2016 Lecture 06 Maps of Meaning: Part I: The primordial narrative
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Our experience takes narrative form, under the influence of biological, cultural and uniquely individual forces. This is partly because our minds are based in social cognition. Experience manifests itself comprehensibly as the unknown itself, the great dragon of chaos; the unknown as we experience it, the great mother; culture, the great father, and the individual, the center of conscious being, Each of these categories manifests itself in action. Each has a positive and negative element.
-- SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL --
Direct Support: www.jordanbpet...
Merchandise: teespring.com/...
-- BOOKS --
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
-- LINKS --
Website: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life Tour: jordanbpeterso...
Blog: jordanbpeterso...
Podcast: jordanbpeterso...
Reading List: jordanbpeterso...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
-- PRODUCTS --
Personality Course: www.jordanbpet...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring....
Understand Myself personality test: understandmyse...
Merchandise: teespring.com/...
There's one problem with all of Jordan's lectures, some of you are probably aware of it. It's that when you press play with the intention of having it run in the background while you continue to do your work you find yourself switching back to the video when some of the knowledge hits home. What started off as occasionally switching results in a posture where you're leaning forward, elbow on table, chin on open hand, unable to look away. Take this as a cautionary note.
Absolutely.
Just happened. Then read your comment!
Haha! Lovely comment. I can almost here Jordan in the background seeing this comment and saying "What a archetypal observation!"
Hahaha, I just did this!
I find myself wanting to stop take notes and engage... but not only is this a past lecture but I also know it is impossible to be heard
Thanks!
I listened to these in 2017 and now listening again in 2023. Very glad he put these online. It is strange how something can capture your attention and it becomes part of you as you carry it through time. My hypothesis is that this happens more readily when you don't have much else in your life that is enjoyable or positive.
10:50 "it's unlikely that on a Saturday night you would pay to see a lecture" well 2016 Jordan, I'd like to introduce you to 2018 Jordan
Fabio Bollinger lol! I was just about to make the exact same comment!!
May I introduce you, guys from the past, to 2020?
@@MIGALA666 May I introduce you, strange 2020 creature, to 2021?
if I didn't feel stupid screaming in delight at JP at a lecture, I would
He's often made the same point at his lectures when expressing how moving he finds seeing so many people turn up having paid to be lectured to.
Triad of evil: arrogance, resentment, deceit. Well worth remembering.
what would you personally suggest as a cure for resentment? Guilt?
Nicholas Zanella Certainly not. I have never personally had to deal with resentment, jealousy or envy, so I don't know how people do it, but I cannot see how guilt can make it better, only worse. I think if you blanket yourself in guilt without a way to work your way out of it then I would expect those feelings to quickly transmute into other negative feelings purely as a self-defence. I'm certainly not an expert, so just my opinion.
Nicholas Zanella
I think he means you can be grateful for all the things you do have. I was in the hospital with electrical burns over 3/4 of my limbs, partial blindness, partial hearing loss, etc. but I met people who had lost a lot more than I did (total loss of eyesight, complete loss of limbs, one lady had her face burned off). One can always be worse off. Some children are born with a condition called harlequin ichthyosis, that's pretty much pain from birth.
Both my parents had experiences of extreme poverty as children, so they always work hard and are grateful for every little scrap. It seems to have rubbed off on my siblings and me. I spend some of my time helping children from low income households, and they are almost always more grateful for little things than their wealthier counterparts are over more expensive acquisitions.
Had it and it's everything he said and worse.
Trigger, I'm not sure. In my life, I've found it much easier to recover from physical than from mental abuse. I should add that the physical abuse was less common and intense than the mental abuse. It might be more difficult to escape from physical violence while it is happening but the effects of psychological violence can last much longer. Perhaps the difference, what makes a difference, is not the kind of violence or abuse but the lastingness of it. What makes it hard to overcome is the traces it leaves in your mind or body or both.
I never fail to be amazed by the remarkable insight and common sense Dr. Peterson brings to the table.
I've been listening to counter arguments to peterson, and coming back to listen to him is simply music to my ears. He actually says things. Here I am, living in the country with the highest Gini coefficient...
I really like his appreciation and value in the performing arts, especially music
He always states that he is very high in Openness. And I guess both of us are high in this trait)
Because it deals a lot with the Unconscious and the conscious mind interfacing with the vastness of the substance of creativity
Humility, gratitude and honesty... that would be the opposite of the evil triad then. Good to know.
i am very glad to find an indian girl here listening to dr. peterson
from north east india
"Criticize with gratitude" He speaks well near the last few minutes of this lecture about how one composes reality through their own experience with their surrounding culture, how it reflects as a good and bad thing in ones life, and also depending one how one handles the experience determines how their life is shaped. Fantastic. Perhaps a repeated theme throughout Hindu and Buddhist teachings and more, but it's always worth hearing, especially from his unique, linguistic path.
When he said people wouldn't pay to go see a lecture on a Saturday night he had no idea of the impact he would have a few years later, when people did go on a Saturday night and pay to see a lecture of him!!, Its good to see these old lectures his current stance is woven through these, showing an authenticity of his beliefs. Hence why his detractors cant bring hi down.
Fascinating! Followed on from a shorter snippet on a different channel as I never watch the hour plus videos, but I think I will from now on. I've been missing so much!
This man always has to say something very smart and accurate
These lectures are fascinating
And would be even better if you could edit in the diagrams you talk about
Thanks for helping me to grow
Rather than adding to his workload, why don't you email him and offer to do it for him?
