so this is my gift to him

I go back to this video a lot. I’m a very anxious person in general and I don’t really know what I’m doing with my life at any given moment. While living abroad my mom always used to tell me “nobody had their shit figured out”. Knowing you’re not alone, everyone struggles with their rooms being dirty or not knowing what the future holds is the key I need to work through my things. Jordan Peterson always asks you to fix yourself first before trying to engage in politics or calling out for the humanity of others. It’s comforting knowing you don’t have to be perfect to engage with the world around you and I have my mother to thank for that in large part.

Nobody will ever be perfect. And I doubt anyone will ever meet up to Peterson’s standards of “qualified”. But you don’t need to be in order to see the injustice of the world. Anyone can make a difference, and everyone can become a movement for good. The power of the people is stronger than the evil of a single person. Nobody should ever be told to stay in their lane. Stand up for what you believe in. Stand up for equality and justice.

i know this is anecdotal, but for what it's worth, getting involved in activism saved me from depression because i was finally acting on what i believe to be true. i am now a happier person who has found some purpose, helping me gradually "get my house in order"

I think people have a visceral reaction to critique of Peterson because he's introduced them to concepts that are genuinely helpful and important. Most people will never learn about Jungian archetypes, or how influential they can be for you. From that, there's a sort of Messiah effect. He's filled the role of the father, helping young men take back control of their lives and become independent. That's a good thing, and even I've taken a lot from Peterson and how he can take complex psychological topics and translate them to the layman. But I would say, to those of you who think he should be above any critique, we have to think critically about everything he says. That's literally what he tells us to do. He's delivering lectures, not sermons. And when it comes to the topics he talks about, it's worth noting that's what true ain't new, and what's new ain't true.

I don’t understand most of what JP says and I dont understand most of what you said. But you seem much more likeable so you win.

ok, I can see the point of the video, but I still think that although Peterson does not give a solution to social problems, what he denounces is that "if you really care about them, do something that is effective, but if you don't know enough, filling yourself with hate and ideologies doesn't solve anything either." I agree with that argument because living in a socialist country, I see how "good intentions" lead to bad policies that do not work and always end in a search for power.On the part of politicians, if your good intentions do not have a good plan behind them, it would be better for you to remain silent, even if it sounds bad

Sorry about your dad. So, because some people hate the rich we shouldn't help the poor?! There's a real determination to see any attempt to focus on a systemic issue as an attempt to remove individuality. We're all still people with different likes/dislikes etc. but these problems exist!

Come to think about it my aunt who's pretty well off despises Welfare program because it allows her cleaning lady to ask for a raise without fear of not feeding her child. So yes, some people are for poverty, specially if they seek cheap labour and it's not only the mega rich.

if Peterson actually believed that one should not meddle with the world until one is clean and pure he certainly has no business doing what he does, unless one considers a drug-addiction and a very apparent anger problem as examples of what a "cleaned up room" looks like

But so many of my internal issues are a direct result of the policies he pushes me away from..??? It's infuriating that he thinks societal problems are disconnected from policy when most are a direct result of those policies he says not to worry about.

Also want to point out how he focuses on self-improvement, but fails to warn of its twisted brother - ego-centrism. Once someone makes their bed, will they move onto the social issue or laugh at those who havent made their bed yet and “arent working towards the social issue” because their beds arent made yet?

Maybe Peterson has simply forgotten an implacable truth: *We live in a society.*

If people are "obviously against poverty" then i dont get what's so hard about saying it with me or at the very least letting me say it (without giving me the weird pysch-evaluation into my personal life and how messy my bedroom is.) With that logic it almost feels like only the rich and/or "sophisticated" are allowed to speak on social issues - just plain ridiculous.

I’ve noticed a lot of times, people like Peterson say something that shines a light on an issue that sparks a large audience to gather around them. They go on to preach and lecture and grow as a public figure. But then something happens. They keep talking, and their ideas start to fall apart from nuance and biases until they eventually crash and burn. I guess we are all just human after all and we shouldn’t prop up people for their ideas. Because we are all flawed in our own ways.

Be born into wealth, inherit a business from your father, hire people to keep your house clean and BOOM, you're ready to run the world. So simple.

The appeal of Jordan Peterson: A call to action to sort out your personal life. The problem with Jordan Peterson: A dismissal of all call to actions in public life. (Hence why his policies are conservative) Thank you for clearing that up for me.

26:54 "It's like racism. People are kinda racist... Or maybe people prefer their in-group" There's a word for when people favour their in-group (in this case, their race) over all the others. It's called racism.

holy fuck this was like the most beautiful political commentary i have ever seen im truly in awe

The reality is everyone is broken in someway. So if we weren’t allowed to do anything until we were perfect nothing would get done.

Old Daoist saying, "When someone points to the moon, don't look at the finger, look at the moon".

Poverty is manufactured. We invented it. Those who prop up capitalism, or even the use of money, perpetuates our invention.