Tom Woods interviews Jordan Peterson. The interview is terrific, insightful, and hopeful. For everybody. You don’t want to miss this show. It really is great, and when you listen to it you’ll want to follow through on his program. Give it a listen. Woods’ show notes are here. Here is the interview:
Peterson developed a writing program that serves personal development, an important force that is often left undone or untouched in public schools or in our early lives. It’s a self-authoring program, called SelfAuthoring. A preview of the program is here:
It looks good. I would teach this to any group of kids of any age. It’s never too late, meaning that this can be done regardless of your age. I would also add that the sooner you complete the program the better off as well as sooner you’ll find yourself.
His name is Jordan B. Peterson. He is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. I don’t know enough about him, but his program for personal development through mapping the personality is quite impressive. “Ideas have people.” Know what ideas possess because you won’t know what ideas are doing to you or for you. Do you want to be caught up in that particular idea? [In the above video, Peterson mentions a couple of people. One is Frank L. Schmidt. The other is James W. Pennebaker.]
You can check out this video, too, (Peterson doesn’t appear until the 11:17 mark), where he destroys the safe spaces, coddled politically correct and clinically correct guardians of safe spaces their preferences for altering language to suit their agenda. He’s good. The PC agenda is monstrous.
He asks all the women to stand up. Then all the men. 2 to 1 males. He’s a personality psychologist, a trait called openness. Men are higher intellect. Women are higher in aesthetics. Women read more fiction, men read more non-fiction.
Learn from this guy. If you find yourself in a sensitivity training session at your school or institution and you want to fight back. Fight back with this guy’s material.
A few notes from that video . . .
You know what you call people you can’t talk to? Enemies.
He’s right. In fact, Chris Voss, former FBI hostage negotiator, says that there are certain things you don’t do in a conversation if you want to extend the discussion and keep it open and on-going. One of them is that you don’t trick people. People hate it. If you don’t trick people, it means that you’ll be able to keep dialogue with them open for many months even years to come. It’s through future discussion that you can resolve things. When you stop talking, you stop solving. Peterson’s remark makes the same point. Social Justice goofballs should pause and consider what they’re doing and trying to achieve before they try to shame or shut people up so that the only word heard is theirs with them talking to themselves.
We are full of biases, arrogant, wrong, and full of errors.
Two reasons why people get stronger if they voluntarily expose themselves to things they’re afraid of and disgusted by. Defining characteristic of appropriate human adaptation. You have to confront the chaotic things you don’t understand and then master and articulate them.
Regarding Peterson’s authoring program, he says it’s as labor intensive as you want it to be. Don’t be afraid of it. First, you’re writing for yourself. You’re not going to get it 100% right.
In addition to the 4 sections of the Self-Authoring program, he’s also a professor in Toronto and used to teach psychology at Harvard. So he’s good. In fact, check out his YouTube channel. I did. And I found a very interesting lecture where he examines profound psychological questions of the 19th century and which manifest themselves in the 20th. It is excellent. It it titled, “2015 Personality Lecture 12: Existentialism: Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard.”
I took a few notes . . .
Existentialists developed as a movement after WWII. Many reasons for this. One of the reasons for this was that WWII was an ideological battle between fascism and western democracy, immediately supplanted by another ideological battle between communism and liberalism.
This is an interesting point because one of the things that liberals love to call someone who disagrees with them is “You’re a fascist” and fascists were the enemies of communists. Huh.
Issue of ideological possession and the individual who is ideologically possessed and their responsibility and the actions of the state became paramount concerns of the 1950s. One of the lasting questions that remained after WWII, when the mass goes insane, what is the culpability of the individuals who compose the mass? It was talked down coercion who turned the ordinary German citizen into Nazis. Famous prison experiment at Stanford for example. Prisoners turned into cringing victims. People are responsive to situational cues, and that can go out very rapidly. But that doesn’t mean that you should use the tendency to accommodate authority as an excuse. What about the leaders? Are the leaders followers? Easy to call Hitler and Mao and Stalin archetypal evil, but what responsibility does the average citizen has in reformulating his own behavior away from evil? Following the simplistic, child-like schema of evil, if you’re white, you’re evil. If you disagree with liberalism, you’re evil. To localize all the evil in them, makes them pathetic. No difference between bully and his henchman.
Existentialism was concerned about Nietzsche. Dostoevsky and Nietzsche summed up the 19th century and would unfold in the 20th century. Causality was right too. Social scientists predicted large mass events. Mass influence on Freud, Jung, and Rogers. Nietzsche: the advent of nihilism. Wow.