You'd probably get directly mentored by him.
thank you Jordan for these amazing lectures, you are a star! I look forward to reading your new book
I have a chuckwalla lizard( desert iguana) wild caught and passed to a couple of homes before me, I have a relationship with him like a dog. he even seems more aware of surroundings than a dog. watches TV and lays on me. thought I'd share...:)
"Chaos is the great mother, and it's creative and destructive - and that's nature." This part in particular struck me, because it got me thinking about how women tend to be higher in openness and lower in conscientiousness, which really ties into the mother nature archetype of being unregulated, chaotic, not at all conscientious, yet creative and life giving. I hadn't really made the connection until Dr. Peterson laid it out that way. Fascinating how these archetypes are based in such ancient observations of our humanity.
I'd pay to see a JBP lecture.
Well you are seeing it for free apparently.
Apply to U of T.
I hope in the last 2 years, you got a chance to. I almost got to when he came to my city, but lost that opportunity. Hopefully he regains his health soon and does another tour...
32.53 "Men are more cognitively specialised but women are more cognitively robust. But that doesnt really matter"
Hell Id like to know more about that!!!
I thought the same. I wonder if he changed subjects quickly out of uncomfortability with the subject...
If you replace cognitively with emotionally, that'd work too (I think).
It sounds to me like hes saying men tend to go deep with their thinking while women go wide. I could be wrong. If I'm right, he probably wanted to get away from it quickly because one could construe this (wrongly imo) as saying something like "women are shallow" and "men are inherently deep thinkers" both of which are wrong.
@@Cthuski I think he meant it in terms of specialisation, in terms of "Men have higher chances of being too good at one thing and suffering in other fields than women"
@@adonisadmirer2752 exactly. Women are good at a large variety of things while not necessarily excelling at any of them, while men tend to chose to specialize at one thing and perform extraordinarily well at it. I can certainly see why he wouldn't elaborate more on the subject...
I didn't go to university for several reasons. I love working with my hands.. I'm a professional master mechanic and amature metal fabricator. I'm from a poor family (from rural Texas), and hate debt, and refused to take out loans for 'higher' education. I also don't like the idea of studying more than what I'm interested in... I have an AAS in Automotive Technology, and a 4.0gpa, so it's not for lack of ability.
I think cost is by far the biggest factor for me though. And I can't complain, because I'm a really good mechanic and make a good living.
On the other hand, I supported my wife through college, because on the off chance something happens to me, she'll need a college education to bring in a good income... not to say women can't be mechanics too, but the distribution is less than 1%. I work in a shop with 125 technicians, and in 10 years, 3 have been women, and all have lasted less than a year.
If the archetype of a female before the advent of the pill was the mother and child, how has it changed? Does it still exist alongside other archetypes now?
I think the "childless witch" is an archetype that more and more women are embracing. It used to be a negative but women are seeing it positively.
Childless witch could be one. You could view it as positive or negative. I'd say the positive one would be a wise woman like a shaman. The negative one would be something like Miss Havisham from Great Expectations or someone like Germaine Greer. You might even look at Daenerys from Game of Thrones being the Mother of Dragons as that kind of archetype. She's still a mother figure in a sense but more on a grand scale, as in the mother of the whole society/culture.
De fff really interesting point. The most confusing thing about SJWs for me has been how can people trying to be super good end up being so awful, destructive and negative. But seeing it the way you have described makes it make sense. You can't subject a large society to the same expectations you'd have in a family or smaller group. It's just too big and too diverse. However, there is a happy medium ground I'd say. And I think we are about as close to that as we can be at this point in time. To continue to fight for equality in America, UK and most of Europe, at this point is bizarre to me.
De fff I'm just responding because this thread is an excellent addition to the video. Great insight.
Russel Brand mentions an idea like that in his conversation with Peterson... asking if this may be the reason they are used so much in publicity, because there isn't any corresponding archetypal image/representation.
does "mask of compassion" ring any bells
You talked about what we should do with women in male dominance hierarchies being a mystery, so I thought I would share my thoughts on the issue. I find that one thing that really helps is a rule and/or taboo against dating co-workers. It sets the stage from the starting point that "This is not a bar; you're not here to date, you're here to work." Once that's out of the way, it's pretty easy to setup a situation where the woman gets hired for a position, comes into work, and performs the task she was hired for.
The complications arise when deciding how to advance a woman within the hierarchy once she's been assigned a role. I think that ultimately, at this point it really depends on the woman's performance in her job, and her ability to communicate the value of what she does to her boss and co-workers, etc. I mean, don't get me wrong... there is some awkwardness here, and I'm not saying men and women are exactly the same. But I do think there's enough similarity that in, say, an office environment, we can sort of make it work.
In such a situation, women end up needing to adopt a more masculine kind of task-focus and competitive orientation, while men may need to tone down their language and tone in a way that's conducive to working in mixed company. In other words, making the situation work in a mixed-gender situation means the women have to go outside their comfort zone and be a bit more masculine, while the men also have to go outside their comfort zone and be a bit more feminine. They sort of have to stumble around and figure out each other's communication style a bit, like people from different cultures do sometimes. I've definitely seen it work with good communication, feedback, and compromise. It's just there's no standard formula for how to make it work, and it really depends a lot on the individuals involved and the kind of industry it is. It's by no means impossible for men and women to work together in many circumstances.
It seems like things can go fairly smoothly when you mostly have professional women that have fairly masculine personalities, are clearly there to work, and aren't really sensitive or into flirting. It doesn't take as long as you'd think for men to figure out how to relate to a woman like that and figure out where she fits in. The problem comes up when you start getting these women that try to use their sexuality to get ahead in a manipulative way, flirting and creating conflicts between their male co-workers, making false accusations, etc. That often "poisons the well" for all the other women, unfairly putting them all under suspicion, and sours men on the idea of working with women altogether. The reason is that it can end up feeling unjust to a man if he feels that a woman has gotten ahead using her looks and flirting for a few months when he's been working towards something for a few years, is because she has essentially used an ethically questionable tactic that he didn't have available to him, and one that didn't really fit with the rules of the game as he was playing. Sort of like if another man used a bribe or something. It tends to go against men's sense of fairness if a woman happens to get ahead this way.
Id never achieve the grades to do the course but it's ridiculously fascinating.
Andrew Watson it’s funny, this is easy to listen to, difficult to do yourself
True i dont have money to pay a college
I think the reading lists and essays would be murderous for a lot of people, lol.
His recourse on "safe space" killed me 🤣
5:48 "Even punk rock nihilists listen to punk rock nihilistic music and they find that meaningful." Lol!
Sbeast nihilism is a lie. Punks are unwittingly a Christian kult.
As a former punk nihilist myself I agree entirely
I can see Peterson saying "You're just a little punk rock nihilist!"
@@davyroger3773 he's saying that there's religious instinct in human beings, and that arises when we see beauty or engage with reality via those who excel at sports, dance, music, literature, etc.
Truly liberating knowedge
One of his best lectures
I have a degree in music. And I have believed for some 40 years now that "speaking in tongues" at some religious services is on par with and emanates from the same place as scat singing -- improvisational syllabic singing common in jazz. One is with music and one is not but that may be their only distinction. There is a syntax and a grammar of sorts. More to the point the more one does it the more one can do it. It becomes more complex and has more elements. I also cannot help but think it is ancient human sounds that were the predecessors of language as the laugh might be the human bray. They are nonsense syllables but they carry meaning be it in a jazz tune or a church service.
There's a discussion of something similar to what you described in Neal Stephenson's "Snowcrash."
1:02:00 He says humans killed all the megafauna (animals) in North America. But likely a cataclysmic event which ended the Younger Dryas period and killed all the big animals about 12k years ago.
1:15:05 I've been saying this forever! Thank you, JP
re the situation in 1:10 - it reminded me of a story my son told me when he was still in high school. My son is very tall and strong and there was a smaller, younger student who kept challenging my son saying that he could take him, slamming the canteen door just as J was about to go through and such sort of provocative behaviour. J said he really wanted to 'deck' the little chap as he was so rude etc. but of course he could not do that as the guy was so little and J so large. After this had gone on for some weeks J solved the problem by responding to the little fellows taunts that 'he took take him' by saying 'come on then'. So little charged large and J just stretched out his arm against his opponents forehead and held him in place that way. Little couldn't even reach him to get a punch in. I.e. he looked very foolish.
J said that some days later he observed the little guy being picked up by his dad. He told me 'Mum you wouldn't believe how badly this dad treated his boy. I felt really sorry for him and I can see how come he behaves so badly at school'. J was really glad he never hit the chap.
So in the case as man vs banshee woman - maybe he should just laugh at her (from a save distance - lol)
He is spot on when he states the reason men want to climb up the dominance hierarchy is access to women. I’m an example of that but I was consciously unaware of that until I reached the level where it became apparent. This is not an idle brag either, just a fact. My interactions with women now, as a corporate exec, are markedly different than when I was an entry level scrub
It's a fascinating talk I just wish he had more directly answered the question about women moving up dominance hierarchies but maybe what he was trying to say is that it's more complicated than hierarchies as related to men.
Fascinating lecture.
As a common person who reflects a lot on things in life, I have same personal "theory" about life men and women as you outline-Fully concur.
Question to audience:
Do many people run this (or other) video lecture(s) at 1.25 X speed?
Thanks again
Re: gini coefficient
Cities often want to try and mix in multi-unit housing units in with single-family housing.
I think the City's reasoning for doing this is to incentivize (...show as an example or goal) the multi-unit residents what is possible... living in their own single-family house.
However, wouldn't this help create a situation whereby lower income populations (multi-unit residents) might See and become frustrated (because they tend not to change their patterns of behavior) with the higher income (single-family home) residents, leading to more violence?
Mark Jaycox Yes. That’s the idea.
I'm very curious to find our more about the pathology of the polygamist, and the idea of relative poverty as it relates to violence - who would you suggest I read to get a fuller understanding?
Pretty much any central or south American country, islamic country where radical Wahibism has taken hold, central African countries where literacy rates are low...whatever news that comes out of those locations.
Mexico, since the borders have tightened post September 11, 2001, and the overtaken government downed by drug cartels as manufacturing moved to China post NAFTA.
This is the best description-explanation of 9/11 that I've ever heard at approximately 1:25 - 1:30.
Timestamps are a bit off there, just in case any one is interested. :D
It should be 1:25:00 - 1:30:00.
THANK YOU LOL
Brilliant Dr. Brilliant.
Thanks again Professor!
The Dragon of Nature bit is so insightful it actually hurts the brain .. but in a good way!
Thank you!
The theory on violence in that it is caused by people see g wealth and not thinking they have a chance to acquire it, is right on.
Absolutely incredible description of how 9/11 effected the world... Mind expanding observation
I thought mate selection was usually assumed obvious. How else would plumage develop?
Ridicule and mocking the woman is probably the best response for men when dealing with women in a confrontation. When you can't use violence to resolve the confrontation and if leaving the situation isn't an option either all that's left is to humiliate and embarrass the antagonist. No one likes to be made fun of or feel embarrassed and most people will attempt to remove themselves from such a situation. It's how Trump was able to dominate the republican primaries.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for your uploads. It was mentioned in the lecture, that human efforts are directed mostly around hierarchical dominance behaviours. Is it possible to override, that kind of behaviour with something more efficient?
Some people do not want to play, that game at all and it seems quite reasonable. I mean, why would you utilise your energy into competing while you could use it into something, that could be potentially useful for society ? I also wonder, whether religious ideas (for example teachings of Jesus and impact they had on people across centuries ) are indicating, that there is indeed a desire in humans to get out of competing altogether. I would appreciate any literature recommendations on this subject.
Competition & cooperation can coexist. And I would even say that I recommended that, especially for males. Females don't truly compete with men, but they still have an aggressive element that is akin to competition, in the fact that they test the competence of a man (which can actually be shockingly aggressive, & depending on the extent, be downright abusive). Both men & women undergo selection, even if it's for non-violent things. It's still selection, which is only possible because we have a hierarchy of values.
So whether you're a male or female, it's an intrinsic part of our nature.
And it's the reason why we have a hierarchy of values. You can't simply dispense with competition; the reason being it's rooted in something fundamental. And I would suggest to understand it & to integrate it rather than to neglect it.
Perhaps we should follow Carl Jung's advice, which is to develop familiarity with our shadow & integrate it.
I don't believe that spirituality & religion exists to teach people to be pushovers. Jesus turned the other cheek because he understood people, not because he was naive.
Peterson has said that 'the left' can be characterized as spiritual & compassionate. It's essentially chaos. Because spirituality is awe, which represents liberation & newness (breaking off from order), that's one part of chaos. The other chaos is the feminine aspect of a mother's protection (that's compassion), which is still chaos because it deals with looseness, like the right-hemisphere of the brain (order deals with rigidifying, like the left-hemisphere of the brain).
I'll say I know less about order than I know about chaos. If you want to know about order, you need to read Jung & Neitzsche, especially Neitzsche. Because Neitzsche did not believe that everyone was equal, nor that they should be. And that there were distinctive qualities that made someone 'better' than another, even as comparing oneself to one's self, whether past or future. It's not arbitrary, not at all. [If it was arbitrary, then good luck being a 'better person', because you'd essentially be voiding the possibility that there can in fact exist such thing as a better person.]
And so I tell you, if compassion (the feminine chaos) is only half the story, we shouldn't be so quick to close the book at half the story.
24:00 My theory is that this is largely the result of behaviors that were commonly selected for, throughout the history of dog breeding. Large, docile dogs made useful pets that were easy to manage. The same could be said for small, aggressive dogs (or cats). However, large and aggressive animals (e.g. wolves, tigers, polar bears) make for unacceptably dangerous pets in civilization. The Boerboel and Pit bull come to mind as dog breeds that historically occupied a niche, where some increased level of risk was justified.
It not only people that the effects of gini coefficient affect, but larger organism too. It could affect countries, imagine if we could predict wars and armed conflicts based on that.
Some things that Mr. Peterson says in this one really make me think that he's influenced by EF Schumacher, or at least would like him if he isn't already familiar. I suspected it before but when he began talking about the predictability and unpredictability of life it felt really familiar.
What do you know! He answered my question at one hour. Here was my question:
Jordan, Campbell, and mythologists, et al., talk a lot about the Heroes Journey. But tell me, is there a Heroine's Journey in the literature of mythology? Not modern corruptions of the Masculine Narrative.
1:52 Literally why I love Technical Death Metal and Jazz))
Mother nature! Mind blown.
Regarding GINI gaps and social status: . I don't disagree with the finding per se (how could one?). But I do disagree that the fundamental solution is redistribution. I'm pretty sure South Dakota doesn't have a flatter GINI because it is more redistributive than, say, NYC or Chicago. (I don't know enough about Canada's social policies to know whether Newfoundland redistributes more than, say, Ontario).
I don't see how redistribution (turning populations into Roman-style clientela) helps narrow *status* gaps: being the client of a patron (be that a individual or an abstract entity like a social service agency) does not seem likely to elevate status. I think the solution is a) more in rules (establishing the "game" such that it does not produce wide, rigid, inflexible hierarchies - rules being something that are amenable to social change over time) and b) not messing up Ostromian communities ("Ostrom" here referring to Elinor & Vincent Ostrom); for example, until recently Minnesotans had rates of violence similar to Scandinavians not because they had a Scandinavian level of redistribution (though perhaps they pined for one), or from the warm glow of knowing their relatives back in Norway and Sweden had a large social welfare state (vicarious improvement in status-leveling), but because of other similarities in their transplanted communities that are much harder to measure.
Introducing the multiculturalist churn that blows all of this apart is not going to be solved, in my opinion, by insuring, say, that asylum seekers have access to lavish redistributive social welfare programs. If that were the case then Sweden's (& Scandinavia's generally) violent crime rate would not have soared as it did just that. Sweden's exploding rape rate may very well be due to a wide status gap that was created (not made), but in my opinion one of the reasons that gap was created was because policymakers there thought that anything could be solved by simply applying social welfare technocratic solutions ("we'll just fix problems created by multiculturalism by use of welfare state programs"). This is a rolling disaster that is not going to be solved simply by pouring more redistributive programs at it.
In fact, it is probably not going to be solved at all, given that social science and the policy makers informed by it will look for solutions in all the wrong places - because the only actual solutions at this point are too dire to contemplate. They created the problem and can't face it. It is actually true that there is no good solution, but certainly looking for answers in all their favorite places ("we'll just administer society from the top via our technocratic social programs MOAR! That will definitively solve the status gap!") is simply blind ignavia - The Adversary masquerading as The Revolutionary Hero.
I agree that wealth is only one way to develop status, but think the status argument from patronage is a bit weak, on multiple fronts:
1. It's not clear that the agents of redistribution are going to be viewed literally as 'patrons' per se. The government is loosely described as an agent when framing policy, but that metaphor often gives way to an environmental one when following regulations like the income tax code. The government, at any rate, is not literally an agent which competes for in-group mates.
2. Aspects of redistribution that lower status (such as having to grovel before a bureaucrat to get your check) can be avoided. Redistribution can be framed not as a gift, but as a right or an enactment of some other moral precept to which even the wealthy 'patrons' are beholden. This can hold back the perception that redistribution somehow amplifies the 'status' of the wealthy -- as if their displays of that wealth didn't do the same, prior to the redistributive regime.
3. Even if there are clear high-status patrons of redistribution, such as politicians, it's not clear that the elevated status of a few is really going to be much cause for concern when the bulk of the population is leveled in terms of wealth. Most men should have drives that allow them to settle for a subordinate status with respect to the top in order to gain advantages over others in the hierarchy. Equalized wealth should move competition for status more toward a plurality of other goods, giving greater chances of sitting at the top of _some_ subjective pyramid.
incredibly late but he is referring to the GINI coefficient mentioned in the video. It is a coefficient that measures inequality in an area
Solution at to question posed at 1:10:00 is curiosity. It's a monumental feat but if you can remain curious and ask gentle questions, become the adult, you can rise above it. Had my ex once screaming at me, backed me into a corner, pushed me even... and took all my training and awareness not to push back and just asked a question... a very good question. Basically how's the working for you... a bid to repair as Gottman would call it and it worked. Easier said than done but that's my answer to that question of what do you do.
Thinking about the Gini Coefficient, and the traditions within pagan tribal germanic cultures referring to "good lordship" where in the good lord doesn't hoard the wealth of the tribe but distributes it to the warriors and craftsmen as they deserve based on merit to the greater good of all. I'm thinking that while they may not have understood the why of this phenomenon they very clearly understood the practical mechanics that made things go bad. Likewise several other instances too such as the Buccaneer practice of collectively holding the wealth until it was time to go ashore at which time they would divvy up and share the wealth according to merit and risk of the crew members. Tales like the avaricious pirate captain that keeps it all to himself and the cursed gold are as much an admonishment against breaking the "Gini coefficient code" as a betrayal of the other social codes those cultures created. In this sense the story of Fafnir's cursed treasure and Blackbeards Gold are related stories mythologically speaking.
with the 9/11 thing, I don't think I cared that much about the political or economic meaning of it; what disturbed me was realizing that I had just seen thousands of people murdered on live TV.
I came up with a small thought experiment. I'm not quite sure if what I came up with is correct or even properly structured but it's been in my mind for a few days. I've asked a couple of women on campus as well.
Let's suppose the liberal ideas of gender equality (gender roles and differences as a purely social construct) are fully embraced by both genders. In this hypothetical scenario women go through mandatory national military drafting (which is exclusively for males in my country, Mexico) just as males take traditional women roles (caring for the children at home or cooking).
Further along the line an armed conflict (war or else) demands the need for immediate use of infantry. Since both women and men are drafted, the husband strongly argues (maybe because of cowardice or a levelled playing field) that it should be his wife that goes to war while he takes care of the children. (Completely neutralising the difference in upper body strength or physical toughness or the historical expendability of males from a reproductive standpoint.)
I've asked beforehand to get, for the sake of the experiment, an honest response from the women before presenting this scenario.
Which would be their immediate feelings and reaction upon their hypothetical husband's stance and proposition? For the time being, every single one of them has answered more or less along the lines of "He would drop to almost zero perceived value instantly and I'd seriously reconsider my choice of partner." (using varying degrees of complexity and depth.)
This has so far helped me gather some actual evidence as to how the innate differences would manifest themselves according to archetypical and evolutionary behaviour directly contradicting the idea of the stereotypical roles as a construct.
I'd love if someone could help me out and tell me if this is structured incorrectly or if it's just plain dumb.
+Luis Guillermo Martinez Pinzon I was just wondering about physical location- for example, if your thought experiment involved Israel, where both men and women have been serving in the army for a very long time- would you get a different response? I think you would.
I'm kind of stuck in understanding how the armed conflict and equal drafting of men and women neutralizes the difference in upper body strength_ but I did notice your adverb 'strongly' .... so I'm kind of thinking that it might be that in your thought experiment you might be harbouring an assumption about innate differences?
+Desiree Lourens Those Israeli girls are real firecrackers, but, trust me, like all women they also mate up the dominance hierarchy... :)
Perhaps this isn't entirely relavant, but I will disclose this piece of information anyway. Before I became a mother I would have avoided fighting in a (non defensive) war at all costs. If my sons or daughters were fighting in a war, I would want to be by their side (preferably ahead of them, actually) and fight all the way. I was extremely passive in nature before motherhood, I had little ambition and was not in the least bit competetive. Motherhood made me ferocious! It took me a year or two to make sense of this new dimension of my character!
I think the scenario you describe is very accurate and points out some very important things about the genders. Being a female myself, I fully agree that sending a mother to war instead of the father sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. It's not just that she will generally be less suited for war physically or emotionally, but women on the frontlines will also probably affect male co-soldiers in terms of protection instincts. Why is it that women seem to be jealous of the typical male strenghts, when there is no reason that dominance, power and being a protector is more valuable or better than the typical caregiver role of females? I find the difference between genders very beautiful, actually. I'm not saying that all women have to be stay-home moms or have typically female occupations, but I don't think anyone benefits from trying to pretend that the general differences don't exist.
@@chessmarin102 I think its based on women (collectively) underestimating their unique 'power' as selectors
1:09:45 when talking about the withdrawal of physical restraint in aggressive situations could the dominant action would be to use emotion to create a physical restraint by 1.) defuse the emotion (i.e. figure out the root cause of the anger and take steps to reducing it) 2.) to surpass the emotion with other emotion (i.e. happy so they laugh it off, upset so they cry and don't have the energy to be angry or so disgusted they leave) 3.) finally push them over the edge (they get so angry the lose control).
Simply an idea, Please let me know your thoughts
1:19:16 Who are YOU? You are either one or the other.... Are you doing things to make things better or are you doing things to make things worse? Are you possessed by resentment and hatred so that you want things to degenerate and burn or are you hopeful and capable of manifesting faith in the future so that your working to make things better?
I'm one of the 20% of women who follow Dr Peterson extensively. At any rate I have raised my son to be a gentleman, but not a "feminist" or a MGTOW (these men are also falling victim to the propaganda of the hegelian principal of divide and conquer - only now it includes the sexes as well). So what I've taught and believe is if a stupid woman arraogant enough to try and intimidate a man who is clearly stronger than her, he is to "restrain" her in order to protect himself. He is quite entitled to do that. Using fists is clearly not an option. If I had a small child (thinking in terms of size here), I would restrain, but certainly not pound with the full might of my strength. Both men and women are to be respected and compliment each other for the obvious reason to procreate.
1:05:00 I cried all the fucking time when I was a kid, in school, all the way to mid-elementary, I hated how sensitive I was, and I still don’t really understand why it was the case.
Boundaries weren’t properly pushed and tested maybe, my parents would give up when I started freaking out and crying, as opposed to pushing forward and establishing strength in my character.
Same here. I also cried every year, the evening before I had to go back to school after summer holidays, until I was 12 at least. Once I was nearly 14 when I cried in class after a guy I considered as a friend stole my correct answer, and then at 19 when a GF quit me and left me in a bad situation... I still have tears coming to my eyes sometimes, when listening to some pieces of music or movie scenes !
Managing emotions, EQ, is very important to move forward in life, personal boundaries are clearly involved, also listening to what happens in yourself, in your body, when you feel these emotions, instead of letting them overwhelm you... it's like weird movements and sensations taking place inside of us, but if we stay calm and analyze them, they often just get weaker or disappear...
It's obvious that parents' education, their own attitude, the way they react and assert themselves (or don't), maybe also genetics, all this play an important role, although some kids in the same family can react very differently.
Maybe also linked to personality types, like MBTI, I suppose introverts are less comfortable with confrontation, strong emotions, etc ?
I'm dying to know this. Do you listen to Rush? being from Canada and all. Plus it's some pretty cerebral music. Canada creates some pretty deep thinking people lol
Rush are my 2nd favorite band next to Zeppelin...And yes, Peart, the lyricist, is quite good at expressing his thoughts in a pleasing, poetic way. I also love Joni Mitchell.
Is there a link to the study you mention at 41:00 (ish) or some further reading around this area or is it yet to be published?
8:50 it so happens that one of my 10 all time favorite movies features no musical score. There is music within the film (such as the opening credits theme, which is heard in the context of a radio playing in the main character’s car) but all are diegetic or “source” music. Other examples include background music in a bar scene and party scene, as well as tv broadcasts. No score.
The movie is The China Syndrome, and everyone needs to see it (if for no other reason, Jack Lemmon’s heart-stopping performance).
Does that have something to do with nuclear plants
@@cr-nd8qh yep. It’s about an incident at a nuke plant, but really more about corporate malfeasance and negligence in the interest of profit.
Dear Dr. Peterson. About income disparity and crime...This makes sense and im sure it's true but are there some places where this effect can be dampened. I live in Thailand where there is a huge disparity between rich and poor and yet it is very safe. Stealing is more common but violent crime is very rare. Could this effect be a result of Buddhism?
Isn't Thailand the center of prostitution?
The difference between male and female hierarchies is, I suspect, that men compete to be at the top of the hierarchy and women compete to be in the center. There will always be some crossover but in essence men seek to be the boss and woman seek to be the most popular.
I get the impression that you are seeing the male hierarchy as THE male hierarchy - as if the dominant one was the only one.
Peterson has shown himself to be the top of his own hierarchy - judging by the 'male fans' including me.
As a man, sorry, male, you could even be the top SJW lol and still get laid
Women being popular?
Well thats one of the many female hierarchies
Would the GINI relation to violence explain the violence that happens when Syrian refugees enter European countries? Or is that a completely different situation?
Very interesting lecture- is the transcript available at all?
interesting discussion, I have always wondered why rape is universally wrong in humans. Sexual selection deems rape as is a bad long term strategy. The gene that naturally would allow for rape as a reproductive strategy as in most mammals would be killed off by a combination of sexual selection and the dominance hierarchy.
I'm confused about one part. He mentions that men aim to climb the dominance hierarchy because they can get women.. but then he links that men are more agressive and violent when they see they have no way to move up the dominance hierarchy, and he gives the example of a person getting more violent when the persons neighbors have nicer cars. Well my question is what does a material object have to do with women?
Nicer car, nicer women.
Do you have any doubt about that ?
Opted to watch this instead of buying the ridiculously expensive book
i think i know what book by steven pinker hes talking about its called "Language and consciousness" its really interesting
Jordan, how could I get in contact with you? I live 10 mins from UT and I have questions for you about Regent park, and Atkinson coop and the redevelopment of these ghettos.... I'd love to hear your perspective on these situations. I feel like the city of Toronto has spent billions rebuilding these projects simple focusing on repairing only the housing without prioritizing public safety. It's as though they are in denial that gang violence and these ghettos have no correlation and has no relation to their contexts. As you've pointed out, as the costs of living in downtown Toronto become prohibitive, the disparity between public housing communities and the general population becomes even more dramatic.
Men compete for access to the most potential mates, while women compete for the best potential mate.
I see that I hear (& watch) JBP like I experience a symphony. NOT like a lesson to remember...
When confronted by a very aggressive female, doing the unexpected sometimes resolves the issue. Perhaps finding the humour in the situation and laughing will certainly lead to a different reaction from the female (probably an explosion or "hair on fire" behaviour) but it seems to reset the terms of the relationship. If the best she can deliver has little effect, the chances are she will stop (eventually).
I wonder if part of the Adam and Eve story is about sexual selection. I've always understood that it is important in some way that Eve was the one who made the choice, then Adam just kind of went along. Could it be a representation of females choosing to make the species smarter and smarter with sexual selection? Especially when one of the consequences was painful births, it seems tied to her choice directly.
I was visited by the Spirit one day and given a faith in the hyper dimensional, hologrpahic-like text known as the Scriptures, the Bible. An intergrated message system to humans from their creator.
Was that animus possession he mentioned "big red" going nuts?
Has JBP written/spoken about Pinker's book Better Angels of ...; JBP's views would be enlightening.
Wow. I was thinking Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty before he said their names.
Part II of this lecture is missing?
Mindful World ruclips.net/video/5Q_GIHDpuZw/видео.html
I'm a communist who likes to listen to Peterson. He certainly has conservative views, but that's okay. You can learn a lot from him. And he is one of those respectable humanistic intellectuals who were rare in the last few decades and who are even more rare nowadays. But he really needs to understand that today life's struggles are deeply connected to the question of capitalism. Zizek totally failed in presenting a communist outlook on this question. A better comrade should teach him a lesson or two some day.
I wonder whether the student who asked about males using female strategies of gossiping to retaliate against out-of-line females may not have had a good point. In response to, say, female-on-male abusive behavior at protests, one thing that has been tried is to record a video of it and post it online. Take as one example the story around "Big Red" and other similar videos on RUclips. Instead of hitting her or even yelling back, the behavior itself is used to publicly shame. And if the subsequent behavior of those involved is any indication, that public shaming seems to have been effective.
Or maybe this isn't like gossiping, since it's open and public. Maybe we're seeing a new form of less gender-specific social behavior emerging.
HebaruSan t
"What is the implication to the conduct of behavior if there is no recourse to aggression?" There was a bullied girl who committed suicide by throwing herself off a water tower years ago. I think it's wrong to discount the mediative and resolutory efficacy of aggression in any conflict. While it flies in the face of feminist dogma, men should be allowed to exploit that power not only in defending themselves but bullied women as well. When I grew up, you never cared what someone said about you or thought about you, because you couldn't control it. But if they continued to badmouth you to your face, you'd land a right hook and lock them in a half-nelson. Problem solved. And we didn't have a problem with the SJWs. The idea of a safe space implies that someone should naturally think and speak about you as you deem appropriate. It's a ridiculously feminine form of control and manipulation. You shouldn't care what people think or say until they cross the line into the realm of serious abuse. Then you can resort to aggression, unless of course you're subject prosecution, in which case you can just sugar their gas tank in the middle of the night.
47:44: A key argument against income REdistribution is that those at the bottom are better off without it. It is perpetuating a false stereotype that conservatives are uncaring of the poor. As Margaret Thatcher once retorted to a socialist backbencher: 'The honourable gentleman would rather the poor were poorer.'
49:00 Marx did not 'point out' anything, he never used any case studies or examples to demonstrate his assertions. The best you could say was that Marx 'hypothesised'. Pareto did not say that 'a few people had everything and almost everybody else has nothing (48:58), he said that wealth tends to be accumulated by 20 percent of the population. That is not the same thing.
Also regarding higher crime in mixed income areas, isn't it that there are higher levels of crime, like robbery, simply because the opportunites are nearer and more convenient?
Mind completely fucking blown
12:34 It's strange, eh? Spoken like a true Canadian!
7:45 mark is the gold
And here we have the recently extinct bearded dragonfrog
Here's what i'd say; Sexual selection clearly matters when arguing from an evolutionary standpoint, and I believe is exemplified in humans thanks to 'civility'. Because laws and morals guide men away from just raping women like most other species and our society requires a cohesion that could only be supplied from complex relationships, men are forced to one up each other, in ways other than force. This would lead to technological advances, the elightenment and the morals we hold today.
Because of this, the male power hierachy becomes much more complicated and thus males MUST display a general tendancy to play with their children, in order to teach boys how to 'play the game' if you will, and teach girls to be wary of those playing said game. Those who do generally produce children who are better off.
On a side note: It's funny how some women always say that war is a man's game and that if more women were in charge they would be peace. 1:09:45 When they are playing the 'manners game' on easy and guys are on hard ;)
He never answered the girls question about what drives women to succeed and move up the social ladder. He went off on a tangent describing the female archetypes but never fully came back to the question.
Because he admitted he has no firm answer for it yet. He did say females will compete against each other for reputation and social status. And will do so for mates as well. You could very well ask where does female bullying occur? Because if they didn't care about that aspect, there would be zero inclination to bully.
Must have missed him say he didn't have a firm answer. Thanks.
I'd say females are even more aware of social status than males, and Peterson mentions they have their own hierarchy between women.
Males wants females, and that's why most fight each others. If not for the female, they would often stay together and share their parts.
Kinda like Christopher Nolan movies or game of thrones; the more times you watch it, the more information you come across that you missed initially🤔. 🟣🍀🌎🙏🏻💯📚📖🍀🟣
The question you put forward regarding the argument between the man and woman in the street; I would say there are a number of questions you have to ask yourself in this position. What would 'winning' the argument entail? Why do you need to win the argument? If you find yourself considering violence as a recourse this suggests that you are willing to 'win' an intellectual argument by means other than verbal debate or demonstration of evidence. Physical aggression is extremely innapropriate in this situation in a society which considers itself civilised. If verbal debate is rendered impossible because your sparring partner is simply putting forward insults and resorting to aggressive language, then most people would consider the angry, out of control person to have already lost the argument. It is therefore simply a matter of calmly pointing this out. This will either result in the angry party absolutely exploding or quietly seething as they attempt to rebuild some semblance of logical argument and rational behaviour. If they manage to recollect themselves you may then proceed to have an intellectual debate. If they continue to behave unreasonably and you decided to exit the situation you do not take a hit in the masculinity for this - all concerned will acknowledge that, despite leaving, your position was of greater authority since you managed to maintain control of self and subject matter. If the angry person makes it impossible for you to exit the situation then something beyond a verbal disagreement is going on. I have seen this behaviour in action in the streets of my hometown (Salford, England) between the passionate and often inebriated citizens engaging in domestic disputes after exiting the local Social Club. There it has been possible for me to witness a great variety of social exchange and resolution. In the case where the female is aggressively (to put it colloquially) 'giving grief' to the physically stronger male, it is the male who acts calmly and maturely (fatherly, if you like) who garners most respect as a result. After all, one of the most socially damning insults levelled against a woman in any dispute is that she is behaving 'hysterically'. Any other action taken by the male is considered either overly aggressive or weak in intellect.
Also if the argument is actually 'How does society remain civilised without the threat of violence?' I would say that in a civilised society there is a threat of incarceration rather than a threat of violence - I would at least say that this represents the modern ideological conclusion. Modern society has a sort of gestalt, third party method of dealing with a lack of civilised behaviour - if it is extreme then it is met with incarceration or some other punishment dictated by law and if it is lesser, it results in loss of reputation. I don't think the destruction of reputation is something solely in the domain of women/girls either - if you look across many overtly masculine cultures you will find a strict honour code, intended to keep society civilised with threat of loss of reputation rather than threat of physical harm.
Also... :) I really do enjoy your lectures! Thank you!
"roughly exactly accurate"
The idea that women will slowly take over (all?) male dominance hierarchies because men don't know how to compete with them is interesting. Surely there are other tools of analysis that can be applied. Or do people think we're moving irrevocably toward a "matriarchal" society / one where women take all the top places in male hierarchies. Would like more info on this, anyone?
Thinking about this I think I've seen men savage women's reputations in hierarchies...but only V high-up males
is there a part II floating around?
yes
"That which selects"...
Regarding reasons for why your youtube audience may be predominantly male, while your actual classes have more women, do you think any of the following hold water?
-Men may watch more non-fiction videos than women.
-More intellectually inclined women may be offended by your direct, non-politically correct approach, they may stick it out for the course but not bother if watching online.
-Perhaps psychology is as interesting to women as it is to men, roughly speaking, but there are more women at university and so more in your class. Online however, it's an even split, and your course is sufficiently abstract and philosophical that it garners more male interest.
-Without any hard facts I would expect your classes to contain more women but your "fan base" to be largely male.
-Maybe a bunch of those men who aren't making it to university any more are hanging around on youtube instead...
It may also be because there isn't much money in psychology,. The interest may be evenly split, but men tend to do degrees elsewhere and read/listen to this as a... hobby? That's exactly why I'm here.
I taught psychology at a university for about 10 years and had 90% women in my first-year classes, at the graduate level I'd say 3/8ths of the students were men. I always asked them all why they were taking psychology. From women in the first-years I would often get the response, "because I love children" or "because I want to become a teacher."
Men will likely take something other than psychology as majors, while still be interested in this, i'm not in his class because even if i lived in Canada and could be in that university i'd be still in CS engineering.